Free to use is not free to make
Open educational resources can be copied and used without a fee, but writing, reviewing, editing, hosting, translating and updating them all take time and money. The phrase “business model” in this context simply means the answer to one question: who pays for that work, and why? There is no single answer, and the main reason many projects struggle is that they rely on one source of money that later disappears.
This article looks at the common approaches and their trade-offs. It does not rank them, and no real project is described here; the examples are generic.
Grants and philanthropic funding
Much early OER work was paid for by grants from foundations, governments and public agencies. Grants are well suited to starting things: commissioning a first set of textbooks, building a platform or training a group of authors.
The weakness is timing. Grants usually last a fixed period and fund new creation more readily than maintenance. A textbook written with a grant may still need updates years later, when the money has gone. Grant-funded projects therefore tend to need a plan for what happens after the funding period, even if that plan is modest.
Public funding and mandates
In some places, public funding for education is used directly for open materials, for example when an education ministry commissions curriculum resources and releases them under an open license. The argument is that if the public pays for creation, the public should be able to reuse the result. Public funding in this form is usually steadier than a single grant, but it depends on political priorities and can change when governments do.
Institutional support
A university, college or school may treat open materials as part of its normal budget, in the way it treats library or teaching-support staff. Reasons given for this include lower costs for students, flexibility to adapt materials and the benefits institutions see in sharing their work; a fuller account of institutional benefits is a separate topic. In practice this support often takes the form of staff time, small stipends for authors, or a librarian or instructional designer assigned to help.
The risk is that the arrangement depends on a few enthusiastic people. If they leave, the support may fade.
Memberships and consortia
Some organizations ask institutions to pay an annual membership. In return, members may get a say in priorities, training, shared tools or help with publishing. This spreads the cost across many payers, which reduces dependence on one funder. A membership approach works best where members can see a direct benefit, such as savings on course materials. It is harder where benefits are indirect or long term.
Print copies and paid formats
Because an open license usually allows redistribution, the text of an open textbook can be offered free online while printed copies are sold at a low price. Students who prefer paper may choose to pay for it. Other paid formats can include bound editions, or accessible versions that are produced to order. Revenue from this source is usually modest and varies with demand, and it is rarely enough by itself to fund an entire project. A look at open textbooks as a category shows how often this route is combined with others.
Services around the content
A frequently discussed approach is to give the content away and charge for services that make it more useful. Examples include:
- training and consulting for institutions adopting open materials;
- hosting, customization or technical support;
- homework or assessment tools that sit alongside a free text;
- certificates, tutoring or exam preparation.
This approach resembles how some open-source software companies work. The comparison is imperfect, and the underlying ideas around open-source software have their own history. Educational services have different customers and tighter budgets. There is also a tension to manage: if the free content is deliberately made less useful to push people toward paid extras, trust can suffer.
Platform operators face a related set of choices, which are examined in the discussion of platform revenue streams.
Advertising, sponsorship and data
Some sites support themselves with advertising or sponsorship. This can be a fit for high-traffic reference material, but it raises questions about the learner’s experience and privacy, and about the independence of the content. Selling or exploiting learner data is a more serious concern and is widely regarded as a poor match for educational openness. Readers who are choosing a service should read its privacy terms carefully.
Volunteer and community contribution
Many resources exist largely through volunteer time: teachers who share their own materials, or contributors who translate and correct them. Volunteer effort lowers cash costs but is not free in the sense that it relies on people having spare time and motivation. It also tends to produce uneven coverage, since volunteers write about what interests them.
Comparing the approaches
| Approach | Typical strength | Typical weakness |
|---|---|---|
| Grants | Good for start-up work | Short-term, weak on upkeep |
| Public funding | Can be stable and large | Depends on policy shifts |
| Institutional support | Close to users | Relies on a few people |
| Memberships | Spreads cost | Needs visible member benefit |
| Print and formats | Simple to explain | Usually modest revenue |
| Services | Scales with use | Risk of conflict with free content |
| Volunteers | Low cash cost | Uneven and fragile |
Most projects that last combine several of these.
Questions worth asking about any project
If you are judging whether a source of open material is likely to stay around, some practical questions help:
- Who pays for upkeep, not just creation?
- Is there a plan for updates and corrections?
- Is the funding concentrated in one source?
- Are the content and license stored somewhere that survives if the project ends?
These questions go to the broader idea of an economics of openness. A project with one grant and no maintenance plan is a higher risk than one with several small sources of support.
A note on evidence
Claims that a given model is “proven” should be treated with care. Public information about costs and revenue is often limited, and results differ by country, subject and institution. The honest summary is that open materials can be paid for in several ways, none of them automatically sustainable, and that careful planning matters more than the choice of any single model.