The research: three papers, one argument.
A campus store is a multi‑million‑dollar asset priced by a single number. One paper takes apart the number with sector benchmarks; another takes apart the oversight gap that lets it drift; a third gives you the peer data to check your own rate against. All three are free, sourced, and delivered by email — request the set below.
A three-paper series
Each paper stands alone; together they cover the pricing problem, the governance problem that produces it, and the sector data to benchmark your own contract against. Neither contains client names, case studies, or claimed outcomes — the commission benchmarking paper draws its figures from IPEDS, NACS OnCampus Research, and public procurement filings, sourced on every table.
One Roof, Four Stores
The Blended Commission Problem
A campus store is four businesses — course materials, branded merchandise, supplies and technology, and convenience — with different margins, different competition, and different trajectories, all priced by one commission rate. What that single number conceals, and how to take it apart: the rate gap, digital displacement, and the sleeping minimum guarantee, with worked arithmetic and a category-separation worksheet. Prepared for CFOs, VPs for Auxiliary Services, and General Counsel.
The Unmanaged Asset
Why Campus Stores Escape Institutional Oversight
A store agreement conveys real estate, trademark rights, guaranteed market access, transaction data, and the adoption channel — five or six assets, one signature, one number. Institutions steward residence halls and dining with named owners, recurring reviews, and benchmarks; store agreements get almost none of it. The four failure modes that follow, the annual asset review that closes them, and the one-page package a finance committee should see. Prepared for CFOs, General Counsel, Auxiliary VPs, and board finance committees.
The Blended Rate Problem
A Commission Benchmarking White Paper
Sector-level commission benchmarking data — sourced from IPEDS, NACS OnCampus Research, and public state procurement filings — laid out by enrollment band, with the rate gap, the digital displacement gap, and the unenforced Minimum Annual Guarantee quantified against real peer data. Includes a dedicated section on the Inclusive Access fair-share question. Prepared for CFOs, Provosts, and Auxiliary Services Directors.
All three papers are ready to send — fill in the form below for the full set by email, one message, no drip sequence. The core argument is also readable on Four Markets. One Roof. and the sample analysis.
Or write directly: jgamble@nextchaptercampus.com
NxtChapter provides analytical insight. All final operational and contractual decisions remain the sole responsibility of the institution. This engagement is not an audit or attestation performed under AICPA or governmental auditing standards.