Given the public's demand for better teaching (and its indifference to scholarship), one might think there would be a vigorous demand for high quality instructors at all levels of higher education. Instead, the healthiest market remains that for scholars. In this article, the author discusses the differences in the markets for scholars and teachers, particularly the lack of incentives for teaching as opposed to research, and the adverse effects this may have on the undergraduate and even graduate curricula. As this lack of incentive is propagated by an absence of information regarding teaching productivity, the author suggests that governing boards begin to ensure that their institutions establish at least a local market for superior teaching by being serious about measuring teaching productivity both objectively and subjectively.