Marketing to Libraries for the New Millennium: Librarians, Vendors, and Publishers Review the Landmark Third Industry‐wide Survey of Library Marketing Practices and Trends

Citation

Layzell Ward, P. (2003), "Marketing to Libraries for the New Millennium: Librarians, Vendors, and Publishers Review the Landmark Third Industry‐wide Survey of Library Marketing Practices and Trends", Library Review, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 353-353. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530310487498

This is an interesting title that reports the outcomes of the third US library marketing survey carried out in 1997/98 which followed up the earlier surveys of 1975 and 1986. In addition contributions to a one‐day meeting, involving the joint committee of the Association of American Publishers and the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, review the findings.

Bearing in mind that the data were gathered in 1999 the principal outcomes of the survey indicate that the majority of librarians surveyed expected their budgets to increase over the next five years with much being spent on electronic media. Reviews and catalogues were seen to be the most effective selection tools. The majority of libraries used vendors to place their orders, but half of the publishers wanted to see an increase in direct ordering. Somewhat surprisingly, half of the publishers did not have staff assigned to marketing to libraries. Of the library budget, 20 per cent was spent on backlist purchases. A substantial growth in the electronic market was forecast. Of the libraries surveyed, 80 per cent had collection development plans and the number of consortia was growing. The libraries were looking for value added services from vendors and selected a vendor by the quality of the sales staff. The vendors saw themselves as not selling books, but rather the services around them. The librarians did not like telemarketing. It was reported to be easier to get authors into bookstores to promote their books, than into libraries. So an interesting picture of the library market emerges.

But the picture may be flawed, as it is difficult to determine response rates. Some 77 publishers and 12 vendors returned their questionnaire. A total of 301 libraries responded – 24 per cent were college and university, 40 per cent were public libraries, 20 per cent school and a very low response from special libraries. Comments were made about the length of the questionnaire and the time taken to gather information. There was also a problem, for one aim was to be able to make a comparison with earlier surveys, and clearly the situation has changed.

The value of the volumes must now be purely historical. It presents an interesting snapshot of the library market from several viewpoints but the information is now dated. And not only was it dated by the time that the volume emerged, but the market continues to change rapidly in terms of both the publishers and vendors, and in what the libraries are choosing to purchase.

It has taken a very long time to get the outcomes into print. On the positive side there is a good index. Clearly the joint committee will have much to discuss before the next survey is put in place.