Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:37:55 -0500
From: Eleanor Cook (Appalachian State U.) <cookei_at_appstate.edu>
Subject: RE - A question about receiving book reviews from publishing
companies (summary of replies)
[Besides these individual replies, at the end of this message is a
summary from the original person who
posted the question]
Wayne Jones <jonesw_at_queensu.ca>:
I think option 3 is better: information about the book available
via an RSS feed that the librarian could then either ignore or click through
and find out more and perhaps even request the book. That puts the
wantedness in the hands of the librarian: no email or physical junk
received which is not wanted.
Wayne
--------------------
Cindy Steinhoff <cksteinhoff_at_aacc.edu>:
Definitely sent this sort of thing via email. Junk "snail mail"
goes into my recycling basket almost immediately.
Cynthia Steinhoff
Anne Arundel Community College
Arnold, MD
--------------------
Stephanie Hess <hesss_at_nsu.law.nova.edu>:
I prefer to receive e-mails as we already receive an enormous amount of
paper catalogues, mailings, and faxes. It is also much easier to
forward to colleagues who participate in collection development
activities. Personally I am surprised that more publishers and vendors
aren't taking advantage of certain technologies like RSS feeds which
would be quite helpful in making selections for specific collections.
Also, your friend might want to keep in mind that funds for new
purchases are rather limited right now. I'm sure many of us are either
experiencing budget cuts and/ or know of other libraries that are
undergoing similar cutbacks.
Hope this helps!
Stephanie
Stephanie P. Hess
Assistant Head of Technical Services, Acquisitions & Serials
Nova Southeastern University
Law Library & Technology Center
3305 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
(954) 262-6216 Phone
(954) 262-3840 Fax
-------------------------------------
Kate Sathi <KSathi_at_slpl.org>:
We like e-mails, as they can be forwarded to the appropriate selector,
and shared with more than one person if need be.
Plus, it saves trees!
Kate Sathi
Manager of Acquisitions and Collection Development
St. Louis Public Library
1301 Olive St.
St. Louis, MO 63103
T: 314-539-0328
www.slpl.org
-----------------------------------
June Schmidt <JSchmidt_at_library.msstate.edu>:
I would prefer the email version.
June Schmidt
Associate Dean for Technical Services
Mitchell Memorial Library
P.O. Box 5408
Mississippi State, MS 39762
662-325-7672
-----------------------------------
Aline Soules <aline.soules_at_csueastbay.edu>:
My preference these days is usually the electronic option. It's faster,
saves mail money for both
vendor and, it is to be hoped, in due course, me, and I can look at the
electronic information from
anywhere at my convenience - without carrying paper around.
Aline
Aline Soules
Cal State East Bay
510-885-4596
aline.soules_at_csueastbay.edu
--------------------------------------
Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:37:32 -0500
From: Stewart Baker <stewart.c.baker_at_gmail.com>
A couple of people have asked me to summarize the results I received
from people's responses
to my question about electronic vs paper book reviews from publishers.
Most people have said that they prefer e-mail reviews, for various
reasons: the waste of paper;
easier to forward to colleagues; easier to add books into online
shopping cart.
However, some people prefer paper, for reasons like: easier to keep
track of;
over-zealous e-mail spam filters; can be passed around to colleagues,
who can then write
their comments or suggestions on it.
A few people gave "outside the box" answers. It was pointed out that
the paper/electronic divide
probably corresponds in most cases to a generation gap, with older
librarians favouring paper and
younger preferring e-mail. At least two or three people stated they'd
rather not get reviews from publishers
at all, but preferred to get their reviews from an unbiased third-party
source. Several people mentioned
the possibility of offering those who sign up for the service a choice
as to which form of digest they'd prefer.
Thanks again for all your responses. They are greatly appreciated!
--
Stewart Baker
Digital Library Assistant, Thomas Cooper Library
Stewart.C.Baker_at_gmail.com <mailto:Stewart.C.Baker_at_gmail.com>
--Original message:
At 01:52 PM 21/01/2008, you wrote:
> >Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:24:21 -0500
> >From: Stewart Baker <stewart.c.baker_at_gmail.com>
> >Subject: A question about receiving book reviews from publishing companies
> >
> >Greetings,
> >
> >I have a friend who works for a mid-sized publishing company, and she normally e-mails
> >book reviews to librarians who have signed up for the service. However, since their sales from
> >libraries are never as good as they'd like, the company has recently hired a library consultant to
> >see if he can give them any tips. This man insists that librarians "do not like getting e-mails", and
> >that they would get a better result if they sent a physical copy of the book reviews to the librarians
> >instead of e-mailing them. My friend does not agree with this, as she personally hates getting junk
> >mail, and would rather get an e-mail than a physical copy. She has asked me to intervene in this
> >"battle of wills" and provide some insider information, as it were.
> >
> >My question for you all, then, is: Would you prefer to get an e-mail containing links to book reviews,
> >or a physical copy--a sort of catalogue--mailed to your workplace instead?
> >
> >An example of the type of review the company sends out can be viewed at: sohopress.com/crimenewsletter.html <http://sohopress.com/crimenewsletter.html>
> >
> >Any input you can offer on this subject would be greatly appreciated.
> >Thank you for your time,
> >
> >Stewart Baker
> >Digital Library Assistant, Thomas Cooper Library
> >Stewart.C.Baker_at_gmail.com <mailto:Stewart.C.Baker_at_gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------
For information about ACQNET's editorial policies,
how to subscribe/unsubscribe, and access to Archives, see:
http://www.acqweb.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sun Jan 27 2008 - 22:31:16 EST