ACQNET v2n016 (February 5, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n016 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 16, February 5, 1992 ======================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (18 lines) (2) FROM: Marsha Clark SUBJECT: Library school students, acquisitions education (13 lines) (3) FROM: Joyce Ogburn SUBJECT: Library school students, ACQNET (10 lines) (4) FROM: Barbara Boissonnas SUBJECT: Acquisitions profession (12 lines) (5) FROM: Janet Flowers SUBJECT: Firm order returns (71 lines) (6) FROM: Lawrence Caylor SUBJECT: Firm order returns (15 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: February 5, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Eric Carlson Information Systems Yankee Book Peddler E-mail: 70713.3011@COMPUSERVE.COM William Biles Student Univ. of Kentucky College of Library & Info. Science E-mail: WSBILE00@UKCC.UKY.EDU Barbara A. Boissonnas Acquisition Librarian Support Specialist E-mail: ATRY@CORNELLC.BITNET (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 08:21 EDT From: Marsha Clark Subject: Students Tuesday night, I spoke to/with Arlene Taylor's class on technical services at Columbia. This is the second year that she has invited me and I really enjoy it. Unfortunately, this is the last semester for the library school. I don't talk about the "routine" things but all the unusual and interesting things that go in acquisitions and this time, ACQNET was part of how we communicate. I mentioned this after talking about Hewitt's article and the "isolation" of acquisitions librarians. I don't feel isolated anymore! I'm glad we have students joining us--maybe we'll convince them to become acquisitions librari- ans! (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Feb 1992 08:59:11 U From: Joyce Ogburn Subject: Library school students and the library Welcome to the students! I think you'll find ACQNET to be one of the more informative and educational e-mail newsletters. I not only want to hear about your research projects and interests, I will gladly help in any way I can. In return I would ask that you share with us how ACQNET helps you to learn about librarianship and acquisitions in general and to share any other thoughts you have about education and acquisitions. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Feb 92 10:50:55 EST From: Barbara Boissonnas Subject: Acquisitions profession How do you answer Jim Logue at Utah (the acquisitions librarian who lacks an MLS) when he asks why having studied the psychology of research and related subjects for a year gives you MLS people an advantage over him? There is a certain justification in defining a profession around the power it has to release information -- consider doctors and lawyers -- and there is an oxymoro- nic quality about librarians using this model. In acquisitions, is experience the best teacher or do nine months at library school unlock neurons that nothing else can? (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Feb 92 13:00 EST From: Janet L. Flowers Subject: Firm order returns The issue of returns is a timely one. See the January 13 issue of _Publisher's Weekly_ for a provocative essay by Richard Curtis on the industry's problems with selling books on consignment. This mindset can carry over from the publishers/vendors to libraries as well with unfortunate consequences. In November 1991, I issued a new policy statement regarding the handling of returns by my department. It was tougher than previous ones because I had become concerned about the economics of the transactions. I believe that the pressure for returns increases in times of financial austerity as bibliogra- phers attempt to stretch their funds as far as possible. This is often counter- productive because when funds are tight, positions are also often frozen or lost. This means increased pressure to do the extra steps of returns at a time when staffing is low. As Margaret suggests there are various dimensions to this issue of firm order returns. I believe that the vendor is responsible for sending us the correct material and that we are on solid ethical and legal grounds in returning incorrect material. (However, we sometimes accept wrong material anyway because our bibliographers want it.) Our experience has been that the vendors ship very few titles in error so most of our returns result from our own local situation. We make a distinction between errors that we make and errors that the vendor makes. However, in both cases, we use the cost of the material as a rule of thumb regarding whether to consider return. The new policy does not allow the return of firm order material costing less than $15. We should not expect the vendor to take losses that are our errors. I realize that, in some cases, the vendor can sell the material to another library. However, given what research libraries purchase, the chances of this are unpredictable and perhaps unlikely. This leaves the vendor stuck with merchan- dise that he cannot sell. Even though most vendors are accommodating to an acceptable range of returns, I think that libraries should be careful not to abuse this privilege out of consideration for the vendors' financial well-be- ing. I consider it our responsibility to do accurate pre-order searching to elimi- nate duplicate requests. Therefore, when the vendor ships the correct material and it turns out to be a duplicate, I believe that we own the burden and should not request a return unless the material is very expensive. Also, if the material turns out to be inappropriate for our collection, I think it behooves us to accept it. We must accept the consequences of our approach to selection and acquisitions. A disadvantage of firm ordering is that we do not have an opportunity to select based upon book in hand. If a library's rate of returns for inappropriate material is high, this may indicate a need for a different way of acquiring the material. This responsibility rests with the Library not the vendor. There are also very valid concerns with returns from the economy standpoint. Returns are very costly to everyone involved. In addition to the postage and extra paperwork, there is the staff time required to understand and follow the separate instructions of each vendor regarding this particular transaction. This time is drained away from our primary purpose which is to expend our budgets within established deadlines. It also drains away the vendor's energies from supplying us with the material we do want. After consideration of the factors, I concluded that our policy should be as follows: We keep material as much as possible. Our priorities are to either add it for another location or to include it in our library book sale. We do not expend energy on titles costing less than $15 on the theory that it is wasted effort because the costs of processing the transaction may exceed the value of the material itself. I would be happy to share our policy statement with other libraries if readers ask. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 08:58:26 -0500 From: Lawrence Caylor Subject: Returns Vendors are generally willing to accept a few returns on firm orders, and sending back more is to abuse their courtesy. Though no mention has been made of the arrangement with the vendor, no doubt a clarification is in order, i.e., the definitions of "firm order" and "approval." Even with an approval account, the rate of return should be no more than 10%; beyond that the vendor is losing money, a condition which will soon be refelcted reflected in the discount. The bottom line is that the Acquisitions Dept. is the most commercial aspect of a library and should be run with all the efficiency and economy of a business. When that premise is ignored, the payment is in dollars and good will, both of which are essential for smooth operation. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 16 ****** END OF FILE *******