ACQNET v6n034 (November 24, 1996) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v6n034.txt ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 6, No. 34, November 24, 1996 ========================================= (1) FROM: ACQNET Editor SUBJECT: Next couple of issues: Charleston Reports (32 lines) (2) FROM: Janet Flowers SUBJECT: Report: AAUP Preconference (103 lines) (3) FROM: David Mitchell SUBJECT: Responses from questionnaire (105 lines) (1)-------------------------------------------------------------- This issue and the next couple will be reports from the Charleston Conference. There will be more extensive reports later in _Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory_ and other print publications. I would like to thank the innocent victims sitting near me at the conference who I roped into doing some of these reports. I had a chance to talk to a number of representatives from publishers while at the Charleston Conference. These folks work for publishers both large and small. Several said that they were interested in becoming more vocal on ACQNET, which I continue to encourage. Some publisher people have voiced the concern to me privately that they worry about what they say on electronic lists, since they feel they are representing their company. While this is understandable since they are in a corporate environment, there is always room for abstract commentary, for speculation and for asking valuable questions of librarians. Individuals may speak on ACQNET without representing their institutions, regardless of what type they are. Though academic freedom may not extend to the for-profit world, I encourage publishers and vendors to come forward with their thoughts on matters related to the relationship we are all engaged in, and to contribute to the "trialogue" as Janet Flowers puts it in the following report. Your Editor, ********************************************************************* Eleanor I. Cook 704-262-2786 (wrk) Serials Specialist 704-262-2773 (fax) Belk Library Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 cookei@appstate.edu ********************************************************************* (2)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:14:45 +0500 (EST) From: Janet Flowers (Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill) Subject: AAUP Marketing to Libraries Preconference Approximately 90 people attended the AAUP Marketing to Libraries workshop, held in Charleston, S.C. prior to the traditional "Charleston Conference" on issues and trends in acquisitions and serials. As Kathy Ketterman, chair of the AAUP Library/University Press Committee (the planning group for this event) noted, it had been more than 14 years since the last workshop on this topic. The planners thought that it was time to update their knowledge about the library marketplace. To do this, they invited no fewer than 11 librarians to share their perspectives with an audience, comprised primarily of publishers. They also included several vendors on the various panels. The program was well organized and structured to provide a continuing education opportunity and review for those who wanted a refresher. To set the stage, Barbara Ford (Director, Virginia Commonwealth University) and others described changes in libraries within the last 10 years, including technological advances and downsizing. One panelist used her library's annual report from 10 years ago and compared it with the current one to detect trends. (This might be a very interesting comparison for all of us to make!) While several significant differences were detailed, the one that caught my attention was the fact that, while staff morale is still bolstered with food, 10 years ago doughnuts were popular rather than today's fat-free goodies! The program provided insights into the selection processes at various types of libraries, ranging from public to academic to large research libraries. The major message from this panel was that libraries are organized quite differently based upon type and size, so using just one marketing approach will not work. The next panel discussed the library-vendor relationship. The librarian described the reasons that libraries must use the services of vendors rather than going direct to publishers. These include 1) economy of scale, 2) bibliographic expertise (especially changes in ownership and distribution), 3) identification and pre-selection of titles, and 4) value-added services. The first vendor representative described the advantages of approval plans and talked about how the vendors go about profiling both libraries and the books themselves. The other vendor talked about the need for publishers to change their mindsets and see themselves as part of one circle with libraries in the middle. He also challenged the group to go back to the directors of their presses and challenge the issue of competition with vendors. He argued that vendors are best equipped to handle the distribution and that publishers have much to gain by focusing upon their areas of strength and leaving the selling of their books to vendors. The next panel included lively discussion of the issues of direct marketing and telemarketing to libraries. Although there was fairly strong objections to these practices from some present, others thought that multiple mailings were not objectionable. An idea that the vendors may wish to pursue is the concept of using E-mail lists as a way to advertize rather than flooding libraries with paper. However, the basic problem of mailing list maintenance and identifying and keeping up with changes in the proper recipient is a problem that no one seems able to solve. The panel on special libraries was a good reminder to all that the organization and needs of these libraries are quite different than those of the academic or public libraries. For example, with federal libraries, there are many more constraints and paperwork in the acquisitions process. The next panel addressed the question of whether new journals can be acquired while cutting older ones. It included an interesting observation about the impact of the "serials crisis" upon publishers, some of whom are required to deselect their journals in the same way that libraries cancel subscriptions, i.e., drop publication of a title in order to begin publishing a new one. Another point made was that it is taking even longer now for new journals to break even, which is a serious problem for publishers. The librarian on this panel noted that responsible librarians are scrutinizing their serials collections and are using cost per use as a criteria in whether to retain subscriptions. The final panel (yes it was a long day!!!) dealt with the issue of shifting resources to purchase non-print materials. The publishers outlined online projects in which they are engaged and talked about the value of hypertext links (both backward and forward) to enhance the research value of a publication. The collection development librarian on this panel noted that the selection of electronic resources is blind to the issue of format. The number one criterion in collection development decisions is the relationship of the publication to the library's needs. They are looking for balance, added value, sophisticated indexing, etc. She noted that it takes much longer to go through the acquisitions process when licenses are part of the purchase. As you can see from this very brief overview of the meeting, it covered many topics related to the current relationships among publishers, libraries, and vendors. I applaud the planners for arranging this opportunity for cross-fertilization of ideas and hope that they will not wait 14 years to do this again. An ongoing trialogue is to the benefit of all concerned with the scholarly communications process. ***************************************************************** Janet L. Flowers Head of Acquisitions Academic Affairs Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8890 919-962-1120 FAX: 919-962-4450 ***************************************************************** (3)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 16:11:31 From: David Mitchell (Guilford Publications) Subject: Replies to the publishers' business practices questionnaire (RE: ACQflash 10/16/96) I would like to thank all of you who answered my earlier posting to ACQNET about publishers' business practices for a lunch discussion held at the AAUP preconference "Marketing to Libraries" in Charleston recently. I was trying to see what effect EDI might have on making the publisher/library relationship better. Here's what I found out from you: There were many different problems cited, but they seemed to fall into general categories: 1. Difficulty in getting up-to-date availability or bibliographic information. Titles, prices, and availability dates all change frequently. Title changes after products have been announced and orders are placed are particularly problematic, which is more likely on products that have been announced well in advance of their publication dates. 2. Issues with customer service. Often 1 and 2 are related. The librarians felt that title information changing so frequently creates a greater demand on publishers to have well-trained customer service staff. It was felt that publishers' personnel don't understand the library acquisition process. 3. Inconvenient purchasing policies. Pricing issues are of high concern, although, not getting up-to-date price information was actually mentioned by more people. Requiring prepayment often creates a hassle for libraries. 4. Marketing practices. Telemarketing and poorly maintained mailing lists were frequently mentioned, both of which were brought up at the AAUP preconference as well. Multiple copies of the same mailing caused concern due to the waste of paper and time involved to throw them out. A few people admitted they will throw out all copies of multiple copy mailings and not look at any of them. Mailing unsolicited books and requesting payment seems to be universally unpopular. Many librarians cited the waste as the issue, even though they know they can keep such books without making payment. 5. Other. A few people mentioned the recent trend of mergers in the publishing industry as creating problems in finding imprints or titles that they had once purchased or ordered. Automated telephone answering systems were also mentioned-- ironic, as publishers have largely adopted this technology to make staff more available to talk to customers versus answering phones and directing calls. A few quotable lines: "Publishers who continue to scold librarians for not getting enough money from our institutions -- like we haven't been trying." "We do get some information from our main vendor about whether publishers are on their "bad list"..." "I am tired of publishers assuming that all librarians are female..." "Why don't we establish a rating system for publishers?" Regarding EDI: I was trying to find out if EDI would help answer some of the problems that librarians outlined in their responses. It does not seem relevant. Most people felt that working with EDI directly with publishers would not replace working with vendors, as there are services that vendors offer that publishers are not in a position to provide, EDI or not. In fact, one participant in the lunch discussion felt that librarians would be best served by publishers and vendors working more closely together with EDI. One insightful person in the survey said, however, with greater reliance on EDI, some orders or claims could end up in an unending loop from library to vendor to publisher and back again with no "human eye" ever seeing them or attending to them. I think many of the problems stem from the fact that publishers have to serve several market segments, of which libraries are but one. Serving a diverse customer base means that systems cannot be tailored to only one group, or at least, will be tailored to giving the most support to the largest market segment ("Money talks"). For many publishers, unfortunately, that is not the library market. Furthermore, with libraries dealing primarily with vendors, we publishers don't have the benefit of the same amount of direct contact as we may have, say, with our bookstore customers. Forums like this preconference and the Charleston Conference become more critical, so that important issues can get aired. I must say that I am disturbed to hear that vendors have a "bad list" of publishers. What does one do to get on or off of a bad list? What if publishers had a bad list of vendors? Does not giving the discount the vendor wants put one on a bad list? Sometimes these policies are more complicated than just refusing to deal with vendors. Publishers often don't get a chance to explain. I would agree that many publishers maybe don't understand the library acquisition process, but I would also guess that many librarians don't understand the full publishing process either. I don't think publishers should be scolding librarians for not having enough budget, and neither should librarians scold publishers back for society's under-funding of education. It seems to me we have more to gain by asking and answering questions, than by scolding. I hope we can keep this dialog going. Comments anyone? David Mitchell Business Manager Guilford Publications, Inc. ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 6, No. 34 ****** END OF FILE ******