ACQNET v7n018 (April 30, 1997) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v7n018.txt ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 7, No. 18, April 30, 1997 ======================================== (1) FROM: S. Wise SUBJECT: Percentage of Collection Overlap in Consortia (28 lines) (2) FROM: D. Van Arsdale & B. Nelson (2 postings) SUBJECT: RE: Paperback vs. Hardback (98 lines) (3) FROM: P. Rose SUBJECT: RE: Single/Multiple Vendors & Paperback vs. Hardback (46 lines) (4) FROM: C. Urr SUBJECT: Outsourcing Acquisitions: Response to Rick Anderson (58 lines) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21-APR-1997 18:27:35.14 From: Suzanne Wise (Appalachian State U.) Subject: Percentage of Collection Overlap in Consortia The Western North Carolina Library Network, composed of Appalachian State University, UNC-Asheville, and Western Carolina University, is interested in gathering information from other networks about percentage of overlap in holdings among member institutions. For instance, WNCLN has about 40% overlap, while we understand that TRLN (UNC-Chapel Hill, NC State, and Duke) has about 10% overlap. What can you tell us about your network and its duplication in holdings? How many members are there, and what types of libraries? What are your budgets? If you have determined an ideal percentage of duplication/overlap, what criteria did you use? Thanks in advance for your assistance. I will summarize the responses for the list. Please reply to me personally. Suzanne Wise Coordinator, Collection Development Appalachian State University ************************************************************** Suzanne Wise email wisems@appstate.edu Belk Library voice (704)-262-2798 Appalachian State University fax (704)-262-3001 Boone, NC 28608 ***************************************************************Da (2)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:22:54 -0600 From: Dennis Van Arsdale (Westark Community College) Subject: Re: Paperback vs. Hardback (ACQNET 7:17) >I am trying to get information on how different libraries are >handling the purchasing of paperback vs. hardback editions. Do >they determine it by cost, when the paperback edition is >published, etc. Any suggestion you can give me on how to find out >this information would be greatly appreciated. Several factors to consider: 1. Do you have a way to prebind or conveniently bind paperbacks in hard covers? I began the practice here of prebinding (after convincing the state that I was buying prebound books, rather than circumventing the state binding contract) through Ingram and Midwest Library Service (both of whom use San Val bindery). They are now both able to add binding to regular invoices, and the extra time in receiving materials is not normally that much. Also, the bindings are guaranteed, unlike the sometimes shoddy commercial hardcovers. 2. Many materials are available _only_ in paperback. Others might have been in hardcover at one point, but long ago sold out and now are more likely to be received if ordered in paperback. Some titles originally in hardcovers are actually revised in paper (like Bill Gate's book) and should be bought that way. For some materials (such as actor editions of playscripts, often only stapled in covers) it is vital to get some decent binding or prebinding (which I used to do for Samuel French playscripts through StoryHouse). 3. Some publishers are putting a very high price on hardcovers, but no additional value - same paper, etc., off the same presses, but charging up to $30 or $40 more just for hard covers. I get a prebind for about three-fifty to four bucks more. Unless the use justifies archival paper for a really long life, the prebound trade paperback is usually a better value in such cases. 4. Paperback and hardcover are more often published simultaneously these days, at least for nonfiction, so it's a straight decision between them instead of waiting a year or so for the paperback edition. If only a hardcover is available and urgently needed, the decision is moot. 5. Appearance and lifespan are important factors. A prebound book with an attractive, visible cover will get more use than a plain bound copy, and a prebound paperback is often chosen over even a hardcover with a plastic-covered, attractive dust jacket ("it's lighter", "it looked like less to read", etc.). The trade paperback is often off the same press, with the same paper, so the lifespan of the pages will be the same. Archival paper is an exception to that. 6. Mass market paperback editions often do have cheaper paper, and may be harder to read with smaller print. However, in a fiction collection (especially in a public library), they may serve a need. Some vendors offer subscriptions to popular genres in prebound paperbacks. Hope this is of some use, from a University of Missouri-Columbia alumnus! ################################################### Dennis G. Van Arsdale, Technical Services Librarian Boreham Library, Westark Community College********* "The opinions expressed and the information provided here or through any connection are not the responsibility of the College or any related service provider." P.O. Box 3649 Fort Smith Arkansas 72913-3649 (501) 788-7206 -- dvanarsd@systema.westark.edu ################################################### ***************************************************************** Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:52:11 +0000 (CST6CDT) From: Barbara Nelson (Auburn Univ.) Subject: RE: Hard cover vs Paperback At Auburn we made a decision last year to have our approval vendors ship paper instead of hardcover when possible. Most of our departments have also asked us to order paper when firm ordering titles. Our Humanities department head actually looks at all the orders when there is a choice and makes the decision at that time. The other departments have just told us in Acquisitions to order paper unless it is for Reference or unless they specific hard cover. This has saved us quite a bit of money. When the decision to change was made for approval, we began putting action dates so the floors can review these items in a couple of years to see if binding needs to be done. We decided that the cost of rebinding was so low that, even if we have to rebind many of these titles, we will save a great deal of money. Publishers who put out a hardcover edition for $80 and paper one for $35 have really left us little choice. So far it seems to be working out to our advantage. Barbara K. Nelson Order Librarian Auburn University Libraries Auburn University AL 36849-5606 334-844-1721; FAX 334-844-4424 bnelson@lib.auburn.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:09:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Pamela M. Rose (Univ. at Buffalo) Subject: Re: Single versus Multiple Vendors and: Paperback vs. hardback Two replies: 1) On the subject of single versus multiple vendors: We have experienced firsthand the danger of using a single vendor... we were with Richard Abel when they went out of business in the '70s, and had to suddenly shift most of our outstanding firm and standing orders to another vendor. We began to use a few more vendors after we began to use Ballen, but again we found ourselves using a primary vendor much more often than not. When Ballen ceased their operation, we were shuttled over to BNA -- at least we didn't have to do it manually. Now we pay close attention to keeping our orders spread out over a mix of different vendors. In addition, as pointed out in another response, the strengths of vendors for a particular type of material factor heavily into our assignment decision, as do discounts and our State contract obligations. 2) Paperback vs. Hardback We have a standing policy to purchase paperback in favor of hardbound when the price difference between the two is $10 or more. We operate in a health sciences environment where information changes rapidly, so longevity of many books is not as much of an issue. We have also ceased binding most paperbacks on receipt. An in-progress binding study's preliminary results show it is just not necessary. Even heavily used titles are holding up well. However, we do purchase the first published binding due to our need for the most current editions asap. If we have a choice (hardbound and paper published concurrently), the above criteria apply. ___________________________________________________________ | | | Pamela M. Rose, M.L.S. (716) 829-2408 voice | | Head of Acquisitions (716) 829-2211 fax | | Health Sciences Library | | University at Buffalo | | 3435 Main St. | | Buffalo, NY 14214 pmrose@acsu.buffalo.edu | | | | http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~pmrose | |__________________________________________________________| (4)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:21:03 -0500 (EST) From: Clifford Urr (Aspen Systems, Inc.) Subject: Outsourcing Acquisitions: Response to Rick Anderson Rick, a way to advance discussion of this issue is ask whether a vendor can have enough of what can be called "local knowledge" (Geertz's phrase) to do adequate levels of materials selection and cataloging of *multiple* clients. If you had only one client, I think yes, it can be done well. But many clients? I think that's questionable. So much goes into a local knowledge repository (which, BTW, resides in the brain of the librarian on the front lines, and much of this is what Polanyi calls "tacit knowledge.") Everyday interaction with their users, a constant back-and-forth and give-and-take in judging and evaluating what the best serves user needs, the frequent updating and re-evaluation and decision-making of patron needs, factoring in idiosyncratic and peculiar-to-the community needs - these and other activities done by on-site librarians needs a staff primarily devoted to the community it serves. I just don't see how a single vendor can juggle and receive enough local knowledge from many communities, at least enough to equal what on-site librarians could do in each individual community. And this assumes the vendor even cares about or is aware of regularly gathering information from community users. I've never heard of book vendors surveying the users of the books they catalog or select that ends up in the library they are selling to. But I've heard of many, many libraries that control their selection and cataloging doing this as a routine procedure. BTW, on-site librarians will normally also have a sense of community obligation in serving that community, and this sense will be, in the nature of things, greater or more zealous or "loyal" in a way that a commercial vendor, serving *multiple communities* and needing to factor in making a profit, cannot have. This discussion reminds me of my libraries - which still do this I've heard in some places - where they separate reference librarian functions from collection development librarian functions. The latter don't have the front-line encounters with patrons to get a sense of what the community wants, and they base collection decisions on statistics or book reviews. One final comment: outsourcing centrally important library functions may indeed save some money, but, in light of the observations above, I think it does so by imposition of another, non-monetary cost: the lessening of quality service to the community. It's harder to talk to non-librarians about quality issues than money issues, but that does not mean the quality issues are any less real. PS - BTW Rick, I've worked in mostly profit and some non-profit milieus, so I don't have a problem with profit-making, believe me. Perhaps your response or that of others may creatively answer the issues in a way that is still better for the library community and enables your company to reasonably profit. Cliff Urr, Senior Manager, Information Services Aspen Systems, Inc. Rockville, MD 1-301-315-5828 curr@aspensys.com ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 7, No. 18 ****** END OF FILE ******