Download WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING? A SURVEY

WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING? A SURVEY
OF PUBLIC LIBRARIANS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD THE
MARKETING OF LIBRARY SERVICES1
Marilyn L. Shontz,2 Jon C. Parker,3 and Richard Parker4
The purpose of this study was to identify attitudes of public librarians toward the
marketing of library services and relate these attitudes to selected independent
variables. A questionnaire was mailed to individual members of the New Jersey
Library Association. Although most of the respondents had generally positive attitudes toward library marketing, there were some statistically significant differences
between subgroups. For example, more positive attitudes toward marketing were
expressed by library administrators, librarians who had taken a course or workshop
in marketing, and those who perceived marketing to be a high priority in their
libraries. Implications for library practice and library education are briefly discussed.
Introduction
Many people do not take full advantage of all the services available in
public libraries. Large-scale library usage studies conducted in the 1990s
suggested that 34 percent of Americans and 24 percent of U.K. residents
do not use public libraries at all [1, 2]. One reason for this may be that
libraries do not market themselves effectively. Many librarians may lack
knowledge about marketing, may not think marketing is important, or may
actually have negative attitudes about marketing.
For the purposes of this study, marketing in a library context is defined
1. For their help with various aspects of this project, the authors would like to thank the LQ
editors and reviewers, as well as Patricia Tumulty, executive director of the New Jersey
Library Association, Holly G. Willet of Rowan University, and Carol Kaufman-Scarborough
of Rutgers University. Please address all correspondence to Richard Parker, Marketing
Department, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028; Telephone 856-256-4013; E-mail [email protected].
2. Associate professor of education and librarianship at Rowan University.
3. Librarian at the Camden (N.J.) Free Public Library.
4. Professor of marketing at Rowan University.
[Library Quarterly, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 63–84]
2004 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0024-2519/2004/7401-0004$10.00
63
64
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
as “a purposive group of activities which foster constructive and responsive
interchange between the providers of library and information services and
the actual and potential users of these services. These activities are concerned with the products, costs, methods of delivery, and promotional
methods” [3, p. 140].
There has been some controversy over whether marketing is an appropriate activity for libraries, or whether marketing should be restricted to
for-profit businesses. In the marketing field, an influential paper by Philip
Kotler and Sidney Levy in 1969 argued for a “broadening of the marketing
concept,” so that marketing insights could be applied to all kinds of organizations [4, p. 10]. Kotler has continued to be a spokesman for this
point of view, and his book Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations
(now coauthored with Alan Andreasen) has been a leading text in this
field through six editions [5]. Nevertheless, some writers have remained
skeptical about the value of applying in the nonprofit sector techniques
and perspectives developed in the for-profit sector. For example, James
Hutton recently argued for “narrowing the marketing concept” on the
basis that marketing is often misapplied to—and may even be incompatible
with the fundamental purposes of—public institutions [6, p. 7]. Notwithstanding such dissenting voices, Greta Renborg has pointed out that libraries have always implicitly engaged in marketing activities, and she traces
the explicit use of marketing concepts in U.S. libraries to the nineteenth
century [7].
There is now an extensive, international literature on library marketing.
Writers such as Darlene Weingand have applied marketing perspectives
and techniques directly to libraries [8, 9]. Others have focused on the
promotion aspect of marketing and have provided useful suggestions concerning how libraries can better promote themselves [10, 11]. Excellent
reviews of this literature have been provided by Gene Norman, Sheila
Webber, and the Colorado Library Marketing Council [12–14].
There is also evidence that interest in marketing among librarians has
increased in recent years. A Marketing Public Libraries Section (MPLS)
was created within the Public Library Association (PLA) in 1989 [15]. In
1995, Weingand edited a special issue of Library Trends on the subject. As
she noted, “the decision by Library Trends to devote an issue to marketing
is a significant affirmation of the relevance of marketing to our field” [16,
p. 289]. Within the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions (IFLA), “a growing interest in marketing resulted in the IFLA
Professional Board establishing a new Section on Management and Marketing in 1997” [17].
Most of the writing in this field has focused on discussions of the applicability of marketing to libraries or has consisted of guidebooks demonstrating the application of marketing techniques to libraries. There have
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
65
also been a few studies of the extent and types of marketing activities
engaged in by libraries [18, 19], and of patron reactions to library marketing [20]. However, little has been written about the attitudes of librarians toward marketing. In 1990, Joseph Grunenwald, Linda Felicetti, and
Karen Stewart suggested that “many librarians have been reluctant to adopt
and implement marketing strategies. It has been widely believed that marketing activities were inappropriate and perhaps unnecessary for libraries”
[21, p. 5]. More recently, Eric Morgan agreed: “All too often the concept
of marketing leaves a bad taste in the mouths of librarians. We associate
it too much with for-profit institutions, the process of making money for
money’s sake, and the efforts to convince people to use unneeded services
or products” [22, p. 51]. As a reflection of these attitudes, when the State
Library of Ohio prepared a handbook of library marketing techniques in
1993, the title of that volume, Marketing and Libraries DO Mix, indicated a
perceived need to persuade librarians of the value of marketing [23].
Joy Greiner examined the role of marketing in public libraries and the
views of leading members of the Public Library Association. She quoted
Pamela Brown of the Baltimore Public Library, who said that “there is a
great deal of confusion about the terms ‘marketing’ and ‘public relations,’
causing some anxiety among librarians” [15, p. 11]. John Christensen, a
library director from Mankato, Minnesota, observed that many librarians
have a narrow understanding of marketing: “Marketing is often thought
of as public relations, promotions, and selling. However, marketing is satisfying the needs of a customer” [15, p. 12].
Greiner noted that businesses understand that good marketing is essential, and that it includes the “four P’s” of product, price, place (distribution), and promotion. She applied this to the library setting as follows:
“The public library’s products are the programs, resources, and services
provided for the patrons. Price is what the community must pay to keep
the library functioning at a particular level, place concerns access, and
promotion refers to letting the community know what the library has to
offer” [15, p. 11]. Of course, the positive attitudes toward marketing reported by Greiner are primarily those of public library administrators with
an interest and involvement in library marketing and are not necessarily
representative of the opinions of librarians who are not as knowledgeable
about library marketing.
More recent research showed that many librarians were still interested
in marketing but have misunderstandings about it. Rejean Savard conducted an exploratory interview study of twelve Canadian library administrators. Based on their comments, he concluded that “while librarians
show a growing interest for marketing, their concept of marketing seems
inaccurate . . . the marketing orientation, as defined by experts, is insufficiently developed among librarians” [24, p. 41]. Savard concluded that
66
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
many librarians still tend to think of marketing as only selling or promoting
the library, not realizing that library marketing refers to a total organizational effort to attract and serve library users.
Methodology
This article presents the results of a survey of public librarians regarding
their attitudes toward marketing and the marketing of library services. The
questions of interest included the degree to which librarians were involved
with marketing, the degree to which they had positive or negative attitudes
toward marketing, and the degree to which their attitudes were influenced
by selected independent variables. As discussed above, a literature review
revealed that there were misunderstandings about marketing and a belief
among some librarians that marketing was either not applicable or not
appropriate for libraries. However, previous discussions of librarian attitudes about marketing were either speculative or based on extremely small
samples. No empirical study could be found that actually surveyed a substantial sample of public librarians to determine either their knowledge
of, or attitudes toward, marketing. Therefore, the present study involved
the development of a questionnaire for this purpose (see the appendix).
The questionnaire consisted primarily of seven-point, Likert-scaled items
asking respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement
with statements about library marketing. There were also several items that
asked about the degree to which certain marketing-related activities were
part of the respondent’s work responsibility, and how important to their
library the respondent perceived these activities to be. The final section
of the questionnaire contained items addressing various independent
variables.
The face validity of the questionnaire items was determined by pretesting
and reviewing the questionnaire with library students, practicing librarians,
and faculty members in library science and marketing. The reliability of
the items was determined by (a) using two or more different items to
measure each of the more important attitudes under investigation (this
allowed combining intercorrelated items into composite scales) and (b)
using statistical techniques [25, 26] to test the results for reliability during
the data-analysis phase of the project.
The New Jersey Library Association (NJLA), the primary membership
organization for public librarians in New Jersey, provided a current list of
its members for the survey mailing. Questionnaires were sent to 1,198
individual members of the NJLA in February 2001. One of the questionnaire items asked in which type of library the respondent was employed.
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
67
For the current study, respondents were included in the data analysis only
if they indicated that they were public librarians.
The main dependent variables in the study were a variety of librarians’
attitudes toward marketing, for example, whether they perceive any benefits in library marketing, whether they were knowledgeable about marketing, and their degree of involvement in certain marketing-related activities. Independent variables considered included individual librarian
characteristics such as
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the librarian’s age,
job responsibility (e.g., administration, reference, etc.),
number of years of experience,
level of education,
how long ago they had their library education,
whether or not they had taken marketing courses or workshops, and
whether they had any personal experience with library marketing.
The study also considered the effects of community characteristics such as
population size and income level of the community.
Results
There were 623 total responses representing an overall response rate of 52
percent. (This is approximately the norm for academic studies of this type
and slightly above the norm for single-mailing studies and surveys directed
at organizational representatives [27]). After excluding responses from those
who were not actually public librarians and other nonusable responses, 415
responses were usable for the purposes of this study. These responses were
tabulated and analyzed using the SPSS statistical package [25].
Characteristics of the Respondents
Respondents were asked to indicate their primary job responsibility. The
largest proportion of those responding to this question, representing 35.4
percent of the responses, indicated that they were in library administration.
Reference librarians comprised 29.6 percent of the respondents, followed
by children’s–young adult (18.4 percent), public service (4.6 percent),
technical services (4.4 percent), and circulation (1.7 percent) librarians.
In terms of their level of education, 92.7 percent of respondents reported
having a Master of Library Science degree or better. Respondents were
also asked if they had taken a course in marketing during their library
education, and the great majority, 95.3 percent, had not taken such a
course. Another question asked whether respondents had taken a course
68
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
or workshop in marketing in the past five years. Approximately half (49.5
percent) of respondents had never taken such a course or workshop, but
41.7 percent had taken one in the past five years, and another 8.7 percent
indicated having taken one more than five years ago.
Respondents were asked how long ago they had completed their education. More than half (56.3 percent) did so sixteen or more years before.
The results were similar for a question as to how many years of experience
they had, where 62.3 percent of respondents had sixteen or more years
of experience. This was consistent with the ages of the respondents in that
74.9 percent reported being forty-six years old or older.
In summary, although there was considerable variation on each of these
items, the overall profile of the respondents was that most tended to be
middle-aged or older, with considerable experience and graduate education, and with a large proportion involved in library administration. In
fact, the variables of age, years of experience, and years since completion
of education were highly and significantly intercorrelated (coefficients between .50 and .81), indicating that respondents with higher scores on these
variables were essentially the same people.
There were no available data that would allow a determination of
whether this combination of characteristics reflected the membership of
the NJLA as a whole, or New Jersey librarians in general, at the time of
this study. However, there is clear evidence that the library field is graying
and now includes a large proportion of baby boomers approaching retirement. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) reports
that “as many as 58 percent of our nation’s librarians will reach retirement
age between 2005 and 2019.” Referring to this as a “quiet crisis,” the IMLS
recently announced a recruitment initiative that includes $1.8 million of
support for library education [28]. Former ALA President John Berry also
recently established a Recruitment and Diversity Task Force to address this
“recruitment crisis” [29]. Although this situation certainly presents a challenge to the field, it may also present an opportunity to recruit persons
with greater diversity and a different range of skills.
Several questions were used to identify characteristics of the community
in which the respondent’s library was located. There was considerable
variation in the size of the library community’s population, but approximately two-thirds (64.9 percent) were communities of fewer than 50,000
people. Respondents were also asked to indicate the community’s income
based on subjective categories ranging from “low” to “affluent.” Although
the category receiving the largest number of responses was “average” (38.1
percent), 44.9 percent of the respondents perceived their libraries to be
located in “above average” or “affluent” communities, while only 15.1 percent perceived their communities to be either “low” or “below average.”
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
69
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for Agreement with Selected Attitudinal Statements
Statement
Marketing is relevant to the needs of libraries
Libraries should market themselves more like businesses do
Marketing is primarily about providing better products and
services to the consumer
Marketing is primarily used to persuade people to buy
things they do not really need
Marketing is too costly for most libraries
It is more difficult to apply marketing techniques to libraries
than to businesses
Marketing uses up resources that could be better used to
provide more services
Marketing is mostly hype and hustle
Marketing tries to satisfy people’s wants and needs while
also achieving the goals of the organization
Marketing is inconsistent with the professionalism of a
librarian
Libraries need marketing to survive in an increasingly competitive environment
Marketing is unnecessary because we barely have enough resources to meet current demand for library services
Library school programs should require a course in
marketing
If a library already provides a full range of services, there is
not much need for marketing
Libraries do not need marketing because people already
know what services we offer
N
Mean
415
415
6.18
5.26
410
4.64
413
413
2.80
3.24
413
3.67
415
415
3.05
2.78
408
5.36
413
2.36
414
6.03
414
2.07
413
5.09
414
2.10
414
1.73
Note.—7 p strongly agree; 1 p strongly disagree.
(It should be emphasized that this item represented a subjective perception
rather than an objective measure.)
Attitudes toward Marketing
Respondents were asked for their level of agreement with forty-four items
related to their attitudes toward the marketing of library services, as well
as their level of knowledge about marketing and their involvement in
marketing activities. Most respondents tended to agree with statements
indicating positive attitudes toward marketing, and very few respondents
strongly agreed with statements indicating negative attitudes toward marketing (see table 1). However, there was considerable variation in the responses. Also, many of the responses were intercorrelated, which means,
for example, that respondents who agreed with one positive statement
about marketing tended also to agree with other positive statements, and
70
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
TABLE 2
Composite Scales
Scale and Items
Promarketing:
Marketing is relevant to the needs of libraries
Libraries should market themselves more like businesses do
Knowing more about marketing techniques would be helpful to
my work
Libraries need marketing to survive in an increasingly
competitive environment
Library school programs should require a course in marketing
Advertising and promotion are important to my library
Antimarketing:
Marketing is primarily used to persuade people to buy things
they do not really need
Marketing is too costly for most libraries
It is more difficult to apply marketing techniques to libraries
than to businesses
Marketing uses up resources that could be better used to provide
more services
Marketing is mostly hype and hustle
Marketing is inconsistent with the professionalism of a librarian
Marketing is unnecessary because we barely have enough
resources to meet current demand for library services
If a library already provides a full range of services, there is not
much need for marketing
Libraries do not need marketing because people already know
what services we offer
Marketing knowledge and experience:
I am knowledgeable about marketing techniques
I have been personally involved in marketing library services
Advertising-promotion is a large part of my work
Attracting new patrons is a large part of my work
Developing new services is a large part of my work
Alpha Coefficient
.81
.87
.78
respondents who agreed with one negative statement about marketing
tended also to agree with other negative statements.
In order to reduce all of these responses to a manageable number of
variables, factor analysis was used to construct three composite scales by
combining similar and highly intercorrelated items. A “promarketing” scale
was created by combining positive statements about marketing, an “antimarketing” scale was created by combining negative statements about marketing, and a “marketing knowledge and experience” scale was created by
combining items that indicated knowledge of marketing or involvement
in marketing-related activities (see table 2). Each of these scales was sta-
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
71
tistically tested for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient [25]. The
coefficients, ranging from .78 to .87, indicated a high degree of reliability.
In the next phase of the analysis, these scales were evaluated with respect
to their correlations with each other and with other variables in the study
(see table 3). Not surprisingly, promarketing and antimarketing showed a
strong and significant (at the .05 level) negative correlation (which supported the validity of these measures). Promarketing was positively and
significantly correlated with marketing knowledge and experience, which
indicates that those who know about and use marketing tended to have
favorable attitudes toward it.
Promarketing attitudes were also significantly correlated with several of
the independent variables used in this study. They were positively correlated with respondents’ years of experience and the number of years since
the respondents had completed their education. This suggested that librarians with more experience had more appreciation for the need for
the marketing of library services.
Antimarketing attitudes showed statistically significant correlations with
several variables. They were negatively correlated with marketing knowledge and experience, which suggested that negative attitudes about marketing may result from a lack of understanding about, and experience
with, marketing techniques. Antimarketing was also inversely related to
community income, which may mean that libraries in lower income communities may not see the need, or have the resources, to market their
services.
Marketing knowledge and experience was positively correlated with years
of library experience. This may indicate that marketing techniques are
learned over the course of a librarian’s career, or perhaps late in one’s
career (e.g., after taking on administrative responsibility).
A previous empirical study undertaken in the United Kingdom [30]
found that libraries that offered a broader range of services tended to
engage in more marketing-related activities. This was confirmed in the
present study inasmuch as both promarketing and marketing knowledge
and experience were positively correlated to agreement with a questionnaire item that stated, “My library offers a broader range of services than
others in the area.” It may be that librarians who work in libraries that
offer a broader range of services learn to appreciate the importance of
making the public fully aware of these services. (It should also be noted
that range of services was positively correlated with both community population and community income.)
Another item in the questionnaire examined agreement with the statement, “Marketing is not a high priority in my library.” Agreement with this
statement correlated positively and strongly with antimarketing attitudes
TABLE 3
Correlations
Promarketing:
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
N
Antimarketing:
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
N
Marketing knowledge and
experience:
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
N
Years since education was completed:
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
N
Years of experience:
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
N
Community population:
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
N
Community income:
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
N
Not high priority:
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
N
Broader range:
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
N
Promarketing
Antimarketing
Marketing
Knowledge and
Experience
Years since Education Was
Completed
Years of
Experience
1.000
⫺.584**
.000
386
.466**
.000
382
.141**
.005
392
.160**
.001
393
.011
.834
387
1.000
⫺.073
.144
400
⫺.080
.108
402
1.000
394
Community
Population
Community
Income
Not High
Priority
Broader
Range
.016
.754
384
⫺.394**
.000
394
.153**
.002
390
⫺.026
.603
395
⫺.084
.095
393
.428**
.000
403
⫺.104*
.039
397
⫺.584**
.000
386
403
⫺.310**
.000
383
.466**
.000
382
⫺.310**
.000
383
391
.060
.240
389
.142**
.005
390
⫺.043
.397
383
.083
.107
382
⫺.324**
.000
391
.117*
.021
386
.141**
.005
392
⫺.073
.144
400
.060
.240
389
1.000
417
.805**
.000
416
.016
.752
409
.064
.197
407
⫺.038
.445
415
.039
.430
410
.160**
.001
393
⫺.080
.108
402
.142**
.005
390
.805**
.000
416
1.000
419
.060
.224
411
.065
.191
410
⫺.054
.276
417
.056
.258
413
.011
.834
387
⫺.026
.603
395
⫺.043
.397
383
.016
.752
409
.060
.224
411
412
⫺.158**
.001
404
⫺.033
.507
410
.244**
.000
405
.016
.754
384
⫺.084
.095
393
.083
.107
382
.064
.197
407
.065
.191
410
⫺.158**
.001
404
1.000
410
⫺.097*
.050
408
.152**
.002
404
⫺.394**
.000
394
.428**
.000
403
⫺.324**
.000
391
⫺.038
.445
415
⫺.054
.276
417
⫺.033
.507
410
⫺.097*
.050
408
1.000
418
⫺.242**
.000
412
.153**
.002
390
⫺.104*
.039
397
.117*
.021
386
.039
.430
410
.056
.258
413
.244**
.000
405
.152**
.002
404
⫺.242**
.000
412
* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).
1.000
1.000
413
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
73
and negatively with both promarketing attitudes and marketing knowledge
and experience. This suggested that librarians’ attitudes and interests were
influenced by the environment in which they work.
In the final phase of the analysis, the statistical technique of analysis of
variance, or ANOVA [25, 26], was used to examine relationships between
the dependent variables in this study (attitudes toward marketing) and
some of the independent variables (characteristics of the respondents and
their library’s community). The ANOVA determines whether differences
in the mean scores on a scaled item are statistically significant for different
subgroups of respondents. Table 4 shows that differences in mean scores
on promarketing were statistically significant (at the .05 level of significance) for the independent variable of job responsibility. As indicated in
figure 1, administrators and public service librarians tended to have more
positive attitudes toward marketing than reference or technical service
librarians. This is likely to be a function of differing job descriptions.
Administrators generally have the most direct responsibility for developing
marketing programs, and public service librarians can observe the need
for, and consequences of, such programs because they are in direct contact
with library patrons. (Both administrators and public service librarians also
tended to be slightly older than the other categories of respondents.)
Figure 2 and table 5 show that both those who had taken a marketing
course or workshop in the past five years and those who took one more
than five years ago had higher mean scores on positive attitudes toward
marketing that were statistically significant as compared with those who
had never taken such a course or workshop. (The antimarketing results
were essentially the reverse of the promarketing results. For example, those
who had never taken a marketing course or workshop had more negative
attitudes toward marketing than those who had. This indicates that negative
attitudes may be a result of lack of exposure to accurate marketing information.)
Marketing knowledge and experience tended to follow the same patterns
as promarketing and the correlations discussed earlier. Figure 3 and table
6 show that mean scores were higher for those who had taken a course
or workshop. Figure 4 and table 7 also show that technical service librarians
had significantly lower scores than the other groups. It may be that those
who work in technical services have less responsibility for communicating
with the public or simply less interest in doing so.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Public librarians are becoming aware of the importance of marketing library services to the public, and many books and articles applying mar-
74
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
Fig. 1.—Mean scores on promarketing attitude scale, by job responsibility
keting techniques to libraries are now available. However, very few studies
have examined the attitudes of librarians toward marketing. As discussed
earlier, some writers have speculated that many librarians lack knowledge
of marketing, have negative attitudes toward marketing, or believe that
marketing is relevant only to businesses, but not to libraries.
Most of the respondents in this study tended to express generally positive
attitudes toward marketing. However, there were some statistically significant differences between subgroups. For example, more positive attitudes
toward marketing were expressed by administrators and public service librarians than by reference and technical services librarians. Those with
more years of library work experience and those who had taken a course
or workshop in marketing also expressed more positive attitudes toward
marketing.
Respondents who scored higher on marketing knowledge and experience tended to include administrators and those with more library exTABLE 4
ANOVA of Mean Scores on Promarketing Attitude Scale, by Job Responsibility
Promarketing
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Between groups
Within groups
19.370
375.598
6
385
3.228
.976
394.968
391
Total
F
Significance
3.309
.003
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
75
Fig. 2.—Mean scores on promarketing attitude scale, by having taken a course-workshop
perience. Not surprisingly, those with higher scores in marketing knowledge and experience tended to have taken a course or workshop in
marketing and also expressed more positive attitudes toward marketing.
Scores on both marketing knowledge and experience and positive attitudes toward marketing were higher for respondents who believed that
their libraries offered a broader range of services than other libraries and
for those who perceived marketing to be a higher priority in their libraries.
Librarians can clearly not assume that if their library offers good services,
they do not need to worry about marketing them effectively. Library staff
should constantly reconsider whether they need to offer new services to
satisfy patron needs, to eliminate services that no longer meet those needs,
to find the best ways to make services accessible to patrons, to make the
public fully aware of what is offered, and to consider how much each service
will cost the individual patron or the community as a whole.
This study indicates that library managers have increasingly come to
TABLE 5
ANOVA of Mean Scores on Promarketing Attitude Scale, by Course-Workshop
Promarketing
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Between groups
Within groups
38.637
356.313
2
388
19.318
.918
394.950
390
Total
F
Significance
21.036
.000
76
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
Fig. 3.—Mean scores on marketing knowledge and experience scale, by having taken a
course-workshop.
appreciate the importance of marketing library services in a competitive
information marketplace. However, the training of librarians still tends to
give this topic minimal attention. A recent survey of North American library
schools conducted by France Bouthillier [31] suggests that only a minority
of programs offer a course in marketing (even by a definition that includes
public relations courses), that such courses are typically electives that are
not offered on a regular basis, and that they are generally not perceived
as having high importance in the curriculum.
This situation can be remedied somewhat with continuing education.
However, this also does not yet seem to have become a priority. Even in a
sample such as ours, containing a large proportion of administrators and
TABLE 6
ANOVA of Mean Scores on Marketing Knowledge and Experience Scale, by Having
Taken a Course-Workshop
Marketing
Knowledge and
Experience
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Between groups
Within groups
140.632
554.041
2
385
70.316
1.439
694.672
387
Total
F
Significance
48.862
.000
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
77
Fig. 4.—Mean scores on marketing knowledge and experience scale, by job responsibility
other experienced staff, about half had never been exposed to continuing
education focused on marketing.
Library administrators who want to instill positive attitudes toward marketing in librarians and encourage them to increase their marketing knowledge and experience should first create an environment where everyone
understands that marketing is a high priority. Incentives should be provided for librarians to continue their education in the full range of current
issues, and this includes taking courses or workshops in library marketing.
Even librarians with many years of experience appear to be interested in
expanding their knowledge of library marketing techniques. Once they
have received this training, librarians should be given time to become
directly involved in library marketing activities.
TABLE 7
ANOVA of Mean Scores on Marketing Knowledge and Experience Scale, by Job
Responsibility
Marketing
Knowledge and
Experience
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Between groups
Within groups
152.907
545.340
6
383
25.484
1.424
698.247
389
Total
F
Significance
17.898
.000
78
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
In libraries, as in other types of organizations, staff involvement is essential to implementing new programs. Early involvement at the planning
stage helps staff understand the need for marketing. Involvement in the
creation of brochures or other materials provides a sense of ownership.
Evidence of success can provide recognition, a sense of accomplishment,
and generally higher morale [32].
Once librarians become convinced of the need for marketing, they can
begin the search for marketing techniques that will be effective in their
particular situation. Unfortunately, although there are many available
sources of ideas on marketing techniques appropriate for libraries (including many of the sources cited in this article), there is no single technique that will work equally well in all library contexts. For example, an
informative Web page has become an essential marketing tool for many
libraries. However, a Web page may have little value for a library in a lowincome community where few patrons have Internet access.
Confidence that their efforts will have an impact is an important aspect
of staff motivation. In this regard, there is a need for better measurement
of the effectiveness of various marketing techniques. Libraries often develop such techniques on a trial-and-error basis. Individual libraries may
evaluate these techniques over time and develop experience-based guidelines as to which are most effective. However, this research is rarely reported
in the published literature, except anecdotally.
Unfortunately, measurement of marketing effectiveness has always been
“notoriously difficult” [33, p. 33]. Even commercial marketers with large
budgets find it difficult to measure the effectiveness of their activities. As
George Belch and Michael Belch observe, “Perhaps one of the more frustrating issues in integrated marketing communications is how to measure
the effectiveness of the IMC program. For years marketers have discussed,
debated, and denigrated just about every technique that has been proposed. Many have given up the chase, concluding that establishing a direct
relationship is like trying to find the proverbial needle in the haystack”
[34, p. 635].
Web pages are one of the few aspects of library marketing for which
empirical studies of effectiveness have begun to appear in the literature.
This largely results from the availability of Web tracking software that can
provide quantitative measures of various aspects of patron behavior. For
example, Xiaodong Li examined the impact of various electronic promotional techniques on visits to a university Web site [35]. However, even
with technological advances, the evaluation of electronic library services
is a complex and often imprecise science [36].
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
79
Suggestions for Future Research
The results of this study are limited to the attitudes of a sample of public
librarians in New Jersey. Future research could examine the attitudes toward marketing of other types of librarians (e.g., school librarians, college
and university librarians, etc.) or librarians in other states, regions, or
countries. The respondents in this study were also relatively older and
more experienced and included a large proportion of administrators. Future research could investigate whether the attitudes of younger, lessexperienced librarians are comparable.
Research is also needed to provide a clearer sense of what librarians
understand by the term “marketing.” If many librarians associate marketing
only with “hard sell” business practices, this would support a need for better
education on this subject.
A more general question is the extent to which librarians recognize the
potential negative effects on libraries of a changing and competitive information environment. Have they yet developed a sense of urgency that
would motivate them to become more proactive in library marketing?
This article has also uncovered needs for research into various other
issues in library marketing that extend beyond the domain of the current
study. Most notably, there is little evidence in the literature as to the effectiveness of particular marketing techniques in a library context. One
approach to this issue would be survey research asking librarians which
marketing techniques they have used and what evidence they had collected
demonstrating the effectiveness of those techniques. Another approach
would be collecting studies already conducted by a variety of individual
libraries, along with secondary analysis or metanalysis to determine general
patterns that might emerge across such studies.
In summary, librarians are beginning to appreciate the need for library
marketing. However, more training and research will be needed to support
their marketing efforts.
80
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
Appendix
Librarian Survey
(survey continues)
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
(survey continues)
81
82
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
WHAT DO LIBRARIANS THINK ABOUT MARKETING?
83
REFERENCES
1. “Gallup Poll Shows 66% of Adults Are Library Users.” American Libraries 29 (August 1998):
6.
2. “LA Survey on Library Usage.” Library Association Record 96 ( January 1994): 34–37.
3. Young, Heartsill, ed. The ALA Glossary of Library and Information Science. Chicago: American
Library Association, 1983.
4. Kotler, Philip, and Levy, Sidney J. “Broadening the Concept of Marketing.” Journal of
Marketing 33 ( January 1969): 10–15.
5. Andreasen, Alan, and Kotler, Philip. Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. 6th ed.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2003.
6. Hutton, James G. “Narrowing the Concept of Marketing.” Journal of Nonprofit and Public
Sector Marketing 9 (November 2001): 5–24.
7. Renborg, Greta. “Marketing Library Services: How It All Began.” In Adapting Marketing
to Libraries in a Changing World-Wide Environment, edited by R. Savard, pp. 5–11. Proceedings
of the 1997 IFLA Conference. Munich: Saur, 2000.
8. Weingand, Darlene E. Marketing/Planning Library and Information Services. Littleton, Colo.:
Libraries Unlimited, 1987.
9. Weingand, Darlene E. Future-Driven Library Marketing. Chicago: American Library Association, 1998.
10. Edsall, Marian S. Library Promotion Handbook. Phoenix: Oryx, 1980.
11. Jones, Pyddney, ed. Great Library Promotion Ideas VI. Chicago: American Library Association,
1991.
12. Norman, O. Gene. “Marketing Library and Information Services: An Annotated Guide
to Recent Trends and Developments.” Reference Services Review 17 (Spring 1989): 43–64.
13. Webber, Sheila. “Marketing Library and Information Services.” In Librarianship and Information Work Worldwide, 1999, edited by Maurice Line, pp. 291–317. London: BowkerSaur, 1999.
14. Hamilton-Pennell, Christine. “Bibliography of Library Marketing Articles, 1999–2002.”
Colorado Library Marketing Council. Available at http://www.clmc.org/Resources%20
Files/bibliography2002.htm.
15. Greiner, Joy. “Professional Views: Marketing Public Library Services.” Public Libraries 29
( January–February 1990): 11–17.
16. Weingand, Darlene E. “Introduction: Marketing of Library and Information Services,”
edited by Darlene Weingand. Library Trends 43 (Winter 1995): 289–94.
17. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. “Management and Marketing Section: Formation of the Section.” Available at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s34/
somm.htm.
18. Ortiz Smykla, Evelyn. Marketing and Public Relations Activities in ARL Libraries. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1999.
19. Butler, David W. “Survey of Current Public Relations and Marketing Practices in Pennsylvania Public Libraries: Guidelines for Improvement.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1976.
20. Kirkup, M. H.; Gambles, B. R.; and Davison, A. P. “The Marketing of Library Services: A
Study of Community Behavior, Attitudes and Requirements.” Public Library Journal 4 (September–October 1989): 93–100.
21. Grunenwald, Joseph P.; Felicetti, Linda A.; and Stewart, Karen L. “The Effects of Marketing
Seminars on the Attitudes of Librarians.” Public Library Quarterly 10 (1990): 3–10.
22. Morgan, Eric Lease. “Marketing Library Services.” Computers in Libraries 18 (September
1998): 50–51.
84
THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
23. Tenney, H. Baird, et al. Marketing and Libraries DO Mix: A Handbook for Libraries and
Information Centers. Columbus: State Library of Ohio, 1993.
24. Savard, Rejean. “Librarians and Marketing: An Ambiguous Relationship.” New Review of
Information and Library Research 2 (1996): 41–55.
25. Cronk, Brian C. How to Use SPSS: A Step-by-Step Guide to Analysis and Interpretation. Los
Angeles: Pyrczak, 1999.
26. Hafner, Arthur W. Descriptive Statistical Techniques for Librarians. 2d ed. Chicago: American
Library Association, 1998.
27. Baruch, Yehuda. “Response Rate in Academic Studies: A Comparative Analysis.” Human
Relations 52 (April 1999): 421–38.
28. Institute of Museum and Library Services. “Over $3.5 Million for Innovative Solutions to
National Librarian Shortage.” Available at http://www.imls.gov/whatsnew/current/
071602.htm.
29. Berry, John W. “Addressing the Recruitment and Diversity Crisis.” American Libraries 33
(February 2002): 7. Available at http://www.ala.org/berry.alcol.html.
30. Doherty, N. F.; Saker, J.; and Smith, I. G. “Marketing Development in the Public Library
Sector: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Information Science 21 (1995): 449–58.
31. Bouthillier, France. “The Teaching of Marketing and Quality Management in Schools of
Library and Information Studies: The Case of North America.” In Education and Research
for Marketing and Quality Management in Libraries, edited by R. Savard, pp. 21–30. Munich:
Saur, 2002.
32. Broady-Preston, Judith, and Steel, Lucy. “Employees, Customers, and Internal Marketing
Strategies in LIS.” Library Management 23 (2002): 384–93.
33. Rowley, Jennifer. “Information Marketing: Seven Questions.” Library Management 24
(2003): 13–19.
34. Belch, George E., and Belch, Michael A. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing
Communications Perspective. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2001.
35. Li, Xiaodong. “Library Web Page Usage: A Statistical Analysis.” Bottom Line: Managing
Library Finances 12 (1999): 153–59.
36. Bertot, John Carlo; McClure, Charles R.; and Ryan, Joe. Statistics and Performance Measures
for Public Library Networked Services. Chicago: American Library Association, 2001.