AP680rp

Top	Title	Abstract	Introduction
Method	Results	Discussion	Conclusion
Implications	References	Appendix A	Appendix B
Appendix C	Chart 1	Chart 2	Chart 3
Chart 4	Chart 5	Chart 6	Chart 7
Chart 8	Chart 9	Chart 10	Chart 11
Chart 12	Chart 13	Table 1	Table 2
Table 3	Table 4	End	Author note
Contact me		Main index

Attitudes toward marketing in the
liberal arts academic library
     An examination of the Oberlin Group

     Amy Proni (now Amy Ranger)
     Southern Connecticut State University

Abstract
The purpose of the study was to identify the attitudes of certain academic library personnel toward marketing library services, and relate these attitudes to specific independent variables. A web-based survey was created and an invitation to participate sent to the directors, heads of reference or public services, and reference or outreach librarians employed by academic libraries which are members of the Oberlin Group of Libraries. Most respondents exhibited positive attitudes toward marketing, but confusion over what exactly constitutes marketing. The significance of this and implications for academic library practices and library education are briefly discussed.

Introduction
The directors of academic libraries in recent years have been dueling a double-edged sword: increasing costs for journals, books, media resources and technological resources on one side; on the other, budget and staff reductions. Not only must they do more with less, but they must also assist in the education of young people who may be reluctant to approach a librarian for assistance, as they have grown up believing that answers to any question can easily be found on the web. These socio-economic issues are not isolated to any one type of academic library or region; they cut across all boundaries, affecting equally state schools and private colleges. One may ask, then, what does the academic library offer users that cannot be found elsewhere? It may be accessibility to information in a variety of formats (print materials, electronic, multimedia, audio, video) or the expertise of a librarian, but the question may not be relevant unless the directors and managers in academic libraries perceive a need to reach out to users.

Sarah Brick Archer (2001, p. 357) observed, “No longer can librarians sit placidly at the reference desk waiting for people to come to them. Information is available from other competing sources.” Those competitors include Internet search engines such as Google, Answer, and Yahoo!, online book dealers (Amazon and its look inside the book feature), consultants (Google Answers), and as Rajashekhar D. Kumbar (2004, ¶ 6) suggests, individuals who feel that their skills are sharp enough to engage in research on their own. One way to counteract such outside influences might be for academic librarians to adapt and incorporate marketing strategies into their regular interactions with the campus community.

The American Library Association and the Association of College and Research Libraries recognize this and have jointly created a national marketing campaign and resources that may be used to heighten the awareness and support of academic and research libraries. The ACRL website states that “in today’s complex information environment, we have a greater responsibility to communicate the resources and expertise our libraries and librarians provide, both on our campuses and in society.” (American Library Association, 2005, ¶ 1). They continue, “Our advertising messages are aimed at campus decision-makers and profile the value and strength of librarians and libraries in meeting the knowledge demands of faculty and students.” (2005, ¶ 5). Librarians who increase their visibility on campus, even through activities unrelated to librarianship, participate in coalition building and may significantly increase their opportunities to emphasize what the library can do for its community members.

J.E. Rowley (1995, p. 24) explains that the marketing concept, founded on customer satisfaction, involves identifying customer needs and trying to meet those needs. To work effectively, the concept must be embraced by all, from the library director to the part-time circulation clerk. Each staff member must “buy into” the customer-service-oriented philosophy. It is important to distinguish the efforts of marketing – which in this case seek to understand the information needs of the academic library patron – with sales, wherein the patron is offered not exactly what she needs, but rather is persuaded to buy what is available from the provider. Archer (2001, p. 357) states that “the purpose of marketing is not for self-glorification, but for self-preservation and for educating the public.” She goes on to suggest that in academic libraries marketing can be used to forge alliances with students and faculty; it may be more effective for teaching faculty to request an increase in library funding from the college administration than for the librarians themselves to do so. The survival of academic libraries in the age of information technology may depend upon providing resources and services which cannot easily be found elsewhere – such as access to electronic information resources – and the services provided by a knowledgeable staff. Judith L. Hart, Vicki Coleman, and Hong Yu (1999, p. 42) further explain that “the concept of marketing library services puts emphasis on satisfying customers and meeting their expectations. For this to happen, customers must know the resources and services the library provides and the benefits they gain by using the services. This requires marketing and outreach on the part of the library.” Kumbar (2004, ¶ 13) also suggests that marketing may help to create an environment in the library that fosters a greater awareness of customer needs and service issues among the staff.

Rajesh Singh (2003, p. 34) addresses the “shifting paradigms and emerging issues” in librarianship that affect the relationship between librarians and customers. He notes that St. Clair wrote in 1997 that “with very few exceptions, the services we provide and the information we deliver can be obtained elsewhere.” (as cited in Singh, 2003, p. 34). Those shifting paradigms suggest that where once the library director had only to request funds for the annual budget, today resources may be allocated based on the value of services to users. Singh (2003, p. 36) goes on to say that “only the library that knows, articulates, and fulfils a clear purpose will be perceived as a viable information organisation.”

The challenge for library directors is that the library must be marketed as a service and not as a product. As Rowley (1995, p. 27) notes, the characteristics of a service include: intangibility (it cannot be seen nor touched, and comparison between service-oriented institutions may be difficult); the inseparability of production and consumption (the service occurs simultaneously with the consumption, so that standardization and quality are hard to control); perishability (unused service capacity cannot be saved for later); and heterogeneity (the human factor, which again creates a challenge for consistent performance, standardization, and quality control). Even so, there are ways in which academic library managers may meet the challenge of marketing their services. Chief among these is to empower the staff to tailor their service to meet the needs of the customer. A flexible, customized service, offered by friendly and attentive staff may provoke an increased use of – and strong loyalty to – the campus library.

If we agree that marketing and promotion may positively affect not only a library’s external customer relationships, but also its internal staff morale, then we must ask why more librarians do not employ these tools. Kumbar (2004, ¶ 17) suggests that “most librarians do not market their libraries, do not know how to market, or do not know how to do it well.” He cites 10 possible reasons for this, including fear, confusion over the terminology, and lack of training or education about marketing. A more complicated reason is that some librarians work according to an “old model of existence by mandate” – that is, students should use library databases to locate quality information for research; faculty should send students to librarians for assistance; and the importance of the library-as-institution should be obvious to all – therefore, there is no need for promotion. (2004, ¶ 18-26).

A review of the web-posted course catalogs of the five top-rated library schools (as ranked by U.S. News and World Report, 1999, ¶ 1) shows that only three (the University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign, the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, and the University of Pittsburgh) offer coursework on marketing information services or libraries. A keyword search of the Books in Print database (libraries or library and marketing) revealed at least 16 titles produced since 1982 (not including revised editions or reprinted publications). One may reasonably conclude that the concept of marketing the academic library has not been fully embraced by the profession.

A search of the FirstSearch LibraryLit, Emerald Full-Text, and LISA databases revealed that little empirical research has been done on the attitudes of academic librarians regarding marketing and promotion of libraries and services. To address this gap in the literature, a survey of questions, after an earlier study by Marilyn L. Shontz, Jon C. Parker, and Richard Parker (2004, p. 18-21), was created and disseminated to librarians working at member institutions of the Oberlin Group of Libraries to solicit opinions and gather information about marketing and promoting academic libraries within this group.

Method
This article presents the results of a survey on attitudes toward marketing academic libraries and services to specific campus communities. The population group under study includes 170 library directors, heads of reference or public services, and outreach or reference librarians who work at any of the 75 academic institutions which belong to the Oberlin Group of Libraries. As described by Ray English and Will Bridegam (2005, ¶ 6), the Oberlin Group is “an unincorporated organization of liberal arts college libraries, represented by their directors, that exists for discussion, the sharing of ideas, collegiality, the sharing of statistics, and other cooperative activities that these directors are empowered by their institutions to undertake.” This particular group of academic libraries was chosen because the investigator is employed by a member library. Also, the group is relatively small, and the institutions share qualities such as low enrollments, high teacher-student ratio, and an emphasis on liberal arts and science.

Respondents were selected by following the links at the “Member institutions” page of the Oberlin Group website, then visiting the library website of each academic institution and searching for the contact information. (Oberlin Group, 2005). A database with fields for the institution, division, position, title, first and last names, website, email address, and state was created. Email addresses were exported by hand into the “BCC” field of an email cover letter (see Appendix A) and an attached document (doc.) file of the survey (see Appendix B). Participants were given the option to fill out the text document and email it back to the investigator, or use a web-based survey. A reminder was sent to the same group five days after the initial request for participation; librarians were given 10 days to respond.

The web survey instrument is relatively simple, coded using HTML. The text document of the survey instrument required no special formatting or coding. The instrument did not include images. Data transmission was not encrypted, and error validation was limited (for example, input errors did not result in an error or warning message). Once started, the web survey could not be paused for completion at a later time. Upon clicking the submit button at the end of the questionnaire, an email with the responses was sent to the investigator, and the email time stamp was chosen as unique identifier during compilation of the data into a spreadsheet. Despite its simplicity and limitations, this research survey required about 40 hours of coding time. It was easy to upload to the investigator’s website however, and therefore relatively inexpensive.

The instrument is comprised of 56 questions in four sections and included space for comments. Filling out the first three sections required about 10 minutes. Section 1 asked respondents to indicate, on a 5-point Likert scale, the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with 27 statements about marketing and academic libraries. Similar questions were positioned throughout the section, to allow for cross-checking reliability. Section 2 asked respondents to indicate the degree to which six specific marketing-related activities are a part of their regular work and the importance of the activity, using 4-point Likert scales. Section 3 included 11 questions regarding the respondent’s demographic profile and seven questions on marketing techniques commonly used by libraries. Section 4 required some writing on the part of the participants and was indicated as optional. This section concerned campus activities in which the library may have participated, the major strength, challenge, possible change or improvement facing the library, and evidence of community support for change.

Results
The survey resulted in 35 eligible responses via the web, four via email, and one through the postal service, for a total of 40 eligible responses. The response rate is 23.5 percent overall (approximately 20 percent through the web). This response rate should consider that a majority of the population group may not be at work during the summer. The data analysis was performed using basic statistical functions in an Excel workbook, then transcribed into a text document (see Appendix C). Nota bene: percentages provided may be imprecise due to rounding inaccuracies.

Respondents were asked in Section 1 to indicate their level of agreement with 27 statements regarding marketing in general, and specifically the role of marketing in an academic library. Many responses were inter-correlated so that agreement with one positive statement about marketing usually led to agreement with similar statements, and those who agreed with one negative statement followed suit with other negative statements. The responses to five statements on the use of marketing in an academic library setting were generally positive: none were less than M 4.41.

Section 2 covered six questions on marketing-related activities in which respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which the activity is a part of their work, and the importance placed on the activity. Although most respondents answered the first part of the question, some neglected to indicate the importance that the work has for them. Numerical values of 4 through 1 were used for each scale. The most important task for the respondents is developing new products and services (M 3.33). No task yielded less than M 3.08 in terms of the importance it holds for the respondent.

Characteristics of the respondents were drawn from replies given in Section 3. Three questions asked about the librarian’s primary job responsibility, gender, and age. (See chart 1).

Chart 1

Respondents were asked to indicate their highest level of education, and the number of years ago that their formal library education was completed. (See chart 2).

Chart 2

Two questions were used to identify characteristics of the academic communities in which the respondents work. (See chart 3).

Chart 3

No data was found to determine if this combination of characteristics is representative of all academic libraries, or even of all libraries in the Oberlin Group.

Discussion
Section 1 of the survey instrument may be broken down into broad categories reflecting attitudes about:

the nature of marketing (items 6, 7, 12, and 15)

knowledge of marketing techniques (items 2, 11, 26, and 27)

use of marketing techniques in an academic library (items 1, 5, 14, 17, 18, 21, and 25)

the need to market the academic library (items 8, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20, 22, and 23)

evaluating services and associated costs (items 3, 4, 13, and 24)

Regarding participants’ attitudes about the nature of marketing, it is apparent that the term itself causes some confusion. Opinions ranged greatly about the statement “marketing is primarily about providing better products and services to the user,” as eight (20 percent) strongly agreed, and ten (25 percent) agreed, while five (13 percent) were unsure, and 17 (43 percent) disagreed with the statement. The mean results to other statements on the nature of marketing, however, were more consistent with positive attitudes toward the topic. (See chart 4).

Chart 4

Statements gauging the level of the respondents’ knowledge of marketing techniques, opinions on including marketing courses in library school, and a manner in which academic libraries should market themselves, yielded means close to 3, signifying an uncertainty about these ideas. Conversely, the statement “learning more about marketing techniques would be helpful to my work,” resulted in a mean of 3.95, indicating an interest and willingness to do so. (See chart 5).

Chart 5

A majority of the respondents did not take a course on marketing during their formal education. Approximately one-quarter of the group has attended a course or workshop on the topic in the last five years. (See table 1). These answers reinforce a statement wherein a majority of the participants agreed that learning more about marketing techniques would be helpful to their work.

Table 1 Respondents who have studied marketing techniques
	Yes	No
Coursework as part of library education*	8%	92%
Coursework as part of other (non-library) education*	8%	92%
Workshop or course in last 5 years‡	26%	74%
*n = 40 ‡n = 39

Responses to a statement implying that academic libraries need to use marketing to survive in a competitive environment suggest that this concept may be problematic for some librarians. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of the respondents agreed that academic libraries have a need to use marketing tools and techniques to stave off the competition, but almost one-quarter (23 percent) disagreed and 15 percent were unsure. As most respondents agreed to statements that librarians have an obligation to inform the community and promote services offered by the campus library, one may surmise that there is some discomfort over the idea of an academic library in competition with other information providers. (See chart 6).

Chart 6

That respondents feel a need to market their academic library was evidenced by a series of largely negative statements (marketing is not a high priority, is inappropriate, is too expensive, is unnecessary) which were all disputed. One inter-correlated statement resulted in a mean of 1.6, suggesting a fairly strong level of disagreement. (See chart 7). Almost all (98 percent) of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with “students and faculty already know what the academic library offers, so we don’t need to market ourselves.” Only one person was unsure.

Chart 7

Regarding the evaluation of services and associated costs, 39 respondents strongly agreed or agreed that cost analyses are necessary; again, one person was unsure. Reactions to the statement “academic libraries should never impose charges for their services,” showed a high level of ambiguity, with 33% responding as unsure, 45% disagreeing, and about 23% agreeing. One interpretation of this could be that frustration with the rising costs of resources and services are leading some librarians to want to pass those costs on to the requesting departments or faculty. The respondents overwhelmingly agreed that their libraries offer a variety of resources and routinely develop new services and acquire new products for their patrons, activities which could also result in higher expenditures. (See chart 8).

Chart 8

Survey respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which certain marketing-related activities are a part of their work. Nearly all (94 percent) are involved with developing new services. Advertising and promotion take up at least some part of the work for 68 percent of the participants and 10 percent feel that it is a large part of the job. Written communications, whether a newsletter, blog, or other writings, are part of the daily grind for 53 percent of the respondents. Patron surveys make up some part of the job for 43 percent of the librarians surveyed, but for 58 percent that task ranks as ‘little’ or ‘no part.’ (See chart 9).

Chart 9

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of the marketing-related activities noted in chart 9. The activity that takes up the least amount of time – web site design and maintenance – turns out to have the greatest importance for this group of librarians (M 3.82). The activity which ranked second in terms of importance is developing new services (M 3.68), which was also the activity on which the respondents spend the largest part of their time. From this, one might conclude that the librarians who responded to the survey are busy trying to meet the needs of and develop new services for current patrons, and feel that these things are slightly more important than other activities. However, no activity achieved a mean ranking of less than 3.08, indicating that all of the tasks have some importance to the participants, regardless of the amount of time spent on each. (See chart 10).

Chart 10

Section 3 of the survey instrument asked respondents for demographic information about themselves and their libraries. Characteristics of the respondents have been covered in the Results section; characteristics of the libraries include respondents’ feelings of satisfaction that students, faculty/administration, and other groups (such as the local community, staff, etc.) make reasonable use of the library and resources. (See table 2). The results suggests that the survey participants are of two minds on library usage, with about half perceiving that the resources are appropriately used by all groups, and just under half feeling that the services and resources are not used well enough.

Table 2 Are you satisfied that these groups make reasonable use of your library’s resources?
	Yes	No
Students *	50%	50%
Faculty and administration*	53%	47%
Other groups, such as staff or local community ‡	61%	34%
*n = 38 ‡n = 36

Participants were asked to indicate which, if any, steps had been taken to improve usage by any group that was not making good use of the facility and resources. Twenty-two individuals selected seven common promotional tools used to reach reluctant patrons. (See chart 11).

Chart 11

Respondents were asked if their libraries have conducted marketing research on specific populations. (See table 3). Respondents were provided with an opportunity to share the results or information produced by any marketing research. Anonymous comments returned with the survey included:

“We learned that our most underserved group were departmental secretaries, particularly those who are sent to do library work by faculty members.”

“We found that the library as a place leaves a lot to be desired.”

“Didn't really tell us much we didn't know through experience.”

“We made changes to library website based on student surveys.”

“Does libqual [sic] qualify as a marketing tool? If so, we have used the results of this survey to set some strategies in motion to improve student library worker attitudes especially.”

Table 3 For which of the following groups has your library conducted market research?
	Yes	No
Students	94%	6%
Faculty and administration	12%	88%
Other groups, such as staff or local community	25%	75%
Not applicable	69%
n = 26

Respondents were asked about past promotional tools that had been utilized by their libraries (see chart 12), and to what effect. Many comments reiterated earlier statements regarding tools used to reach out to reluctant patrons. The primary difference between these queries concerned the response rate: nearly twice as many participants (n = 36) answered this question. One anonymous comment suggests that this person works in a dynamic library:

“We don't have a digital newsletter or library blog, but do have a decent webpage that we use. We also market a lot of new services in library instruction classes. We have a group called HILLGroup which works with teams consisting of a librarian, an ITS professional and a faculty member. That gets out a lot of info. about our library.”

Chart 12

Respondents were asked which tools had been used for advertising campaigns for the library. All but one respondent (97 percent; n = 37) cited the library website as a major tool for advertising and promotion. Library weblogs were used for promotion by just under one-fifth of the respondents, but none use the option called Rich Site Summary feeds (or Really Simple Syndication) of their “blogs.” RSS feeds provide either web content or summaries and a link to a site direct to subscribers via a software aggregator. That none of the respondents utilize this format suggests these libraries may not be on the cutting edge of technological innovations. Traditional advertising and promotional tools such as print materials seem to be more commonly used. (See chart 13). Past advertising campaigns have featured library services (95 percent); special events (62 percent); library collections (46 percent); and the library in general (32 percent) according to survey participants (n = 37).

Chart 13

Mission and vision statements are sometimes used by organizations as reminders for staff or policy guides for the public. Some libraries use mission or vision statements as “feel-good” promotional tools. Thirty-three, or 84 percent of the survey respondents (n = 39) indicated that their library has a mission statement. Of these, nearly three-quarters (72 percent) have the statement posted on the library website; 24 percent of respondents whose libraries have a mission statement say that it is not posted. Vision statements are not as common: of 37 respondents, only 15 (41 percent) stated that their library has a written vision statement. Sixty percent of those have posted it on the library website; 13 percent have posted it on a library bulletin board. One-third of the written vision statements are not posted.

Respondents (n = 37) were asked if their libraries routinely analyze transaction logs, circulation records, or other forms of patron data. (See table 4). Six participants wrote that they analyze the use of electronic journals and databases; five respondents monitor reference transactions. Visits to the library website are tracked by three respondents. Overall, the analysis of library statistics does not seem to be of great importance to the respondents – with the exception of monitoring circulation data.

Table 4
Which of the following does your library routinely analyze?
	Yes	No
Search transaction logs	33%	67%
Circulation records	85%	15%
Other patron data	54%	46%
n = 37

Respondents were asked in Section 4 for information related to campus activities in which their library may have participated. The events cited most often include: new student orientation; new faculty orientation; homecoming; and graduation. Several anonymous comments, elaborating on programs instituted at different libraries, may provide other librarians with inspiration; as to the usefulness of such events, one participant wrote, “The all-faculty wine and cheese party is a real hit.” For another respondent, reaching out to a segment of the campus community prompted this note, “We learned that our faculty were truly uninformed about current trends in scholarly publishing, pricing and copyright.”

Other suggestions included:

Theme-based scavenger hunts (using themes from the “Harry Potter” or “Lord of the Rings” novels).

Faculty meetings, in which a librarian with a laptop computer is available to answer questions or highlight specific resources, collections, or services.

Habitat for Humanity: librarians working together to build houses.

Display of senior honors theses.

“The library, the art department, and the English dept. co-ordinated to host a series of events in connection with national poetry month. The art dept. had a graphic design class use Natl poetry month as the topic for a poster assignment - and the library displayed the posters and hosted an opening. The English dept. scheduled a series of readings and the library hosted these events. The library also created a special display of poetry books and a "Post a Poem" bulletin board. All these events were advertised both inside and outside the library by posters, email, school & library website notices, and by vocal announcements.”

“We bring in all new faculty, introduce them to the realities and benefits of a small academic library (since most have just finished PhD programs at research institutions, this is a shock at first), pitch the value of library instruction, and finish with a wine and cheese party for all faculty in our Java City coffee bar.”

Respondents were invited to name a major strength of their library, and a major challenge for their library. Of 17 respondents, 11 (64 percent) cited the library faculty or staff as a major strength. One anonymous participant put into words what several others implied: that the major strength of his or her library is “a high-energy, forward-thinking, flexible group of librarians who really want to make this the best place it can be. They are all willing to try new things, make suggestions, and share what they learn.” Seven respondents (41 percent) mentioned the library collection as an important feature. Two respondents mentioned new facilities as a major strength.

Challenges facing these academic libraries were more diverse (n = 18): space (or a lack of it) for library collections was mentioned by four respondents (23 percent). Six participants (33 percent) noted that the expectations of students are a challenge. As one anonymous librarian wrote, “A generation of entering students who are familiar with the web for entertainment, shopping, and quick reference searches--these folks have heard all of their lives that it's "all on the web" and it's difficult to convince them otherwise. Meanwhile, we are balancing their needs against an aging faculty who want the student experience in college to mimic their own--from the 60's, 70's or 80's when it was all in print.” Another comment along similar lines: “Providing effective service in the face of changes in student expectations of the work & time that research should entail.” Five respondents commented that financial issues, from budget cuts to increasing costs for electronic journals and databases, are the major challenges facing their libraries.

Fifteen respondents commented when asked about what one change or improvement they would like most to see in their library. Over half (eight) stated a desire for physical improvements to the library facilities. Three people wrote of a preference for improved library management software systems; two would like to expand the services and hours that the library is open. One person stated very simply “more money,” and another participant wished for an improvement in communication “regarding what is available.” Evidence to support such changes or improvements come from student surveys, suggestion box or other informal feedback mechanisms, and faculty who actively advocate for the library with campus administrators.

Conclusion
The survey analysis revealed a concerned, caring group of leaders who seem to understand well the challenges to academic libraries. Administrators made up the largest segment of respondents to the survey; most have been around since personal computers were considered the cutting edge of technology and the world wide web was not yet realized. These individuals should not be viewed as uninterested technophobes, however. A great majority of the respondents actively embrace and incorporate marketing strategies into their daily routines. Many expressed an interest in learning more about the topic, to better serve their communities. The attitudes of these respondents toward marketing their libraries, services, and resources, are very positive. As one participant wrote, “Librarians and other academics are too afraid of the word “marketing,” probably because of its commercial connotations (including selling something that isn't necessary for the user). We have always competed in an information marketplace, often coming in third to private collections and information from friends and colleagues. Now we have to compete with much more extensive information available from the web. We can provide things that the free web can't, and we need to make sure that these are what our users need and want.”

Implications for further study
The survey instrument used was detailed and long; the possibility exists that all but the most ardent proponents or opponents of marketing opted to participate. The participants are primarily managers employed at academic institutions that likely support smaller user groups and have a more narrowly defined mission (a liberal arts education) than many larger, publicly funded universities. It would be useful to learn if their subordinates share their attitudes toward marketing, just as it would be useful to know how librarians in other types of academic institutions feel about the topic.

References

American Library Association. (2005). “ACRL’s Marketing @ your library page.” Accessed July 8, 2005, from http://www.ala.org/marketing

Archer, S. B. (2001). “Be all that you can be:” Developing and marketing professionalism in academic reference librarianship. Reference librarian, 73, 351-360. Retrieved June 17, 2005, from http://www.haworthpress.com

English, R. & Bridegam, W. (2005). A brief history of the Oberlin Group. Accessed July 8, 2005, from http://www.oberlingroup.org/about/about.php

Hart, J. L., Coleman, V., & Yu, H. (1999). Marketing electronic resources and services: Surveying faculty use as a first step. Reference librarian, 67/68, 41-55. Retrieved June 21, 2005, from http://www.haworthpress.com

Kumbar, R. D. (2004). The importance of marketing and Total Quality Management in libraries. Electronic journal of academic and special librarianship, 5(2-3). Retrieved June 14, 2005, from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v05n02/kumbar_r01.htm

Oberlin Group of Libraries. (2005). Member institutions. Accessed June 27, 2005, from http://oberlingroup.org/about/members.php

Rowley, J. E. (1995). From storekeeper to salesman: Implementing the marketing concept in libraries. Library review, 44(1), 24-35. Retrieved July 7, 2005, from Emerald Library Suite database.

Singh, R. (2003). Developing relationship marketing with customers: a Scandinavian perspective. Library management, 24(1/2), 34-43. Retrieved June 5, 2005, from Emerald Library Suite database.

Shontz, M. L., Parker, J. C., & Parker, R. (2004). What do librarians think about marketing? A survey of public librarians’ attitudes toward the marketing of library services. Library quarterly, 74(1), 63-84. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/LQ/journal/contents/v74n1.html

U.S. News and World Report. (2005). America’s best graduate schools 2006 [ranked in 1999]. Accessed July 12, 2005, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/lib/brief/lib_brief.php

Appendix A
Survey cover letter

Dear Librarian,

I am interested in the attitudes of library directors, heads of reference or public services, and outreach or other reference librarians in academic libraries that are members of the Oberlin Group toward the use of marketing and promotion as image-building tools for library services.

The attached survey contains questions, after earlier studies by Shontz, Parker, and Parker (2004), which solicit your opinion and information about marketing and promotion for academic libraries. Most questions can be answered by selecting from a choice of responses; the core of the survey (sections 1-3) takes about 10 minutes to complete. A final section contains a few questions that require some writing; if your time constraints do not permit you to complete this section, please consider it optional.

The survey may be completed electronically at http://www.isherartifacts.com/Survey.html by selecting the appropriate response; when you are finished, please click the “submit” button at the bottom of the form; or you may fill out the attached Word document and return it to me via email (pronia1@southernct.edu).

I am currently an MLS student at Southern Connecticut State University. This research will be used to partially fulfill requirements for the MLS degree. If you have questions about the study, please feel free to contact me. I am also employed by an institution in the Oberlin Group.

Thank you for your consideration and participation in this study.

Amy Proni
pronia1@southernct.edu

Appendix B
Survey instrument

Section 1. Please indicate your agreement with each of the following statements.

a.    ____ Strongly agree
b.    ____ Agree
c.    ____ Unsure
d.    ____ Disagree
e.    ____ Strongly disagree

1.    Marketing is relevant to the needs of academic libraries.

2.    Academic libraries should market themselves much like bookstores or other retail establishments might market themselves.

3.    Developing new products and services in an academic library is important.

4.    Evaluating the cost of academic library services is important.

5.    Effectively promoting academic library services is important.

6.    Marketing is primarily about providing better products and services to the user.

7.    Marketing is primarily used to persuade people to buy things they don’t need.

8.    Marketing is too expensive for small academic libraries.

9.    It is too difficult to apply marketing techniques to small academic libraries.

10.    Marketing the academic library requires resources that could be better spent elsewhere, such as in providing more services to users.

11.    Learning more about marketing techniques would be helpful to my work.

12.    Marketing is just hype.

13.    Academic libraries should never impose charges for their services.

14.    Public relations and marketing are important activities for academic librarians.

15.    Marketing tries to satisfy the wants and needs of customers while also achieving the goals of the organization.

16.    Marketing is an inappropriate activity for a professional librarian.

17.    It is important to make the academic community aware of everything the library has to offer.

18.    Academic libraries need to use marketing to survive in a competitive environment.

19.    Marketing is unnecessary because there aren’t enough resources to support current demands for the services of my academic library.

20.    An academic library that provides a full range of services should not need to market itself.

21.    It is important to monitor the wants and needs of potential patrons.

22.    Students and faculty already know what the academic library offers, so we don’t need to market ourselves.

23.    Marketing is not a high priority in my academic library.

24.    My academic library offers a broad range of services to the core constituents.

25.    I have been personally involved in marketing academic library services.

26.    I am knowledgeable about marketing techniques.

27.    Library school programs should require a marketing course.

Section 2. For each of the following marketing-related activities, please indicate the degree to which the activity is a part of your work, and then the importance you place on the activity.

a.    __ Large part of my work
b.    __ Some part of my work
c.    __ Little part of my work
d.    __ No part of my work
e.    __ Great importance
f.    __ Some importance
g.    __ Little importance
h.    __ No importance

28.    Advertising and promotion

29.    Newsletter, library weblog, or other written communications to my library’s primary audience

30.    Patron surveys

31.    Attracting new patrons

32.    Developing new services

33.    Website design and maintenance

Section 3. Please tell me about yourself and your library.

34.    How many students are served by your academic library? (Choose one)
a.    __ Less than 500 students
b.    __ 500 to 800 students
c.    __ 800 to 1200 students
d.    __ 1200 to 1700 students
e.    __ 1700 to 2500 students
f.    __ More than 2500 students

35.    What is your primary job responsibility? (Choose one)
a.    __ Library administration
b.    __ Outreach librarian
c.    __ Reference librarian
d.    __ Other (please specify)

36.    What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Choose one)
a.    __ Bachelor’s degree
b.    __ Master’s in Library Science (MLS)
c.    __ Master’s in a subject area other than Library Science
d.    __ MLS plus another Master’s degree
e.    __ Doctorate

37.    Did you take a course in marketing as part of your library education?
a.    __ Yes
b.    __ No
c.    __ Not applicable

38.    Did you take a course in marketing as part of other (non-library) education?
a.    __ Yes
b.    __ No

39.    Have you attended a course or workshop on marketing in the last 5 years?
a.    __ Yes
b.    __ No

40.    How many years ago did you complete your library education? (Choose one)
a.    __ Currently enrolled
b.    __ Within the past 5 years
c.    __ 6 to 10 years ago
d.    __ 11 to 15 years ago
e.    __ 16 to 20 years ago
f.     __ More than 21 years ago

41.    How many years of library experience do you have?
a.    __ 5 years or less
b.    __ 6 to 10 years
c.    __ 11 to 15 years
d.    __ 16 to 20 years
e.    __ 21 years or more

42.    What is your gender?
a.    __ Female
b.    __ Male

43.    What is your age? (Choose one)
a.    __ under 25
b.    __ 26-35
c.    __ 36-45
d.    __ 46-55
e.    __ 56-65
f.    __ over 66

44.    How many professional librarians are employed
a.    ______ in the library system at your institution?
b.    ______ in the facility where you work? (if you are in a branch or separate location)

45.    Do you feel satisfied that the following groups are making reasonable use of your library's resources? (Mark all that apply)
a.    ___ yes    ___ no*    Students?
b.    ___ yes    ___ no*    Faculty/administration?
c.    ___ yes    ___ no*    Other groups (staff, local community, etc.)

d.    *If no for any group, which of the following steps have you taken to remedy the situation?
    (Mark all that apply.)
i.    ___ Participation in student and/or faculty orientation
ii.   ___ Print newsletter
iii.   ___ Digital newsletter or weblog
iv.   ___ Sidewalk slogans
v.   ___ Direct advertising (such as library pens or pencils; clothing & gear)
vi. ___ Student surveys
vii. ___ Co-operative marketing with other educational departments
viii. ___ Other, please specify _______________

46.    For which of the following groups has your library conducted marketing research? (Mark all that apply.)
a.    __ students
b.    __ faculty/administration
c.    __ other groups (staff, local community, etc.)
d.    __ not applicable
i.    If marketing research was conducted for any of these groups, did it produce notable results/information?
1.    __ Yes (please elaborate on any results that you are willing to share)
2.    __ No (your comments are welcome)

47.    What steps has your library taken in the past to promote the library?
a.    ___ Student and/or faculty orientation participation
b.    ___ Print newsletter
c.    ___ Digital newsletter or weblog
d.    ___ Sidewalk slogans
e.    ___ Direct advertising (such as library pens or pencils; clothing & gear)
f.    ___ Student surveys
g.    ___ Co-operative marketing with other educational departments
h.    ___ Other, please specify _______________

48.    Which of the following medium does your library use for the advertising? (Mark all that apply.)
a.    ___ Flyers
b.    ___ Library newsletter
c.    ___ School newspaper
d.    ___ Local newspaper
e.    ___ Library website
f.    ___ School website
g.    ___ School radio or television station
h.    ___ Library weblog
i.    ___ Weblog RSS feeds
i.    ___ Other, please specify _______________________

49.    Which of the following best describes the focus of past advertising campaigns (Mark all that apply.)
a.    ___ The library in general
b.    ___ Library services
c.    ___ Library collections
d.    ___ Special events (readings, discussions, exhibits)?

50.    Does your library have a written mission statement?
    ___ Yes
    ___ No
    i. If yes, where is it posted?
1.    ___ Website
2.    ___ On library bulletin board
3.    ___ Other (please specify)
4.    ___ Not posted

51.    Does your library have a written vision statement?
    ___ Yes
    ___ No
    i. If yes, where is it posted?
1.    ___ Website
2.    ___ On library bulletin board
3.    ___ Other (please specify)
4.    ___ Not posted

52.    Which of the following does your library routinely analyze:
a.    ___ Search transaction logs
b.    ___ Circulation records
c.    ___ Other patron data (please elaborate)

Section 4. (The remaining questions require a bit of writing. If your time constraints do not permit you to complete this section, please consider it optional.)

53.    Please tell me about the last three campus activities in which your library has participated, following the format below. (These may include special events during Orientation, at Homecoming, or at annual local or national festivals.)

i.    Brief description:
ii.    Groups involved:
a.    ___ Students
b.    ___ Faculty/Administration
c.    ___ Others (please explain)

iii.    How would you rate the success of this activity:
a.    ____ Very successful in increasing awareness/use
b.    ____ Successful in increasing awareness/use

d.    ____ Unsuccessful in increasing awareness/use
e.    ____ Had negative impact on attitude/awareness/use

iv.    Comments:

54.    What is a major strength of your library? (please elaborate)

55.    What is the major challenge your library faces today? (please elaborate)

56.    What is the one change or improvement you would most like to see in your library tomorrow? (please elaborate)

57.    What evidence do you have from customers or patrons that suggest they would support the major strength, challenge, change or improvement in your library upon which you elaborated above? (please elaborate)

Thank you for participating in this study!
Please contact me after August 15, 2005 if you would like to learn about the results of this survey.
Amy Proni     pronia1@southernct.edu

Appendix C

Data analysis
Section 1. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with each of the following statements. (The scale in use is a Likert scale, with levels of agreement ranging from strongly agree to agree to unsure to disagree to strongly disagree.) Numerical values of 5 through 1 were used to provide average figures. n = 40 unless noted otherwise.

Nature of marketing
6. Marketing is primarily about providing better products and services to the user.
M 3.23. Results: 8 (20%) strongly agreed; 10 (25%) agreed; 5 (13%) unsure; 17 (43%) disagreed

7. Marketing is primarily used to persuade people to buy things they don’t need.
M 2.10. Results: 3 (8%) agreed; 3 (8%) unsure; 29 (73%) disagreed; 5 (13%) strongly disagreed.

12. Marketing is just hype.
M 1.85. Results: 1 (3%) agreed; 3 (8%) unsure; 25 (63%) disagreed; 11 (28%) strongly disagreed.

15. Marketing tries to satisfy the wants and needs of customers while also achieving the goals of the organization.
n = 39. M 3.85. Results: 7 (18%) strongly agreed; 20 (50%) agreed; 11 (28%) unsure; 1 (3%) disagreed.

Knowledge of marketing techniques
26. I am knowledgeable about marketing techniques.
M 3.03. Results: 2 (5%) strongly agreed; 11(28%) agreed; 14 (35%) unsure; 12 (30%) disagreed; 1 (3%) strongly disagreed.

2. Academic libraries should market themselves much like bookstores or other retail establishments might market themselves.
M 3.35. Results: 6 (15%) strongly agreed; 12 (30%) agreed; 12 (33%) unsure; 8 (20%) disagreed; 1 (3%) strongly disagreed.

11. Learning more about marketing techniques would be helpful to my work.
M 3.95. Results: 7 (18%) strongly agreed; 26 (65%) agreed; 5 (13%) unsure; 2 (5%) disagreed.

27. Library school programs should require a marketing course.
M 3.08. Results: 1 (3%) strongly agreed; 14 (35%) agreed; 12 (30%) unsure; 13 (33%) disagreed.

Use of marketing techniques in an academic setting
25. I have been personally involved in marketing academic library services.
M 3.98. Results: 6 (15%) strongly agreed; 30 (75%) agreed; 1 (3%) unsure; 3 (8%) disagreed.

14. Public relations and marketing are important activities for academic librarians.
n = 39. M 4.41. Results: 18 (45%) strongly agreed; 19 (48%) agreed; 2 (5%) unsure.

18. Academic libraries need to use marketing to survive in a competitive environment.
M 3.60. Results: 8 (20%) strongly agreed; 17 (43%) agreed; 6 (15%) unsure; 9 (23%) disagreed.

17. It is important to make the academic community aware of everything the library has to offer.
M 4.48. Results: 21 (53%) strongly agreed; 18 (45%) agreed; 1 (3%) disagreed.

5. Effectively promoting academic library services is important.
n = 39. M 4.77. Results: 30 (77%) strongly agreed; 9 (23%) agreed.

1. Marketing is relevant to the needs of academic libraries.
M 4.48. Results: 22 (55%) strongly agreed; 16 (40%) agreed; 1 (3%) unsure; 1 (3%) disagreed

21. It is important to monitor the wants and needs of potential patrons.
M 4.58. Results: 23 (58%) strongly agreed; 17 (43%) agreed.

The need to market the academic library
23. Marketing is not a high priority in my academic library.
M 2.68. Results: 11 (28%) agreed; 8 (20%) unsure; 18 (45%) disagreed; 3 (8%) strongly disagreed.

16. Marketing is an inappropriate activity for a professional librarian.
M 1.98. Results: 2 (5%) agreed; 4 (10%) unsure; 25 (63%) disagreed; 9 (23%) strongly disagreed.

22. Students and faculty already know what the academic library offers, so we don’t need to market ourselves.
M 1.60. Results: 1 (3%) unsure; 22 (55%) disagreed; 17 (43%) strongly disagreed.

20. An academic library that provides a full range of services should not need to market itself.
M 1.85. Results: 1 (3%) agreed; 2 (5%) unsure; 27 (68%) disagreed; 10 (25%) strongly disagreed.

8. Marketing is too expensive for small academic libraries.
M 2.18. Results: 3 (8%) agreed; 3 (8%) unsure; 32 (80%) disagreed; and 2 (5%) strongly disagreed.

9. It is too difficult to apply marketing techniques to small academic libraries.
M 2.03. Results: 8 (20%) unsure; 25 (63%) disagreed; and 7 (18%) strongly disagreed.

10. Marketing the academic library requires resources that could be better spent elsewhere, such as in providing more services to users.
M 2.25. Results: 1 (3%) strongly agreed; 3 (8%) agreed; 5 (13%) unsure; 27 (68%) disagreed; 4 (10%) strongly disagreed.

19. Marketing is unnecessary because there aren’t enough resources to support current demands for the services of my academic library.
M 1.88. Results: 1 (3%) agreed; 3 (8%) unsure; 26 (65%) disagreed; 10 (25%) strongly disagreed.

Evaluating services and associated costs
3. Developing new products and services in an academic library is important.
M 4.53. Results: 22 (55%) strongly agreed; 17 (43%) agreed; 1 (3%) unsure.

24. My academic library offers a broad range of services to the core constituents.
M 4.43. Results: 17 (43%) strongly agreed; 23 (58%) agreed.

4. Evaluating the cost of academic library services is important.
M 4.45. Results: 19 (48%) strongly agreed; 20 (50%) agreed; 1 (3%) unsure.

13. Academic libraries should never impose charges for their services.
n = 39. M 2.85. Results: 3 (8%) strongly agreed; 6 (15%) agreed; 13 (33%) unsure; 18 (45%) disagreed.

Section 2. For each of the following marketing-related activities, respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which the activity is a part of their work (large part – some part – little part – no part), and the importance they place on the activity (great importance – some importance – little importance – no importance). Numerical values of 4 through 1 were used for each scale to provide average figures.

28.    Advertising and promotion
M 2.78. 4 (10%) large part; 23 (58%) some part; 13 (33%) little part.
n = 39. M 3.28. 14 (35%) great importance; 22 (55%) some importance; 3 (8%) little importance.

29.    Newsletter, library weblog, or other written communications to my library’s primary audience
M 2.53. 2 (5%) large part; 19 (48%) some part; 17 (43%) little part; 2 (5%) no part.
n = 39. M 3.41. 17 (43%) great importance; 21 (53%) some importance; 1 (3%) little importance.

30.    Patron surveys
M 2.33. 17 (43%) some part; 19 (48%) little part; 4 (10%) no part.
n = 37. M 3.19. 9 (23%) great importance; 26 (65%) some importance; 2 (5%) little importance.

31.    Attracting new patrons
M 2.30. 4 (10%) large part; 11 (28%) some part; 18 (45%) little part; 7 (18%) no part.
n = 39. M 3.08. 12 (30%) great importance; 20 (50%) some importance; 5 (13%) little importance; 2 (5%) no importance.

32.    Developing new services
n = 39. M 3.33. 15 (38%) large part; 22 (56%) some part; 2 (5%) little part.
n = 38. M 3.68. 26 (68%) great importance; 12 (32%) some importance..

33.    Website design and maintenance
M 2.23. 3 (8%) great part; 13 (33%) say it is some part; 14 (35%) say it is a little part; 10 (25%) no part.
n = 39. M 3.82. 33 (85%) great importance; 5 (13%) some importance; 1 (3%) little importance.

Section 3. Respondents were asked for demographic information about themselves and their library.

34.    How many students are served by your academic library?
5 (12%) serve a student population of 800 to 1200 students; 14 (35%) serve 1200 to 1700 students; 15 (38%) serve 1700 to 2500 students; and 6 (15%) serve more than 2500 students.

35.    What is your primary job responsibility?
29 (72%) work in library administration; 2 (5%) work as outreach librarians; 7 (18%) work as reference librarians; 2 (5%) work as “other.”

36.    What is the highest level of education you have completed?
n = 39. 1 (3%) holds a Bachelor’s degree; 17 (44%) have a Master’s in Library Science (MLS); 18 (46%) have an MLS plus another Master’s degree; 3 (8%) hold a Doctorate degree.

37.    Did you take a course in marketing as part of your library education?
3 (8%) yes; 37 (92%) no.

38.    Did you take a course in marketing as part of other (non-library) education?
3 (8%) yes; 37 (92%) no.

39.    Have you attended a course or workshop on marketing in the last 5 years?
n = 39. 10 (26%) yes; 29 (74%) no.

40.    How many years ago did you complete your library education?
1 (3%) is currently enrolled in library school; 2 (5%) completed their education within the past 5 years; 1 (3%) graduated 6 to 10 years ago; 6 (15%) finished 11 to 15 years ago; 6 (15%) finished 16 to 20 years ago; and 24 (60%) respondents completed their education more than 21 years ago.

41.    How many years of library experience do you have?
Question 41 had to be thrown out. Due to an error in coding, all of the responses came in at the same value.

42.    What is your gender?
17 (42%) female; 23 (58%) male.

43.    What is your age?
3 (8%) are between 26-35 years of age; 4 (10%) are 36-45; 20 (50%) are aged 46-55; and13 (33%) are between 56-65 years old.

44.    How many professional librarians are employed in your library system?
One respondent works in a library system that employs 27 professional librarians. Nineteen respondents (49 percent) work in libraries that employ between 10 and 19 professional librarians and nineteen respondents (49 percent) work in libraries that employ between 4 and 9 professional librarians. Five (13 percent) of the respondents indicated they work in a branch library.

Top	Abstract	Introduction	Method
Results	Discussion	Implications	Appendix A

Author note
The author wishes to acknowledge the significant contribution of colleagues who reviewed and assisted with the editing of this research project. They are Michael McDonnell, Government Documents, Waldo Library, Western Michigan University; Dr. Stacy Nowicki, Upjohn Library, Kalamazoo College; Lisa Garofalo, Wendy Leseman and Mary Shah, classmates, Southern Connecticut State University; Gary Warren Niebuhr, Greendale Public Library; Laura McKay, Department of Information and Library Science, Southern Connecticut State University; Dr. Mary Brown, professor, Southern Connecticut State University; and Tullio Proni, patient (former) husband of the investigator.

End

return to top
Last updated 2007-06-11. ALR.