Transcript Marketing of Library and Information Services: A Study of Librarians

MARKETING OF LIBRARY AND
INFORMATION SERVICES: A
STUDY OF LIBRARIANS
PERCEPTION
Presented By
Mukesh Pathak, Assistant Librarian
Dr. Amit Jain, Associate Professor
JK Lakshmipat University, Jaipur
2
Abstract
This paper explains the concept of marketing in
libraries and reveals the attitude and behavior of
library professionals regarding marketing concept in
India.
The study conducted using standardized scale shows
the perception of professionals on scales of
Promarketing,
Antimarketing
and
Marketing
Knowledge & Experience. The study also reveals
relative importance of promotional activities carried
out by the libraries.
3
Marketing Concept & Definition
Marketing in libraries implies reviewing the customer needs and
popularizing products & services offered by the libraries so that
the objective of maximum utilization of the library resources can
be achieved.
According to Kotler (2010) “Marketing is a social and managerial
process by which individuals and organizations obtain what they
need and want through creating and exchanging value with
others.”
The Chartered Institute of Marketing, UK defined “Marketing as
the management process responsible for identifying, anticipating
and satisfying customer requirements profitably”
4
Needs of Library Information Service (LIS)
Marketing
The challenge of being self-sustained and optimization of
benefits are common to public library, academic library attached
to institutions and special library.
The ability of libraries to promote their information products
and services to users effectively by improving available
services, developing new services, timely procurement of
information products like books, journals, proceedings, reports
etc. make it useful to all stakeholders.
5
Libraries are created for the users, as they are center of all
library activities. To understand their needs, service
requirements libraries need to use marketing techniques to
achieve the levels of highest user satisfaction with minimal
financial requirements.
The cost of print, online resources, operational costs, facilities
are increasing day by day, to recover these costs to some extent
libraries can expand their services to the other users and can
offer Institutional membership, personal membership, visiting
membership. This is only possible after applying effective
marketing strategies.
6
Librarian’s perceptions on marketing
Marketing concept for nonprofit organization is influenced after
the article by Kotler and Levy (1969) “Broadening the Concept
of Marketing”.
There is evidence that interest in marketing among librarians is
increasing now (Shontz, Parker & Parker, 2004). Most of the
writings have focused on discussion of the application of
marketing in the libraries and guidebooks, workshops
demonstration has been done on marketing techniques.
Perception and attitude of librarians towards “Marketing” is
more important than its application, because if they have
positive attitude then only able to understand and implement
effectively.
7
Review of Librarian’s Perception Studies
A study by Shontz, Parker and Parker (2004) “What do
Librarians Think about Marketing?: A survey of Public
Librarians Attitudes toward the Marketing of Library Services”
concluded that public librarians are becoming aware of the
importance of marketing library services specially
administrators and public service librarians are more positive
than reference and technical service librarians.
Caplan’s (2011) article “Changing Perception” explains that the
best marketing plan based on objectives, mission, vision and
values of library can provide maximum level of satisfaction to
its user.
8
Parker, Kaufman-Scarborough and Parker’s (2007) study
“Libraries in transition to a marketing orientation: are
librarians’ attitudes a barrier?” Explained that some library
systems have started developing marketing culture which
requires staff’s positive attitude towards marketing and very few
studies have been conducted to examine the attitudes of
librarians towards marketing in systematic ways.
Singh (2009) concluded that the positive marketing attitude of
library leaders are more required for the market oriented
behavior of library.
Rationale of the Study
9
Available studies have been conducted in foreign context. To
check perception of librarians in Indian context this study has
been designed by using established scales. The study provides
good insight into the psyche of librarians and suggests ways to
promote marketing of LIS.
Objectives of the Study
To know librarians’ perception of Marketing of Library and
Information Services.
To find relative importance of various promotional activities
carried by librarian for Marketing of Library and Information
Services.
To study impact of librarians qualification, experience and prior
exposure to marketing on his/ her perception towards marketing
of LIS.
10
Methodology
Present study has been conducted using instrument with Seven-
point Likert-scale and items for the scale were adopted from
pervious study conducted by Shontz, Parker and Parker (2004)
for public librarians in New Jersey.
The instrument consists of three scales viz, Promarketing,
Antimarketing, and Marketing Knowledge and Experience.
An online questionnaire was mailed on LIS forum
(http://lislinks.com), MANLIBNET group mail, Linkedin group
mail and e-mailed to some librarians for getting their responses.
Only 60 responses were received from the various library
professionals involved in different library environments and
activities. All responses are analyzed using SPSS version 16.
11
Analysis and Findings
Sample Profile
By Type of Library
 63.33% respondents employed in College / University library
 23.33% respondents employed in Special Library
 10% respondents employed in School Library
 Rest of the respondents are employed in either Retired or other
By Job Responsibility
 60% respondents engaged Library Administration
 15% respondents engaged Technical Section
 10% respondents engaged Reference
 Rest of the respondents are either engaged Circulation or other
By Qualification
 28.33% respondents M.Lib.I.Sc.
 25% respondents M.Phil
 23.33% respondents PhD
 Rest of the respondents are either B.Lib.I.Sc. or Others
12
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics and scale reliability for Promarketing,
Antimarketing and Marketing Knowledge and Experience
Scales
Promarketing
Antimarketing
Marketing
Knowledge and
Experience
Statement or Item
Respondents
Mean
Marketing is relevant to the needs of libraries
60
5.17
Libraries should market themselves more like business do
60
4.32
Knowing more about marketing techniques would be helpful to my work
60
4.92
Library need marketing to survive in an increasingly competitive
environment
60
5.22
Library school programs should require a course in marketing
60
4.73
Advertising and promotion are important to my library
60
4.95
Marketing is primarily used to persuade people to buy things they do not
really need
60
3.60
Marketing is too costly for most libraries
60
3.90
It is more difficult to apply marketing techniques to libraries than to
businesses
60
3.97
Marketing uses up resources that could be better used to provide more
services
60
4.80
Marketing is mostly hype and hustle
60
3.68
Marketing is inconsistent with the professionalism of a librarian
60
3.90
Marketing is unnecessary because we barely have enough resources to
meet current demand for library services
60
3.32
If a library already provides a full range of services, there is not much
need for marketing
60
3.57
Libraries do not need marketing because people already know what
services we offer
60
3.18
I am knowledgeable about marketing techniques
60
4.27
I have been personally involved in marketing library services
60
4.20
Advertising-promotion is a large part of my work
60
3.85
Attracting new patrons is a large part of my work
60
4.33
Developing new services is a large part of my work
60
4.62
Note: 7=strongly agree; 1=strongly disagree
Alpha Coefficient
0.869
0.812
0.799
13
Table 5 Importance of Marketing Related Activities
Activities
Respondents
Mean
Std. Deviation
Knowledge of Advertising / Promotion
60
4.93
1.593
Mailings / Newsletters
60
5.25
1.622
User Surveys
60
5.27
1.686
Attracting new Users
60
5.42
1.690
Developing new services
60
5.52
1.712
Table 5 shows the mean score and standard deviation of marketing related activities. Mean
of each activity is 4 and high shows importance of all marketing activities with “Attracting
new Users” and “Developing new services” rated as most important”
14
Table 6 ANOVA of Mean Scores on Promarketing, Antimarketing, Marketing
Knowledge and Experience Attitude Scale, By Qualification
Promarketing
Antimarketing
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
11.410
4
2.853
1.454
.229
Within Groups
107.940
55
1.963
Total
119.350
59
Between Groups
20.164
4
5.041
4.238
.005
Within Groups
65.424
55
1.190
Total
85.587
59
Between Groups
1.427
4
.357
.171
.952
114.562
55
2.083
115.989
59
Marketing Knowledge and
Within Groups
Experience
Total
Significant differences were found in case of Antimarketing and Post HOC analysis
using Tukey’s HSD was done to further explore the differences. (Table 7)
15
Table 7 Post HOC-HSD analysis for Qualification and Antimarketing
Multiple Comparisons
Antimarketing
Tukey HSD
(I)
Your
qualification
B.Lib.I.Sc.
highest (J)
Your
qualification
highest Mean Difference (IStd. Error
J)
M.Lib.I.Sc.
.12346
M.Phil
-1.12593
PhD
.32593
Other
-.58025
M.Lib.I.Sc.
B.Lib.I.Sc.
-.12346
M.Phil
-1.24938*
PhD
.20247
Other
-.70370
M.Phil
B.Lib.I.Sc.
1.12593
M.Lib.I.Sc.
1.24938*
PhD
1.45185*
Other
.54568
PhD
B.Lib.I.Sc.
-.32593
M.Lib.I.Sc.
-.20247
M.Phil
-1.45185*
Other
-.90617
Other
B.Lib.I.Sc.
.58025
M.Lib.I.Sc.
.70370
M.Phil
-.54568
PhD
.90617
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
.68014
.68979
.68979
.72710
.68014
.38130
.38130
.44526
.68979
.38130
.39825
.45986
.68979
.38130
.39825
.45986
.72710
.44526
.45986
.45986
95% Confidence Interval
Sig.
1.000
.484
.990
.930
1.000
.015
.984
.516
.484
.015
.005
.759
.990
.984
.005
.294
.930
.516
.759
.294
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-1.7948
-3.0714
-1.6195
-2.6309
-2.0417
-2.3248
-.8729
-1.9595
-.8195
.1740
.3287
-.7513
-2.2714
-1.2778
-2.5750
-2.2031
-1.4704
-.5521
-1.8426
-.3908
2.0417
.8195
2.2714
1.4704
1.7948
-.1740
1.2778
.5521
3.0714
2.3248
2.5750
1.8426
1.6195
.8729
-.3287
.3908
2.6309
1.9595
.7513
2.2031
Table 7 describes influences of qualification on Antimarketing attitude scale in detail. There were differences in
perception of respondents with PhD qualification, M.Phil and M.Lib.I.Sc. Where respondents with M.Phil
qualification slightly agreed on Antimarketing.
16
Table 8 ANOVA of Mean Scores on Promarketing, Antimarketing, Marketing
Knowledge and Experience Attitude Scale, By Experience
Promarketing
Antimarketing
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
4.959
4
1.240
.596
.667
Within Groups
114.391
55
2.080
Total
119.350
59
Between Groups
14.116
4
3.529
2.716
.039
Within Groups
71.472
55
1.299
Total
85.587
59
Between Groups
9.247
4
2.312
1.191
.325
106.742
55
1.941
115.989
59
Marketing Knowledge and
Within Groups
Experience
Total
Significant differences were found in case of Antimarketing and Post HOC analysis using
Tukey’s HSD was done to further explore the differences. (Table 9)
17
Table 9 Post HOC-HSD analysis for Experience and Antimarketing
Multiple Comparisons
Antimarketing
Tukey HSD
(I) Number of years of (J)
experience
5 or fewer
6 to 10
10 to 15
15 to 20
21 or more
Number
of
years
of
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
6 to 10
-.37895
.39373
10 to 15
-.46667
15 to 20
experience
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
.871
-1.4894
.7315
.45251
.840
-1.7429
.8096
.60741
.72097
.916
-1.4260
2.6408
21 or more
.81111
.44150
.363
-.4341
2.0563
5 or fewer
.37895
.39373
.871
-.7315
1.4894
10 to 15
-.08772
.43189
1.000
-1.3058
1.1304
15 to 20
.98635
.70821
.635
-1.0110
2.9837
21 or more
1.19006*
.42034
.049
.0046
2.3756
5 or fewer
.46667
.45251
.840
-.8096
1.7429
6 to 10
.08772
.43189
1.000
-1.1304
1.3058
15 to 20
1.07407
.74249
.601
-1.0200
3.1682
21 or more
1.27778
.47584
.069
-.0643
2.6198
5 or fewer
-.60741
.72097
.916
-2.6408
1.4260
6 to 10
-.98635
.70821
.635
-2.9837
1.0110
10 to 15
-1.07407
.74249
.601
-3.1682
1.0200
21 or more
.20370
.73584
.999
-1.8716
2.2790
5 or fewer
-.81111
.44150
.363
-2.0563
.4341
6 to 10
-1.19006*
.42034
.049
-2.3756
-.0046
10 to 15
-1.27778
.47584
.069
-2.6198
.0643
15 to 20
-.20370
.73584
.999
-2.2790
1.8716
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 9 describes influences of experience on Antimarketing attitude scale in detail. There were differences in
perception of respondents experience of 6 to 10 and 21 or more where respondents with 21 or more slightly agreed
on Antimarketing.
18
Table 10 ANOVA of Mean Scores on Promarketing, Antimarketing, Marketing
Knowledge and Experience Attitude Scale, By Marketing as Part of Course
Promarketing
Antimarketing
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
.756
1
.756
.370
.546
Within Groups
118.594
58
2.045
Total
119.350
59
Between Groups
.001
1
.001
.001
.976
Within Groups
85.586
58
1.476
Total
85.587
59
Between Groups
.259
1
.259
.130
.720
115.731
58
1.995
115.989
59
Marketing Knowledge and
Within Groups
Experience
Total
No significant differences were found in mean scores of respondents with marketing as part of
course and without in case of promarketing, Antimarketing and Marketing Knowledge and
Experience.
19
Discussion
 College / University librarians are becoming aware of marketing concept in
library field and majority of them are engaged in library administration.
 Mean score of promarketing items are 4 and above in table 4 shows that
majority of respondents are in favor of promarketing activities whereas
antimarketing mean ranges under 4 which shows that majority of
respondents disagree with antimarketing items except one “Marketing uses
up resources that could be better used to provide more services” where
librarians slightly agreed.
 This could be due to the fact that librarians are more service oriented so they
may be in perception that resources deployed on marketing can be better
used in library services to achieve the ultimate goal of library i.e. user
satisfaction.
 Whereas marketing knowledge and experience scales mean score shows
their knowledge and experience is high. Marketing knowledge should be
spread effectively among professionals by showing them practically how and
where they can implement it for the maximum utilization of resources and
services by users. Workshops and seminars should be conducted regularly
with practical or through case studies that will motivate professionals more.
20
Perception and attitude will be change if the proper knowledge
of concept is disseminated to the professionals for increasing
uses and importance of their library collections.
Although the finding of the study are based on a small sample
making this study less generalizable but it opens up new vistas
of research to further explore and investigate the domain in
details. It is recommended to conduct a detailed psychographic
analysis with a larger sample to future researchers.
There is more scope for research in this area to find out the
perfect ways and implementation techniques of marketing
activities in the libraries in Indian context.
21
References
 Caplan, Audra. 2011. Changing perception. Public Libraries. Vol. 50 No. 1:
6-7
 Chartered Institute of Marketing (UK). Marketing. CIM Resource Glossary.
Accessed October 2013. http://www.cim.co.uk/Resources/Jargonbuster.aspx
 Grunewald, J. P., Felicetti, L. A., and Stewart, K. L. 1990. The effect of
marketing seminars on the attitudes of librarians. Public Library Quarterly,
Vol. 10 No. 2: 3-10.
 Kotler, Philip ..et.al. 2010. Principles of marketing: a south Asian
perspective. New Delhi: Pearson.
 Kotler, Philip and Levy, S. J. 1969. Broadening the concept of marketing.
Journal of Marketing. Vol. 33: 10-15.
 Parker, Richard, Kaufman-Scarborough, Carol and Parker, Jon C. 2007.
Libraries in transition to a marketing orientation: are librarians’ attitudes a
barrier?. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
Vol.12: 320-337 (DOI:10.1002/nvsm.295)
 Shontz, Marilyn., Parker, Jon C., and Parker, Richard. 2004. What do
librarians think about marketing?: a survey of public librarians attitudes
toward the marketing of library services. Library Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1:
63-84
22