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

AbstractThis 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.

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”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 StudyTo 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.

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.

Analysis and Findings

Sample ProfileBy Type of Library63.33% respondents employed in College / University library23.33% respondents employed in Special Library10% respondents employed in School LibraryRest of the respondents are employed in either Retired or other

By Job Responsibility60% respondents engaged Library Administration15% respondents engaged Technical Section10% respondents engaged ReferenceRest of the respondents are either engaged Circulation or other

By Qualification28.33% respondents M.Lib.I.Sc.25% respondents M.Phil23.33% respondents PhDRest of the respondents are either B.Lib.I.Sc. or Others

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics and scale reliability for Promarketing, Antimarketing and Marketing Knowledge and Experience

Note: 7=strongly agree; 1=strongly disagree

Scales Statement or Item Respondents Mean Alpha Coefficient

Promarketing

Marketing is relevant to the needs of libraries 60 5.17

0.869

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

Antimarketing

Marketing is primarily used to persuade people to buy things they do not really need 60 3.60

0.812

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

Marketing Knowledge and Experience

I am knowledgeable about marketing techniques 60 4.27

0.799

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

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”

  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Promarketing

Between Groups 11.410 4 2.853 1.454 .229

Within Groups 107.940 55 1.963    

Total 119.350 59      

Antimarketing

Between Groups 20.164 4 5.041 4.238 .005

Within Groups 65.424 55 1.190    

Total 85.587 59      

Marketing Knowledge and

Experience

Between Groups 1.427 4 .357 .171 .952

Within Groups 114.562 55 2.083    

Total 115.989 59      

Table 6 ANOVA of Mean Scores on Promarketing, Antimarketing, Marketing Knowledge and Experience Attitude Scale, By Qualification

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)

Multiple Comparisons

AntimarketingTukey HSD

(I) Your highest qualification

(J) Your highest qualification

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error Sig.95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

B.Lib.I.Sc. M.Lib.I.Sc. .12346 .68014 1.000 -1.7948 2.0417M.Phil -1.12593 .68979 .484 -3.0714 .8195PhD .32593 .68979 .990 -1.6195 2.2714Other -.58025 .72710 .930 -2.6309 1.4704

M.Lib.I.Sc. B.Lib.I.Sc. -.12346 .68014 1.000 -2.0417 1.7948M.Phil -1.24938* .38130 .015 -2.3248 -.1740PhD .20247 .38130 .984 -.8729 1.2778Other -.70370 .44526 .516 -1.9595 .5521

M.Phil B.Lib.I.Sc. 1.12593 .68979 .484 -.8195 3.0714M.Lib.I.Sc. 1.24938* .38130 .015 .1740 2.3248PhD 1.45185* .39825 .005 .3287 2.5750Other .54568 .45986 .759 -.7513 1.8426

PhD B.Lib.I.Sc. -.32593 .68979 .990 -2.2714 1.6195M.Lib.I.Sc. -.20247 .38130 .984 -1.2778 .8729M.Phil -1.45185* .39825 .005 -2.5750 -.3287Other -.90617 .45986 .294 -2.2031 .3908

Other B.Lib.I.Sc. .58025 .72710 .930 -1.4704 2.6309M.Lib.I.Sc. .70370 .44526 .516 -.5521 1.9595M.Phil -.54568 .45986 .759 -1.8426 .7513PhD .90617 .45986 .294 -.3908 2.2031

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 

Table 7 Post HOC-HSD analysis for Qualification and Antimarketing

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.

  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Promarketing

Between Groups 4.959 4 1.240 .596 .667

Within Groups 114.391 55 2.080    

Total 119.350 59      

Antimarketing

Between Groups 14.116 4 3.529 2.716 .039

Within Groups 71.472 55 1.299    

Total 85.587 59      

Marketing Knowledge and

Experience

Between Groups 9.247 4 2.312 1.191 .325

Within Groups 106.742 55 1.941    

Total 115.989 59      

Table 8 ANOVA of Mean Scores on Promarketing, Antimarketing, Marketing Knowledge and Experience Attitude Scale, By Experience

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)

Multiple Comparisons

Antimarketing

Tukey HSD

(I) Number of years of

experience

(J) Number of years of

experienceMean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

5 or fewer

6 to 10 -.37895 .39373 .871 -1.4894 .7315

10 to 15 -.46667 .45251 .840 -1.7429 .8096

15 to 20 .60741 .72097 .916 -1.4260 2.6408

21 or more .81111 .44150 .363 -.4341 2.0563

6 to 10

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

10 to 15

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

15 to 20

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

21 or more

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 Post HOC-HSD analysis for Experience and Antimarketing

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.

  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Promarketing

Between Groups .756 1 .756 .370 .546

Within Groups 118.594 58 2.045    

Total 119.350 59      

Antimarketing

Between Groups .001 1 .001 .001 .976

Within Groups 85.586 58 1.476    

Total 85.587 59      

Marketing Knowledge and

Experience

Between Groups .259 1 .259 .130 .720

Within Groups 115.731 58 1.995    

Total 115.989 59      

Table 10 ANOVA of Mean Scores on Promarketing, Antimarketing, Marketing Knowledge and Experience Attitude Scale, By Marketing as Part of Course

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.

DiscussionCollege / 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.

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.

ReferencesCaplan, Audra. 2011. Changing perception. Public Libraries. Vol. 50 No. 1: 6-7Chartered Institute of Marketing (UK). Marketing. CIM Resource Glossary.

Accessed October 2013. http://www.cim.co.uk/Resources/Jargonbuster.aspxGrunewald, 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

Thank you