Trade Reference: Here To Stay or Going Astray?

When we think of reference books, most of us envision bulky multivolume sets neatly organized by number on the shelves of the library's Reference section. But to the librarian purchasing reference sources or to the editor at LJ sorting through the books to be assigned for review, the definition of reference is blurry at best. There is reference that clearly belongs in Reference, there is reference that looks browsable but has more value in circulating collections, and then there is reference that could and often does go into both. Commonly referred to as trade reference, this offspring has been around for as long as we can all remember, but contrary to what we might expect in this age of "instant access," it is not dying out, at least not judging from the number of such books being published every year.

Unlike multivolume reference, which has been gravely challenged by the Internet, trade reference is alive and, dare we say, kicking. Case in point: HarperCollins's creation of a whole new division, Collins Reference, which centers its publishing program on three series of accessible, glossy, one-volume reference books that challenge the format of reference in more ways than one. For example, the recently launched "Q&A" series on subjects like cats, birds, and presidential families abandons the traditional A-to-Z format in favor of a more user-friendly Q&A format. The "One Day in History" series, which focuses on such events as 9/11 and July 4, 1776, appears at first glance to be more alphabetical in approach, but there is plenty here as well that defies the definition of traditional reference. Looking at such books begs the questions: Just where is the line drawn? How do we know for sure how best to evaluate and shelve such books? And who should decide in the first place? Phil Friedman, vice president and publisher of Collins Reference, recently shared his thoughts on what it all means and where it's going.

In a saturated reference market, what helps the Collins brand stand out?

Collins has a broadly defined reference program. The core of it is our publishing relationship with the Smithsonian, in which we do books that mirror the areas of their institutional strength, primarily natural sciences, American history, air, and space. We also have a wider range of reference, including some standard works like Benet's Readers Encyclopedia and the new edition of Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. The main commonalities that make all these titles into a program are unique content, comprehensive and authoritative information, and great graphics. Also, we try to have a reading level that can appeal to both adults and young adults; our approach is very strongly "family reference." We are trying to do books that transcend merely learning for a test and that promote a love of learning for its own sake.

Traditional print reference has been shaken to its core since the advent of the Internet. Where does this leave the trade side of the industry?

I think it's fair to say the Internet has affected reference more than any other category. And I'd be the first to acknowledge that for some things, the Internet can be superior to a book, particularly if you are simply "looking up" a fact. But we think there is more to reference than just facts. A book promotes browsability and subtly creates a learning environment in a way the Internet, at present, just does not. We need to use each medium for what it does best. Books can do a better job in organizing and conceptualizing information, and a case can be made that they also make for better presentation, both of which are weaknesses of the Internet.

Public librarians are reporting a rise in popularity of trade reference. Why do you think that is?

One reason is affordability. Our upcoming Smithsonian series of eight titles, "Science 101," for example, can give a library a circulating minicollection on the sciences, from the basics like chemistry and physics to forensics and ecology, for around $100. When you consider what you are getting—the books have been vetted by Smithsonian curators, written by good science writers, are in full color with an average of three illustrations per spread—it's a great value compared to the cost of databases. We are also being told our titles fill a need in serving non-native English speakers, or people who are not computer literate. Such patrons are looking for illustrated reference, clearly written but without having the look of a children's book.

At present, Collins has no electronic strategy in place. Will this change in the future?

We are not in the forefront of e-publishing, but our titles are being placed into our digital warehouse. I think as a company we need to make our content more available electronically. Perhaps that will be through selective licensing for libraries, working through aggregators, or selling directly to consumers. The truth is, nobody knows what model will ultimately be accepted in the virtual world; our position is, our content is being made ready and we are willing to experiment to find the right model.