Who's Selecting Now?

“With our professional librarians pulled in so many different directions, we saw book selection as an area where we could relieve the pressure and still provide good collections,” says Kathleen Sullivan of Phoenix PL's hot-button decision to hand selection to its vendors. “It's most efficient when the vendor does the first cut and the library does the second cut,” counters Christopher Platt, Queens Library, NY. But many librarians won't even touch the vendor-generated notification lists Platt gladly picks over, concurring with Shawna Thorup, Fayetteville PL, AR, that such lists “can capture the best sellers but not the specialized. I don't think their exclusive use would best serve our community.”

Clearly, using vendors to help facilitate collection development is both controversial and complex. Many librarians see title selection as more than just a professional pleasure; it's the best way they can serve their various constituents while developing a true feel for the collection. Hence, the powerfully negative reaction to Hawaii's attempt at full-scale outsourcing a decade ago. Aimed at streamlining collection procedures while shifting the library's focus to public service, that move was met with a storm of criticism regarding both cost and the quality of the materials supplied (see “Outsourcing Model—or Mistake? The Collection Development Controversy in Hawaii,” LJ 3/15/97, p. 28–31).

After that, librarians trod carefully when asking vendors to do selection, throwing them only the occasional special project or opening-day collection (ODC). Many librarians have welcomed a mix of increasingly customized vendor selection options; with the steady upswing in centralized collection development, they also have gotten used to handing over selection, if only within the library system. (LJ's annual book-buying survey of public libraries estimates that by 2004, selection at six in ten multibranch systems was centralized; see “Facing Down the Crunch,” LJ 2/15/04, p. 38–40.) But convictions regarding the importance of librarians selecting for libraries held firm.

Now, with the pileup of responsibilities ranging from programming to outreach to web management, librarians must really shepherd their time, and vendor-based selection options can look more enticing. Even Thorup acknowledges that notification lists can be a decent stopgap when staff turnover or shortages loom, and some librarians have taken the next step. Concluding that vendor selection has come a long way, they've shaken off the Hawaii blues, tossed out the lists—which do allow users to adjust numbers or strike unwanted titles—and in some areas left selection entirely to the vendor. So far, however, few libraries have been nervy enough to follow Phoenix's lead and surrender the entire collection.

Phoenix's decision was hardly rash. Six years ago, after sending staff into the field to select for the branches, the Phoenix team discovered that only about 20 percent of the materials ordered originated with journals; along with standing orders, materials not reviewed—or not reviewed fast enough—comprised most of the rest. As a result, explains Sullivan, Phoenix's collection development coordinator, “We realized that we needed to use more staff to select, which we didn't have, or turn to the vendors.” That might have been a scary thought, but, in fact, Phoenix had been building new collections for several branches and was impressed with the lists the vendors had devised, which included titles the library's own selectors felt they never would have dreamed up themselves.

From there, it was a quick march to the heads of the library's two major vendors, Baker & Taylor (B&T) and BWI, to propose that they take over selection in its entirety. In subsequent meetings between library staff and vendor staff, Sullivan recounts, “We talked about how we pictured it working, they talked about how they pictured it working, we told them our budget and what we wanted, and we refined a plan.” The library's selectors became liaisons, charged with reviewing the vendors' lists and offering detailed analysis (including reports of any lapses) to Sullivan and Elsa Black, teen and children's collection development coordinator. Some funds were retained to purchase anything missed altogether or missed by a particular branch.

Now in its third year, the process continues to be revamped. For instance, the numbers or kinds of titles were off at some branches, and though the vendors listened attentively to complaints, the library soon realized that too much detail could backfire. “Being branch-specific throws off the entire collection,” observes Sullivan. “The vendor is going to be selecting for a system, and a title that may not seem of interest to one branch will be of interest as a whole.” Currently, Phoenix is testing a distribution plan based on popularity, with the smallest branches getting only the most popular materials and larger and then regional branches receiving progressively richer mixes; specialized titles purchased as single copies will be part of the collection at the Burton Barr Central Library. In working toward the optimum collection, “size of library, level of materials, and geographic spread are the important elements,” concludes Sullivan.

If the vendor experience has changed, however, it's mostly because Phoenix's librarians have changed the way they do business. Having shed selection, they can now focus on collection analysis—with some startling results. “The things we know aren't always the things that are true,” says Sullivan with a laugh when referring to her experience with the library's new turnover reports, done by the Dewey tens for adults and 100s for children. Coupled with shelf list reports, the turnover reports have revealed what's hot (computer books, travel, do-it-yourself, original genre fiction) and what's not (plays, older history books except classic titles), pushing the library to refine its vendor profiles and do some necessary weeding. The result—with help from a freshened web site, concedes Sullivan—is a stronger and more active collection. Since 2005–06, for instance, 3000 items have been tossed from the 300s (the social sciences), but circulation in this area jumped last year by 30,000. The turnover rate for religion, also deftly weeded, rose impressively from three to three and a half.

In the end, stresses Sullivan, “I'd rather be using librarians for analysis,” arguing that it's as much a professional activity as selection. In any case, the vendors point out that the employees responsible for building Phoenix's collection and plumping up holdings at other libraries are experienced librarians. “We're not there to replace librarians but to help them do their jobs better,” insists B&T's Jeff McDaniel, VP for sales, marketing, and account administration. “We're an adjunct to their staff, allowing them to concentrate on what makes their local library local.”

So far, Phoenix is the only library that leans on B&T for its entire collection (except audiovisual and children's fiction and nonfiction, handled by BWI). While McDaniel acknowledges that “there aren't a lot of Phoenixes out there,” he estimates that close to 1000 customers give B&T responsibility for part of the collection. Libraries requesting such help are generally already customers, and each will work out its own program. “We technically don't have a specific plan,” explains McDaniel. “We can modify our FirstLook program for this sort of thing.” Categories most frequently divested by libraries include hot fiction, children's award winners, New York Times best sellers, and media like the top 20 DVDs—high-demand materials that libraries would buy anyway. But the vendor can dig deeper. “The core difference now is the complexity and detail of the profiling,” explains McDaniel. “It's customized profiling instead of being customized by title, as with standing-order plans. Our selectors are taking it down to the next level.”

BWI also does an increasing number of partial selections—mostly in its signature area of children's material. In addition, librarians ask for help in “specialized areas like classical music CDs or the new format Playaway, and we get lots of requests regarding graphic novels and anime as well,” explains Bonnie Dieffenbacher, BWI VP for collection development and purchasing. Except for ODCs, says Joe Reynolds, VP and general manager of Ingram Library Services, it's “rare that a library asks us to create a list that it doesn't change or edit in some way.” But Brodart commonly handles special selection projects as well as ODCs and has taken a big bite out of collection development for several major clients. “Fiction, nonfiction, juvenile—we do specific parts and often combinations, either collections that need more help or that the library feels comfortable delegating,” explains Lauren Lee, Brodart's senior collection development librarian. Interest in this service was anemic in the years directly following Hawaii's experiment, says Lee, but more recently it has started to flourish.

Like their counterparts at B&T and BWI, the folks at Brodart take a getting-to-know-you approach to selecting for libraries, preferring to visit the library and check out both the collection and the patrons. Subsequent discussion probes selection policy, merchandising, community demographics, regional characteristics, key definitions (e.g., “What do you mean by literary fiction?”), and staff perceptions of the ideal collection. In the end, Brodart takes on budget management for its part of the collection and hopes that it has imparted some vision. “We have a perspective on what is being published and purchased that we get from being at the 30,000' level,” asserts Lee, echoing a comment from Phoenix's Black: “The vendor is watching out for our interests in a way that we never could.”

In the long run, libraries are opting for vendor selection in a range of areas, from best-selling no-brainers to audiobooks to outlying items like alternative rock CDs. It depends on what works best for a particular system. Morris County Library, NJ, lets Recorded Books choose its popular fiction titles on CD, for instance, because “the music and media supervisor decided to deemphasize staff time spent on audiobooks and concentrate more on music CDs, music reference, scores, and nonfiction DVDs,” says the library's Mark Anderson. On the West Coast, Seattle PL gets automatic delivery of its uncataloged paperback collection from B&T and, like many libraries, welcomes vendor selection in several world languages, opting for OCLC's services in this area.

Sharon Ufer Lavell, Pierce County Library, Tacoma, also relies on OCLC's Language Sets, particularly in the Asian languages and Russian, and she praises its breadth of material. In addition, she's happy to leave the selection of junior and YA graphic novels to Ingram, and she suspects that the library's current reassessment of its video holdings may spill into full-blown vendor selection. “We need to make choices about the best way to use our time and materials dollars,” concludes Lavell. “If vendors can match appropriate items to our communities with a tolerable fee, it makes sense to use their services.”

A tolerable fee; there's the rub. With vendors spending all that time doing selection, aren't the bills a lot higher? Actually, no—or at least not yet. Vendors may charge a value-added service per item cost, right along with the Mylar jacket, or by a percentage of the budget amount involved, or by the entire package. They might instead decrease the discount. But so far they are not charging by the hour, “so there are no surprise bills,” notes Director Marcia Au, Evansville Vanderburgh PL, IN, whose library is currently experimenting with vendor selection for adult fiction and easy readers and is pleased with the results. Each library sets up its own contract, and, though the bill is somewhat higher, for most libraries the increase seems to have been painless and easily absorbed. Certainly, administrators may find the increase preferable to incurring other costs. “Even as budgets improve, many governments would rather contract out this service than hire, house, and administer other staff,” observes Phoenix's Sullivan. As for the vendors, though selection chews up more staff time than creating lists, it's worth it simply to guarantee business. But who knows what the future will bring if more libraries go down this path.

With below-average per capita funding, Phoenix runs a lean, mean library machine. Elsewhere, librarians gratefully agree with Jennifer Salas, Martin County Library System, Stuart, FL, that “the main reason we do most of our selecting is because we have the time and staff to do it ourselves, so why not?” In the end, says Angelina Benedetti of the King County Library System, WA, where selection is still done by staff, the move to vendor selection “doesn't have to do with philosophical preference but the reality you are facing.” Some librarians managing tough workloads on tight budgets have simply found it expedient to pass up selection and shift their attentions to other demands. No librarian LJ spoke to reported staff cuts after the shift to vendor selection; instead, says Lavell, “Using vendors gives us time to spend on other collection-building activities.”

Is vendor selection the wave of the future? Though not herself an advocate, Jean Gaffney, Dayton Metropolitan Library, says libraries must be open to change: “Four years ago, I never would have agreed to centralized ordering, and now I'm committed to it.” But some librarians are having none of it, arguing that vendors just can't catch the nuances and deliver materials sufficiently tuned to the community. “What's obvious to you may not be obvious to the vendor,” says Queens Library's Platt. “The librarian has the best immediate grasp of what the library needs.”

Platt knows what he's talking about, having worked for six years as a selector in B&T's Collection Management Department, handling 15 to 20 libraries. Two years ago, he returned to the relative calm of Queens Library as coordinator of collection development. Platt praises the efficiency of vendor-generated notification lists, which allow librarians to select what's best for their community while leaving the drudgery to the vendor, and he dismisses the idea that vendors are interested only in selling books. “Every vendor wants a library to succeed within its community, and most vendors make a very clear distinction between marketing-based services—'pitching books'—and services based on customer-specific profiles.” But he's adamant about leaving the final selection to the librarian.

Like many of his colleagues, Platt points to the fine distinctions that separate library from library—distinctions that can be hard to catch via profiling. But his real concern with vendor selection is more practical: he sees it as a cumbersome process that just isn't good business for vendor or librarian. “Having worked on both sides, I see where the efficiencies are,” he comments, ruefully recalling that, at B&T, his bosses—the libraries he handled—could call at any time. “If the vendor does selection, there is still someone taking the time to do it.” Platt agrees that vendors are getting better at the selection business, but he cautions libraries to think twice about delegating beyond the must-haves; the vendor will have to do much more research, and some of it might not be so steady. What part of his collection might a vendor flub? “Urban fiction,” he offers. “So much is still published off the map, and those titles might not be in the vendor's database.”

When it comes to vendor selection, other areas that raise red flags among librarians nationwide include reference, genealogy, local-interest titles, special collections, teen collections, emerging fiction, and current books on politics. “We do try to represent all sides, but we find that only the Republican titles circulate well, so we are picky,” explains Martin County's Salas. In King County, Benedetti worries about small-press publications “and anything out of the clear blue sky, like books heard on the local NPR [station] but nowhere else or tied to our local programming. What about materials that aren't reviewed, or a midlist author publishing in paperback who gets a real boost with a hardcover? You'd have to have a process where you could fill special needs.” Of course, librarians using vendor selection can tweak their profiles and reserve funds for anything missed, just as librarians using notification lists can adjust them to meet specific needs. But many librarians worry that vendors can't be as responsive as staff on the floor to unexpected patron interest or sudden shifts in taste.

Beyond these concerns, some librarians have deep-seated qualms about vendor options of any kind. Sally Kramer, PL of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, finds notification lists “overall not useful and time-consuming. We still want to base selection decisions on reviews, not a title-only list.” Not all lists are title-only, of course—Seattle PL's vendor yanks together reviews from all the major sources and even delivers them electronically according to the library's grid. But a bigger problem with lists of any kind is the actual content, which some librarians find simply off the mark. Collection managers at the Santa Monica PL, CA, finally gave up and went back to creating their own, “so you understand why we are skeptical of vendor selection beyond the best sellers,” says the library's Nanette Schneir.

Even sure bets aren't always sure bets. “Sometimes a huge national best seller will not circulate well at our library,” says Salas, “but another title that has not gotten much national attention will.” As for those blockbuster first printings, “We do regard this with some suspicion,” notes Karl Helicher, director of Upper Merion Township Library, King of Prussia, PA. “After all, the more copies of a book printed, the more copies any self-respecting library 'must' buy.”

In the end, every library is unique, with circumstances that could make vendor selection problematic. Benedetti wonders what vendors would make of her system, where libraries “are found in double-wide trailers, single rooms in mountain communities, and urban settings.” Queens Library's Mary C. Little doesn't oppose vendor selection but can't see it working in a community that encompasses as many different languages and new immigrants as hers. Louise Schaper, director of Fayetteville PL, points out that her library has been built up from almost nothing in the last decade—it still doesn't have a collection development department—and serves a college town where people expect more than just best sellers. As a result, Schaper sees real value in engaging her staff. “It's powerful for librarians to do selection,” she suggests. “It helps them understand customer needs and know the collection, and it makes their job more faceted.” She won't reject the idea of vendor selection outright—“I see the advantage of more time spent in analysis,” she says—but she's not ready to go there just yet.

Many librarians continue to do their own selection simply because they can. Those compelled by interest or circumstance to investigate vendor selection should recognize that the vendor relationship works best when it's upfront and personal. Making sure that key staff understand the reason for vendor selection is important, as is getting to know the selector, who will be trained “just as you train your staff,” says Phoenix's Black. In addition, including the library's ILS representative in initial vendor meetings will make for a smoother plan.

Finally, a slow start-up is probably best. “I chose adult fiction as the first area [for vendor selection] because it seemed the 'easiest' to profile,” says Mollie Pharo of Evansville Vanderburgh PL. The library is considering full vendor selection, but Pharo worries about letting go of nonfiction. “Why? Control issues, complexity of decisions, the number of titles published, rapid changes in customer interests and collection needs,” she offers, voicing the concerns of every librarian at this crossroads. Ultimately, it's all about what works for your library.