"The defenders of the demand theory stoutly assert the
privilege of the reader to go his own merry way to damnation
without a librarian rushing to his rescue with a reader ladder
just before the flames close in." ~ Margaret Monroe
"Charles Elliott, a British librarian of distinction, has
commented that the reader should be given 'not what he wants, not
what we think he ought to want, but ... the best that he is able
to assimilate.'" ~ Margaret Monroe
In 1877, Dewey noted: It is better to buy a second-rate
book that is sure to be read, than a first-rate one that will
stand idle on the shelves.
This is the demand-oriented
selector; one who selects on the basis of likely popularity or
demand. John Ruskin voiced a different opinion when he said that:
"All books are divisible into two classes--the books of the
hour, and the books of all time."
He was a value-oriented
selector who believed that the "books of the hour" were likely to
be ephemeral and of little lasting consequence. Selectors should
select works of quality because they are likely to be of lasting
value.
This is a popular political issue favored by some conservatives. For example, in 1993, 3500 Wake County, N.C. residents petitioned the county public library system to improve the quality and utility of collection by selecting less commercial fiction and popular biography. Here, the assumption seems to be that if an item is really popular it is likely to be of poor quality and thus ephemeral.
The relationship between popularity and quality is an
interesting one. Many assume that they are absolute opposites.
Thus, a popular item must be of marginal quality and an unpopular
one may be of good quality. The evidence here is mixed. Obviously,
some popular items are of little quality -- The Wicked and the
Whipped [a made-up title] -- while others-- The Tale of
Two Cities, for example--were popular from the beginning and
are considered classics today. Nearly all of the most popular
scholarly works are also works of some quality. It may be helpful to
examine best seller or most popular lists of your choice for
formats of interest and attempt to identify how many popular
items are of reasonable or better quality. This would be an
interesting research project.
Value-oriented selectors focus on "goodness." They attempt to
select only the best items. Until quite recently, this
was the only major philosophy for most collection
developers and it fit well with the notion of preserving the best
for the use of future generations. Thus, the selector had to
understand "goodness" and be able to identify good items. As a
traditional library selector said: In due time, selection of
the good should become as unconscious as the correct fingering of
his instrument is to the musician skilled through long periods of
conscious and even mechanical practice.
Another perspective
is to say that the value-oriented selector has
"taste." Taste, however, may not easily be learned.
Because of genes, environment or whatever some people have taste
and others do not.
Goodness is associated with "needs." A need is what
is good for one or for the larger community. Needs are associated
with the diagnostic, prescriptive nature of the professional.
Professionals prescribe. They do not give people what they want.
Goodness is also associated with "supply" rather than demand.
Some value-oriented selectors assume that if good material is
selected, people will use it. This is not likely without
considerable promotion and the right sort of community.
Those in this camp are often critical of demand-oriented
selection. As Murray Bob said: "The notion of consumer
sovereignty ... overlooks the question of consumer competence and
education or the lack thereof, and the fact that there are vested
interests hyping -- which is to say lying -- about products in
order to sell more."
Demand-oriented selectors focus on "popularity." They attempt to select only those items likely to be popular and heavily used in the near future. Although still a minority philosophy, it has become much more popular over the years, especially when funding is limited. Thus, a public library collection would be similar to that of a chain book store. The selector must know what will be "popular." Demand-oriented selection is associated with "wants." Wants are simply what people ask for or are likely to ask for. In a fee-driven world, wants are what people are willing to pay for. The Baltimore County Public Library has long favored this approach. As Gary Deane said,
"it is customers, one at a time, who define a library's value. This value is realized in the usefulness, the quality, and the availability of the library's products and services, as well as the customer support that accompanies them." ... For public libraries to start supplying enough current, high-demand, and high-interest materials in a variety of formats to both satisfy and to increase customer demand, libraries must improve their forecasting accuracy and begin to satisfy demand by delivering more product that people want when they want and need it. .... The value of a library does not depend on how many books it has; it depends on how many books it has that people actually want to use."
Some who are enthusiastic about demand-oriented selection,
nevertheless note that some demands may be inappropriate. Others
suggest that demand can be modified with education and
guidance.
While there is no need for diagnostic or prescriptive skills to identify wants, the ability to forecast or predict what people will be interested in, a sort of market research, is essential. Taste or the ability to discriminate between the good and the not so good becomes less important than research or marketing initiatives designed to identify wants. It is also important to be able to predict likely amount of demand so the selector knows how many copies to order. A few libraries use "speed reads" to increase availability of high demand titles. These items circulate for only one week and have a more substantial overdue fine.
Demand-oriented selectors claim that their approach is
democratic since users (essentially) select what they wish to
read, view, listen to, or use. They see value-oriented selection
as elitist where "experts" tell people what is good for them.
Value-oriented selectors would say that this approach is
unprofessional and inhibits the growth of a community by
supplying it with lowest common denominator items, often created
by large businesses who care more about profit than the common
good.
Anticipation of demand, i.e. what will be hot, is an essential
to successful demand-oriented selection. Stock-outs
create customer distrust and loss of business.
Users, actual and potential, vary notably in their skill and
experience. Meeting user needs and wants varies enormously
according to these variables. Here are some notable
attributes:
There is a strong, statistically significant correlation between the number
of reviews and the number of holding libraries. To the degree
that reviews encourage selection of higher quality items, they
reinforce demand-oriented selection. Thus, proxy selection
results in certain items being selected while those not reviewed
are ignored.
A simplified view of the notion of the reading ladder is that readers (viewers, listeners) become bored with lower quality content and can be persuaded to move up the ladder to read material of better quality. If this seems reasonable, a selector might feel more comfortable selecting popular (but lower quality) material when knowing that soon the user would be moving up to items of quality. In a sense, popular material could be the loss leader that attracts traffic. Once customers are in the shop, they will see the variety of quality material available, they can be exposed to reading guidance, and all sorts of good things can happen. Thus, the reading ladder assumption provides a reasonable rationale for the value-oriented selector to select some popular material of indifferent quality.
As professionals, we need to begin with where our users are. We acknowledge popular items, select the very best from this category, and help users to understand the satisfaction, enjoyment, and personal growth resulting from reading, viewing, listening to, or using the best. Reader guidance is one traditional way of helping children, for example, to try appropriate, higher quality items. It also works well for libraries serving adults, especially with popular fiction [readers' advisory work].
Considering your own reading (or viewing, listening.....)
experience and that of those that you know, does the reading
ladder seem reasonable? Is it likely that people will use poor
quality popular content, become bored, and over time read better
and more challenging material? Is it likely that we can change
their taste via exhibits, programs, reading lists, and other
forms of reading (or whatever) guidance? Should we change their
taste?
To what degree should the collection in a public library resemble that in a national chain bookstore? Why?
Discuss your own philosophy of collection development. To what degree are you value-oriented or demand-oriented? Why? What rationales can you provide for your position?
Consider your own experience and knowledge. How likely is it that the most popular items will be of poor quality? Can you identify situations in which popularity and quality are likely to be associated?
You are responsible for collection development in a library similar to the public library nearest to where you live. A citizen's group with some political clout has begun a campaign to "encourage" the Library Board to discourage the selection of popular fiction, especially genre fiction, and popular non-fiction, especially self-improvement and new age items. The notion is that the library should only select items of quality and those likely to be of lasting value. How would your respond and why?
