Collection Development Patterns of Fiction Titles in Public Libraries.pdf

7/30/2019 Collection Development Patterns of Fiction Titles in Public Libraries.pdf

1/25

Library & Information Science Research, Volume 22, Number 1, pages 3559.

Copyright 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-8188

35

Collection Development Patterns of

Fiction Titles in Public Libraries:The Place of Independent and Small Presses

Juris Dilevko

University of Toronto

Alison Hayman

Transport Canada

Recent scholarship has identified increased corporate control of the newsand book publishing industries as a worrisome trend insofar as it has meanta decrease in the sites where diverse public expression is allowed to occur.Public libraries are major buyers of fiction titles, yet mainstream commer-cial publishers owned by large conglomerates now publish a large portion ofall available fiction despite the proliferation of small, independent presses.This article looks at the fiction purchases of public libraries in the UnitedStates which are members of OCLC by type of publisher in the period

19941997, and then compares these purchases with those of Barnes & No-ble bookstores. While Barnes & Noble seems to have significantly in-creased its purchases from small, independent presses during this four-yearperiod, public libraries have not done so. Yet, in general, public library fic-tion purchases do reflect both the availability of independent titles and theirrate of appearance in popular collection development review tools.

The outsourcing of collection development by libraries to private sector vendorshas become, in the past five years, a thorny issue that has occasioned much anguish

among library professionals. While the debate may have initially turned on thetechnical competencies of vendors to provide a broad array of titles, it quickly be-came a focal point of controversy about the extent of privatization and corporatecontrol of the public sphere that libraries are said to represent. As summarized byOder (1997), the practice of outsourcing was forcefully brought to the attention ofthe library community by the decision of the Hawaii State Public Library System toentrust its book and serial buying functions to a private company. Negative reac-tion, Oder reports, was not long in coming, as local librarians decried the new

Direct all correspondence to: Juris Dilevko, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Information Studies, 140 St.George St., University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G6

[email protected]

.


2/25

36 Dilevko & Hayman

Wal-Mart Approach to library services and argued that one of the core compe-

tencies of libraries was not only to access information, but also culture (p. 28).Schneider (1998), while suggesting that outsourcing represented the culmination ofMalthusian efficiency measures, also argued that a recourse to outsourcing im-plied that librarianship was not being treated like a grown-up profession insofaras library services were now reduced to generic commodities (pp. 6667).

Willett (1998) specifically linked outsourcing to corporate control of public sitesof expression. In this regard, he follows in the footsteps of Schiller (1989), who iden-tified libraries, schools, and museums as sites where corporations had colonizedpublic consciousness (pp. 66110). Referring particularly to academic libraries, Wil-

lett (1998) contended that outsourcing approval plans to vendors creates a preju-dice against the alternative press [because] [b]usiness is guided by the interests ofcorporate America rather than providing exposure to all points of view (p. 91). Forhim, outsourcing is not merely a means of cutting costs, but, instead, explicitly pointsto the issue of increased corporate control of public institutions and discourse identi-fied by Schiller (1989). To bolster his point, Willett (1998) provides a list of ten hid-den consequences of outsourcing library selection. These consequences run thegamut from loss of collegiality and range of knowledge among deskilled andcommodified staff members, to the evisceration of the Library Bill of Rights

so as tofacilitate access to corporate products by middle-class consumers, and to the

creation of a global network of misinformation depots with numerous politicaland social implications for democracy, peace, and social justice (p. 95).

Schuman (1998) similarly views outsourcing in a broader context of privati-zation. The outsourcing of collection development functions, she believes, wasonly an inevitable precursor to the decisions of public libraries in Riverside andCalabasas (both in California), and Jersey City (New Jersey) to turn over com-plete operation of their libraries to a for-profit company called Library Systemsand Services. Accordingly, she fears that traditional library goals of access, eq-uity, diversity, and multiplicity of viewpoints will be compromised by private

control of libraries. In conclusion, Schuman suggests that the privatization ofpublic services such as libraries is the culmination of a long campaign to dis-mantle government and has the potential to violate the public trust insofaras libraries are held hostage to the whimsy of the marketplace (p. 52).

Since outsourcing is, in many respects, a response to financial constraints im-posed upon library systems by various levels of government, libraries have begunto turn to private sources of funds. Thus, the consternation about collection devel-opment outsourcing has intensified the debate about the philanthropic partner-ships libraries forge with private sector companies. For instance, Berman, in a mod-

erated discussion with Mielke (Mielke & Berman, 1998), observes that libraries runthe risk of becoming shills for enterprises that frequently are more concernedabout marketing their wares than in really promoting literacy, democracy, or self-empowerment (p. 43). Berman is especially caustic about the circumstance that,because these partnerships and collaborations rarely involve labor, consumer, andanti-poverty groups, they uniquely favor one political and economic interest over a


3/25

Collection Development Patterns 37

lot of others (p. 44). Much like the arguments put forward by Willett (1998) and

Schuman (1998), Bermans concerns reflect a skepticism that corporations will beable to put aside their quest for increased profits and market share in the service ofother values more important to the library and the society which it serves.

To say the least, the introduction of outsourcing in libraries has occasioned alively exchange of viewpoints, and, as is to be expected, not all reaction to out-sourcing has been uniformly negative (see, e.g., Dubberly, 1998). One questionthat has not been raised in this controversy, however, is the extent to which librar-ies, even before the question of collection development outsourcing was high-lighted, had already become what Schiller (1989), quoting the German social and

political philosopher Hans Magnus Enzensberger, described as sites for the in-dustrialization of the mind an industrialization brought about by an often un-recognized corporate presence (pp. 8990).

1

To be sure, the commercializationand privatization of information sources, reflected in the institutionalization offees and levies for such information sources in libraries, is one aspect of a growingcorporate presence in libraries (see, e.g., Coffman & Freedman, 1997). However,there are other, perhaps less obvious though no less real, manifestations of a grad-ual movement away from public to corporate expression (Schiller, 1989, p. 88).

The purpose of this article is to explore one aspect of this hidden industrial-ization of the mind in public libraries in the United States. While there has been

a concerted body of work in the broad field of communications theory about cor-porate concentration in media and how such concentration allows for the estab-lishment of what Gitlin (1980) has famously referred to as the systematic (butnot necessarily or even usually deliberate) engineering of mass consent to the es-tablished order (p. 253), relatively little research has been done about the subtleways in which libraries are implicated in giving a platform for the corporate voice.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The ever-increasing corporate control of news media outlets, whether print,television, radio, or Web-based services, has been thoroughly documented byAuletta (1997b), Bagdikian (1997), Herman and McChesney (1997), Schiller(1997), and Schiller (1998). And, as Bates (1998) observes, even American al-ternative newsweeklies are experiencing an erosion of the diversity of inde-pendent ownership that once set [them] apart from the mainstream press (p.12). Some implications of such corporate control for academic libraries werediscussed by Dilevko and Grewal (1997) who show, through an analysis of the hold-ings of socio-political journals in Canadian academic libraries, that the number of

corporate-published titles of such journals far surpassed the number of such journals

1 A selection of Enzensbergers work may be accessed, in English translation, in The con-sciousness industry: On literature, politics, and the media

, selected and with a postscript byMichael Roloff (New York: Seabury Press, 1974).


4/25

38 Dilevko & Hayman

published by independent small presses. Moreover, they show that online electronic

vendors were also supplying many more corporate-published socio-political titlesthan independent titles, thus raising troubling questions about the actual diversity ofviews available in academic libraries subscribing to those electronic services.

Marinko and Gerhard (1998), while not specifically commenting on the dom-inant place corporate-published journals have in American university researchlibraries, present evidence that periodicals indexed by theAlternative Press In-dex

(and, thus, published by small, independent presses) are underrepresentedin academic library holdings. Particularly low holding rates were found for titlesin the categories of leftist/Marxist politics, gay/lesbian issues, and labor. While

Enzensberger and Schillers notion of the industrialization of the mind ismost readily apparent through holdings analyses, Dilevko and Grewal (1998)also show how reliance on corporate-published news sources could have an im-pact on reference work. Dilevko (1998a, 1998b), comparing the treatment ofnews stories dealing with the same topic in corporate-published newspapers andindependent publications, offers suggestions for conducting bibliographic instruc-tion classes in academic libraries so that students are made aware of news mediabiases stemming from corporate control of news sources. Little attention, how-ever, has been paid to how corporate control may present itself in public libraries.

Corporate control of information sources is not confined to news dissemina-

tion media. As outlined by Miller (1997), eight conglomerates with vast and di-versified holdings in, for example, television, radio, cable, and the entertain-ment industry, dominated the trade book market in the United States in 1996.Their books are marketed under more than 100 different imprints. These eightcompanies were: Hearst; News Corporation; Pearson PLC; Viacom; AdvancePublications; Bertelsmann AG; Time Warner; and Holtzbrinck. In early 1998,Advance Publications sold its main imprint, Random House, to BertlesmannAGa circumstance which reduced the number of publishing giants to seven(Miller, 1998). The extent of the control that these conglomerates have in

American book publishing may be gauged by statistics about market share pro-vided by Book Publishing Report

, an industry newsletter. In 1996, the ten lead-ing U.S. trade book publishers possessed 68.3% of total market share. This listof ten publishers cited by Book Publishing Report

is, except for the religiouspublisher Thomas Nelson, the same as Millers list. Thus, when Thomas Nelsonis disregarded in calculating market share, the corporations which appear onMillers list possess 66.2% of total U.S. market share in trade books.

2

Based on

2 Millers (1997) list of eight corporations took into account the fact that, in early 1997, Pear-son PLC bought Putnam Berkley. The list provided by Book Publishing Report

, on the otherhand, counts Putnam Berkley as a separate publisher, although it adds a notation about thetakeover. Accordingly, the nine top publishers (disregarding the tenth ranked religious pub-lisher Thomas Nelson) mentioned by Book Publishing Report

are exactly coextensive withMillers listing of the eight top publishers. In addition, the imprints controlled by the seven pub-


5/25


figures contained in Book Publishing Report

, total revenue of all U.S. trade

book publishers in 1996 was $7.158 billion; the net revenues of the seven domi-nant corporations were $4.7383 billion.

3

The concentration of market power in the book publishing industry has ledcommentators such as Schiffrin (1997) to worry about the possibility of marketcensorship or the application of market theory to the dissemination of cul-ture (p. 80). He points out that, while book publishers have traditionally beensatisfied with profit margins of between 2% and 4% after taxes, the conglomer-ates currently dominating the industry have insisted that the profitability ofthe book publishing arm should be similar to the high returns they demand

from [their] other subsidiaries (p. 81). Accordingly, new profit targets of be-tween 12% and 15% have been established. The result of the application ofmarket theory for book publishing is that the nature of what gets published haschanged. An overarching question has now become whether each book will sella certain number of copies and thus make a sufficient profit. The practicewhereby a few bestsellers subsidize all other money-losing titles is becomingobsolete. In this regard, Schiffrin (1997) remarks upon the rise of publishingcommittees, in which . . . financial and marketing people play a pivotal role (p.80). Auletta (1997a) notes that [m]any houses now have procedures to insurethat before editors buy a new title they review a profit-and-loss statement of the

authors previous work (p. 59). Looming over everything else, both Schiffrinand Auletta make clear, is the increased emphasis on the payment of huge ad-vances for bestsellers and the concomitant gradual elimination of mid-listbooks that accountants have determined will never make back their costs. AsSchiffrin observes, there is a very real danger of an increase in the homogeneityof books, especially fiction titles, as commercially incorrect books graduallydisappear under the impress of market-testing (p. 84). Miller (1998) quotes oneliterary agent as saying that, as publishers become conglomerates, there willbe a much smaller market for the smaller books and first novels (p. A27).

At the same time, a steady growth in the number of small, independent pub-lishers has been documented. Carvajal (1997) reports that Publishers GroupWest, the largest U.S. distributor of books from independent publishing com-

lishers still remaining in 1998 after the sale of Random House by Advance Publications to Ber-telsmann AG are exactly the same as the number of imprints controlled by the eight top pub-lishers in 1997.3

Book Publishing Report

does not specifically provide the total net revenue figures quotedhere. Instead, it provides the net revenues of each of the top ten publishers, and then statesthat the market share of these ten publishers in 1996 was 68.3%, a slight increase from a mar-ket share of 67.9% in 1995. Based on these data, a simple mathematical calculation was madeto find the total revenues of all U.S. trade publishers ($7.1579 billion). And, to calculate themarket share of 66.2% for the top nine publishers quoted in the text above (which are thesame as Millers [1997] eight top publishers), the net revenue for the tenth ranked religiouspublisher Thomas Nelson ($150.6 million) was subtracted from the total net revenues($4.8889 billion) of the top ten publishers.


6/25

40 Dilevko & Hayman

panies, has seen its sales, over the past few years, increase from $14 million to

almost $100 million. Pochoda (1997) notes how university presses are concen-trating more on titles for a general audience, publishing both fiction and non-fiction titles that would have formerly found a home with large commercialpublishers. Barbato (1998) and Hoffert and Kinsella (1996) present a wide-ranging account of the burgeoning small, independent press movement in jour-nals aimed at library professionals.

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

The purpose of this research was to determine the extent to which library collec-tions, specifically fiction holdings, in public libraries in the United States are dom-inated by the imprints published by the seven corporate conglomerates mentionedin the previous section. The measure used to gauge fiction holdings of public li-braries was the number of purchases (additions to holdings) of fiction titles fromeither corporate or independent publishers during the period 19941997. At theclose of 1997, these seven companies were: Hearst; News Corporation; PearsonPLC; Viacom; Bertelsmann AG; Time Warner; and Holtzbrinck. A subsidiaryquestion examined the extent to which two major fiction selection tools reviewed

books published by corporate presses and independent presses. Fiction bookswere selected as the unit of analysis because independent presses tend to be moreactive in the fiction realm than in non-fiction, as evidenced by Schiffrins (1997)comment that particularly in fiction and poetry there exists a new generation ofpublishers who, because they are willing to tackle subject matter that may not becommercially viable, have come close to replacing their older and larger compet-itors (p. 84). Public libraries were selected as the focus of the study because statis-tics have consistently shown that fiction is by far the most common item checkedout by adults in public libraries (Senkevitch & Sweetland, 1998; Vavrek, 1990).

As a basis of comparison, this research used data presented in Carvajal(1997) and Rosenwein (1998) about the purchasing patterns of the Barnes &Noble bookstore chain. Carvajal writes that in its report on its third quarter,which ended in late October, the company noted that purchases from the top 10publishers had declined to 46% from 74% three years ago (p. D8). Rosenweinsubstantiates these figures. While the articles do not further define what theymean by the top 10 publishers, it is more likely than not that the definitionbeing used is the same as that employed by Book Publishing Report

insofar asthis newsletter is accepted as an industry standard. Moreover, although the

Barnes & Noble data do not differentiate between fiction and non-fictionpurchases, they do provide a general indication of the direction in which thecompanys overall purchasing is tending. If these figures are to be believed, adownward trend may be discerned in the reliance of Barnes & Noble on corpo-rate-published titles. It is possible to say that this chain has taken note of therise of small, independent presses. The research presented here, therefore, at-


7/25


tempts to determine whether public libraries, along with two major fiction re-

view tools, have also recognized this trend through their fiction purchases in thefour-year period between 1994 and 1997 mentioned in the Barnes & Noble data.

METHODOLOGY

To ascertain the percentage of reviews accorded corporate and independentpublishers in reviewing tools consulted by public librarians, we used the sectionBook Review Media Statistics in the Bowker Annual

(1998a). From the table

entitled Number of Books Reviewed by Major Book-Reviewing Publication,19961997, we chose the professional and popular titles with the greatest num-ber of total book reviews. These titles were: Library Journal

(5,955 titles) andthe New York Times Sunday Book Review

(1,900 titles). A random selection of16 issues of each title for each of the years 1994 to 1997 was examined, and ev-ery reviewed fiction title was categorized as being published either by a corpo-rate or independent publisher. To randomly select the issues in question, eachissue was assigned a number, and then a random selection of these numberswas made. Following Miller (1997) and Book Publishing Report

(1997), a cor-porate publisher was defined as being one of the following seven companies:

Hearst; News Corporation; Pearson PLC; Viacom; Bertelsmann AG; TimeWarner; and Holtzbrinck. The list of imprints used by these seven companieswas derived from Publishers, Distributors & Wholesalers of the United States19971998, Volume 1.

Each imprint listed under one of these seven companieswas judged to be corporate-published. Some major imprints of these corpora-tions are: William Morrow; HarperCollins; Viking Penguin; Dutton; Simon &Schuster; Random House; Doubleday; Little Brown; Henry Holt; and FarrarStraus & Giroux. Independent publishers were defined as all other publishersexcept the aforementioned seven corporations. The names of some independent

publishers are: Houghton Mifflin; W.W. Norton; Dalkey Archive; Milkweed;Grove Atlantic; Black Sparrow; Algonquin; Coffee House; and Zoland. For thepurposes of this study, the few independent publishers who have distribution ar-rangements with major corporate publishers were disregarded. An independentpublisher that was subsequently taken over by a corporate publisher was catego-rized according to its status at the time of the publication of the title in question.

In the second, more extensive component of this study, we took a randomsample of 100 fiction titles for each of the years 1994 to 1997 from a randomsample of 16 issues of Library Journal

(

LJ

) for each of the years in question.

The focus was limited to LJ

because researchers have consistently identifiedthis publication as the most used review journal for selecting fiction (Serebnick,1992; Sweetland, 1994). For each of these years, 50 of the selected titles werepublished by corporations and 50 selected titles were published by independentpublishers. Three corporate and three independent titles were chosen from theFiction Review section of each of the 16 issues ofLJ

in each year, and then


8/25

42 Dilevko & Hayman

two additional titles of each type were randomly selected from the Fiction Re-

view sections of all issues for that year. Only titles that were either highly rec-ommended or recommended were included in the random selection. This wasdone so as to preclude an unfair comparison between, for example, indepen-dent-published titles that were not recommended with titles of corporate-pub-lished titles that were recommended. The general procedure was as follows. We al-ternated starting either from the front or the back of the Fiction Review sectionof each issue. Using a random number between one and ten, we counted, eitherfrontwards or backwards, until we reached the n

th

corporate-published or indepen-dent-published title reviewed in that issue. If that title was either recommended or

highly recommended, we chose it for our sample. If not, we moved ahead, one-by-one, in the relevant direction, until we reached an applicable title, either corporateor independent, that was recommended or highly recommended.

The ISBNs of all the 400 randomly selected titles were entered into theOCLC database and a holdings list, arranged by individual state, was generatedfor each title in May, 1998. The holdings list for each ISBN contained a numberof three-character codes (consisting of some combination of numbers and let-ters), with each three-character code denoting a specific library. To differenti-ate between public libraries and all other libraries, we asked OCLC to provideus with a list of codes for all public libraries participating in the OCLC consor-

tium. A proprietary list of 5,503 public library codes (dated November, 1997)was made available to the researchers. We then wrote a computer program tomatch OCLC public library codes against the holding codes for each uniqueISBN identifieran identifier categorized as either corporate or independent.In this way, then, we were able to tabulate precisely how many public librariesin each state held a particular fiction title. For each ISBN identifier, the pres-ence of a library holding code means that the library in question holds at leastone copy of the applicable title. The discussion that follows does not take intoaccount the possible presence of multiple copies of titles in some libraries. The

total number of downloaded records for the 400 unique ISBN identifiers was200,824. Of this number, 123,803 were held by public libraries and 77,021 wereheld by all other OCLC libraries. The total number of different libraries (iden-tified by a three-character code) holding any of the 400 titles was 3,237.

RESULTS

The Nature of Book Reviews

In the sampled issues ofLJ

, a total of 1,914 fiction reviews was counted, while in thesampled issues of the New York Times Sunday Book Review

(

NYTBR

), a total of653 fiction reviews was counted. On a global basis in the years 1994 to 1997, reviewsof independent published fiction in LJ

constituted 35.3% of the total. In NYTBR

,reviews of independent-published fiction comprised 37.2% of all reviewed books.Table 1 shows the distribution of fiction reviews by year and by type of publisher in


9/25


these two publications. For both LJ

and NYTBR

, the data establish that indepen-dent-published fiction titles are consistently reviewed at a rate of between 30% and40% of all fiction titles. In 1994, LJ

reviews of independent-published fiction werenearly 40% of all fiction titles. This figure subsequently dropped in 1995 and 1996,and then increased again to slightly more than 35% in 1997. A similar pattern maybe discerned in the rate of reviews accorded independent-published fiction titles in

NYTBR.

In 1994, this rate was approximately 38%, falling to some 32% in 1995,and then rising both in 1996 and 1997 to some 41% of all reviewed fiction. Never-theless, there is no significant difference between the rate of reviews of indepen-

dent-published fiction titles, or of corporate-published titles, in LJ

and NYTBR.

The slight differences that do appear showing NYTBR

to review more inde-pendent-published fiction titles than LJ

on a percentage basis may be due to anumber of factors. First, while 16 issues each ofLJ

and NYTBR

were sampled,this represents 80% of yearly LJ

issues, but only 30% of yearly NYTBR

issues.Second, because NYTBR

reviews fewer total books than LJ

per year, it may focuson only the more notable books published in any given year by a variety of pub-lishers. Conversely, LJ

includes many more total book reviews, which may meanthat, since corporate-owned publishers publish numerically more books than do

independent publishers, the universe of books from which LJ

selects its reviewedtitles necessarily contains a greater number of corporate-published books.

Taking the reviews of fiction titles in LJ

and NYTBR

as a whole, one conclu-sion that can be made is that the rate at which corporate-published titles are re-viewed in the period 1994 to 1997 quite closely parallels the market share of theseven corporate publishers, according to the figures supplied by Book Publish-ing Report.

As seen above, total market share of these seven publishers was66.2% for 1997, while the rate at which corporate-published books were re-viewed by LJ

and NYTBR

was 64.7% and 62.8%, respectively. If the market

share percentage of these seven corporate publishers (taken as a whole) reflects,in approximate terms, their share of the percentage of total titles published, thenit may be natural to expect that book review publications will necessarily reviewtitles at a rate similar to the overall presence of corporate-published and inde-pendent-published titles in the marketplace. More simply, these book reviewpublications do not indicate a bias toward one type of publisher.

TABLE 1

Fiction Reviews by Type of Publisher in Library Journal

and New York Times

Library Journal New York Times

Year Corporate Independent Corporate Independent

1994 355 (60.4%) 233 (39.6%) 92 (61.7%) 57 (38.3%)

1995 299 (66.2%) 153 (33.8%) 99 (68.3%) 46 (31.7%)

1996 332 (68.6%) 152 (31.4%) 118 (63.1%) 69 (36.9%)

1997 253 (64.9%) 137 (35.1%) 101 (59.8%) 71 (41.2%)


10/25

44 Dilevko & Hayman

The Fiction Purchases of Public Libraries

On a global basis from 1994 to 1997, the fiction purchases of public libraries inthe United States consisted of 64.1% corporate-published books and 35.9% in-dependent-published titles. Table 2 provides a more detailed look at public li-brary fiction purchases by year and by type of publisher.

Although there was a drop of 918 (8.2%) in the raw number of independent-fiction titles purchased from 1994 to 1997, fiction purchases from independentpresses (as a percentage of total fiction purchases) remained consistent overthis four-year period, increasing slightly one year, decreasing the followingyear, but always hovering between 35% to 37% of total fiction purchases. As aresult, fiction purchases from corporate publishers also held steady, at around63% to 65%. The Bowker Annual

s for these years reveal that public librarybook acquisition expenditures in the United States declined from $396.4 mil-lion (fiscal 19931994) to $336.1 million (fiscal 19961997).

4

Thus, public librarycollection development specialists experienced a $60.3 million loss (15.2%) inbook purchasing power. Table 2 presents concrete evidence of this loss offunds. When total fiction purchases in 1994 (32,165) are compared with totalfiction purchases in 1997 (27,247), the decline of 4,918 titles is 15.3%mirror-

ing almost exactly the 15.2% decline in book purchasing power. However, pur-chases of independent-fiction titles declined only 8.2% from 1994 to 1997, whilepurchases of corporate-published fiction titles declined by about 19%. Whileavoiding too much focus on the specific numbers here, it is still possible to ob-serve that public libraries, faced with budget cutbacks, seem to be reducingtheir purchases of independent-published fiction at a lesser rate than reductionsin corporate-published fiction. This may be due to the fact that independent-published fiction is generally less expensive than corporate-published fiction, orit may be because librarians are taking more notice of the offerings of indepen-

dent-publishers. Another reason may be that a greater number of independent

4 Figures are taken from the Bowker Annual

(1995, pp. 448449; 1996, pp. 454455; 1997,pp. 436437; 1998b, pp. 432433).

TABLE 2

Public Library Fiction Purchases by Type of Publisher

Year Corporate Independent

1994 21,062 (65.48%) 11,103 (34.52%)

1995 21,168 (62.59%) 12,651 (37.41%)

1996 20,026 (65.51%) 10,545 (34.49%)

1997 17,062 (62.62%) 10,185 (37.38%)


11/25


publishers have forged distribution arrangements with the intermediaries who

supply libraries, thus making their books more easily available.Table 3 presents data about whether public libraries in some states pur-

chased more independent press titles than public libraries in other states, as apercentage of their total purchases. The data were obtained by dividing thenumber of independent press fiction purchases by the total number of fictionpurchases. By the far the majority of states had independent-published fictionpurchases of between 30% and 40% of total fiction purchases. Public librariesin eight states purchased independent-published fiction at a rate above 40% oftheir total purchases. Particularly noteworthy were Washington, Colorado, and

New Yorkall of which exceeded 45%. Conversely, in eight states the purchasesof independent-published fiction were less than 30% of total fiction purchases.The five lowest states in this group of eight were Nebraska, Idaho, Nevada, Mis-sissippi, and Wyoming. One reason for these differences may be that libraries insome states may have specific policies to increase the presence of independent-published titles in their collections. Another factor which may account for differ-ences among states with regard to purchasing levels of independent-fiction is thepattern of local publishing. For instance, the presence of a strong independentpublisher in one state may mean that its books are purchased frequently by in-

TABLE 3

Independent Fiction Titles (as a Percentage of Total Fiction Titles) Purchased by

Public Libraries by State in 1997 (Top 20 States)

State Independent Titles

Washington 46.84

Colorado 46.09

New York 45.64

Connecticut 41.82

Alabama 41.56Tennessee 41.34

Texas 41.11

Illinois 40.15

Minnesota 39.84

Wisconsin 39.80

Indiana 39.63

Louisiana 39.49

New Jersey 39.07

Oregon 39.06

Massachusetts 38.27

Ohio 38.23

North Carolina 38.09

Maryland 37.72

South Carolina 37.56

California 37.16


12/25

46 Dilevko & Hayman

state and neighboring-state libraries. In other words, an independent publisher

may exert a regional influence on book purchasing patterns by libraries.Were there important changes as to which states purchased the most inde-

pendent-published fiction between 1994 and 1997? Seventeen of the 20 states(85%) whose public libraries purchased the most independent-published fictionin 1997 also purchased the most in 1994. The three states that were in the top 20listing for 1994 that did not also make the top 20 listing in 1997 were Missouri(36.36%), Utah (34.57%), and New Mexico (35.94%). In the case of Missouriand Utah, the drop for each was less than 4% from their 1994 figures. With re-spect to New Mexico, its 1997 rate of 35.94% was slightly more than its 1994

rate, but since the 20

th

place rate was 37.16% in 1997 (3% higher than in 1994),it did not qualify for inclusion. The three states that were not in the top 20 list-ing in 1994, but did appear in 1997 were Massachusetts, North Carolina, andConnecticut. The top three states in 1997 (Washington, Colorado, and NewYork) were also the top three states in 1994, although New York and Coloradoswitched their respective positions. States that ranked consistently at the bot-tom in purchasing rates of independent-published fiction as a percentage of to-tal fiction purchases both in 1994 and 1997 were Arkansas, Nebraska, and Ne-vada (all between 25% and 30%).

Figure 1 shows the relationship between public library book expenditures by

state and the number of independent-published fiction titles held by public li-braries in that state.

5

Pearson regression analysis showed the relationship to bestatistically significant (

df

42, r

.745,f

51.3,p

.001), with the indepen-dent variable of book expenditures explaining 55.6% of the variance observedin the dependent variablein this case, the number of independent-publishedtitles held by all public libraries in a particular state. In other words, the more astate spends on books, the more independent-published fiction titles its publiclibraries will hold.

Figure 1 also shows a regression trend line for prediction purposes. The

public libraries in the named states above the trend line purchased more inde-pendent-published fiction titles than expected, based on their book expendi-tures. On the other hand, the public libraries in the named states below thetrend line added fewer independent-published fiction titles than expected,based on their book expenditures. The further a point is away from the trendline, the greater is its divergence (either in a positive or negative direction)from a statistically expected value. Unnamed diamond shapes near the trendline represent those states whose public libraries purchased approximately

5 Seven states were not included in this regression calculation because of insufficient data.OCLC data showed that public libraries in these states had fewer than three corporate-pub-lished and independent-published fiction titles. These states were Alaska, Hawaii, Montana,New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. Book expenditure figures de-rived from the Bowker Annual(1998b, pp. 432433).


13/25


FIGURE

1

RelationshipofInde

pendentTitlesandBookExp

endituresinPublicLibraries

in1997


14/25

48 Dilevko & Hayman

6 Population figures for states were taken from 1995 projections, contained in Table 1: To-tal Population and Net Change for States: 1995 to 2005, U.S. Bureau of the Census (1995),Population Division, PPL-47 [P25-1131].7 Taken from U.S. Department of Education (1998), Office of Educational Research andImprovement, National Center for Education Statistics [NCES 98-301], Public Libraries inthe United States: FY 1995 [April 1998], Table 13.8 Eight states were not included in this regression calculation because of insufficient data.OCLC data showed that public libraries in these states had fewer than three corporate-pub-lished and independent-published fiction titles. These states were Alaska, Hawaii, Montana,New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Idaho, and West Virginia.

the number of independent-published fiction titles that their book expendi-

tures would warrant. Public libraries in California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jer-sey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Oregon purchased (substantially) moreindependent-published fiction than would be predicted based on their totalbook expenditures, while public libraries in New York, Ohio, Florida, Mis-souri, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, and Nevada purchased (sub-stantially) fewer independent-published fiction than would be predicted bytheir total book expenditures.

Table 4 presents data about the number of independent-published titles percapita (1,000 inhabitants) in public libraries in 1995.6 The three states with the

highest per capita rates are Connecticut, Nebraska, and Indiana; the three low-est states are Nevada, Washington, and Mississippi. Connecticut had the high-est per capita rate of independent titles, and a relatively high per capita (perperson) expenditure rate for collection development ($4.21: sixth highest).Likewise, Indiana spent $5.36 per person on collection development (secondhighest) and has the third highest per capita independent-published fiction pur-chasing rate. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the state with the lowest percapita purchases of independent titlesMississippialso had the lowest percapita expenditure rate for collection development ($1.37).7 Nonetheless, Pear-son regression analysis showed that there was not a statistically significant rela-

tionship between per capita spending by states on collection development andthe number of independent-published fiction titles per capita purchased bypublic libraries in that state (df 41, r .279,f 3.4,p .07).8

One reason for this is that some states with low per capita collections expen-ditures were able to provide their citizens with relatively good access to inde-pendent-published fiction. In this regard, North Dakota, while spending only $2per capita on collections, had the fifth highest independent title fiction rate percapita (.0983 titles per thousand inhabitants). Arkansas, while spending only$1.72 per capita on collections, had the thirteenth highest independent title fic-

tion rate per capita (.0725 titles per thousand). On the other hand, some states,despite high per capita collection development expenditures, had low per cap-ita access to independent-published fiction. Both Massachusetts and Washing-ton, while spending about $4 per person on collection development, had very


15/25


low independent-published per capita fiction rates of .0110 and .0086, respec-

tively. New York spent almost $5 per person on collections, but neverthelessranked low on this measure. Thus, when Fig. 1, Table 4, and Table 5 are exam-ined together, it is apparent that states such as California which have large totalexpenditures on books (and therefore have large numbers of independent-pub-lished fiction titles in their public libraries) do not necessarily provide the bestper capita access to independent-published fiction.9

9 Although the fiction holdings of academic libraries may not be as large as that of publiclibraries (expressed as a percentage of their total collections), nevertheless many academiclibraries have significant fiction holdings to support course offerings in English literaturecourses. Using the assumption that most, if not all, of the libraries holding fiction from ourdownloaded list that were not public libraries would, in fact, be academic libraries, we alsoexamined, as a comparative exercise, the fiction holding rates of these academic libraries bytype of publisher. On a global basis from 1994 to 1997, the fiction holdings of academic li-braries in the United States consisted of 60.6% of corporate-published books and 39.4% oftitles published by independent presses. Compared with the global rates in 19941997 foundin public libraries, academic libraries in the United States held approximately 3% more inde-pendent-published fiction titles and 3% fewer corporate-published titles. And, unlike publiclibraries, which displayed a slight up-and-down pattern in their independent-published fic-tion holding rate during the period 1994 to 1997, academic libraries showed show a rise from1994 (37.4%) to 1995 (40.1%), followed by a leveling off, at around 40%, in the years 1996and 1997. Despite the fact that book buying budgets of academic libraries decreased during1994 to 1997 from $316.17 million to $242.74 million, academic libraries managed to increase,from 1994 to 1997, the share of independent-published fiction titles purchased, when ex-pressed as a percentage of total fiction purchases. (Figures taken from the Bowker Annual[1995, pp. 450451; 1998b, pp. 434435]).

The independent fiction holdings of academic libraries in 20 states in 1997 constitutedmore than 40% of total fiction holdings. These states were: Arizona; Washington; District ofColumbia; Idaho; Rhode Island; California; Delaware; Massachusetts; Georgia; New Mex-ico; New York; Oregon; West Virginia; Minnesota; Illinois; Utah; Connecticut; Colorado;Texas; and New Jersey. Two states, Arizona and Washington, had independent-publishedfiction holdings of more than 50% of their total fiction collection. States which had indepen-dent-published fiction holdings of less than 25% of their total fiction holdings were: NorthDakota; Montana; Hawaii; Kentucky; and South Dakota. Were there major changes be-tween 1994 and 1997 in the independent-published fiction holdings of academic libraries? In1994, the two top ranked states had holdings in this category of just under 46%, while in 1997the two top ranked states had holdings of over 50%. In addition, 14 of the states (70%) thathad the largest independent-published fiction collections in 1994 also had the largest collec-tions of this type in 1997. As with public libraries, academic libraries in a homogeneousgroup of states consistently offer good access to independent-published fiction. Also, themore that academic libraries in a state spend on books, the more independent-published fic-tion titles its academic libraries will hold. Academic libraries in some states (California, Mas-sachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Kansas) had more independent-published fictionthan expected based on their total book expenditures; the opposite was true for New York,Illinois, Texas, North Carolina, and New Jersey. Data for per capita holdings of indepen-dent-published titles in academic libraries by state in 1995 also proved interesting. The high-est per capita holdings were in: District of Columbia; Wyoming; Vermont; Rhode Island;


16/25

50 Dilevko & Hayman

DISCUSSION

Notwithstanding important variations from state to state, this research hasfound a consistent level of independent-published fiction purchases in public li-

braries across the United States in the period 1994 to 1997. This level hoversbetween 35% and 37% of total fiction purchases. In addition, the level at whichtwo major fiction reviewing tools review independent-published fiction titles isaround the 35% to 40% mark (see Table 1). Collection development specialistsin public libraries appear to be closely following the lead of fiction review pub-lications with respect to the choices they make for the fiction collections of their

TABLE 4

Independent Fiction Titles Per Capita in Public Libraries, 1995 (Top 20 States)

State

Per Capita Spending

(Collections)

Per Capita (000s)

Independent Titles

Connecticut 4.21 .1631

Nebraska 3.66 .1307

Indiana 5.36 .1258

New Mexico 3.09 .1098

North Dakota 2.00 .0983

South Dakota 3.01 .0934

Iowa 2.93 .0911

Arizona 2.67 .0841

New Jersey 4.20 .0837

Illinois 4.62 .0784

Oregon 3.07 .0770

Utah 3.30 .0728

Arkansas 1.72 .0725

Kansas 4.24 .0698

Ohio 6.58 .0697

Virginia 3.56 .0688

Florida 2.92 .0628

Delaware 2.46 .0627Wisconsin 3.36 .0603

California 2.20 .0545

Massachusetts; Connecticut; New Hampshire; Wisconsin; Kansas; Colorado; Michigan; Min-nesota; North Dakota; Maine; Iowa; Indiana; North Carolina; Virginia; Ohio; and West Vir-ginia. Academic libraries in states from what the U.S. Census Bureau characterizes as eitherthe Northeast or Northern Central tiers of the United States seem more receptive to thepurchase of independent-published fiction titles than universities and colleges in other partsof the country. The lowest per capita fiction holdings of independent-published fiction ti-tles were in academic libraries in Missouri, Oklahoma, Washington, Hawaii, Montana, andAlabama.


17/25


respective libraries. Also, data presented in the literature review section abovemakes clear that corporate publishers control approximately 66% of marketshare for trade books, leaving about 34% for independent publishers. Accord-

ingly, review publications and librarians who have responsibilities for selectingfiction titles are, when it comes to apportioning space and funds to the purchaseof independent-published fiction titles, adhering closely to the available supplyof independent-published fiction titles. And, based on the data presented in Ta-ble 2 for 1997, it could be said that public libraries are buying about 3% more ofindependent-published fiction titles than the total market share of independentpublishers, despite a decrease of some 15% in total fiction purchases from 1994to 1997. Still, public libraries in some states with relatively low purchase rates ofindependent-published fiction titles may want to revisit their collection devel-

opment policies or to alert specialists responsible for fiction collection develop-ment to be more alert to independent-fiction titles.

Another way of looking at the data is by comparing library purchases of inde-pendent-published fiction and the purchasing patterns of Barnes & Noble book-stores. Figure 2 presents this comparison. Certainly, the comparison is imperfect,since available data from Barnes & Noble encompass the totality of its purchasesfrom independent publishers and are therefore not further subdivided into the cat-egories of fiction and non-fiction. Moreover, there is no indication whether the pro-vided figures are based on total value, number of titles, or copies. Yet, in very

broad general terms, this comparison is useful as an indication of the direction thatBarnes & Noble is going in its book purchasing. Figure 2 suggests that public librar-ies purchase fiction books from corporate mainstream publishers at a far greaterrate than Barnes & Noble buys both fiction and non-fiction books from indepen-dent publishers. Between 1994 and 1997, the rate at which public libraries boughtfiction from corporate publishers did not undergo much change, consistently re-

TABLE 5

Independent Fiction Titles Per Capita in Public Libraries, 1995 (Bottom 10 States)

State

Per Capita Spending

(Collections)

Per Capita (000s)

Independent Titles

Mississippi 1.37 .0033

Washington 3.93 .0087

Nevada 4.15 .0105

Massachusetts 4.32 .0114

New York 4.93 .0160

Alabama 2.06 .0162

Tennessee 1.42 .0209

Michigan 2.55 .0214

Texas 1.86 .0219

Maryland 3.93 .0242


18/25

52 Dilevko & Hayman

maining in a range between 62% and 65%. On the other hand, Barnes & Noble re-duced its purchases of books from corporate mainstream publishers from 74% oftotal purchases in 1994 to 46% of purchases in 1997. Based on these figures, Barnes& Noble seems to be offering a more diverse array of titles than public libraries.

Public libraries have always wanted to attract the greatest number of patronspossible. To do so, they rightly feel that they should provide popular titles, bothfiction and non-fiction, for their patrons and community needs. While populartitles are not always published by mainstream corporate presses, a large portion

of the most popular books are, in fact, published by large commercial houses.Simply put, public libraries can ill afford to stock their shelves with titles that donot circulate, because demand for best-selling titles is very great. For example,Senkevitch and Sweetland (1998) list the top 30 most-held fiction titles inOCLC public libraries for 1995, and even a cursory examination of this list re-veals that almost all of these books were, in their time, national bestsellers pub-lished by corporate mainstream publishers.

At the same time, public libraries may be overestimating the publics de-mand for the most popular titles. One hint that this may be so is provided by

Auletta (1997a), who reports that an internal Barnes & Noble document showsthat, in August, 1997, the New York Times bestsellers represented only 2.9%of all books the chain sold (p. 59). Public libraries may thus be overlookingtheir responsibility to provide a diverse collection of fiction for their patrons.Nevertheless, there are some indications that researchers, such as Senkevitchand Sweetland (1996), are beginning to develop a consensus core list for fic-

FIGURE 2

Comparison of Purchasing Patterns of Corporate-Published Book Titles


19/25


tion titles with a view toward evaluating public library fiction collections based

on the most popular titles held by public libraries nationwide (p. 108). Shouldsuch evaluations become standard, uniformity of library fiction collections mayincrease and ready access to independent-published titles may decrease as pub-lic libraries try to achieve quantifiably high evaluation scores on their fictioncollections in order to show that they are meeting national benchmarks.

Accordingly, the work of Senkevitch and Sweetland (1996) is undergirded bya vision of the role and function of the public library as a provider of the mostpopular fiction titles. To be sure, as Radway (1984) and Ross (1995) have dem-onstrated, popular books, in the form of genre and series fiction, do serve an

important purpose in the psychological and intellectual development of read-ers. Yet, not mentioned in this research is the fact that an emphasis on the mostpopular fiction titles translates into a fiction collection dominated by corporatemainstream imprints and a possible loss of independent-published voices repre-senting alternative viewpoints. The purpose of the present research is not tosay, however, that corporate publishers do not publish provocative or challeng-ing fiction titles, nor that all fiction titles published by corporate publishershave no literary or other redeeming value. It is merely to suggest that collectiondevelopment librarians in public libraries should be aware of the implicationsfor their libraries of the greater concentration of book publishing in the hands

of fewer and fewer corporations. Such corporate concentration may have detri-mental impacts on the diversity and range of fiction collections, and may be ev-idence of another example in which sites of public expression are being eroded.

On a theoretical level, Cyzyk (1993) has reminded academic librarians thatthey would be wise to pay attention to the extensive literary research in canonformation. This body of research argues that literary canons are the contingentcreation of privileged social groups who have a vested interest in seeing certainideologies perpetuated and reinforced. Cyzyk therefore urges academic librari-ans to become more cosmopolitan in their duties and to try to transcend the

satisfaction of the needs of the present members of . . . society (p. 62). In thepast two decades, literary canons have, to a certain extent, become more inclu-sive and reflective of cultural, political, and sexual diversity, and the very ideaof a literary canon is, in many academic circles and on many university readinglists, anathema. Yet, there is a continued danger, especially in public libraries,that the marketplace will impose a de facto literary canon. The canon of themarketplace is formed in no small part by the power of advertising and productplacementtools that are more readily available to corporate publishers thanto independent publishers. No less than academic libraries, public libraries

should attempt to get beyond what Cyzyk calls the parochial duty of fulfillingimmediate patron demand based on the current interests of the current soci-ety upon which the library relies for its economic sustenance and survival(p. 62). Serebnick and Quinn (1995) have suggested that libraries, in orderto ensure that they have representative and unbiased collections, may wishto develop and institute an objective diversity index for their holdings about


20/25

54 Dilevko & Hayman

such controversial issues as abortion, capital punishment, disarmament,

and euthanasia. They proposed a formula based on Simpsons index of di-versity. Given the extent of corporate control of sites of public expression,there might be merit in exploring whether a diversity index could be createdfor public library fiction collections. If developed, such an index shouldtake into account, as one of its components, the corporatization of the bookpublishing industry, and, as a result, look advantageously upon large hold-ings of independent-published fiction.

A very practical step that may be of interest to librarians concerned aboutthis issue is provided by Hurley (1999). She describes the efforts of a Canadian

magazine retailer who, during the last week of every month, completely rear-ranges his stock to place small, relatively unknown Canadian magazines inprime display areas. As Walsh (1999) notes, this means putting Canadian publi-cations in 200 acrylic pockets ringing the store, as well as [in] all eye-level shelfpositions (p. 6). This monthly transformation displaces famous titles such asCosmopolitan, GQ, The New Yorker, and Newsweek, relegating some 1,800foreign titles to the back rows or temporary storage (Hurley, 1999, p. J3). Notonly have overall sales of Canadian magazines increased tenfold over a nor-mal weeks tally, but there has also been some positive residual effect inso-far as Canadian magazines dealing with the same subject matter as larger

American magazines have begun outselling [their] shelf partners during theweeks when the promotion is not in effect (Walsh, 1999, p. 6). The target of theinitiative is the 40% of customers who come into the store not specificallyknowing what they want. They tend to gravitate towards displays that are eye-level and prominently-placed, because [w]hats up-front is what people senseis important . . . or what the store thinks is important (Hurley, 1999, p. J3).

Compared with magazines published by large transnational corporations, theCanadian titles emphasized by the above magazine shop are typically producedby independent publishers and contain very little advertising. As such, they

may be viewed as the symbolic equivalent of the independent-published fictionbooks discussed in the present article. Public libraries have known for sometime that books in prime display locations circulate more than regularly shelvedbooks (Baker, 1986; Goldhor, 1972, 1981). Based on the results of the magazinerearrangement experiment, public libraries, by prominently and frequently dis-playing independent-published fiction titles, have the potential to become insti-tutions where the marketplace, as represented by corporate publishers, doesnot impose a de facto literary canon.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

A number of limitations of this research have already become evident in the fore-going pages. First, the distinction between corporate and independent publishersmay be artificial, given the fact that many high-quality fiction titles are published


21/25


by corporate mainstream publishers. Second, the figures from Barnes & Noble

dealing with their total purchases from corporate and independent publishersare not entirely analogous with figures from libraries dealing only with their fic-tion purchases from these publishers. Furthermore, Barnes & Noble figures arenot specified as based on total value, number of titles, or copies. While it wouldhave been beneficial to have more precise data about Barnes & Noble purchas-ing patterns, it should be recognized that this is proprietary financial and strate-gic information that is not available to the general public.

Data about the percentage of independent-published fiction titles in individ-ual states may also be affected by whether the libraries in that state report as

small or large library units. For example, if a large metropolitan library in onestate reports as a single unit, then there is no way of knowing how many addi-tional copies (if any) of a specific title, beyond one, it holds in its variousbranches. It could have ten copies of a particular independent-published fictiontitle in its branches, but it would be reported as only one copy. On the otherhand, if a large metropolitan library in another state reports as a number ofsmaller branch units, then each iteration of the title in question would be re-ported. In effect, multiple copies of fiction titles may be counted in some states,but not in others. As well, public libraries, ultimately responsible to their fund-ing communities, walk a fine line between providing high-demand titles (usu-

ally bestsellers published by corporate mainstream publishers) and titles whichmay have a more specialized and limited audience. It may therefore be unfairto criticize public libraries, in times of shrinking budgets, for opting to supplypatrons with high-demand and high-use titles.

A good direction for future research would be to examine the non-fictionpurchases of public and academic libraries from the perspective of corporateand independent publishers. For example, it might be interesting to select a fewspecific topic areas conforming to Library of Congress subject headings and ex-amine whether the preponderance of titles held under these subject heading are

published by corporate or independent publishers. In addition, given thegrowth of independent publishers in the late 1990s, it might be interesting toreplicate the present study at regular intervals of five or ten years in order totrack any changes in the purchasing rates of corporate- and independent-pub-lished fiction titles in public libraries.

CONCLUSION

Tisdale (1997) has controversially argued that the local Barnes & Noble storeof the late 1990s resembles more of what a public library should be than doesthe local public library itself. The evidence put forward in the present articlesuggests that, from the perspective of supplying a broad and diverse array of ti-tles published by numerous small and independent presses, Barnes & Noble is,in fact, doing a better job than the public library. As reported by Angel (1997),


22/25

56 Dilevko & Hayman

Barnes & Noble has a special department whose sole purpose is to review small

press publications and determine whether they are suitable for purchase by thechains outlet. It receives over 3,000 applications from small-press publisherseach year. McCormack (1998) reports that one chain superstore in his neigh-borhood stocks books from over 7,000 publishers, including over 125 differentpoetry publishers. Barbato (1998) quotes a small independent publisher as say-ing that

[e]very time there is more consolidation, we are offered more bookswe havent had a chance to get before. With their large overheads,

major publishers now have to do a minimum first run of 20,00030,000 copies. For a smaller publisher, a title selling 500010,000 cop-ies is very profitable. So the mergers keep opening doors; they haveallowed us to form a more well-rounded list. (p. 35)

It is safe to say that these independent publishers are an important and growingpart of the literary landscape, and that their books are frequently stocked onthe shelves of major bookstores.

Certainly, as Angel (1997) notes, one reason that Barnes & Noble is keen tostock a large number of independent-published titles is that it does not have to

offer steep discounts on such titles (as it does on commercial bestsellers). Regard-less of the reasons, independent-published titles are very popular at superstores.As public libraries try to find ways in which to increase the number of patronsthey serve, and as Barnes & Noble continues to attract large crowds, it may be agood idea for public libraries to take serious note of the changes in the publishinglandscape that Barnes & Noble has identified and upon which it has capitalized.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Marti Grof-Iannelli, head librarian at theGraduate Resource Center, Faculty of Information and Media Studies, Univer-sity of Western Ontario, for her invaluable assistance in making arrangementswith OCLC for the secure transfer of proprietary OCLC library codes. GeoffSinclair, a graduate of the MLIS program at the University of Western Ontarioand now a systems analyst for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,helped in developing the necessary software code for this project. Finally, com-ments from the referees were central in making this a better paper.

REFERENCES

Angel, Karen. (1997). Getting in the door: The small presses. PublishersWeekly, 244(47), 32.


23/25


Auletta, Ken. (1997a). The impossible business. The New Yorker, 73(30), 5063.

Auletta, Ken. (1997b). The next corporate order: American keiretsu. The NewYorker, 73(32), 225227.

Bagdikian, Ben H. (1997). The media monopoly (5th ed.). Boston, MA: BeaconPress.

Baker, Sharon L. (1986). The display phenomenon: An exploration into factorscausing the increased circulation of displayed books. Library Quarterly, 56,237257.

Barbato, Joseph. (1998). Small publishing in the land of the giants. PublishersWeekly, 245(24), 35.

Bates, Eric. (1998). Chaining the alternatives: What started as a movement hasbecome an industry. The Nation, 266(24), 1118.Book Publishing Report. (1997). Random House stays on top: Leading trade

publishers boost market share in 1996, BPR ranking shows. BP Report,26(22), 13.

Bowker Annual. (1995). Library acquisitions expenditures, 19931994: U.S.public, academic, special, and government libraries. The Bowker annual:Library and book trade almanac, 40th ed. (pp. 447451). New York: R. R.Bowker.

Bowker Annual. (1996). Library acquisitions expenditures, 19941995: U.S.

public, academic, special, and government libraries. The Bowker annual:Library and book trade almanac, 41st ed. (pp. 453457). New York: R. R.Bowker.

Bowker Annual. (1997). Library acquisitions expenditures, 19951996: U.S.public, academic, special, and government libraries. The Bowker annual:Library and book trade almanac, 42nd ed. (pp. 435439). New York: R. R.Bowker.

Bowker Annual. (1998a). Book review media statistics. The Bowker annual: Li-brary and book trade almanac, 43rd ed. (p. 539). New York: R. R. Bowker.

Bowker Annual. (1998b). Library acquisitions expenditures, 19961997: U.S. pub-lic, academic, special, and government libraries. The Bowker annual: Libraryand book trade almanac, 43rd ed. (pp. 431435). New York: R. R. Bowker.

Carvajal, Doreen. (1997). Independents day: For smaller publishers, sales arerising as returns dwindle. New York Times, December 1, D1, D8.

Coffman, Steve, & Freedman, Maurice. (1997). Fees fight.American Libraries,28(7), 4951.

Cyzyk, Mark. (1993). Canon formation, library collections, and the dilemma ofcollection development. College & Research Libraries, 54, 5865.

Dilevko, Juris. (1998a). Bibliographic instruction and mass media news literacy:A theoretical background. Library Quarterly, 68, 431474.Dilevko, Juris. (1998b). Teaching news media practices in bibliographic instruc-

tion classes: A strategy involving framing and sourcing theory. ResearchStrategies, 16, 5369.

Dilevko, Juris, & Grewal, Kalina. (1997). A new approach to collection bias in


24/25

58 Dilevko & Hayman

academic libraries: The extent of corporate control in journal holdings. Li-

brary & Information Science Research, 19, 359385.Dilevko, Juris, & Grewal, Kalina. (1998). Neutrality and media literacy at the

reference desk: A case study.Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24, 2132.Dubberly, Ronald A. (1998). Why outsourcing is our friend. American Librar-

ies, 29(1), 7274.Gitlin, Todd. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media and the making

and unmaking of the left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Goldhor, Herbert. (1972). The effect of prime display location on public library

circulation of selected adult titles. Library Quarterly, 42, 371389.

Goldhor, Herbert. (1981). Experimental effects on the choice of books bor-rowed by public library adult patrons. Library Quarterly, 51, 253268.Herman, Edward, & McChesney, Robert. (1997). The global media: The new

missionaries of corporate capitalism. London, England: Cassell.Hoffert, Barbara, & Kinsella, Bridget. (1996). Bridging the small press gap. Li-

brary Journal, 121(3), 114117.Hurley, Janet. (1999). Newsstand waves flag for Canadian mags. The Toronto

Star, May 22, J3.Marinko, Rita A., & Gerhard, Kristin H. (1998). Representations of the alter-

native press in academic library collections. College & Research Libraries,

59, 363377.McCormack, Thomas. (1998). Despite lack of popularity, chain booksellers of-

fer readers unparalleled variety. Publishers Weekly,245(23), 27.Mielke, Linda, & Berman, Sanford. (1998). What price partnerships?American

Libraries, 29(2), 4345.Miller, Mark Crispin. (1997). The crushing power of big publishing. The Nation,

264(10), 1118.Miller, Mark Crispin. (1998). And then there were seven. New York Times,

March 26, A27.

Oder, Norman. (1997). Outsourcing modelor mistake?: The collection devel-opment controversy in Hawaii. Library Journal, 122(5), 2831.

Pochoda, Phil. (1997). Universities press on: The perseverance of small, univer-sity presses. The Nation, 265(22), 1117.

Radway, Janice. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy and popularliterature. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Rosenwein, Rifka. (1998). The power behind the stacks. Brills Content, 1(1),116121.

Ross, Catherine Sheldrick. (1995). If they read Nancy Drew, so what?: Series

book readers talk back. Library & Information Science Research, 17, 201236.Schiffrin, Andr. (1997). The corporatization of publishing. In Don Hazen &Julie Winokur (Eds.), We the media: A citizens guide to fighting for mediademocracy (pp. 8084). New York: The Free Press.

Schiller, Dan. (1997). Les marchands lassaut dInternet. Le Monde Diploma-tique, 516(1), 2425.


25/25


Schiller, Herbert. (1989). Culture, Inc.: The corporate takeover of public expres-

sion. New York: Oxford University Press.Schiller, Herbert. (1998). Vers un nouveau sicle dimprialisme amricain. Le

Monde Diplomatique,533(1), 1819.Schneider, Karen G. (1998). The McLibrary syndrome. American Libraries,

29(1), 6670.Schuman, Patricia Glass. (1998). The selling of the public library. Library Jour-

nal, 123(13), 5052.Senkevitch, Judith J., & Sweetland, James H. (1996). Evaluating adult fiction:

Can we define a core collection? RQ, 36, 103117.

Senkevitch, Judith J., & Sweetland, James H. (1998). Public libraries and adultfiction: Another look at a core list of classics. Library Resources & Tech-nical Services, 42, 102112.

Serebnick, Judith. (1992). Selection and holdings of small publishers books inOCLC libraries: A study of the influence of reviews, publishers, and ven-dors. Library Quarterly, 62, 259294.

Serebnick, Judith, & Quinn, Frank. (1995). Measuring diversity of opinion inpublic library collections. Library Quarterly, 65, 138.

Sweetland, James H. (1994). Adult fiction in medium-sized U.S. public librar-ies: A survey. Library Resources & Technical Services, 38, 149160.

Tisdale, Sallie. (1997). Silence, please. Harpers, 294(March), 6674.U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). Total population and net changes for states:

1995 to 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Public libraries in the United States: FY

1995. Washington, DC: Department of Education.Vavrek, Bernard. (1990). Assessing the information needs of rural Americans.

Clarion, PA: Clarion University of Pennsylvania.Walsh, Patrick. (1999). Preferential treatment. Masthead, June, 6.Willett, Charles. (1998). Consider the source: A case against outsourcing mate-

rials selection in academic libraries. Collection Building, 17, 9195.

Documents

Collection Development Patterns of Fiction Titles in Public Libraries.pdf