Library of Congress Study of the North AmericanMARC Records Marketplace

October 2009 Ruth Fischer

Rick Lugg

R2 Consulting LLC

www.r2consulting.org

the impetus

the LC Working Group on the Future of

Bibliographic Control2008

the charge• to investigate and describe current approaches to

the creation and distribution of MARC records in North America

• to focus on the economics of existing practices

• to determine the degree of reliance on LC records

the process

• an online social network http://bibrecords.ning.com/

• a review of the literature

• 2 online surveys• 1 for libraries• 1 for vendors/distributors

library survey results

972 library participants

library survey results• everyone prefers LC records when available

• 80% of libraries edit records for English language monographs in the local OPAC but only HALF of those that do, also upload their edits to their bibliographic utility or consortial catalog

• 78% of libraries are unaware of any restrictions on MARC record use or redistribution

• many cataloging backlogs are growing

56% of all library respondents report backlogs that are increasing in size

cataloging capacity

library typeestimated # of libraries

median # original

catalogers

median # copy

catalogers

academic 4,182 2 2

public 12,442 1 1

specialized 13,349 1 1

school 100,000+ 0 0

34,000 original catalogers? and 34,000 copy catalogers?

cataloging capacity

if each original cataloger created 1 new record each work day (or 200 per year)

~

6,831,000 original records could be created annually

vendor survey results• approximately 200 organizations create, sell, and/or

distribute MARC records to North American libraries

• 70 completed our online survey• 21 commercial bibliographic utilities• 18 material vendors• 13 aggregators• 11 publishers• 11 “other” (book binderies, national libraries, research organizations,

individual contract catalogers)• 9 system vendors• 8 non-profit consortia/cooperatives• 4 open database providers• 3 public or school library “hubs”

MARC record services reported

Maintained directory of Z39.50 searchable catalogs

Search and retrieval gateway to library catalogs (Z39.5 compliant)

MARC database clean-up and maintenance

MARC records for print serials

MARC records for eJournals

MARC records for print monographs

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

MARC record services reported original MARC records? • 20 (28%) no• 25 (36%) yes - with book in hand• 13 (19%) yes - on the basis of metadata or surrogates• 12 (17%) yes - with a combination of book in hand cataloging and

cataloging based on metadata or surrogates

of the 50 participating distributors that claim to create original MARC records:• 12 manually create Provisional Records

(limited access points; no call number) • 12 machine generate Provisional Records

(limited access points; no call number)• 12 create Brief Records

(call number; and limited access points)• 31 create Full or LC Core Records

(i.e. AACR2, LCSH; and LC classification)

our interpretation of findings

There is confusion in the market about the real cost and/or value of MARC records.

The market provides insufficient incentives to stimulate additional original cataloging.

The market for cataloging records is genuinely conflicted.

LC subsidizes the market

• each year, LC catalogs many titles that are not retained in its collections

• LC bears significant cost from which it derives very little benefit

• there is no revenue to offset these costs

• LC bears disproportionate costs, thereby creating an artificially low basis for pricing records

subsidies confuse the market

Because it is disallowed (by law) to recover the cost of cataloging the Library of Congress

subsidizes the market creating confusion about the real cost

and/or value of MARC records.

Title 2, Chapter 5, Section 150 of the US Code (1902)

The Librarian of Congress is authorized to furnish to such institutions or individuals as may desire to buy them, such copies of the card indexes or other publications of the Library as may not be required for its ordinary transactions, and charge for the same a price which will cover their cost and ten per centum added, and all moneys received by him shall be deposited in the Treasury and shall be credited to the appropriation for necessary expenses for the preparation and distribution of catalog cards and other publications of the Library.

insufficient incentives

• library backlogs are continuing to grow, despite more than adequate cataloging capacity

• there are few new commercial entrants to this market - unable to establish workable business models

• even libraries that do not expect to recover their costs are reluctant to contribute to cooperative cataloging programs

• just 10 PCC members account for two-thirds of all the BIBCO records created in 2008

insufficient incentives• most libraries and catalogers must believe that they create

more value by modifying existing records than by creating new ones

• by adding pagination• by changing or removing headings• by adding contents notes• by adjusting call numbers and/or cutters• by adding Dewey numbers and Sears headings• by correcting the date of publication• by adding or editing URLs

• on average libraries report waiting 3-6 months for a record to become available before attempting to create one

incentives could be commercially

or community based

at present neither are adequate

points of conflictcommunity values

Librarians have always been uneasy with the idea that they constitute or participate in a “market” at all. In general, libraries are cost centers, supported by parent organizations for the good of the community they serve. Libraries are, therefore, often unfamiliar with or unrealistic about specific costs.

commercial values Most vendors that serve the library market invest resources to develop products and services which they attempt to sell for more than it costs to produce them - and continue to exist only if they remain profitable. Vendors typically have a good understanding of their costs, since their continued operation depends on it.

other points of conflict

open ~ controlled access

traditional ~ emerging formats

local ~ cloud catalog

questions

How long will libraries rely on MARC as the primary format for bib data?

What would be required to correct the economic structure of the MARC record marketplace?

What would happen if MARC record creators (and creators of other descriptive metadata) insisted on

recovering their costs?