Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship

v.8 no.3 (Winter 2007)

Back to Contents

Marketing of Information Services and Products in University Libraries of Punjab and Chandigarh (India): An Exploratory Study

Dr. Amritpal Kaur, Reader
Department of Library and Information Science, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India
amrit_lisc@yahoo.co.in

Sarita Rani, Assistant Librarian
Bhai Gurdas Library, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India

Abstract

The present study has been undertaken to assess the attitude of users towards the marketing of information services and products of university libraries. A well structured questionnaire was distributed among the library users of four universities of Punjab and Chandigarh viz Panjab University, Punjabi University, Punjab Agricultural University and Guru Nanak Dev University. The responses were gathered from 1237 users (241 teachers, 271 research scholars and 725 postgraduate students). The findings of the survey reveal useful facts about marketing of information products and services. 61% of the respondents are willing to pay for developed information services and 57% for developed information products. On the basis of the findings, some suggestions have been made to improve information services and products of the libraries.

Introduction

The main objectives of the libraries today are to obtain self-sufficiency in their resources and to provide an optimum level of services to reach more potential users and encourage the use of library resources. This naturally requires a “shift from product or service orientation to customer or need orientation” (Kavulya, 2004). Different marketing concepts provide libraries with the tools for collecting and analyzing useful data about information needs of customers, which assists in designing, developing and delivering appropriate services. Nelson (1983) argues that “needs assessment is central to any program of product development and essential to establish the targets for any marketing process”. Irrespective of the type of the library, the need to develop customer-centered and strategic market planning has now become part of effective library management.

University libraries invest a huge amount on collection development, processing and storage of information resources. These resources, which are so expensive, often remain unutilized resulting in wastage of money, time, energy and space. The libraries can solve their problem of underutilization of resources and services by applying marketing principles. In university libraries application of marketing principles implies: first, the library should identify its objectives; second, identify its target users and their particular needs; and third, develop products and services aimed at these categories. In this way university library becomes a market-oriented organization in which all operations including acquisition, storage and service are focused on the needs of users and which embrace not only the satisfaction of demand but also creation, awakening and increasing the existing demand. So identifying the users’ needs is the prime responsibility of the university library. One of the best methods to assess the users’ needs is to conduct users’ surveys as “surveys can provide information for choosing between optimal designs of the same service and information about how to customize the delivery and promotion of your services” (Zachert, 1986)

Concept of Marketing

Marketing means working with markets to actualize potential exchanges for the purpose of satisfying human needs and wants. It is the process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of goods, services and ideas to create exchanges with target groups that satisfy customer and organizational objectives (Kotler, 1996).

In terms of libraries, marketing means a sufficient change in the traditional attitude of librarians towards acquisition, organization, processing and retrieving information. The basis of library service should be to help its users to solve their information gathering and processing needs. This the library can do only if it relies on systematic information collection, procedures and policies and adjusts its products, services and organizational policies and procedures to the demands of the users.

Review of Literature

A review of literature reveals that the marketing of library services and products is rendered a viable tool to create awareness among the users and to decide the efficiency and effectiveness of the library services and products and that majority of the users are willing to pay for the value-added services and products.

Khali Klab (1994) conducted a survey of libraries and information centres (LICs) in Jordan to examine the application of the marketing concept to the products and services of LICs and to investigate users’ attitude towards free or fee-based services. The findings of the survey reveal that 60.7% of the respondents agree to pay fees for developed information services and 55.7% for developed information products.

The study conducted by Evan Wong (1996) for the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States focused on the segmentation of clients into specific target groups in order to meet their information needs. She found that dominant theme in the development of a strategic marketing process for the information services has been the use of proactive and regular client contact in order to determine the specific needs of the various client groups.

Vaishnav (1997) did a case study of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Library (BAMUL) and pointed out that the university library uses marketing process to satisfy the needs and wants of the users.

Tadasad and Talikoti (2000) surveyed the users of the City Central Library of Gulbarga to find out the extent of awareness and utilization of resources, services and facilities provided by the library. The findings of the survey reveal that a significant proportion of the users are unaware of the resources, services and facilities of the library. The study emphasizes the need for organizing regular awareness programmes to increase the optimum utilization of the resources, services and facilities of the library.

Pandya (2001) conducted a survey of the M S University of Baroda to explore the feasibility of marketing library and information services and products. The findings of the survey reveal that almost all the respondents depend upon the library for satisfying their information requirements. More than 80% of the research scholars and 92% of the deposit members are ready to pay library membership fee on yearly basis which indicates that money is not a constraint if quality services and products are provided on time. Respondents ranging from 52% to 72% are ready to pay for value added services such as CD-ROM searches, on-line searches, translation service, e-mail, SDI and CAS which are likely to be introduced in future by the library.

Rajyalakshmi and Waghmare (2001) conducted a survey of the faculty, research scholars and students of Nagpur University to know their awareness level and utilization pattern of computerized information services provided by the university library. The findings of the survey reveal that more than 70% of the users are not satisfied indicating the lacunae in marketing efforts of the established services for reaching the targeted users. The authors emphasize the need for marketing of information services and products in academic libraries to decide the efficiency and effectiveness of the services and products.

Ganguly and Kar (2002) conducted a case study of Tata Energy and Research Institute (TERI), New Delhi and stated that TERI-LIC’s experience of marketing is very encouraging. Its wide range of products and services are marketed and disseminated to the end user through an effective marketing strategy. Most of the services and products are price-based.

Neuhaus and Snowden (2003) conducted a case study of Rod Library of University of Northern Iowa. The Rod Library Marketing Committee created by Dean of Library Services in 1999 to better co-ordinate the library marketing efforts was able to heighten faculty and student awareness of library resources and services. Various marketing efforts and experiments such as promotional newsletters, e-mail postings, and student surveys were employed for the purpose.

Sharma and Choudhary (2003) conducted a case study of All India Management Association (AIMA) Library. The authors found that experience of marketing of information services and products is very encouraging at the AIMA Library. The users’ satisfaction assessment is overall good, which is evident from the fact that users are constantly asking for information through all possible means say e-mail, telephone, fax, mail and personal visits. Revenues generation of AIMA Library through products and services is also good and it is moving towards self sufficiency. The authors opine that at present when library budgets are shrinking, marketing of its products is earnestly required.

The study conducted by Morei (2004) of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Library, Aurngabad, revealed that the library develops products and services according to the needs expressed by their users and keeps their users aware through means such as media, exhibitions, users education, Internet, new arrival lists etc.

The study conducted by Kavulya (2004) of the selected university libraries of Kenya emphasized that the libraries need to adopt more systemic techniques in collecting data on users’ needs if they are to design and deliver the services that fit user requirements.

It can be safely concluded that marketing methods if applied appropriately can make a vital contribution to library and information work. The present study is an attempt to assess the attitude of the users towards the marketing of information services and products of university libraries.

Scope of the Study

There are six universities in Punjab and Chandigarh viz Panjab University, Chandigarh (1947); Punjabi University, Patiala (1962), Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (1962); Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (1969); Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (1997); and Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Fridkot (1998). Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and Punjab Technical University have been excluded from the study as a personal visit to these universities revealed that these universities have not yet developed library infrastructure good enough for the purpose of including in the present study. As a consequence, only the following four universities have been included in the study:

Objectives of the Study

The main objectives of the study are:

Research Methodology

For the purpose of the study, a questionnaire was designed (Appendix-1). The questionnaire was pre-tested before using it with the survey population. All the respondents were given the same questionnaire irrespective of their status. Some of the respondents willingly filled up the questionnaire but some of them showed great reluctance. A lot of persuasion had to be used to get the questionnaires filled in. The respondents were interviewed also to fill in the gaps, if any. A five point Likert scale has been used to know the users’ attitude towards marketing statements.

Analysis and Discussion

Table 1: Population and Sample of Library Users
University
Teachers
Research Scholars
Post-Graduate Students
Total Respondents
Universe – sample
Universe – sample
Universe – sample
Universe – sample
P.U.
694 – 69
1748 – 175
2598 – 260
5040 – 504
Pbi. Uni.
580 – 58
450 – 45
2200 – 220
3230 – 323
P.A.U
750 – 75
62 – 6
450 – 45
1262 – 126
G.N.D.U.
391 – 39
456 – 45
2000 – 200
2847 – 284
Total
2415 – 241
2716 – 271
7248 – 725
12379 – 1237

For sampling, proportionate random sampling was used. The proportion of sampling was limited to 10% of the total population.


Table 2: University-Wise Distribution of Respondents
Name of the University Number of Respondents
Panjab University 504 (40.7%)
Punjabi University 323 (26.1%)
Punjab Agricultural University 126 (10.2%)
Guru Nanak Dev University 284 (23.0%)
Total 1237 (100.0%)


Fig 1: University-Wise Distribution of Respondents


Table 3: Faculty-Wise Distribution of the Respondents

Sr. No. Faculty PU Pbi. Univ. P.A.U G.N.D.U Total
T R S T R S T R S T R S
1. Sciences 30 80 120 28 22 100 42 4 25 15 20 84 570
2. Social Sciences 25 60 100 18 15 90 33 2 20 14 18 75 470
3 Humanities 14 35 40 12 8 30 - - - 10 7 41 197

Total 69 175 260 58 45 220 75 6 45 39 45 200 1237


Fig. 2: Faculty-Wise Distribution of Respondents


Table 4: Distribution of Respondents

Status Number of Respondents
Teachers 241(19.5%)
Research Scholars 271(21.9%)
Students 725(58.6%)
Total 1237(100.0%)


Fig. 3: Distribution of Respondents


Table 5: Ranking of Degree of Keeping Up with Innovations


Frequency and Percentage
Rank Degrees Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
1. To a moderate extent 118 (48.9%) 146 (53.9%) 347 (47.8%) 611 (49.4%)
2. To some extent 66 (27.3%) 63 (23.2%) 171 (23.6%) 300 (24.2%)
3. To a considerable extent 36 (14.9%) 37 (13.6%) 99 (13.6%) 172 (13.9%)
4. To a great extent 21 (8.7%) 25 (9.2%) 108 (14.9%) 154 (12.4%)

Total 241 (100.0%) 271 (100.0%) 725 (100.0%) 1237 (100.0%)

One of the main jobs of university libraries is to keep their users aware of their field of interest. For this purpose four degrees of keeping up with innovations were identified and formulated. Table 5 shows that a majority of the respondents (49.4%) are able to keep up with the innovations to a moderate extent, 24.2% to some extent and 13.9% to a considerable extent. Only 12.4% of the respondents are able to keep up with the innovations to a great extent.


Table 6: Ranking of Reasons for not Keeping Up with Innovations


Frequency and Percentage
Rank Reasons Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
1. No specific Information available in the field of interest 142 (77.2%) 169 (80.8%) 185 (35.7%) 496 (54.4%)
2. Limited knowledge of library collection 48 (26.0%) 66 (31.5%) 333 (64.3%) 447 (49.0%)
3. Undeveloped information products 72 (39.1%) 90 (43.0%) 187 (36.1%) 349 (38.3%)
4. No current awareness services available 36 (19.5%) 62 (29.6%) 88 (16.9%) 186 (20.4%)
5. No time to use the library 24 (13.0%) 45 (21.5%) 39 (7.5%) 108 (11.8%)

Five categories of reasons were identified and formulated to clarify users’ dissatisfaction in keeping up with innovations as a part of question two of part one. The data collected from 911 respondents (184 teachers, 209 research scholars and 518 students) whose degrees of keeping up with innovations were limited or moderate has been analyzed in Table 6. The main reason as stated by 54.4% of the respondents is that they do not find specific information in the field of their interest. 49% of the respondents state that they have limited knowledge of library collections, 38.3% find the information products undeveloped, 20.4% do not get current awareness to keep up with the innovations and 11.8% do not get time to use the library.


Table 7: Frequency of Visits of Users


Frequency and Percentage
Frequency Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
Daily 23 (9.5%) 30 (11.0%) 237 (32.7%) 290 (23.4%)
Twice a week 29 (12.0%) 40 (14.7%) 105 (14.5%) 174 (14.0%)
Three times a week 72 (29.8%) 52 (19.2%) 175 (24.1%) 299 (24.2%)
Four times a week 58 (24.0%) 60 (22.1%) 67 (9.2%) 185 (14.9%)
Five times a week 40 (16.6%) 65 (24.0%) 51 (7.0%) 156 (12.6%)
Once a week 19 (7.8%) 24 (8.8%) 90 (12.4%) 133 (10.7%)
Never 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Total 241 (100.0%) 271 (100.0%) 725 (100.0%) 1237 (100.0%)

Table 7 depicts the views of the users who responded to the statements related to their frequency of visit to the university library. It is apparent from Table 7 that 23.4% users visit the library daily, 24% three times a week, 14.9% four times a week and 10.7% once a week.


Table 8: Ranking of Purposes of Using the Library


Frequency and Percentage
Rank Purpose of Using Library Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
1. To find specific information in a field of interest 138 (57.2%) 224 (82.6%) 435 (60.0%) 797 (64.4%)
2. To gain current awareness 155 (64.3%) 165 (60.8%) 278 (38.3%) 598 (48.3%)
3. To photocopy periodical articles 120 (49.8%) 170 (62.7%) 290 (40.0%) 580 (46.9%)
4. To study 38 (15.7%) 124 (45.7%) 290 (40.0%) 452 (36.5%)
5. To read the newspaper 20 (8.2%) 41 (15.1%) 150 (20.6%) 211 (17.0%)
6. To use microforms 25 (10.3%) 16 (5.9%) 8 (1.1%) 49 (3.9%)

It is revealed from Table 8 that a majority of the respondents (64.4%) visit the library to find specific information in their field of interest. The other purposes in order of preferences are to gain current awareness (48.3%), to get photocopies of the material (46.9%), to study (36.5%), to read newspapers (17.0%) and to use micro-forms (3.9%).


Table 9: Ranking of Users’ Ways of Awareness


Frequency and Percentage
Rank Users’ Ways of Awareness Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
1. Published publications and research 144 (59.7%) 216 (79.7%) 257 (35.4%) 617 (49.8%)
2. Seminars/conferences/workshops 170 (70.5%) 180 (66.4%) 242 (33.3%) 592 (47.8%)
3. Current awareness bulletins 120 (49.7%) 104 (38.3%) 129 (17.7%) 353 (28.5%)
4. Consultation of indexes and abstracts 92 (38.1%) 94 (34.6%) 138 (19.0%) 324 (26.2%)
5. Consultation of catalogues 30 (12.4%) 56 (20.6%) 181 (24.9%) 267 (21.5%)
6. Book reviews and publication announcements 82 (34.0%) 72 (26.5%) 87 (12.0%) 241 (19.4%)
7. Selective dissemination of information 96 (39.8%) 119 (43.9%) 0 (0%) 215 (17.3%)
8. Bibliographical lists 73 (30.2%) 59 (21.7%) 78 (10.7%) 210 (16.9%)
9. Exhibitions 18 (7.4%) 22 (8.1%) 39 (5.3%) 79 (6.3%)
10. Conversation with colleagues at work 25 (10.3%) 15 (5.5%) 34 (4.6%) 74 (5.9%)

Ten categories were identified to know the ways through which users keep themselves up to date with the information in their field of interest. It is revealed from Table 9 that 49.8% of the respondents keep themselves up-to-date through published publications and research, 47.8% by attending seminars/conferences/workshops and 28.5% by consulting indexes and abstracts. The other ways in order of preference have been given in Table 9.


Table 10: Ranking of Needed Information Services


Frequency and Percentage
Rank Name of Service Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
1. Literature search 121 (50.2%) 180 (66.4%) 289 (39.8%) 590 (47.7%)
2. Current awareness services 184 (76.3%) 216 (79.7%) 181 (24.9%) 581 (46.9%)
3. Notification about newly published research 151 (62.6%) 203 (74.9%) 224 (30.9%) 578 (46.7%)
4. Notification about conferences/seminars/workshops 117 (48.5%) 148 (54.6%) 297 (40.9%) 562 (45.4%)
5. Selective dissemination of information 88 (36.5%) 135 (49.8%) 246 (33.9%) 469 (37.9%)
6. Photocopy of periodical articles 79 (32.7%) 115 (42.4%) 261 (36.0%) 455 (36.7%)
7. Reference services 34 (14.1%) 77 (28.4%) 293 (40.4%) 404 (32.6%)
8. Circulation of periodical contents 78 (32.3%) 105 (38.7%) 203 (28.0%) 386 (31.2%)
9. Abstracting services 59 (24.4%) 95 (35.0%) 142 (19.5%) 296 (23.9%)
10. Indexing services 79 (32.7%) 98 (36.1%) 114 (15.7%) 291 (23.5%)
11. Newspaper clippings 40 (16.6%) 62 (22.8%) 182 (25.1%) 284 (22.9%)
12. Translation services 49 (20.3%) 92 (33.9%) 71 (9.8%) 212 (17.1%)
13. Interlibrary loan 35 (14.5%) 44 (16.2%) 72 (9.9%) 151 (12.2%)
14. Patent information 61 (25.3%) 52 (19.2%) 29 (4.0%) 142 (11.4%)
15. Standard information 39 (16.1%) 46 (16.9%) 52 (7.1%) 137 (11.1%)
16. Repackaging and condensation services 35 (14.5%) 75 (27.6%) 26 (3.6%) 136 (11.0%)

To survey the users’ needs/expectations regarding information services, sixteen types of information services were identified and formulated. The responses analyzed in Table 10 reveal that more than 45% of the respondents want literature search services, current awareness services, notification about newly published research, conferences and seminars. All the other services required by the users have been given in Table 10 in order of preference.


Table 11: Willingness to Pay for Information Services


Frequency and Percentage
Willing Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
Yes 154 (63.9%) 189 (69.7%) 413 (56.9%) 756 (61.1%)
No 87 (36.1%) 82 (30.3%) 312 (43.1%) 481 (38.9%)
Total 241 (100.0%) 271 (100.0%) 725 (100.0%) 1237 (100.0%)

It is revealed from Table 11 that a majority of the respondents (61.1%) are willing to pay for developed information services. Only 38.9% of the respondents are not in favour of paying any fee for these.


Table 12: Ranking of Information Services Acceptable on Payment by the Users


Frequency and Percentage
Rank Name of Service Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
1. Photocopying 74 (48.0%) 110 (58.2%) 250 (60.5%) 434 (57.4%)
2. Literature search 80 (51.9%) 144 (76.2%) 191 (46.2%) 415 (54.9%)
3. Current awareness services 85 (55.1%) 145 (76.7%) 166 (40.2%) 396 (52.4%)
4. Circulation of periodical contents 61 (39.6%) 97 (51.3%) 186 (45.0%) 344 (45.5%)
5. Selective dissemination of information 65 (42.2%) 115 (60.8%) 145 (35.1%) 325 (43.0%)
6. Reference service 25 (16.2%) 65 (34.4%) 191 (46.2%) 281 (37.1%)
7. Notification about conferences/seminars/workshops 80 (51.9%) 91 (48.1%) 48 (11.6%) 219 (29.0%)
8. Abstracting services 60 (38.9%) 82 (43.3%) 64 (15.5%) 206 (27.2%)
9. Notification about newly published research 40 (25.9%) 70 (37.0%) 72 (17.4%) 182 (24.0%)
10. Translation services 30 (19.4%) 78 (41.2%) 69 (16.7%) 177 (23.4%)
11. Indexing services 33 (21.4%) 67 (35.4%) 62 (15.0%) 162 (21.4%)
12. Interlibrary loan 28 (18.1%) 31 (16.4%) 73 (17.6%) 132 (17.4%)
13. Standards information 36 (23.3%) 52 (27.5%) 43 (10.4%) 131 (17.3%)
14. Patent information 23 (14.9%) 54 (28.5%) 28 (6.7%) 105 (13.9%)
15. Repackaging and condensation 27 (17.5%) 49 (25.9%) 18 (4.3%) 94 (12.4%)
16. Newspaper clippings 18 (11.6%) 31 (16.4%) 42 (10.1%) 91 (12.0%)

Sixteen categories of information services were identified and formulated to determine which information services would be accepted by users on payment basis. Table 12 shows that out of 756 respondents (154 teachers, 189 research scholars and 413 students) who are ready to pay for information services, 57.4% are ready to pay for photocopying and 54.8% have shown willingness to pay for literature searches. Data regarding other services has been analyzed by rank in Table 12. From the table we can infer that a significant number of respondents are willing to pay for developed and comprehensive information services.


Table 13: Ranking of the needed information products


Frequency and Percentage
Rank Name of Product Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
1. Current awareness bulletins 106 (43.9%) 204 (75.2%) 291 (40.1%) 601 (48.6%)
2. Results of literature search 74 (30.7%) 147 (54.2%) 284 (39.1%) 505 (40.8%)
3. New additions list 83 (34.4%) 145 (53.5%) 271 (37.3%) 499 (40.3%)
4. Bibliographical lists 97 (40.2%) 167 (61.6%) 195 (26.9%) 459 (37.1%)
5. Information bulletins 117 (48.5%) 125 (46.1%) 210 (28.9%) 452 (36.5%)
6. Selective dissemination of information bulletins 110 (45.6%) 158 (58.3%) 151 (20.8%) 419 (33.9%)
7. News bulletins 98 (40.6%) 133 (49.0%) 166 (22.9%) 397 (32.1%)
8. Directories 114 (47.3%) 159 (58.6%) 72 (9.9%) 345 (27.9%)
9. Abstracts 49 (20.3%) 83 (30.6%) 82 (11.3%) 214 (17.3%)
10. Indexes 63 (26.1%) 79 (29.1%) 68 (9.3%) 210 (16.9%)

Ten categories of information products were identified and formulated to discover the needs of users regarding information products. Data indicates that 48.6% of the users are in need of current awareness bulletins, 40.8% want the results of literature searches and 40.3% want to get new additions lists. Data regarding other needed products has been analyzed by rank in Table 13.


Table 14: Acceptance of Paying for Information Products


Frequency and Percentage
Opinion Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
Yes 137 (56.8%) 195 (71.9%) 374 (51.6%) 706 (57.1%)
No 104 (43.2%) 76 (28.1%) 351 (48.4%) 531 (42.9%)
Total 241 (100.0%) 271 (100%) 725 (100.0%) 1237 (100.0%)

It has been found from Table 14 that 57.1% of the respondents are willing to pay for needed information products.


Table 15: Ranking of Information Products Acceptable on Payment by the Users


Frequency and Percentage
Rank Name of Information Product Teachers Research Scholars Students Total
1. Results of literature search 55 (40.1%) 112 (57.4%) 188 (50.2%) 355 (50.3%)
2. Bibliographic lists 70 (51.1%) 106 (54.3%) 169 (45.1%) 345 (48.9%)
3. Current awareness bulletin 62 (45.2%) 113 (57.9%) 163 (43.5%) 338 (47.8%)
4. New additions list 57 (41.6%) 93 (47.7%) 116 (31.0%) 266 (37.6%)
5. Information bulletins 71 (51.8%) 86 (44.1%) 101 (27.0%) 258 (36.5%)
6. Selective dissemination of information bulletins 59 (43.0%) 66 (33.8%) 53 (14.1%) 178 (25.2%)
7. News bulletins 43 (31.4%) 48 (24.6%) 74 (19.8%) 165 (23.3%)
8. Abstract lists 34 (24.8%) 57 (29.2%) 67 (17.9%) 158 (22.4%)
9. Indexes 52 (37.9%) 45 (23.0%) 28 (7.5%) 125 (17.7%)
10. Directories 28 (20.4%) 37 (18.9%) 22 (5.8%) 87 (12.3%)

In Table 15, the responses of 706 respondents (137 teachers, 195 research scholars and 374 students) who are willing to pay for needed information products have been analyzed. Data indicates that 50.3% are ready to pay for results of literature searches, 48.9% for bibliographic lists and 47.8% for current awareness bulletins. The other products for which respondents are willing to pay have been shown by rank in Table 15.


Table 16: Distribution of Users’ Agreement, Disagreement and Indecision for Marketing Statements


Statement In Agreement
In Disagreement
SA A SA+A U D SD D+SD
1. The potential users are denied access to information products/services when fees are charged in the library 206 (16.6%) 369 (29.8%) 575 (46.4%) 173 (13.9%) 226 (18.3%) 263 (21.2%) 489 (39.5%)
2. Users should pay fees for information products/services 45 (3.6%) 500 (40.4%) 545 (44.0%) 175 (14.2%) 199 (16.1%) 318 (25.7%) 517 (41.8%)
3. Users should not pay fees for information products/services 105 (8.5%) 489 (39.5%) 594 (48.0%) 196 (15.8%) 369 (29.8%) 78 (6.3%) 447 (36.1%)
4. Fees are a major determent to library users 108 (8.7%) 439 (35.5%) 547 (44.2%) 149 (12.0%) 206 (16.6%) 335 (27.1%) 541 (43.7%)
5. Developed information products/services are very necessary so it is not a problem for the users to pay for the developed information products/services 197 (15.9%) 489 (39.5%) 686 (55.4%) 118 (9.5%) 211 (17.1%) 222 (17.9%) 433 (35.0%)
6. Computerized literature searches should be part of normal free library services 377 (30.4%) 691 (55.9%) 1068 (86.3%) 73 (5.9%) 73 (5.9%) 23 (1.9%) 96 (7.8%)
7. Cost of computerized literature search should be paid by both the library and users 201 (16.3%) 436 (35.2%) 637 (51.5%) 130 (10.5%) 248 (20.0%) 222 (18.0%) 470 (38.0%)
8. Cost of the computerized literature search should be paid by the users only 34 (2.7%) 24 (1.9%) 58 (4.6%) 98 (7.9%) 721 (58.3%) 360 (29.1%) 1081 (87.4%)
Abbreviations: SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; U = Undecided; D =Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree

To clarify the users’ attitude towards marketing statements, eight categories of marketing statements were identified and formulated. In each category five variables were identified and formulated concerning agreement, indecision and disagreement with the statements. Table 16 exhibits that statements 2 and 5, concerning users’ willingness to pay for the developed information services and products, are positive. The responses of the users who agree/strongly agree with these statements range from 44.0% to 55.4%. Responses to statements 1, 3, 4, and 6 are negative and the response of respondents for these ranges from 44.2% to 86.3%. For statements 7 and 8, 51.4% of the respondents think that the cost of computerized literature search should be paid by both the library and users and not by the users alone (87.4%).

Findings of the Survey

Based on the findings, the following suggestions are put forward to improve library services and information products.

Conclusion

University libraries spend huge amounts every year in building up their collections and offering library services. But these are of no use if these are not used to satisfy information needs of the library users. Effective utilization of resources of services can be achieved through marketing approach. Strategic marketing approach can provide university libraries such tools as can assist them in the task of designing, developing and delivering appropriate services and products.

References

  1. Coote, H. and Batchelor, B. (1997). How to market your library service effectively. 2nd ed. London: ASLIB, p. 19.
  2. EVAN-Wong, S. (1996). Marketing agricultural information services in the Eastern Caribbean. Library Management, 17 (3), pp. 22-28. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.
  3. Ganguly, S. and Kar, D. C. (2002). Marketing: A critical policy for today’s information centre. DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology , 22 (3), pp. 15-25.
  4. Kavulya, J. M. (2004). Marketing of library services: A case study of selected university libraries of Kenya. Library Management, 23 (3), pp. 118-26. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.
  5. Khali Klaib, F. J. A. (1994). Marketing of information products and services by libraries and information centres in Jordan. Gwalior: Jiwaji University, Ph.D. Thesis (unpublished).
  6. Kotler, P. (1996). Marketing management analysis, planning, implementation and control. 8th ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India, pp. 12-13.
  7. Morei, S. (2004). Marketing of library services. Responding to Users’ Needs in Changing Information Landscapes: Sojourn of Libraries from Palm-Leaf to Palm- Top. 49th All India Library Conference, 29 Dec., 2003 - 1 Jan., 2004, Jhansi. Delhi: ILA, pp. 438-443.
  8. Nelson, J. A. (1983). Marketing state library agencies. Illinois Libraries, 65 (3), pp. 61-70.
  9. Neuhaus, C. and Snowden, K. (2003). Public relations for a university library: A marketing programme is born. Library Management. 24 (4&5), pp. 193-203. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.
  10. Pandya, S. N. (2001). Information marketing: Need of the hour. Library Practices for Effective Management: ILA Seminar Papers. 47th All India Library Conference, 20-23 Dec., 2001, Warrangal. Delhi: ILA, pp. 358-67.
  11. Rajyalakshmi, D. and Waghmare, S. (2001). Need for marketing of information services and products in academic libraries with special reference to Nagpur University automated services. Library Practices for Effective Management: ILA Seminar Papers. 47th All India Library Conference, 20-23 Dec., 2001, Warrangal. Delhi: ILA, pp. 379-95.
  12. Sharma, R. and Chaudhary, P. K. (2003). Marketing value added management information to user community: A case study of AIMA Library. Electronic Information Environment and Library Services: A Contemporary Paradigm. 48th All India Library Conference, 22-23 Jan. 2003, Bangalore. Delhi: ILA, pp. 438-46.
  13. Tadasad, P. G. and Talikoti, S. C. (2000). Awareness and utilization of resources, services and facilities of city central libraries: A users’ survey of City Central Library, Gulbarga. ILA Bulletin. 36 (3), pp.80-86.
  14. Vaishnav, A. A. (1997). Marketing university libraries: A case study. Information Marketing. Jaipur: Rawat, pp.49-55.
  15. Zachert, M. et al. (1986). Marketing measures for information services. Special Libraries, 77 (2). pp. 61-70.

Appendix 1

Questionnaire for Users

Back to Contents