Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianshipv.8 no.3 (Winter 2007) |
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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:
The main objectives of the study are:
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.
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.
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%) |
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%).
Based on the findings, the following suggestions are put forward to improve library services and information products.
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.