MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1588746096 · doi:10.18438/b87k62

Academic Libraries Should Consider a Strategic Approach to Promotion and Marketing of e-Books

2011· article· en· W1588746096 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Nazi Torabi

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueKnowledge Management and Sharing
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPromotion (chess)Thematic analysisSubject (documents)Academic librarySociologyCollection developmentMarketing researchPublic relationsMarketingStrategic planningLibrary scienceQualitative researchBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objectives – The main objectives of this study were the following: 
 
 1) To determine the existence of a formal promotion or marketing strategic plan for e-books in academic libraries.
 2) To identify the marketing and promotion tools being used for e-book marketing.
 3) To understand the role of faculty in promoting e-books. 
 4) To explore the issues and challenges that the libraries are facing in promoting e-books.
 5) To investigate the future plans for the promotion of e-books. 
 
 Design – Qualitative study involving individual interviews followed by thematic analysis.
 
 Setting – The research setting was seven academic libraries with various sizes of e-book collections (~9,000 to ~500,000) and ranging from research leading to teaching focused universities. 
 
 Subjects – The interviews were conducted with 25 academic librarians, including 19 subject librarians, 4 e-resources librarians, 1 collection development manager, and 1 acquisition and metadata officer. 
 
 Methods – Using a multiple case approach, the researchers interviewed 25 librarians from 7 academic libraries. The interviews were digitally recorded. The interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. The researchers recorded information about the type and size of the university, number of e-books, and the role of interviewees, and then conducted a semi-structured interview. The following questions were asked:
 
 1) “Do you have a promotion/marketing strategy for e-books (or e-resources)? If not, is there a need for one?
 2) What are the marketing and promotion tools you use for e-books?
 3) What are the issues and challenges in promoting e-books?” (p. 629)
 
 Main Results – While none of the cases had a formalized marketing strategy, most participants (19 out of 25) acknowledged the importance of developing one. Those who did not find it necessary argued that their users had good knowledge of library e-resources, thus, marketing was unnecessary. Although there was a lack of a marketing strategic plan across all the cases, some of the participants were practicing e-book marketing and promotion to some extent. The interviewees mentioned a total of 20 different promotional tools. The most frequently used promotional tools were library websites, information literacy sessions, OPACs, and e-mails. Participants also noted marketing using online help tutorials and various events. The least frequently mentioned promotional tools were announcement boards, a library representative, blogs, bulletins, the display screen, and a marketing campaign. The marketing campaign was only mentioned by librarians from one library. 
 
 According to some respondents, there are faculty and course instructors who contribute in promotion of e-books dependently or independently from the library. Some recommend e-books as course reading materials, some add links to e-books on the virtual learning environment (VLE) reading lists, and some even go beyond that and provide instructions on how to use e-books. Not all librarians were aware of the use of e-books by faculty.
 The authors also investigated the future plans anticipated by the participants. There was only one library that has appointed a marketing officer and intends to develop a marketing strategy. All other cases plan to improve on current marketing practices or expressed innovative approaches in marketing by “development of an information literacy project, use of online chat, promotion of e-books in course committee meetings, provision of a paper guide for e-books,” CD case display of available e-books, and other strategies (p. 633).
 
 Marketing a new service comes with its own issues and challenges. The most frequently mentioned issues and challenges that librarians were facing were time constraints, raising users’ expectations, and e-book availability in the library. Also, accessibility was of concern to some participants. 
 
 Conclusion – This study underlines the importance of marketing a library’s new resources, particularly e-books, and it confirms the lack of a strategic approach to marketing in academic libraries. Some participants recognize the importance of a strategic plan, and practice e-book marketing using a variety of tools. However, most tools are not marketing specific, but are either communication tools or part of service delivery. The authors stated that most interviewees had a reflective approach to marketing, since they were trying to improve the current marketing practices by innovative means or by adapting successful practices from other colleagues.
 
 The authors recommend that establishing a well thought-out strategic approach would help overcome several issues and challenges raised by participants. It would help manage the tension between service delivery and promotion. Also, it would provide clear guidelines for developing a budget allocation plan for e-book purchasing. In addition, internal marketing would help establish a culture of user-centred service in the library, and highlights the importance of new services among library staff. 
 Libraries are always dependent on publishers’ decisions concerning the availability of and licensing agreements for e-books. They are considered as “intermediaries in the information or document supply chain” (p. 638). The authors suggest future studies to understand the role of libraries in managing links between licensing issues and service delivery. 
 
 One interesting observation in this study was the absence of Web 2.0 tools as promotional tools. It seems that libraries do not fully take advantage of new technology for marketing. Another interesting finding was the inaccurate or indirect reference to the notion of word-of-mouth by respondents. In this study, word-of-mouth was mentioned as a marketing tool by only a few participants. No one perceived the role of academic faculty in promoting e-books by word-of-mouth. While word-of-mouth is considered to be an invaluable marketing strategy because it is a tailored recommendation by consumers to consumers (Alire, 2007), it was neglected by most respondents in this study. Overall, the lack of knowledge of marketing strategies and users’ information seeking behaviour among academic librarians is evident.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,948
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,894

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,119
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,142
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,176 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetKnowledge Management and SharingTravaux en français237 207