- Email: [email protected]
Flb's side of the story
Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, Vol. 3, pp. 73-75 (1979) Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
0364-6408/79/02073-03502.00 Copyright © 1979 Pergamon Press Ltd
FLB'S SIDE OF THE STORY
CHARLES R. FOLLETT President Follett Library Book Company 4506 Northwest Highway Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014
We appreciate having this opportunity to respond to Mrs. Eaglen's article in the same issue that it appears, and wish to compliment her on her summary of the events to date in the bookmark controversy. At the same time, however, we'd like to include some information she conveniently omitted when quoting from our FLB Newsletter. Perhaps the most important omission is this statement from the front page of the newsletter: "Actually, the bookmark is included in only a very small percentage o f titles FLB d i s t r i b u t e s - i n about 70 out of more than 27,000 t i t l e s . . , only ¼ o f 1%. And it does not influence a customer's selection of titles, since none o f the titles in FLB's catalogs are marked in any way to indicate that the b o o k m a r k will be included should the book be ordered." Since only ¼ o f 1% o f the titles we distribute carry the bookmark, and since our customers do not receive a b o o k m a r k unless they happen to order one of those books, it might well be said that someone is creating a mountain out o f a molehill in regard to this situation. Ms. Eaglen also mentioned that in the Winter issue o f our newsletter, "segments of nine letters (no names o f authors given) received by FLBC regarding the bookmarks were printed (six for their continued use, three against it)." The way she stated this, it would appear that we intentionally slanted the write-up by including six favorable letters and only three unfavorable ones. The opposite is true. If anyone were to measure the amount o f space devoted to these letters, it would be readily apparent that both pro and con received about equal t r e a t m e n t - 9 column inches for pro, and 9-3/4 column inches for c o n - e v e n though many more customers had written to us in favor o f the bookmark than against it. As for the anonymous authorship o f these letters, the authors were not identified because they were not writing for publication in a journal, but to express a view within a supplier-customer relationship. We did identify them as to title (e.g., library coordinator for public school district, elementary school librarian, high school library coordinator), and the original letters are on file. If Ms. Eaglen wishes to examine these letters, she is welcome to do so, providing the privacy o f the authors is respected. The same holds true for letters excerpted in our Spring issue. In this case, we had invited c o m m e n t s - a s well as a "vote" on whether or not to continue the use of the bookmark. We published 21 favorable comments and four unfavorable o n e s - r o u g h l y a 5 to 1 r a t i o - e v e n though the "vote" showed that our customers favored the use o f the bookmark by a 9 to 1 ratio. 73
74
CHARLES R. FOLLETT
Incidentally, many of the favorable comments sum up the situation rather neatly. To quote just a few (omitted by Ms. Eaglen): "It is so refreshing to see a company with the intestinal fortitude to alert the novice and the experienced librarian of a possible controversy. There is no way and hardly any time to read all books before ordering; therefore, we must rely upon the experience o f others and consider that in light of our own local situation." "We can't know what's in a book until we see it! Reviews don't tell the whole story! Your flag says: 'Judge for yourself.' Keep it up! . . . . Ignorance is not bliss. Alerting is not censorship. The books are still available. Movies get ratings to let us know what's in them." "Forewarned is forearmed. How can I defend a title if I am unaware of the need to prepare a knowledgeable defense? . . . . If you buy a cake that was decorated beautifully-nice, light, delicious-looking-but it had just ~A cup of manure in it, is the cake good? I'd rather know that the manure was there before I bought it." "As a librarian [also opposed to censorship], I would appreciate receiving this notification, since the time lapse between reading reviews and ordering books is often months. Maybe some librarians wouldn't feel foolish being confronted by an angry parent of a second grader who wants to know what a wet dream is, and all you can say is, 'Well, I really don't know anything about the b o o k - b u t it got a good review.' " One more statement in our newsletter that Ms. Eaglen did not see fit to mention was this one: "In addition to the reasons given by customers favoring the bookmark, there's another reason for using it. 'Many times,' notes FLB President Charles Follett, 'a customer receives a book shipment from us, processes i t - r u b b e r stamping it all o v e r - a n d then discovers something she considers objectionable in one or more of the books. So she returns the books to us and asks for full credit. Presently, we've been accepting these returns and have been issuing full credit, but the returned books are a total loss to us, since we can't send them to anyone else or back to the publisher. By inserting the bookmark in books known to be objectionable to a number o f customers, we're really asking librarians to please examine those books before processing them. In the future, we may have to refuse to issue credit for any books that went out with the b o o k m a r k and were returned after a library has processed them.' " It's interesting to note that since we started using the bookmark the number of books returned has decreased. We interpret this to mean that the bookmark has not influenced many librarians to refuse to shelf these books; it has only alerted them to the books' content so they can act--or not a c t - a s they see fit. Unlike most other book distributors, FLB sells primarily to school libraries (90% o f our business) and public libraries, not to bookstores. We are not, as Ms. Eaglen states, "simply a purveyor of certain goods." We consider ourselves a supplier of goods and services. Our purpose is to provide our customers with the finest, most complete service possible, and to respond to their needs to the fullest extent possible. As is obvious from the "vote" taken on the use of bookmarks, 90% o f those replying to our survey favored the bookmark. (It is impossible for any business to fully satisfy 100% of its customers.) There is a practical reason for this. Many librarians-dedicated, professional and concerned as they a r e - s i m p l y find it impossible (for reasons of time and lack of support staff) to become adequately acquainted with every book they s e l e c t - o f t e n sight u n s e e n - b e f o r e ordering them, or to read each book that arrives in their libraries. That's why they appreciate seeing a bookmark in those (relatively few) books which a significant number o f other librarians have, for one reason or another, found objectionable to some degree. It alerts them to these books, so they can look through them more thoroughly than they otherwise might do. It is still their decision whether or not to shelf these books, or return them to FLB. In the vast majority of cases, they shelf the b o o k s - b u t they stand ready to "defend" them if such a defense is ever needed.
FLB's Side of the Story
75
As for the fear that some small bands of activists can and will send us enough complaints to cause certain books to carry the bookmark, this is a baseless fear. We are aware of these groups, and we carefully examine any complaints about a book's content. In this respect we are guided, to a great extent, by professional librarians on our own staff and by librarians who do consulting work for us. For the most part, it is only books that have repeatedly run counter to common community standards that have been "bookmarked" by FLB. To repeat the statement we made in our newsletter: We do not believe in censorship. And we do not believe that the bookmark in any way undermines freedom of information or freedom of access to information. It does not purport to be an arbiter of morality, nor does it draw a line as to what books are made available, and what books are not. It is merely an extra service to our customers (the 90% who wish us to continue using it) and in no way affects the freedom of choice. To state otherwise is to give it more influence than it really has, and to insult the intelligence of our customers.
RANDOM NOTES LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS: MOST CITED RESOURCE TOOL The "Resources in 1978" section of Library Resources and Technical Services (Summer 1979) shows Library Acquisitions to be the year's single most cited resource tool. Approximately 11 percent of all resources cited in the LRTS section appeared in Library Acquisitions. If one were to exclude monographic references and papers delivered at the 1978 ACRL Conference, thus concentrating solely on periodical citations, he would discover that over 13 percent of the same appeared from Library Acquisitions. Expectedly, librarians will want to know how various other journals fared in comparison with Library Acquisitions. Thus, we have prepared the following chart, representing the number of citations obtained by the major journals relating to acquisitions in any substantive way: Number of Times Cited
Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory College & Research Libraries Arnerican Libraries Collection Management Library Journal Library Resources & Technical Services Library Trends Serials Librarian Special Libraries All others (3 citations or fewer)
76
Percent of Total
17 16 14 11 7 7 4
13 12 11 8 5 5 3
4
3
4 46
3 37
130
100
0364-6408/79/02073-03502.00 Copyright © 1979 Pergamon Press Ltd
FLB'S SIDE OF THE STORY
CHARLES R. FOLLETT President Follett Library Book Company 4506 Northwest Highway Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014
We appreciate having this opportunity to respond to Mrs. Eaglen's article in the same issue that it appears, and wish to compliment her on her summary of the events to date in the bookmark controversy. At the same time, however, we'd like to include some information she conveniently omitted when quoting from our FLB Newsletter. Perhaps the most important omission is this statement from the front page of the newsletter: "Actually, the bookmark is included in only a very small percentage o f titles FLB d i s t r i b u t e s - i n about 70 out of more than 27,000 t i t l e s . . , only ¼ o f 1%. And it does not influence a customer's selection of titles, since none o f the titles in FLB's catalogs are marked in any way to indicate that the b o o k m a r k will be included should the book be ordered." Since only ¼ o f 1% o f the titles we distribute carry the bookmark, and since our customers do not receive a b o o k m a r k unless they happen to order one of those books, it might well be said that someone is creating a mountain out o f a molehill in regard to this situation. Ms. Eaglen also mentioned that in the Winter issue o f our newsletter, "segments of nine letters (no names o f authors given) received by FLBC regarding the bookmarks were printed (six for their continued use, three against it)." The way she stated this, it would appear that we intentionally slanted the write-up by including six favorable letters and only three unfavorable ones. The opposite is true. If anyone were to measure the amount o f space devoted to these letters, it would be readily apparent that both pro and con received about equal t r e a t m e n t - 9 column inches for pro, and 9-3/4 column inches for c o n - e v e n though many more customers had written to us in favor o f the bookmark than against it. As for the anonymous authorship o f these letters, the authors were not identified because they were not writing for publication in a journal, but to express a view within a supplier-customer relationship. We did identify them as to title (e.g., library coordinator for public school district, elementary school librarian, high school library coordinator), and the original letters are on file. If Ms. Eaglen wishes to examine these letters, she is welcome to do so, providing the privacy o f the authors is respected. The same holds true for letters excerpted in our Spring issue. In this case, we had invited c o m m e n t s - a s well as a "vote" on whether or not to continue the use of the bookmark. We published 21 favorable comments and four unfavorable o n e s - r o u g h l y a 5 to 1 r a t i o - e v e n though the "vote" showed that our customers favored the use o f the bookmark by a 9 to 1 ratio. 73
74
CHARLES R. FOLLETT
Incidentally, many of the favorable comments sum up the situation rather neatly. To quote just a few (omitted by Ms. Eaglen): "It is so refreshing to see a company with the intestinal fortitude to alert the novice and the experienced librarian of a possible controversy. There is no way and hardly any time to read all books before ordering; therefore, we must rely upon the experience o f others and consider that in light of our own local situation." "We can't know what's in a book until we see it! Reviews don't tell the whole story! Your flag says: 'Judge for yourself.' Keep it up! . . . . Ignorance is not bliss. Alerting is not censorship. The books are still available. Movies get ratings to let us know what's in them." "Forewarned is forearmed. How can I defend a title if I am unaware of the need to prepare a knowledgeable defense? . . . . If you buy a cake that was decorated beautifully-nice, light, delicious-looking-but it had just ~A cup of manure in it, is the cake good? I'd rather know that the manure was there before I bought it." "As a librarian [also opposed to censorship], I would appreciate receiving this notification, since the time lapse between reading reviews and ordering books is often months. Maybe some librarians wouldn't feel foolish being confronted by an angry parent of a second grader who wants to know what a wet dream is, and all you can say is, 'Well, I really don't know anything about the b o o k - b u t it got a good review.' " One more statement in our newsletter that Ms. Eaglen did not see fit to mention was this one: "In addition to the reasons given by customers favoring the bookmark, there's another reason for using it. 'Many times,' notes FLB President Charles Follett, 'a customer receives a book shipment from us, processes i t - r u b b e r stamping it all o v e r - a n d then discovers something she considers objectionable in one or more of the books. So she returns the books to us and asks for full credit. Presently, we've been accepting these returns and have been issuing full credit, but the returned books are a total loss to us, since we can't send them to anyone else or back to the publisher. By inserting the bookmark in books known to be objectionable to a number o f customers, we're really asking librarians to please examine those books before processing them. In the future, we may have to refuse to issue credit for any books that went out with the b o o k m a r k and were returned after a library has processed them.' " It's interesting to note that since we started using the bookmark the number of books returned has decreased. We interpret this to mean that the bookmark has not influenced many librarians to refuse to shelf these books; it has only alerted them to the books' content so they can act--or not a c t - a s they see fit. Unlike most other book distributors, FLB sells primarily to school libraries (90% o f our business) and public libraries, not to bookstores. We are not, as Ms. Eaglen states, "simply a purveyor of certain goods." We consider ourselves a supplier of goods and services. Our purpose is to provide our customers with the finest, most complete service possible, and to respond to their needs to the fullest extent possible. As is obvious from the "vote" taken on the use of bookmarks, 90% o f those replying to our survey favored the bookmark. (It is impossible for any business to fully satisfy 100% of its customers.) There is a practical reason for this. Many librarians-dedicated, professional and concerned as they a r e - s i m p l y find it impossible (for reasons of time and lack of support staff) to become adequately acquainted with every book they s e l e c t - o f t e n sight u n s e e n - b e f o r e ordering them, or to read each book that arrives in their libraries. That's why they appreciate seeing a bookmark in those (relatively few) books which a significant number o f other librarians have, for one reason or another, found objectionable to some degree. It alerts them to these books, so they can look through them more thoroughly than they otherwise might do. It is still their decision whether or not to shelf these books, or return them to FLB. In the vast majority of cases, they shelf the b o o k s - b u t they stand ready to "defend" them if such a defense is ever needed.
FLB's Side of the Story
75
As for the fear that some small bands of activists can and will send us enough complaints to cause certain books to carry the bookmark, this is a baseless fear. We are aware of these groups, and we carefully examine any complaints about a book's content. In this respect we are guided, to a great extent, by professional librarians on our own staff and by librarians who do consulting work for us. For the most part, it is only books that have repeatedly run counter to common community standards that have been "bookmarked" by FLB. To repeat the statement we made in our newsletter: We do not believe in censorship. And we do not believe that the bookmark in any way undermines freedom of information or freedom of access to information. It does not purport to be an arbiter of morality, nor does it draw a line as to what books are made available, and what books are not. It is merely an extra service to our customers (the 90% who wish us to continue using it) and in no way affects the freedom of choice. To state otherwise is to give it more influence than it really has, and to insult the intelligence of our customers.
RANDOM NOTES LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS: MOST CITED RESOURCE TOOL The "Resources in 1978" section of Library Resources and Technical Services (Summer 1979) shows Library Acquisitions to be the year's single most cited resource tool. Approximately 11 percent of all resources cited in the LRTS section appeared in Library Acquisitions. If one were to exclude monographic references and papers delivered at the 1978 ACRL Conference, thus concentrating solely on periodical citations, he would discover that over 13 percent of the same appeared from Library Acquisitions. Expectedly, librarians will want to know how various other journals fared in comparison with Library Acquisitions. Thus, we have prepared the following chart, representing the number of citations obtained by the major journals relating to acquisitions in any substantive way: Number of Times Cited
Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory College & Research Libraries Arnerican Libraries Collection Management Library Journal Library Resources & Technical Services Library Trends Serials Librarian Special Libraries All others (3 citations or fewer)
76
Percent of Total
17 16 14 11 7 7 4
13 12 11 8 5 5 3
4
3
4 46
3 37
130
100