Business As Usual: Amazon.com and the Academic Library
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Business As Usual: Amazon.com and the
Academic Library
by Mary K. Van Ullen and Carol Anne Germain
In 1999, Steve Coffman
proposed that libraries form a
single interlibrary loan based
entity patterned after
S teve Coffman proposed that librar-
ies emulate Amazon.com, the vir-
tual bookstore giant, with a visually
appealing single library catalog that offers
as an easy to use interface, personaliza-
tion, and catalog enhancements.
BACKGROUND
Certainly, Amazon.com does not have the
personalized service options. Rather than
Amazon.com. This study dealing with individual libraries, the bor- institutional collections that academic li-
rowing public could seamlessly access the braries have developed over time. Created
examined the suitability of joint collections of all libraries via inter- in 1995, the online bookstore originally
Amazon.com’s Web interface library loan (ILL). Coffman noted the im- positioned itself as a modest e-retailer of
and record enhancements for pressive buying power of Amazon’s cus- discount books.3 Amazon.com became a
tomers and the dotcom’s exploding sales model for e-commerce; it grew rapidly,
academic libraries. established brand recognition, and main-
figures. He suggested that libraries could
Amazon.com could not deliver draw and better serve a larger patron base tained a small inventory but generated a
circulating monographs in the by following Amazon’s techniques.1 His large volume of sales. It took seven years
proposal sparked excitement, interest, and to turn a profit.4 Its first quarterly profit,
University at Albany Libraries’ $5 million, is dwarfed by the company’s
debate in public and academic libraries.2
collection quickly enough to While Amazon’s strategy has made an debt of $2.8 billion.5 The company has
satisfy undergraduates. impact in the mass marketing of books, expanded from selling books to becoming
how well does it translate in an education a virtual mall selling electronic goods,
environment? kitchen equipment, lawn tools, toys, and
Today’s students eagerly turn to the even cars.
World Wide Web to gain access to infor- Amazon.com has been praised for its
provocative business strategies, its inno-
mation resources. Could a virtual book-
vative Web presence, and customer ser-
store, like Amazon.com, support the
vice relations. Coffman’s vision of an
monographic needs of these students that
Amazon-like universal catalog would
are traditionally filled by academic librar- contain records with special features such
ies? While the academic library and vir- as book cover graphics, tables of contents,
tual bookstore deal with a similar com- reviews, patron comments, and additional
modity: the book, they are different reading suggestions, simulating Ama-
enterprises. Yet, this may not be apparent zon’s Web model. Librarians would add
to college students. The authors investi- their “stamp of approval” to recom-
gated the ability of Amazon.com to de- mended materials. He additionally sug-
liver the resources that University at Al- gested utilizing Amazon’s navigational
bany patrons use. Could Amazon.com and accessibility techniques.6
provide these materials more quickly than Coffman has drawn both naysayers
the University Libraries for research and supporters. Some librarians acknowl-
Mary K. Van Ullen is the Bibliographer for needs? How appropriate are the personal- edged that additional enhancements to li-
Business, Economics, and Geography, ized and enhanced features of the Ama- brary catalog records would benefit users
University at Albany, University Library, zon.com interface for the academic user? and make the dreaded catalog more user-
LI-328, Albany, New York 12222 While the thrust of Coffman’s proposal is friendly.7 One writer advocated for an
⬍vanullen@albany.edu⬎; and the creation of a massive, interlibrary loan integrated ILL mechanism, where the pa-
Carol Anne Germain is the Networked based global library network, this study tron searches and requests materials in a
Resources Education Librarian, University at focused on the more readily achieved fea- single catalog session.8 Critics identified
Albany, University Library, LI-128, Albany, tures of Amazon.com that libraries might numerous problems with Coffman’s pro-
New York 12222 ⬍cg219@albany.edu⬎. wish to implement on a local level, such posal and reviewed the difficulties with
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 28, Number 5, pages 319 –324 September 2002 319Table 1
Availability of Books as Listed in the Amazon.com Database
Amazon.com Category
24 2 to 3 1 to 2 3 to 5 4 to 6 Out of Out of Not No Match
Hours Days Weeks Weeks Weeks Print Stock Available in Amazon
No. of items 240 134 32 47 189 268 25 2 117
% Total 22.8 12.7 3.0 4.5 17.9 25.4 2.4 0.2 11.1
promoting and implementing his ideas.9 ● “On order— usually 1 to 2 weeks.” Amazon,” contains data for titles which
Walt Crawford, for instance, disputed the ● “This title is currently on back order. could not be located from searching the
Amazon.com model as infeasible. He We expect to be able to ship it to you Amazon.com site.
cited astronomical ILL costs; political is- within 3 to 5 weeks.” Analysis of the circulation statistics of
sues with building a single library cata- ● “Ships 4 to 6 weeks.” the reviewed books in the ADVANCE
log; and the loss of search capabilities ● “Out of Print—Try our out-of-print system showed that 1,054 books sampled
found in many library catalogs.10 search service.” had been checked out a total number of
● “We were unable to find matches for 941 times in the year 2000. Because the
PROCEDURES your search.” and University Libraries have a liberal loan
The investigation was conducted at the ● “This title is currently not available.” period of up to a year, depending on pa-
University at Albany Libraries, over a 13- tron status, many of the books had been
week period between January and April The actual availability of the books
checked out the preceding year and thus
2000. Each week, the authors randomly was not tested. Because none of the se-
did not show up in the year 2000 circula-
sampled approximately 80 books that lected books were ordered from Amazon.
tion figure.11 The number of checkouts
were awaiting re-shelving in the Librar- com to determine if the availability no-
tices were accurate, the authors accepted for the period 1984 (the first year circu-
ies’ Circulation Departments because lation statistics were recorded) to 2000
they had been recently checked out or had Amazon.com’s report of availability
times. was 10,820. Total circulation was 11,761,
been used within the libraries. Each au- with a mean average of 11.16 checkouts
thor examined approximately 40 books. Book records in Amazon.com contain
a number of features not normally found per book included in the study.
The sample size of about 80 books per To examine some of the enhancements
week represented roughly 20% of the in library catalogs. To examine some of
the enhancements used by Amazon.com, used by Amazon.com, book review data
books normally awaiting reshelving on were recorded for 447 titles, as previously
any given day, and the sampling process records were examined for the presence
of book review data and table of contents mentioned. Of those titles, 52 were either
of this volume of titles caused minimal listed as “not available,” or no record was
disruption to the workflow of the circula- information for a 447-book subset of the
total 1,054 books sampled. During the last found for them in the Amazon.com data-
tion staff. base. Of the remaining 395 items, 297
Each book was researched in both the 11 weeks of the data collection period, the
book review data were collected on about (75.2%) had at least one review. One hun-
Amazon.com database and the University dred twenty-six of the books found in
Libraries’ online catalog, ADVANCE. At half the books sampled.
Because all of the books included were Amazon.com were listed as “out of print,”
Amazon.com, each title was entered into although some of the out of print titles did
Amazon’s site search engine. If the title from the University Libraries, their avail-
ability rate was 100%. Searching the cir- have book reviews present. Only six of
search retrieved a matching title record, the books (1.5%) found in Amazon.com
whether the book was hardcover, soft- culation module of the online system,
ADVANCE, statistics were collected of had table of contents information in-
cover, reprint or a different edition, and so cluded in the database record.
forth, it was considered an available past use. For each of the selected books,
the circulation statistics for the current Most of Amazon.com’s reviews are la-
match. Because titles appear in various
year and for past years from 1984 (the beled either “editorial” or “customer.”
editions, published over time, data on im-
earliest year for which statistics are avail- The editorial reviews, for the most part,
print dates were not collected. Retrieved
able) were recorded. If more than one were not book reviews in the typical
records were reviewed and information
copy was owned, the information for each sense, but rather were one or two sentence
from these was recorded, focusing on the
was also documented. descriptions of the contents, more like the
availability status of each book. In cases
blurbs often found on book jackets. Only
in which Amazon.com had records for FINDINGS three of the editorial reviews gave any
multiple editions, the record for the most
readily available edition was selected. Table 1 shows the availability from Ama- type of evaluative comments. Editorial re-
At Amazon.com, materials have differ- zon.com of the 1,054 books. The time views were found for 112 titles (28.3%)
ent availability dates. Records of searched ranges are the estimated time for the item of the 395 items, and each title had a
materials provided the following avail- to ship as stated by Amazon.com. Items mean average of 1.8 editorial reviews.
ability messages: listed by Amazon.com as “Out of Print,” The Amazon.com Web site has a pop-
“Out of Stock,” and “Not Available,” did ular feature allowing customers, who
● “Usually ships within 24 hours.” not give any estimate of time to delivery. have filled out an online registration form,
● “Usually ships in 2 to 3 days.” The last column, headed “No Match in to enter their own book reviews. Other
320 The Journal of Academic LibrarianshipOf the books examined, only 38.5%
Table 2
were available though Amazon.com
Availability of Books in the Amazon.com Database Based on
within the two-week time period deemed
Patron Acceptability
“Acceptable Undergraduate” delivery. A
Patron-Based Category total of 60.9% were available within the
Undergraduate Researcher six-week period deemed “Researcher Ac-
Acceptable Acceptable Unavailable ceptable.” It was not possible to obtain
39.1% of the items at all directly from
No. of items 406 642 412 Amazon.com.
% Total 38.5 60.9 39.1
generally faculty members and graduate “An obvious problem with
registered customers may rate these re- students, who need material for their own Coffman’s suggestion of a
views as to their helpfulness. Customer research, are often willing to wait longer
reviews were present for 58 (14.7%) of single, largely interlibrary loan
periods of time to obtain harder to find
the 395 titles. The customer-reviewed ti- items. In the case of rare books, interli- based global library system
tles had a mean of 4.3 reviews apiece. brary loan requests can take many weeks would be the substantial
DISCUSSION
to fill. shipping and handling costs
The category, “Unavailable,” encom-
To relate Amazon.com’s delivery esti- passes all titles that are not directly avail-
associated with each
mates to the needs of the University at able from Amazon.com because they are transaction.”
Albany patron population, the authors re- out of print, out of stock, not available, or
defined Amazon.com’s availability cate- not found in the Amazon.com database.
gories based on experience with our pa- Amazon.com’s “Out of Print” category An obvious problem with Coffman’s
tron population (see Table 2). When gives the user the option to have the order suggestion of a single, largely interlibrary
library patrons look for a book, generally placed seamlessly with the company’s loan based global library system would be
they expect that the item will be found on network of out of print dealers. Because the substantial shipping and handling
the shelves for immediate access. orders were not actually placed from costs associated with each transaction.
Whether, and to what extent, they can Amazon.com, it is not possible to state Amazon.com is able to offer very reason-
wait to obtain materials depends on their whether or not a substantial number of out able rates on shipping books to its cus-
needs. of print materials would be delivered in a tomers, with domestic rates of about
The patron-based category “Under- timely fashion using this option. Acquisi- $3.50 per shipment for three to seven day
graduate Acceptable,” includes all books tion of out of print items can be compli- delivery at the time this article was writ-
for which Amazon.com has a stated de- cated by factors including availability, ten, with higher rates for faster delivery.
livery period of up to two weeks. Within condition, and differing editions of the The company contains costs by stocking a
the University at Albany library system, same volume, and in some cases it may limited number of titles in highly auto-
patrons do not always have immediate take years to find an out of print book if it mated centralized warehouses, and pre-
access to all materials. Books may need to can be found at all. No matter the reason, sumably gets very advantageous rates
be paged from remote storage or retrieved these titles could not be reliably obtained from shipping companies. Libraries oper-
from a different library, which can typi- from Amazon.com within a defined time ate in quite a different environment and
cally take a day. A two-week time period period. traditional, labor-intensive ILL transac-
corresponds to our own experience of the Obviously, these patron-based catego- tion costs are much higher.13 Coffman
time it takes, on average, for interlibrary ries do not cover all situations. As any argues that libraries could take steps to
loan requests to be filled. It also corre- academic librarian knows, undergraduates reduce ILL transaction costs,14 and he
sponds to the University Library’s recall are often unwilling or unable to use ma- may be correct, although it is hard to
period. A requester wishing to check out a terials unless they are available on de- conceive of a hugely diverse library net-
book that is currently on loan to another mand, so any wait, including even Ama- work achieving the same economies of
borrower may place a recall on the book. zon.com’s fastest promised delivery will scale as Amazon.com.
The borrower then has up to two weeks to be unacceptable. Mary Ann Chappell re- Should the priority for libraries be on
return the book, and at that point the re- ports that even a 48-hour turnaround time building collections to support the teach-
quester can check it out. on interlibrary loan materials renders ing and research missions of the organi-
The second category in Table 2 is “Re- them useless for many undergraduates.12 zation or on paying shipping and packag-
searcher Acceptable,” defined as all Likewise, while many research projects ing costs? In the present study, the
books for which Amazon.com has a stated are conducted at a leisurely pace, a re- average book examined had circulated
delivery period of up to six weeks. This searcher may have a shorter deadline that more than 11 times since 1984. Even if a
category includes all materials in the “Un- makes a six-week delay in obtaining a library were able to obtain the same $3.50
dergraduate Acceptable” category, as well book unsuitable. However, the patron- rate as Amazon.com, a round trip ship-
as items that take up to four additional based categories provide a framework for ping transaction would still cost about $7.
weeks for delivery, and, thus, total per- comparing the viability of an Amazon. Ignoring labor, packaging, and other
centages for the patron-based categories com-like delivery model to academic li- costs, the library would have spent a
add up to more than one hundred. Patrons, braries. whopping $770 to ship the average book
September 2002 32111 times to patrons, if the book had been specified terms. Amazon.com’s search re- ians, so inclusion of this type of review
provided through ILL rather than owner- sults display have more to do with gener- would be inappropriate in the academic
ship. ating sales than with matching the actual library catalog.
title requested, where a library catalog Academic libraries have sources of
Interface Display
should provide accurate information electronic book reviews from subject spe-
Because the authors visited Amazon. about materials in the system. cific databases such as ERIC and EconLit,
com at regular intervals, they were able to Although library catalogs do not dis- and more general sources such as EBSCO
make observations about the site’s inter- play recommendations, most contain links Academic Search FullTEXT Elite. Pro-
face display. Substantial changes oc- to related materials. Text-based and Web- viding links to reviews in those sources
curred frequently. This included the addi- based catalogs provide command links or right from the book record could enhance
tion of items, such as kitchenware and hyperlinks, respectively, to materials that the catalog. Likewise, librarians and ven-
cameras to the product offerings, and the are relevant to the retrieved record. These dors have recognized the desirability of
actual display itself. The interface screens options allow the user to review other including table of contents data in cata-
often brought the search window up in a materials that either have the same author, loging records,16 although most libraries
different location (sometimes on the left, subject, or series. Many provide a mech- have been slow to implement such en-
at other times in the center). The main anism to search by call number, thus the hancements. Even Amazon.com had table
screen of the interface promoted different user is placed virtually into the physical of contents information available for only
products with each visit. collection. a tiny fraction of the books sampled, per-
Display of retrieved records varied. At haps indicating the difficulty of obtaining
Record Enhancements
the start of the research, titles were dis- this data inexpensively.
played in a single column format. Some- While it might be appropriate to in-
times the requested title appeared at the clude customer reviews at a commercial
beginning of the list, while at other times bookselling site, they are less appropriate
it was embedded further down. After sev- in a library catalog. A few controversial “Certainly, libraries do not
eral months, the display became much titles were included in the sample. The want to wrap their loan items
busier, showing a three-column display, Amazon.com record for the title, The Blue and send them as gifts but
with the retrieved records in the center. Book of the John Birch Society by Robert libraries are beginning to use
The other two columns were “sponsored Welch, inspired a number of enthusiasti-
results,” advertising space for artists and cally positive reviews. Because a cus- technology to provide personal
authors, and “listmania,” Amazon.com’s tomer reviewer may be anonymous, or touches and generate user
recommended products. While a highly even provide a fictitious name, the reader satisfaction.”
cluttered screen and a frequently chang- may be completely unaware of the biases
ing display might function well for an of the reviewer. Another book sampled
online bookstore, library catalogs must was No Man Knows My History: The Life
maintain a higher level of stability and of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet by Personalization
clarity. Fawn McKay Brodie. This critical biog- To create a sense of customer loyalty,
The order of the retrieved records raphy of the founder of the Mormon reli- Amazon.com offers a number of person-
seemed to have more to do with the avail- gion received a large number of both ex- alization features. A user logged on to
ability of titles from Amazon.com than tremely positive and extremely negative Amazon.com is remembered and wel-
with the relevance of the record to the reviews, presumably reflecting the reli- comed to the site. E-mail notifications let
searched title. Often, the authors found gious beliefs of the reviewers. patrons know about new books by their
the searched title did not necessarily come Coffman suggests that catalog records favorite author or publications in their
up at the top of the list. For example, the could be tagged with librarian-generated subject area. This bookseller will even
title of the book Religion in Greece and commentary, such as a “library recom- make gift suggestions, wrap them, and
Rome, by Herbert Jenning Rose, was en- mended” designation to indicate high mail them. Certainly, libraries do not
tered into the books field of the search quality titles as a mechanism for provid- want to wrap their loan items and send
tool and the search was executed. One ing enhanced service.15 While it is true them as gifts but libraries are beginning to
would expect a searched title would ap- that librarians often do recommend books use technology to provide personal
pear as one of the first retrieved records if to patrons, they normally do so in some touches and generate user satisfaction. As
it were present in the database. Instead, context. A title that might be very suitable Jeff Barry notes, “Advances and new
the selection appeared four screens down for one application might be completely ways of leveraging technology for en-
at entry number 13 (of 14 total) presum- inappropriate for another. In the academic hancing library services generally come
ably because it was an out of print selec- library, recommendations often take place from librarians.”17 Librarians have re-
tion. during the reference interview or through ported their experiences in offering pa-
A title search of this type in a typical the creation of course-specific bibliogra- trons automated electronic notification
library catalog produces an alphabetical phies or pathfinders designed for answer- about new books added to the collec-
listing of library-owned sources. A book ing a certain type of information need. tion.18 These services may be in the form
not owned by the library will not appear Further, educational merit, rather than en- of a Web-mounted searchable database of
in the results list; however, a book that is tertainment value, drives collection devel- new titles, or via e-mail notification di-
owned will. Catalogs usually have a key- opment. Student reviewers of library ma- rectly to the patron.
word searching capability that provides a terials might be expected to have very Amazon.com makes individualized
list of records containing the searcher’s different selection criteria than do librar- product recommendations, which are usu-
322 The Journal of Academic Librarianshipally generated by the customer’s profile. base from the “Earth’s largest library” enjoyable shopping experience possi-
The information for this profile mainly would be impossible to resist. ble.”22 Under the Amazon.com model, in-
comes from data gathered during past vis- formation is a commodity, and, while ac-
its to the Web site. Client purchase infor- cess to information is provided to
mation, submitted reviews, executed marketable titles, it is questionable if they
searches, and auction bids are stored. In “Coffman’s premise is not that will provide access to titles, which cease
the “About You Area,” customers may libraries or library patrons to be marketable. In this study, Amazon-
submit a 4,000 word personal description obtain books from .com was unable to deliver in a timely
and a photo, and may create a “wish list.” Amazon.com, but that libraries manner a large percentage of the books,
“Trusted friends,” who receive e-mail no- which had been used by University at
tices of gift ideas and occasion reminders create their own mega-library Albany patrons. Academic libraries view
can review this information. to rival Amazon.com.” information as a public good that contrib-
utes to the building of knowledge and that
Privacy
should be preserved and shared with
Amazon.com’s Privacy Policy details members of the community. These differ-
how and when the company distributes CONCLUSION ing missions and perspectives shape the
customer information to affiliated compa- Coffman’s premise is not that libraries or body of information that users are likely
nies. It also states that, if they buy or sell library patrons obtain books from Ama- to access at each institution.
parts of their store, customer information zon.com, but that libraries create their
is usually part of the transferred business own mega-library to rival Amazon.com.
assets. Amazon.com may also retain num- But, if libraries assume this business
bers of customer credit cards, drivers’ li- model for their operations, they will have “Librarians do need to monitor
censes, and social security cards. Amazon. to assume many of the same operational services and technological
com updated this privacy policy in practices to achieve any level of effi- advantages that online
August 2000. The previous policy stated ciency. In time, the same forces that de-
that the company had a “long standing termine Amazon.com’s product offerings
bookstores offer and evaluate
practice of not selling, trading or renting and delivery options would come to shape and implement in a thoughtful
customer information.”19 The new policy the joint collection of the “Earth’s largest and deliberate manner only
states that customer information is now library.” If libraries, even large, research- those that would benefit
considered an asset. oriented ones, are to allocate a significant
In contrast to Amazon.com’s ap- portion of their budgets to covering things patrons.”
proach, libraries have long respected pa- like shipping and handling charges, they
tron privacy by maintaining the confiden- simply will not have the money to invest
tiality of library patron records as a basic in richly diverse collections of enduring Companies engaged in e-commerce
tenet of librarianship. Many library poli- value. have developed innovative technologies
cies contain restrictions prohibiting the While it may be the largest, Amazon. that no doubt can be applied in more
disbursement of patron information. In com is not the only online bookstore in traditional settings. Amazon.com’s Web
many states there are laws that protect existence. Just as Coffman calls for the interface does offer some real advantages
patron-borrowing information. As Theresa creation of an enormous network of li- over the traditional library catalog. At the
Chmera notes, “In those states, it is a braries, a network of online booksellers same time, the rapid changes and relative
statutory violation to produce identifiable and used book dealers could provide ac- instability of the interface are not some-
patron information to persons other than cess to a greater range of titles and per- thing libraries could or should wish to
library employees engaged in their regu- haps offer more services and site en- emulate. A catalog interface that changes
lar library duties, unless there is a court hancements than can be found at almost daily would not be conducive to
order compelling the library to produce Amazon.com. It is possible that other on- providing effective user education or ref-
such information.”20 Federal law prohib- line booksellers, alone or in combination, erence service. Librarians need to monitor
its the disclosure of information about could have been more successful in sup- services and technological advantages
video borrowers.21 Libraries do keep sta- plying books needed by University at Al- that online bookstores offer and evaluate
tistics of patron activities (e.g., door counts bany patrons in a timely manner, and this and implement in a thoughtful and delib-
and reference transactions) but these are could be the subject of further research. erate manner only those that would ben-
kept as aggregate, non-identifying data. The missions of bookstores and aca- efit patrons.
Patron record information is never ex- demic libraries are quite different. Aca-
NOTES AND REFERENCES
changed with other libraries. demic libraries work to strengthen the re-
While libraries traditionally view their search and teaching programs of their 1. Steve Coffman, “Building Earth’s Largest
patron records as almost sacred, if librar- institutions by acquiring, organizing, and Library: Driving into the Future,”
ies were to become a single gigantic elec- promoting relevant materials. As a busi- Searcher 7 (March 1999): 34 – 47.
2. Walter Mikel, “The Earth’s Largest Li-
tronic entity, will this still be the case? In ness enterprise, the fundamental mission brary,” School Library Journal 46 (Janu-
a time when cash-strapped educational in- of Amazon.com must be to ultimately ary 2000): 17–18.
stitutions are increasingly pressured to maximize shareholder wealth. Amazon. 3. Molly Prior, “Amazon: King of the On-
raise money through business “partner- com sees itself as accomplishing this goal line Jungle, Master of All Domains,” DSN
ships,” perhaps corporate financial offers by use of “the Internet to transform book Retailing Today 39 (November 2000):
for access to the enormous patron data- buying into the fastest, easiest, and most 18 –22.
September 2002 3234. Lysbeth B. Chuck, “Book Soup: Elec- htm/ (accessed December 5, 2000). A Online Catalog Access,” Information Ser-
tronic Commerce and the Future of Pub- printed copy of this material may be ob- vices & Use 17 (1997): 261-246.
lishing,” Searcher 6 (January 1998): 40- tained from the authors. 17. Jeff Barry, “Delivering the Personalized
52; Saul Hansell, “A Surprise from 10. Crawford, “Gutting America’s Local Li- Library,” Library Journal 125 (April
Amazon: Its First Profit,” New York Times braries.” 2000): 49 – 60.
(January 23, 2002), sec. C, p. 4. 11. The status of the borrower cannot readily 18. Terry Ballard, “An On-line Notification
5. Hansell, “A Surprise from Amazon,” p. 4. be determined from the circulation system System for New Library Acquisitions,”
6. Coffman, “Building Earth’s Largest Li- and was not recorded in the study. Library Software Review 14 (Summer
brary,” pp. 34-47. 12. Mary Anne Chappell, “Meeting Under- 1995): 69-71; Peter Konshak, “Coding a
7. Peter Jasco, “Enhancements of Systems graduate Literature Needs with ILL/Doc- Custom E-Mail Alert Service for New
and Products with Web Resources,” Com- ument Delivery,” Serials Review 19 Books,” Computers in Libraries 21 (Feb-
puters in Libraries 22 (February 2002):
(1993): 81– 86. ruary 2001): 24-28.
33-35; Steve Coffman, “The Response to
13. For an overview of interlibrary loan trans- 19. Rory J. & Rory O’Connor, “Trading Net
‘Building the Earth’s Largest Library,’ ”
action costs in research libraries, see Mary Privacy at E-checkout,” Inter@ctive Week
Searcher 7 (July/August 1999): 28-32.
Andrew K. Pace, “Marketing Our E. Jackson, “Loan Stars: ILL Comes of 11 (September 2000): 10 –12.
Strengths,” Computers in Libraries 20 Age,” Library Journal 123 (February 20. Theresa Chmera, “Privacy and Confiden-
(September 2000): 63-65. 1998): 44-47. tiality Issues,” Newsletter on Intellectual
8. Pace, “Marketing Our Strengths,” p. 65. 14. Coffman, “Building Earth’s Largest Li- Freedom 47 (January 1998): 9 –10.
9. Jose-Marie Griffiths, “Deconstructing brary,” pp. 34-47. 21. 18 United States Code, section 2710
Earth’s Largest Library,” Library Journal 15. Ibid. (1994).
125 (August 2000); 44-47; Walt Craw- 16. For a discussion of the feasibility and 22. About Amazon.com [Online]. Available:
ford, “Gutting America’s Local Libraries: merits of including table of contents data http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/
Informal Comments on ‘Building Earth’s in the online catalog, see, for example, misc/company-info.html/ (accessed April
Largest Library’” [Online]. Available: James E. Rush, “Monograph Tables of 10, 2002). A printed copy of this material
http://home.att.net/⬃wcc.libmedx/gutfull. Contents in Support of Acquisitions and may be obtained from the authors.
324 The Journal of Academic LibrarianshipYou can also read
