The Good Library Blog

My own experience over of over 20 years as a public librarian is that not only has the general book stock declined but special collections, reserve stocks etc have been decimated. I worked in Hackney Libraries for years and saw collections of beautiful old books rotting in basements and then sold off to book dealers for a pittance, there was actually a skip outside the old central library that was filled with discarded books which caused public outrage and ended up in the local paper.

Said to me today by an Old Town, Swindon, library user : "There were huge reasons for fighting the Nazis in World War II and I do not regret it. Burning books was an indication of the way things were going, utterly repugnant to the likes of you and me, leading to genocide and other most terrible things". What a disservice we are doing to those who have these memories by getting rid of books. Quite horrific and utterly wrong.

Crumbs - Essex Libraries reduced stock by nearly half a million books? It would be interesting to see beyond these broad figures. How has usage changed? Levels of aquisitions versus withdrawls? Types of stock added and removed?

From personal experience I would say there could be more new fiction bought. Things well reviewed in the national press are not always purchased at all. When items are brought to the attention of the Acquisitions librarian they often do get bought but you would hope there was room in the budget to systematically buy a copy of pretty much anything receiving a review in the national press.

Mr Library User

Those figures are startling aren't they. I can give you an analysis of such published information as is behind them. I am trying to encourage visitors to make a donation to the costs of the site. If you would like to use the donations button on the right, and send me a message through that, I will see what I can find out.

I'm so sorry Perkins. I had no idea that you expected libraries to keep all their old stock, no matter how tatty and under-used, as well as buying lots of new stock.

The reality is that libraries did very little weeding of stock for many years, when most had the luxury of 'reserve stock' storage into which old material could be shuffled.

These days, storage is at a premium and automated library systems can pinpoint stock that isn't earning its keep and needs to make way for what people want to read now. Withdrawn material isn't simply dumped either; if it is in reasonable condition it's usually offered for sale (with the proceeds going back into the coffers) and the unsaleable residue often being donated to charities.

The alternative is for libraries to become museums, filled until their shelves overflow with books that fewer and fewer people want to read. Presumably readers of this blog would complain about that too?

Just for the sake of clarity and Mr Apollo, the numbers quoted above are the 'net' reductions in available books for lending. So, for example in Hampshire, the number of books in the libraries available for loan (or actually on loan) after making acquisitions and buying new items and then clearing or "weeding" older stock is 410,000 less than it was 10 years ago. I am not making points about the kind of stock one should retain, but simply about the practical operation of a library. The choice of reading is 410,000 books less, which in their case, is about 25% less than what was available 10 years ago.

Somebody asked if the usage has changed. Well for example, as the figures show, in Barnet the selection of books available to be loaned has gone down by 50%. At the same time book lending in Barnet libraries has gone down by 48%. I think there could be a connection between those two figures. At least the Chief Librarian of Barnet might think it worth exploring? Or perhaps one would say that the people of Barnet have just lost interest in reading to that extent? And even if they had, would it have been appropriate for Barnet libraries to try and encourage them back to the habit? By keeping books in their libraries?

Does one have to spell it all out to you Mr Apollo? Of course the good people of Barnet have not lost interest in reading. In fact, the last decade has been one of the most prolific, in reading terms in all history, Barnet, in that sense, is no different to anywhere else. The stock of books should not have been reduced in this way and as a Chief Librarian you should say so.

And if you won't argue for the importance of book stocks here, where we would like to hear you say it, as a Chief Librarian, what kind of a defence of books have you put up to councillors over all these years? Too little, I suggest.

That is why I say it is wrong to blame councillors entirely for this-- the Chief Librarians have a lot to answer for. They have not fought for the importance of books in libraries, but have spent too much time advocating other attractions.

And what of those authorities where book lending is up? Is there really a correlation between large, unweeded stock and book issues? If there is, it sounds hideously like a counter-intuitive argument for putting less rather than more cash and effort into stock selection and acquisition.

Like many chief librarians, I have had to explain to elected members that libraries do actually need to buy new books and - shock, horror, make space for it. I've also had to explain that it's not just a case of getting the cheapest books on offer, but actually selecting - or getting selected - titles that appeal, excite and satisfy.

Back to basics though - how exactly would Perkins manage to fit in lots of vibrant new stock without clearing out the stuff that no one is using? Do successful bookshops just keep buying more shelving or expanding into neighbouring shops?

Mr Apollo

Yes there is a strong correlation between the decrease in books for people to borrow and the amount that is loaned. It has been a clear correlation for the twelve years that I have watched and commented on the figures and was already clear from historic figures at that time.. It has been quite within the means and scope of Chief Librarians to analyse properly. I don't understand your sentence about 'a counter intuitive' argument-- please would you like to explain what you mean? Of course you not only have to add new publications but you must also constantly replenish the copies of previous publications which have gone missing or become too old.

I also know that market research conducted about public libraries always comments the paucity of the book stock. It is always one of the top three complaints.

Show me some libraries and I'll show you how to fill the shelves and display the books properly. Good book shops keep their shelves full and well displayed. They also make decisions about titles that they will no longer stock. Book shops are generally, town for town, much smaller than libraries. I am not saying you don't have to weed the stock. I am saying that the stock for lending should not have been allowed to decline in both quality and quantity in the way that is has. And no one should have watched it happen, year after year.

There are lots of reasons for loans to go up (or down). It is a pretty raw measure that can be influenced in various ways as I am sure a Chief Librarian will know.

I am not sure anyone would argue against removing tatty stock (though I have seen a fair bit still in circulation - childrens books in particular seem to suffer from self issue and return meaning you regularly find items missing pages back on the shelf) but we need a balance with retention of breadth. This applies at both selection and deselection.

Excellent to hear that progress with systems allows better control of stock. It doesn't yet (in Essex anyway) extend to automatically spotting items with multiple reservations and to ensuring items whose last copy has gone missing are followed up.

The man on the market stall will tell you that 'there are lots of reasons why sales of fruit and veg go up or down'. But if you haven't got apples and pears, you won't sell them. It's as simple as that.

It is also true that in some places in order to sell apples and pears you also have to display kiwi fruits, even though you sell very few of these. That analogy is very pertinent in the world of books. It is a reason to be very careful of stock control systems which can only have information about what you have sold (or loaned, in this case). If you only retain those things which have been loaned you may diminish your reputation among those who seek a wide range. Experience is important. Reputation is everything.

At a seminar in a large book retailer the other week I was asked "should we stock titles that do not sell?" - and the answer, without hesitation is "Yes, of course you must" The second question -"which titles?" is more difficult to answer and that is where experience is important- or help from others. The reputation one seeks is for having stock that both rewards and surprises. Some people can achieve that even in a very small space. They are the good ones.

In response to Shirley Burnham on 8th March - linking decreasing bookstocks to Nazi genocide is quite simply insulting to anybody who has suffered, directly or indirectly, as a result of genocide.

Are these book losses real; I doubt it. I suspect the real reason is as follows - libraries stopped doing annual stock takes - thus there were loads of missing and stolen books piling up in electronic catalogues over time (maybe 20 years) that were never there. The when the infamous public library standards came along librarians suddenly discovered that it wasn't in their interests to return over large stats to London. So then something was done to the catalogue entries of long missing books.

Whilst no doubt some of this was real to make way for public access computers I don't think what you are saying really happened. My experience is that the number of books expands to fill the shelves available.

"Are these book losses real", Phil? In Somerset the bookfund was reduced in recent years from £700,000 to £200,000. Fewer books coming in than the service thinks is reasonable for even a bare minimum provision, so inevitably as out-of-date and soiled stock is removed, there are fewer books on the shelves than there were before. Now they're planning to close 20 of the county's 34 libraries. The bookfund will be replenished by these so-called "savings", but tens of thousands of users will have lost their local library.