This document discusses the need for libraries to address their "library value deficit" in order to secure continued public funding support. It argues that libraries can no longer rely on assumed goodwill, but must demonstrate their unique value to patrons through sophisticated marketing focused on communicating the benefits libraries provide based on an understanding of patron needs. The document recommends that libraries develop value propositions centered around the experiences and benefits provided to patrons in order to establish their worth and competitiveness compared to other information sources.

1. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0888-045X.htm
BL
24,2 The library value deficit
Michael Germano
John F. Kennedy Memorial Library, California State University, Los Angeles,
California, USA
100
Received 26 April 2011 Abstract
Accepted 26 April 2011 Purpose – While the great recession may have concluded more than a year ago, the lingering effects
of state and local budget contraction and austerity are having a highly negative impact on libraries
and librarians. The future for publicly funded libraries as institutions that promote learning, literacy,
knowledge creation and entertainment is increasingly doubtful as publicly funded libraries across the
country are seeing unprecedented levels of budget cuts. While the immediate cause of such reduced
funding seems rooted in budgetary pressures, the reality is that library financial support is
traditionally premised upon a publicly held assumption of goodwill for libraries and the societal
benefits they represent. In order for libraries to survive the economic downturn and austerity measures
put in place by government budgets, they need to rethink the role, purpose and benefits of library
marketing in favor of a more sophisticated approach that conveys the unique value of their library and
its offering to their specific user population. This paper aims to address this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – Informed by the author’s extensive experience in marketing
information services, the paper discusses the current trends in library marketing, especially those
aimed at conveying the value of libraries, and ties them to relevant scholarship in the areas of services
marketing and value creation.
Findings – Assumed goodwill is inadequate to the task of competing for financial support in a
post-recessionary environment where expenditure of public funds is highly scrutinized. In order to
survive long term, libraries of all kinds must take on a more sophisticated view of library marketing
that focuses on value creation. Eliminating the old model of presumptive value in favor of one that
utilizes the marketing process in order to communicate the competitive viability of libraries as place
and content providers to their users in the form of targeted benefits that convey value, is critical.
Simply put, if libraries hope to receive continued support in today’s challenging fiscal climate they
must elevate marketing to a critical operational function while focusing that marketing effort upon
communicating the library’s benefits and value to the users it serves.
Practical implications – As a librarian, adjunct professor of marketing and former sales and
marketing manager for a large information company, the author relies on his years of experience to
convey a more purposeful sense of library marketing that is directed at communicating a library’s
unique value or worth to its users based upon an understanding of their needs, the benefits to them
specifically as well as the competing options available to them in terms of information acquisition.
Originality/value – The paper shares specific ideas regarding the purpose, role and benefits of
library marketing that are connected to improving perceptions of the worth of libraries and the
perception of value to a specific community as a means of engendering future support for them.
Keywords Great recession, Austerity, State and local budgets, Value creation, Value propositions,
Goodwill, Library marketing, Public libraries, Library users
Paper type Viewpoint
The Bottom Line: Managing Library Libraries as institutions are increasingly under siege. While the current economic
Finances climate has resulted in an unexpected reversal of the previous decade’s declining
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2011
pp. 100-106 demand for libraries and librarians, the most brutal economic downturn since the great
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0888-045X
depression is making their survival questionable (Luther, 2011; Online, 2010). Even
DOI 10.1108/08880451111169124 more ironic is the idea that the conditions that led to the recent recession provide strong

2. justifications for the critical necessity of libraries. Such events provide ample evidence The library value
of the need for a knowledgeable and literate populace in order to lessen the chances of a deficit
similar economic catastrophe (Britt, 2010). The root causes of the current one, including
the cumulative effect of several decades’ worth of bank deregulation with minimal
public reaction from a financially illiterate populace, poor understanding of credit and
credit markets as well as the complexity of mortgage lending agreements that led to
poor decision making by homeowners, are all literacy related issues that strong 101
libraries are institutionally capable of mitigating. The inference follows that libraries of
all types, it can be argued, are inherently important and necessary since they are
capable of playing a vital role in lifelong learning that can improve peoples’ lives in an
infinite number of ways.
Despite the seemingly obvious need for libraries and the role they play in informing
a literate populace by supporting education and knowledge creation, libraries continue
to receive the budget axe. The current state of public finances in the US particularly
has revealed that municipal, state and federal government deficits are unkind to
libraries to say the least (Kaser, 2010). Shortfalls in available funds have resulted in
decreased hours, interrupted collection development, librarian layoffs, and in some
cases, outright closures. Highly regarded institutions like the Los Angeles and New
York public libraries are responding to this new fiscal reality in ways that are gutting
their entire systems (De Avila and Catton, 2010; Library Journal, 2011). Public
universities, similarly challenged, are reacting in the same way by severely reducing
their commitment to academic libraries by shortening hours and reducing resources for
collections, materials and infrastructure (Henderson and Bosch, 2010). The typical
reaction seems to waiver between frustration and begrudged acceptance as librarians
and patrons alike attribute the cutbacks to extraordinary economic developments
beyond their control that no amount of public support and goodwill could possibly
counter.
While the above conclusion may be warranted as a coping mechanism, it is worth
considering whether or not it is indeed a fair assessment of the situation. More
specifically, is it possible that the current economic crisis is merely accelerating a
process that had already begun? One that leaves libraries severely disadvantaged in
any budgeting discussion regardless of the overall resources available for allocation
due to an imprecise and unclear understanding of their worth or value? Moreover, are
the traditional reliance upon library patron goodwill and the attenuated support that
comes from that goodwill simply inadequate to the task of financing libraries in an era
of heightened austerity? Considering the current decreased willingness to publicly
underwrite libraries, the answers to these questions are all too clear. As a result,
libraries of all types need to rethink the ways in which they generate support from
patrons and potential users by engaging in a concerted effort to establish value
(Tenopir, 2009). Additionally, like most non-profits, they need to professionalize their
marketing effort so that critical customer communication and value creation are not
left to mere “accidental marketers” based upon self-selected interest, but in their stead
are executed by professionals along with an organizational commitment to market
driven value creation (Akchin, 2001).
Value creation is an exercise in which most business engage, especially when they
operate in highly competitive industries (Zhang and Chen, 2008). The purpose is to
provide customers with a defined notion of value as well as specific reasons to choose

3. BL their offering over competitors (Blocker et al., 2011). Ones that are aligned with needs
24,2 and benefits that provide customers a solid justification for support of a business that
will ensure long-term competitiveness and survival. So where does this currently leave
libraries as institutions and librarians as professionals? Currently they both face a
value deficit in terms of the perception and acknowledgment of their intrinsic worth
compared to other sources of information as well as gathering places where that
102 information is used. In other words, libraries as content providers and places are not
terribly competitive these days, nor have they been for the last decade or so, thereby
contributing to their declining use, popularity and most importantly, perception of
value. The lack of competitiveness underlying the library value deficit is not so much a
problem with the product or service involved, but instead a reflection of the deficiency
in terms of marketing the worth, usefulness and competitiveness of libraries.
Additionally, and worth noting, is that the library value deficit has produced very
real collateral damage in the form of perceptions of librarians’ worth. Thus, by
implication, this library value deficit leaves the value of librarians questionable as well.
While the outcome of these combined value deficits are clear, reduced public support
and curtailed funding, the solutions to remedying them are not so linear. And while
libraries, and librarians as previously suggested, may have historically received an
enormous amount of goodwill from those they support, goodwill is not value nor does
it translate into meaningful benefits when it exists as a mere abstraction.
Libraries and librarians must seek to actively convert goodwill to stated value for
users that can be established, confirmed and by extension, self-replicating. Achieving
this end requires some fundamental professional and cultural changes that might be
difficult to execute but nonetheless worth pursuing if libraries and librarians are to
re-emerge from the current economic downturn as more viable information providers
and centers of entertainment, literacy and learning. More specifically, libraries need to
adopt an ideological shift that moves away from suppositions regarding libraries as
inherently valuable. Such assumptions about users’ conceptions of value may not be
grounded in fact, and instead support more romanticized notions of the societal,
cultural or educational benefits of libraries that may or may not be aligned with
patrons’, or potential patrons’, perceptions of actual worth. The resulting disconnect
between library and patron could easily, manifest itself in decreased support due to the
fact that the user or customer perception of worth is not met. Establishing and
confirming value that is reflective of user needs, benefits and priorities is key. In short,
librarians need to discontinue the assumptions of worth that entail user perceptions of
almost hyperbolic, abstacted importance in favor of a more sophisticated marketing,
customer communication and service delivery process that conveys unique value to
users based upon their needs, not the library’s or librarian’s (Stephens, 2011).
Interestingly, libraries have begun to take tentative steps in terms of value creation
by attempting to convey quantitative measures of worth in order to prompt patrons
towards a conclusion of the value of libraries and their services through the use of
“value calculators” (American Library Association, 2011; Maine State Library, 2011).
Such a strategy, however, seems risky considering the findings of one study that
indicate that the average household in the US spends approximately $118 a year on
materials that could be borrowed from a library (The Daily Green, 2011). The use of
calculators to benchmark value is additionally ill advised since studies indicate that
one of the first rules of gaining customer commitment and the benefits of long-term

4. relationships with them is to withhold a price until value has been created, established The library value
and confirmed from the customer (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). deficit
The obvious problem with library value calculators is that value creation is a
customer driven exercise and not a business centered one like pricing. In the case of
libraries, it is a patron-driven one. Businesses, especially those that offer services or
intangibles, typically organize their efforts to drive value through their marketing
efforts in the form of a value proposition, a concrete promise regarding the customer 103
experience they will provide as well as the unique benefits that will flow from that
experience that is delivered during all customer interaction (Frow and Payne, 2011). At
the heart of the value proposition is a proof driven, customizable articulation of the
organization’s offering or offerings along with their intrinsic worth to its customers.
Price is only one small aspect of value creation and oftentimes, not a very compelling
one. If libraries wish to truly establish value that produces long term patron support
and not just goodwill, they need to take the first step: create a customer centered value
proposition and use it whenever they communicate with patrons.
As previously stated, value propositions are a critical first step in establishing value
that provokes the emergence of long-term customer relationships that create loyalty
and advocacy. Additionally, as introduced above, libraries have begun to explore the
concept of value creation and benchmarking, most notably in the form of library
service value calculators and return on investment analysis. Unfortunately these
efforts are incomplete and arguably, premature in their focus on pricing. Value
calculators are particularly worrisome since they attempt to associate library services
with costs or more accurately potential prices. Such value is based primarily upon cost
avoidance by creating a generic list of prices in order to show how much money a
patron has saved by using the library as opposed to paying for the materials borrowed
or questions asked. There are multiple problems with this approach, most notably no
one has clearly established that the services listed and the prices quoted are what the
information market will bear. Moreover, the approach of assigning prices to library
services without establishing their value or intrinsic worth to customers represents a
very real risk of creating negative reactions regarding the required investment to keep
libraries afloat. In a word, they could appear too expensive or simply cost-inefficient.
Also, in light of the relatively modest average annual savings resulting from using the
library for US households mentioned above, not terribly compelling. Libraries should
reassess this approach and attempt to convey the social value of libraries to all patrons
based upon their needs and the benefits that are important to them. To do this they
need to understand the customer and the context in which the customer makes choices
about why to use the library or not. In short, libraries need to understand the needs and
benefits that patrons derive from library use while at the same time understanding the
industry in which they operate since it arguably offers more attractive options for
potential patrons who choose other information sources or gathering places.
When businesses seek to establish value in order to ensure competitiveness,
increase market-share and grow the bottom line, the most crucial step is undertaking
the environmental scan (Banham, 2010). An environmental scan serves multiple
purposes in terms of assessing the business’s place in a broader, industry-wide context.
Additionally, environmental scans are undertaken in order to formulate strategy by
uncovering customer needs, wants, dislikes and behaviors (Chrusciel, 2011). The most
beneficial environmental scanning exercises tackle the process with no assumptions or

5. BL expectations in terms of outcomes. For example, the most successful businesses rarely
24,2 dismiss new innovations offered by competitors as fads or inconsequential results of
passing fancy. The exercise is truly one of research and discovery with absolutely no
agenda other than gaining insight into competitive choices faced by customers as well
as behaviors related to the industry. Libraries face some significant competition from
more user-mediated information sources that provide uninterrupted access
104 non-dependent upon place. Libraries additionally confront users with increasingly
divergent views regarding information, formats, and needs compared to a decade ago.
Not appreciating these types of realities can severely hinder a libraries ability to create
value in a way that resonates with patrons.
Taking the time to fully understand a library’s user population as well as the
alternatives that are available to them in terms of information access is a first step to
creating value. Deepening the inquiry into motivations and needs is the next and vital
step towards connecting existing offerings to need and therefore benefit. Value creation
is, after all, the combining of a product or service with a targeted need that produces a
unique benefit. Uncovering and exploiting user benefits in order to establish confirmed
value, it should be noted, is a highly personalized exercise that is dependent upon
uncovering needs and priorities of a unique user or set of users. Without establishing
such a concrete connection between what is being offered to the customer, a business
runs the risk of failing to establish relevancy in terms of the customer perception of its
offering. Libraries, it can be argued, have not truly established that connection between
what they offer and what their users need. In defense of libraries and librarians, a
significant part of the problem is the high level of change information industry. Change
that constantly alters user perceptions and expectations of what libraries offer in terms
of a place, a collection or both.
Prior to the widespread digitization of information, libraries as place were intuitive
and clearly understood. As information became increasingly digitized and user
orientations accepted the significant benefits of that digitized information, the role of
libraries as place or gathering sites for sharing and learning, became less clear. The
benefits of the library as a collection or content provider became similarly, but
altogether unfairly, compromised by that lack of the decreased importance of libraries
as places. Differentiating user perceptions of these two very different needs during the
environmental scan that supports the value creation process is critical. Equally
important is that users do not necessarily understand or subscribe to this crucial
differentiation in terms of what libraries potentially represent. They may very well
have internalized one view or the other. In order to create value and receive
confirmation of value from users there is a requisite need to explicitly learn what those
users value. Most importantly, it is critical to learn precisely which services or
offerings users value, why they value them and how to differentiate them from
competing forms of content acquisition and information use in gathering spaces.
Library patrons, as well as potential ones, are presently afforded a wide variety of
competing replacements for libraries as place. With unbound information access,
outdoor spaces, cafes, online social networks or home, can viably compete with a
library as a place to gather and discuss information. Libraries have spent an enormous
amount of time, effort and energy focused on competing with locales that have recently
sprung up as de facto information commons like cafes and bookstores. The over
emphasis on library as place in order to convey a compelling competitive case for

6. libraries is somewhat misdirected. The true potential value for libraries is not The library value
exclusively found in the notion of their space, but rather in the commingling of content deficit
and the knowledgeable service offered to make the most of that content. In that value
equation space may play a role, but it is a decidedly supporting one. The true value is
the accessibility of content along with knowledgeable guides in the form of librarians
that can facilitate the best use of that content. In short, the main competitive
differentiator for libraries and the one that has very little opportunity for which 105
competitors can offer a viable replacement, is the librarian. Libraries need to convey
that value with concreteness and specificity based upon patron held perceptions of
needs met and the benefits that follow in order to establish true value. More
specifically, value that is uniquely provided by the library and librarian in question
and that is competitive with other information gathering forms, tools and institutions.
Relying upon an established sense of goodwill towards libraries is no longer
sufficient to the task of garnering public financial support in an increasingly
competitive information industry. The current economic downturn merely highlighted
the intense competition with which libraries as places and content providers must
contend. As a result, libraries must forge a new path that includes a commitment to
value creation that is co-created and confirmed by users. In fact, this activity should be
an embedded in future iterations of librarian professionalism for the good of and
long-term survival of that profession. Simply put, it is no longer sufficient to simply be
valuable or to even know of one’s own value without marketing that value.
Unfortunately this has been the way in which librarians have established their worth
for most of their existence. Requiring patrons to discern value in an increasingly
competitive marketplace is highly risky while leaving one vulnerable to competitors.
Especially those who have a clearer message or one that is more readily delivered at
critical moments of need. Staying in the forefront of user consciousness via an
articulated statement of value in a defined promise of benefits that matter to that user
is a first step in creating customer relationships that can turn into advocacy and
ultimately represent a hedge against future budget cuts.
In the final analysis, librarians have potentially wonderful stories to share about
their libraries as well as their own role in making those libraries competitive when
compared to other forms of information access and gathering places for sharing that
information. They simply need to hone in on the most relevant ones in order to
communicate them to patrons in the form of a stated value proposition that reflects
customer needs along with the potential benefits compared to other forms of
information retrieval. They additionally need to adopt a sense of urgency in terms of
how critical and necessary it is to constantly sell the idea of value to patrons and make
it a professional obligation similar to their commitment to service. Such a move will
demonstrably improve libraries’ chances of continued relevance and viability while
converting the current value deficit to a value surplus.
References
Akchin, D. (2001), “Nonprofit marketing: just how far has it come?”, Nonprofit World, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 33-5.
American Library Association (2011), “ALA: advocating in a tough economy toolkit library value
calculator”, available at: www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/advocacy/advocacyuniversity/
toolkit/makingthecase/library_calculator.cfm (accessed 21 April 2011).

7. BL Banham, H. (2010), “External environmental analysis for small and medium enterprises (SMEs)”,
Journal of Business and Economics Research, Vol. 8 No. 10, p. 19.
24,2 Blocker, C.P., Flint, D.J., Myers, M.B. and Slater, S.F. (2011), “Proactive customer orientation and
its role for creating customer value in global markets”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 216-33.
Britt, J. (2010), “Economics education”, Advisor Today, Vol. 105 No. 7, p. 30.
106 Chrusciel, D. (2011), “Environmental scan: influence on strategic direction”, Journal of Facilities
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 7.
(The) Daily Green (2011), “Save money on books, newspapers and magazines – library money
saving tip – the daily green”, available at: www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/latest/
save-money-on-books#fbIndex12 (accessed 21 April 2011).
De Avila, J. and Catton, P. (2010), “The city budget proposal: libraries warn of more closings”,
Wall Street Journal, May 7, p. 21.
Frow, P. and Payne, A. (2011), “A stakeholder perspective of the value proposition concept”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Nos 1/2, p. 223.
Henderson, K.S. and Bosch, S. (2010), “Seeking the new normal”, Library Journal, Vol. 135 No. 7,
p. 36.
Kaser, D. (2010), “Proving your worth”, Information Today, Vol. 27 No. 6, p. 16.
Library Journal (2011), “Los Angeles PL cuts mean layoffs, loss of service day”, available at:
www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/885399-264/los_angeles_pl_cuts_mean.html.csp
(accessed 21 April 2011).
Luther, J. (2011), “Economic reality for libraries”, Information Today, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 12-15.
Maine State Library (2011), “Library use value calculator: Maine State Library”, available at:
www.maine.gov/msl/services/calculator.htm (accessed 21 April 2011).
Online (2010), “Libraries help Americans during recession”, Online, Vol. 34 No. 4, p. 6.
Stephens, M. (2011), “Stuck in the past”, Library Journal, Vol. 136 No. 7, p. 54.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple
item scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, p. 203.
Tenopir, C. (2009), “The value gap”, Library Journal, Vol. 134 No. 12, p. 20.
Zhang, X. and Chen, R. (2008), “Examining the mechanism of the value co-creation with
customers”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 242-50.
Corresponding author
Michael Germano can be contacted at: mgerman@calstatela.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints