Library of Congress Study of the North American MARC Records Marketplace

1. Library of Congress Study of the North AmericanMARC Records Marketplace October 2009 Ruth Fischer Rick Lugg R2 Consulting LLC www.r2consulting.org

2. the impetus the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control 2008

3. the charge • to investigate and describe current approaches to the creation and distribution of MARC records in North America • to focus on the economics of existing practices • to determine the degree of reliance on LC records

4. the process • an online social network http://bibrecords.ning.com/ • a review of the literature • 2 online surveys • 1 for libraries • 1 for vendors/distributors

5. library survey results 972 library participants

6. library survey results • everyone prefers LC records when available • 80% of libraries edit records for English language monographs in the local OPAC but only HALF of those that do, also upload their edits to their bibliographic utility or consortial catalog • 78% of libraries are unaware of any restrictions on MARC record use or redistribution • many cataloging backlogs are growing

7. 56%of all library respondents report backlogs that are increasing in size

8. cataloging capacity 34,000 original catalogers? and 34,000 copy catalogers?

9. cataloging capacity if each original cataloger created 1 new record each work day (or 200 per year) ~ 6,831,000 original records could be created annually

10. vendor survey results • approximately 200 organizations create, sell, and/or distribute MARC records to North American libraries • 70 completed our online survey • 21 commercial bibliographic utilities • 18 material vendors • 13 aggregators • 11 publishers • 11 “other” (book binderies, national libraries, research organizations, individual contract catalogers) • 9 system vendors • 8 non-profit consortia/cooperatives • 4 open database providers • 3 public or school library “hubs”

11. MARC record services reported

12. MARC record services reported • original MARC records? • 20 (28%) no • 25 (36%) yes - with book in hand • 13 (19%) yes - on the basis of metadata or surrogates • 12 (17%) yes - with a combination of book in hand cataloging and • cataloging based on metadata or surrogates • of the 50 participating distributors that claim to create original MARC records: • 12 manually create Provisional Records • (limited access points; no call number) • 12 machine generate Provisional Records • (limited access points; no call number) • 12 create Brief Records • (call number; and limited access points) • 31 create Full or LC Core Records • (i.e. AACR2, LCSH; and LC classification)

14. our interpretation of findings There is confusion in the market about the real cost and/or value of MARC records. The market provides insufficient incentives to stimulate additional original cataloging. The market for cataloging records is genuinely conflicted.

15. LC subsidizes the market • each year, LC catalogs many titles that are not retained in its collections • LC bears significant cost from which it derives very little benefit • there is no revenue to offset these costs • LC bears disproportionate costs, thereby creating an artificially low basis for pricing records

16. subsidies confuse the market • Because it is disallowed (by law) to recover the cost of cataloging • the Library of Congress subsidizes the market • creating confusion about the real cost and/or value of MARC records.

17. Title 2, Chapter 5, Section 150 of the US Code (1902) • The Librarian of Congress is authorized to furnish to such institutions or individuals as may desire to buy them, such copies of the card indexes or other publications of the Library as may not be required for its ordinary transactions, and charge for the same a price which will cover their cost and ten per centum added, and all moneys received by him shall be deposited in the Treasury and shall be credited to the appropriation for necessary expenses for the preparation and distribution of catalog cards and other publications of the Library.

18. insufficient incentives • library backlogs are continuing to grow, despite more than adequate cataloging capacity • there are few new commercial entrants to this market - unable to establish workable business models • even libraries that do not expect to recover their costs are reluctant to contribute to cooperative cataloging programs • just 10 PCC members account for two-thirds of all the BIBCO records created in 2008

19. insufficient incentives • most libraries and catalogers must believe that they create more value by modifying existing records than by creating new ones • by adding pagination • by changing or removing headings • by adding contents notes • by adjusting call numbers and/or cutters • by adding Dewey numbers and Sears headings • by correcting the date of publication • by adding or editing URLs • on average libraries report waiting 3-6 months for a record to become available before attempting to create one

20. incentives could be commercially • or • community based

21. at present neither are adequate

22. points of conflict • community valuesLibrarians have always been uneasy with the idea that they constitute or participate in a “market” at all. In general, libraries are cost centers, supported by parent organizations for the good of the community they serve. Libraries are, therefore, often unfamiliar with or unrealistic about specific costs. • commercial values Most vendors that serve the library market invest resources to develop products and services which they attempt to sell for more than it costs to produce them - and continue to exist only if they remain profitable. Vendors typically have a good understanding of their costs, since their continued operation depends on it.

23. other points of conflict • open ~ controlled access • traditional ~ emerging formats • local ~ cloud catalog

26. questions How long will libraries rely on MARC as the primary format for bib data? What would be required to correct the economic structure of the MARC record marketplace? What would happen if MARC record creators (and creators of other descriptive metadata) insisted on recovering their costs?