ATG Special Report — Library Vendor Service Expectations: Are Libraries and Their Vendors on the Same Page?

By Jonathan H. Harwell (Associate Director for Collection & Resource Services, Georgia College & State University) and Erin Gallagher (Chair of Acquisitions & Collections Services, University of Florida)

Abstract

This article conveys the results of a global, cross-sector survey of vendor service expectations (with 414 validated responses) that illuminates overall expectations by library workers about vendor services, as well as how vendors perceive these expectations. The study explores areas of alignment and disconnection among library workers and vendors, highlighting the values and services prioritized by library workers, and the corresponding perceptions by vendors about library workers’ priorities. It seeks to achieve several goals: test assumptions around library/vendor collaboration; investigate areas of disconnection and alignment; spark curiosity and further research; and create a foundation for stronger partnerships through shared understanding.

The survey was designed with separate tracks for library workers and vendors, collecting quantitative ratings and qualitative comments. Key findings include alignment on prioritizing practical needs like remote access functionality. Disconnects appear in areas such as public libraries prioritizing vendor product knowledge over remote access. The results reveal that library workers and vendors are largely aligned on priorities, contrary to perceived narratives of opposition. While tensions persist in library/vendor dynamics, understanding each other’s values presents opportunities to reframe relationships through pragmatic convergence around user-driven needs.

Introduction

Library collections in all formats rely on vendor and consortium partners to supply content in the forms of books, journals, audiovisuals, databases, and other resources. Vendors, consortia, and library workers coexist in the same information industry and are dependent on each other for success. They ultimately share the same goal — for libraries to succeed — but the buyer/seller power dynamic, combined with perceived misalignment of priorities, often position them at odds with each other in achieving this goal. This study explores areas of alignment and disconnection among library workers and vendors, and highlights the values and services prioritized by library workers, as well as the corresponding perceptions by vendors about library workers’ priorities.

Traditionally, libraries license and purchase content that vendors sell in order to provide access to the resources their user communities need. Though many libraries create and provide access to their own content, often in the form of digitized collections, it is necessary to purchase the majority of content from outside providers. Ginanni, et al., address the buyer/seller relationship effectively in an informal “living room style” discussion. When asked about libraries doing business with for-profit vendors, Ginanni shares, “You must negotiate the best deal and find a way to live with the devil if it is content that you need.”1

Ostergaard and Rossmann also explore library/vendor dynamics through the results of their 2017 survey: “An inherent tension exists with libraries serving in a service model and as a customer to vendors, while vendors have expectations from the corporate environment, which may be foreign to the academic library world.”2 These statements summarize tensions inherent in any buyer/seller relationship. The nature of this relationship has the potential to create a dynamic in which vendors control all terms of the sale and libraries have little power to influence such terms. Such forces impact communication, interactions, and relationship development between library workers and vendors and ultimately shape the larger narratives around how these two groups work together.

This article presents the findings of a global survey of library vendor service expectations that gathered perceptions of both library workers and vendors. The study achieves several goals: fill a gap in the scholarly corpus; test assumptions around library/vendor dynamics; investigate areas of disconnection and alignment; spark curiosity and further research; and enrich library worker and vendor partnerships through shared understanding.

Rather than focusing on specific projects, products, or systems, this global, cross-sector survey illuminates overall expectations by library workers about vendor services, as well as how vendors perceive these expectations. Do vendors understand libraries’ shifting priorities? What services do library workers genuinely value, and which are less important?

Both authors are academic library leaders specializing in collection management, each with a background in both smaller and larger libraries. One previously worked for a library vendor. Both are in roles that require constant and intensive vendor/ library collaboration, individually and through consortia. Prior to distributing the survey for this study, several colleagues tested and reviewed it upon request. This group intentionally included representatives from public libraries, academic libraries, and library vendors. They provided valuable feedback, including a comment that a question about deposit accounts seemed irrelevant, and indeed a new concept, to the public librarians in the group.

In the survey and in this article, the term “vendor” refers to those employed by content providers and publishers in any role. The term “library worker” refers to those employed in libraries in any role. “Consortia” or “consortium workers” refers to those employed by consortia who provide centralized, shared services in support of libraries.

Literature Review

A review of the literature on librarian and vendor service expectations reveals a number of articles and blog posts addressing this topic. In an essay on library-vendor communications, Walther describes several positive and negative archetypes on both sides.3 Some publications, like Collaborative Librarianship and Against the Grain, encourage submissions that highlight collaboration across industries. A special issue of Journal of Library Administration, also published as a book entitled Library/Vendor Relationships, includes articles from academic, government, public library, and publisher perspectives, among others.4 The existing literature mostly covers this topic from a project-based approach or through the lens of working better together overall. Michael Gruenberg’s “Both Sides Now” column in Against the Grain highlights a different topic with each post, including the negotiation process and vendor presence at conferences.5 Gruenberg’s column sometimes serves to provide guidance to vendors based on his experience.6 Josh Nicholson’s blog post in the Charleston Hub is a prime example of the “working better together” category, using co-marketing of services as the basis of his post.7 Sarah Forzetting provides a set of practical tips for libraries hosting vendor meetings.8

Other authors have focused on analyzing business practices through an ethical or moral lens.9 Still others have examined library worker and vendor relationships in the context of specific projects such as evaluating library software vendors10 or analyzing vendor privacy policies. 11 Few authors have centered their gaze on library worker and vendor relations as a whole, without the springboard of a specific project. In 2009, GawneMark and Nichols published an article on “fostering mutually-beneficial librarian-vendor partnerships.” Drawing from their expertise in the vendor sector, their article reads as a “how-to manual” of sorts in working together to cultivate longterm relationships.12 In 2018, Gallagher built on this literature and drew on her experience both as a vendor representative and an academic librarian to challenge assumptions and provide guidance on collaborating beyond the traditional sales relationship.13

There is a precedent in the literature for surveying library workers and vendors regarding their relationships. Ostergaard and Rossmann published results from two surveys — one for vendors and one for academic library workers. Through the survey responses, they sought to evaluate library-vendor relationships to address their local challenges and provide profession-wide benefit. Akin to the study presented in this article, Ostergaard and Rossman designed two survey tracks to differentiate responses between library workers and vendors. However, they chose a more targeted scope for their analysis, reporting results from vendors and from academic library workers in the United States only. Their results center around the organization and nature of library-vendor relations, communication, and meetings. The focus on preferences, recommendations, and best practices results in practical takeaways for both vendors and library workers.14

As Flowers explains, libraries and vendors “share a symbiotic relationship. The fundamental qualities that lead to this ideal relationship include good communication, joint interests, mutual benefit, understanding of one another’s needs and constraints, trust, and flexibility.” However, two complicating factors are fluctuating funding sources on the library side, and mergers and acquisitions on the vendor side (and, we should note, mergers within academia as well).15 Rick Anderson and Jane F. White address a number of libraries’ obligations to vendors, including preparing for meetings, and being assertive while reasonable.16

A 2009 panel of library and vendor representatives discussed perspectives from both sides, including “that many librarians’ viewpoints on vendor relations defaulted to that of an adversary rather than a potential partner.”17 As part of a special issue of Against the Grain focusing on “Vendor Library Partnerships,” Maggie Farrell adds additional advice from a library dean’s perspective, including how to handle gifts and social events.18 In the same year, a panel at the Charleston Library Conference featured library and vendor perspectives addressing myths, product development, negotiation, and communication.19

More recently, library projects for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have included assessment of services, content, and policies. The University of North Texas Health Science Center has been in touch with vendors, sharing documentation about using DEI as a factor in purchasing policy, and setting out clear expectations for vendor services. These included providing diverse materials and quarterly meetings, as well as including DEI evaluations in all contract negotiations; and vendors responded in “overwhelmingly positive” ways.20 These results were presented at the same conference as a panel session featuring three professionals who shared vendor and library backgrounds, discussing “adaptive negotiation, managing and prioritizing tasks, optimizing the library/vendor partnership, coping with unique stressors, understanding how to frame your own career, clear communication and expectation setting, recognizing patterns and adapting, and empathy.”21

Method

The Qualtrics survey for this study was designed with two tracks: one for library workers and one for vendors. Both tracks sought to collect the experiences, priorities, and thoughts of those active in the library profession or vendor field, in any country, since 2010. The survey consisted of a blend of quantitative, demographic questions, and qualitative, openended questions inviting comments. Both vendors and library workers were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements using a 4-point Likert scale format. They were also given the opportunity to elaborate on their responses with freetext comments. Several colleagues of the authors, representing public and academic library worker and vendor backgrounds, tested and reviewed the survey prior to distribution. The survey distribution was in English and was aimed at local and global audiences representing academic and public libraries, and library information vendors. Notices with the survey link were sent between October 15-November 22, 2021, with reminders sent to each group on February 1-2, 2022; the survey was open for responses from October 15, 2021 through February 28, 2022. Distribution was sent via the authors’ Twitter and Facebook pages and the Against the Grain (ATG) Media Discussion Group and the Library Think Tank group on Facebook; and via listservs for Florida Virtual Campus (All, E-Resources, and Collections Advisory lists), Alma-L, Charleston Up & Comers cohort list, ASERL Collections Interest Group list, Oberlin Group Tech Services and Collection Development lists, Florida ACRL list, LIBLICENSE-L, Orbis Cascade, ERIL-L, PUBLIB-L, AcqNet, CollAssess-L, ULS-L, IFLA-L, Lis-e-resources, ALIA-L, ALIA-RD, LIBER Insider, ALA CORE’s Women, Non-Binary, and Trans Administrators Interest Group, the Women, Non-Binary, and Trans Workers in Library Technology Interest Group, Collection Management in Public Libraries Interest Group, Library Leaders and Managers Interest Group, ACRL Technical Services Interest Group, Collection Development Issues for the Practitioner Interest Group, CORE Metadata & Collections Section, Dialogue with Directors Interest Group, Electronic Resources Interest Group, Public Libraries Technical Services Interest Group, Publisher-Vendor-Library Relations Interest Group, Technical Services Managers in Academic Libraries Interest Group, Black Caucus of the American Library Association, Asian/Pacific American Librarians Association, REFORMA, and the Against the Grain distribution list.

Each of 22 library vendor service topics was rated as not a priority, low priority, medium priority, or high priority/deal breaker. The vendors, in a version of the survey customized for them, were asked to provide individual perceptions, not those of their employers, and to base their responses on how they thought library workers would rate them, rather than on their own values. While there was no survey branch for consortial representatives, a small number of responses were received from this sector, and are reported here separately.

Survey responses were kept confidential, and free-text responses were compiled for analysis by the authors. As the primary focus of the study was aimed at comparing perceptions of priorities across library and vendor sectors, the free-text responses were not analyzed via descriptive statistics or coding. The authors selected representative, insightful comments across sectors, to include as examples for the presentations and the article.

The survey form accounted for the possibility that some respondents might have cross-sector experience, and might thus have insights from differing perspectives. Guidance on the form was as follows: “Please select the role that best fits your most recent 10 years of work experience. If you have served as both a library worker and a library vendor worker within that time frame, you are welcome to complete the survey twice in order to share your experiences within each role.” Customized survey links were provided in three iterations: current/former academic library worker; current/former public library worker; and current/former library vendor worker.

Responses were validated for authenticity. As the form explained, “Identities of respondents are confidential. Limited contact information (name and email address) is collected as a validation measure; this information is also confidential and will not be shared with any third parties.” As explained in Findings below, some responses could not be validated and were not included in the analysis.

The study was exempt from IRB review. The prior employer of both authors (one author was still employed there at the time of the survey) has supplied documentation stating that the data collection process was conducted in a manner consistent with IRB guidelines for exempt research.

Preliminary results, based on responses through January 31, 2022, were presented in a virtual session at the Electronic Resources & Libraries Conference on March 15, 2022. Completed results were presented at the Charleston Conference on Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition on November 15, 2022, with two invited representatives from a library vendor and a consortium joining the panel discussion. These were Shannon Spurlock, Sales Director for Kanopy, a library streaming video platform; and Amy Pham, Assistant Director for Strategic Library Services & Communications for the Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC). These invited representatives and their views on the topic were not already known to the researchers. They were chosen in order to represent the growing centrality of streaming video content in libraries, as well as to gain further insight from a consortial perspective. This article provides findings from the survey responses, as well as selected representative comments from the panel presentation transcript. See Appendix A for the full survey.

Findings

This study analyzes library workers’ perceptions and values of vendor services, as well as vendor worker’s assumptions of what library workers value in their vendor relationships. The authors emphasize key areas of alignment and disconnection; namely, the values and services rated “high priority/dealbreakers” and “not a priority.” The survey respondents’ identities were kept confidential and were verified for authentic responses. The unvalidated total response count was 461. Ultimately, 414 responses were validated and are reported in this article. 10% (n=47) of the total responses were omitted because the respondent’s email, name, or experience could not be verified (2%; n=11) or were confirmed as duplicate responses from single individuals (8%; n=36).

Demographics

Survey respondents were asked to respond to demographic questions based on the past 10 years of their professional experience. Of the validated respondents, 11% (n=47) are vendor workers, 3% (n=12) consortium workers, 74% (n=309) academic library workers, 11% (n=46) public library workers, and 1% (n=3) hybrid or mixed-use academic/public library workers. While the majority reported working primarily in the U.S., 25% (n=102) of respondents work primarily outside the United States, representing countries in the United Kingdom as well as Australia, Brazil, and South Africa. While the study was intentionally distributed to a variety of international and cross-sector groups, and responses include global, public library, and vendor perspectives, the majority of responses, and thus the perspectives represented, are from academic library workers in the U.S.

Among library workers, the highest percentage of respondents have worked in libraries for more than 20 years (38%; n=134), with the highest percentage (30%; n=105) working in positions that directly interact with vendors for 11-20 years. Among vendors, the highest percentage of respondents (36%; n=17) reported 11-20 years working for a library vendor. Interestingly, 21 library worker respondents (6%) reported also having worked for a vendor, and 21 (44%) of vendor respondents reported also having worked for a library. Further details are presented below in the “Cross-Sector Experience” section.

Of library worker respondents, 64 (18%) have served on a library vendor advisory council or in a consulting role to library vendors. Vendor respondents overwhelmingly work for organizations that utilize advisory councils or employ library workers in advisory roles (77%; n=36). When asked whether they had ever received a formal feedback/satisfaction survey from a library vendor (not technical support/help desk interactions), 52% (n=186) of library workers responded in the affirmative. Among vendor workers, 29 respondents (62%) reported working for an organization that provides formal feedback/satisfaction surveys to library customers.

Cross-Sector Experience

As mentioned previously, some respondents, like one of the authors, share both vendor and library service experience. There were few surprises among respondents who reported working across these two spheres. Among vendors who have worked in libraries, the top high priority/dealbreakers were methods for remote access to resources (e.g., EZproxy, OpenAthens, etc.) and that vendors must be trustworthy. This mirrors the top high priority/dealbreakers across all respondent groups. The top “not a priority” for vendor respondents, that vendors must host meals during conferences, also aligns with other respondent groups. However, vendors who have worked in libraries also reported “a library vendor must employ librarians” as another top “not a priority”; this statement was not among the top “not a priority” for other respondent groups. For library workers who have worked for a vendor, the top high priority/ dealbreakers were vendors having strong working knowledge of their products and services and the methods for remote access to resources (EZproxy, OpenAthens, etc.), both of which were the top high priority/dealbreakers across all four respondent groups. The top “not a priority” responses for this group were vendors hosting meals at conferences and providing the option of deposit accounts (aka prepayment accounts). Both statements were among the top “not a priority” selections for all respondent groups. While straddling both the library and vendor professions comes with unique perspectives, this was not reflected in the nature of the survey responses.

High Priority/Dealbreakers

Most academic library workers (93%; n=284), consortia workers (100%; n=12), and vendors (85%; n=40) rated the statement “a library vendor must provide a method for remote access to resources (e.g., EZproxy, OpenAthens, etc.)” as their top high priority/dealbreaker, making this statement a key area of alignment.

Public library workers (98%; n=45), however, rated “a library vendor representative must have a strong working knowledge of their products and services” as their top high priority/ dealbreaker statement. Just 57% (n=26) of public library workers rated the remote access statement as their highest priority/ dealbreaker, revealing an element of disconnection among public library workers and other library workers.

In addition, all four respondent groups rated “a library vendor must be trustworthy” among their top five high priority/ dealbreaker statements. There were no other statements that were in the top five across all four respondent groups in this category, though statements regarding willingness to negotiate pricing and licensing terms, providing products with userfriendly interfaces, and providing prompt responses to inquiries were rated among the top high priorities/dealbreakers across two or more groups.

It is valuable to supplement raw figures with qualitative comments. As previously mentioned, respondents were provided the opportunity to expand on their responses with free-text comments. The top high priorities/dealbreakers emphasize practicality over characteristics or traits. Academic library workers, consortia workers, and vendors all prioritized remote access functionality over trustworthiness. One library worker commented:

While I scored trustworthiness as a high priority/deal breaker because we always want to work with trustworthy vendors, I also know that libraries must deal with vendors we do not trust to serve our best interests, and that libraries need to be diligent about the deals we make with some vendors. Often libraries MUST strike deals we are uneasy about because that vendor has the content we need.

Another library worker commented, “How high a priority some of these are depends on how badly we need their content. Normally, EZprozy access is a deal-breaker, but if something is ‘must have’ by a particular dept/program, we’ll license it anyway.” These comments further illuminate the buyer/seller power dynamic. They are also revealing in another way: if library workers are uneasy about the deals they are entering into, it is evident that at least some values and priorities are not in alignment with those of their vendors. See Table 1 page 34.

Not a Priority

The results revealed more alignment groupings for the top “not a priority” statements. Most academic library workers (71%; n=216), public library workers (74%; n=34), and vendor workers (45%; n=21) rated the statement “a library vendor must host small or large group meals for customers during library conferences” as their top “not a priority.” Consortia workers also rated this highly (58%; n=7), but rated “a library vendor must provide the option of deposit accounts (aka prepayment accounts)” as their top “not a priority” statement. One reason the meal hosting statement was ranked “not a priority” was shared in this comment from a public library worker: “providing meals is problematic due to our guidelines regarding acceptance of gifts.” A vendor respondent commented, “I think that libraries value good customer service, quality products at a reasonable price, and a responsive/respectful vendor over perks and vendor parties and shows,” further strengthening the alignment in agreement with the meal hosting statement.

All four respondent groups rated the deposit account statement among their top five “not a priority” options. Rounding out the top five “not a priority” selections shared among all respondent groups are statements regarding customer satisfaction inquiries and surveys. All four groups find customer satisfaction surveys and interaction inquiries to be low priorities, illustrated well by this comment from a library worker: “I expect to be able to report dissatisfaction with customer service if an issue comes up, and have it addressed, but I don’t need to be surveyed every time I interact with a vendor rep.” See Table 2 page 35.

Free-Text Comments

Additional comments from free-text responses include the following:

• “Meetings, dinners, conference attendance, phone calls, and F2F [face-to-face] interactions are not a priority for me at all and I do not ever use those types of interactions to do my work. What I care about: the availability of textual, accurate, and thorough asynchronous (email or website) information about their products/services. Accurate and timely invoicing. Thorough and accurate answers to questions. Quick assistance when something goes wrong. Accessible and usable products. Transparent and accurate description of product contents. Flexible acquisitions models and flexibility in pricing.”

• “I am more concerned that their products are accessible. I couldn’t care less about them giving me free things so long as the product reliably functions, so as to meet the needs of our patrons.”

• “In an academic setting, very few issues are dealbreakers because ultimately we must fulfill faculty needs.”

Consortia

Academic Library Public Library Vendor

100% (12)

83.33% (10)

A library vendor must provide a method for remote access to resources (e.g. EZproxy, OpenAthens, etc.).

A library vendor must be willing to negotiate pricing and licensing terms.

92.81% (284)

75.00% (9)

A library vendor representative must have a strong working knowledge of their products & services.

82.03% (251)

A library vendor must provide a method for remote access to resources (e.g. EZproxy, OpenAthens, etc.).

A library vendor representative must have a strong working knowledge of their products & services.

97.83% (45)

66.67% (8)

A library vendor must be trustworthy.

74.84% (229)

A library vendor must be trustworthy.

86.96% (40)

A library vendor representative must have a strong working knowledge of their products & services.

85.11% (40)

A library vendor must provide a method for remote access to resources (e.g. EZproxy, OpenAthens, etc.).

A library vendor must be trustworthy.

85.11% (40) A library vendor must be trustworthy.

86.96% (40)

A library vendor must provide high-quality products with user-friendly interfaces at reasonable prices.

68.09% (32)

A library vendor representative must respect a customer's time and provide prompt, thorough responses to inquiries.

68.63% (210)

A library vendor must provide high-quality products with user-friendly interfaces at reasonable prices.

76.09% (35)

A library vendor representative must respect my time and provide prompt, thorough responses to inquiries.

65.96% (31)

A library vendor representative must have a strong working knowledge of their products & services.

66.67% (8)

A library vendor representative must respect my time and provide prompt, thorough responses to inquiries.

60.78% (186)

A library vendor must be willing to negotiate pricing and licensing terms.

• “Due to the uniqueness of content and service offerings from library vendors, the threshold for reaching ‘dealbreaker’ remains quite high. This often means working for a best case in terms of priorities, rather than an ideal case.”

• “I think the ‘deal-breaker’ categorization is difficult, because in my time as a librarian working with vendors, I’ve rarely been in the position where I could stop working with a vendor because they weren’t

56.52% (26)

A library vendor must provide a method for remote access to resources (e.g. EZproxy, OpenAthens, etc.).

61.70% (29) meeting my expectations. When faculty want us to get something, we have to work it out, no matter how difficult the vendor is to work with. So while we may have priorities for vendors, it’s difficult to hold them accountable.”

A library vendor must provide highquality products with user-friendly interfaces at reasonable prices.

Discussion

The overall results are enlightening, while perhaps unsurprising to many in the profession. The study reveals that

Consortia

Academic Library

66.67% (8)

58.33% (7)

A library vendor must provide the option of deposit accounts (aka prepayment accounts).

A library vendor must host small or large group meals for customers during library conferences.

70.59% (216)

34.64% (106)

A library vendor must host small or large group meals for customers during library conferences.

A library vendor must provide the option of deposit accounts (aka prepayment accounts).

73.91% (34)

Library Vendor

A library vendor must host small or large group meals for customers during library conferences.

36.96% (17)

A library vendor must provide the option of deposit accounts (aka prepayment accounts).

44.68% (21)

25.53% (12)

A library vendor must host small or large group meals for customers during library conferences.

A library vendor must provide a customer satisfaction inquiry on every help/support desk interaction.

25.00% (3)

A library vendor must perform a customer satisfaction survey (not feedback on a help/support desk interaction) on a regular basis.

31.70% (97)

A library vendor must provide a customer satisfaction inquiry on every help/support desk interaction.

30.43% (14)

A library vendor must provide a customer satisfaction inquiry on every help/support desk interaction.

21.28% (10)

A library vendor must provide the option of deposit accounts (aka prepayment accounts).

25.00% (3)

A library vendor must exhibit at library conferences and make an effort to sponsor library conference events.

26.80% (82)

A library vendor must exhibit at library conferences and make an effort to sponsor library conference events.

17.39% (8)

A library vendor must perform a customer satisfaction survey (not feedback on a help/support desk interaction) on a regular basis.

21.28% (10)

A library vendor must employ librarians in order to provide better customer service and support.

16.67% (2)

A library vendor must provide a customer satisfaction inquiry on every help/support desk interaction.

24.51% (75) library workers and vendors are largely in alignment regarding the issues and priorities in our working relationships. Even the relative disconnections, on further inspection, do not present wide gaps. The overall number of responses in each category (e.g., “not a priority,” “high priority/deal breaker”)

A library vendor must perform a customer satisfaction survey (not feedback on a help/support desk interaction) on a regular basis.

15.22% (7)

A library vendor must exhibit at library conferences and make an effort to sponsor library conference events.

17.02% (8) is largely similar across respondent groups. Between 8-11% of statements were rated as “not a priority” by each sector, 16-18% as “low priority,” 32-38% as “medium priority,” and between 36-40% were deemed “high priority/deal breaker” across sectors.

A library vendor must perform a customer satisfaction survey (not feedback on a help/support desk interaction) on a regular basis.

The purpose of this study was not to determine why alignments or disconnections exist, but rather to collect and present data that tell a realistic story of library priorities among vendor services, and how those are perceived by their vendor partners. Even so, the overwhelming harmony between what library workers value and what vendors think they value could be attributed to a variety of factors. It is not unusual for library workers and vendors to work in both spheres throughout the course of their careers. It is difficult to work across these two sectors and not develop empathy and understanding for both. Also, at their core, the vendor, consortium, and library worlds strive for the same thing: to provide a useful service and remain relevant in the face of constant change.

One of the authors of this study previously explored library and vendor collaborations and shared assumptions and recommendations based on the experience of working in both spheres (Gallagher, 2018). Both library and vendor workers make assumptions about each other to fill in the gaps in their knowledge; when they rely on these assumptions as the basis for working relationships, they can feel that their goals are at odds, even if most interactions are generally positive. As with any buyer-seller relationship, there are valid points of tension and inevitable bad actors on both sides. But the perceived misalignment of priorities does not always hold up to the lived experience of library and vendor workers, and this is further illustrated by the lack of significant disconnects appearing in survey responses in this study.

It is also impossible to discuss the outcomes of this study outside the context of global upheaval. We, as vendors, library workers, and consortial representatives, all lived and worked through the societal and professional challenges and changes wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic. We are still experiencing the effects of the “great resignation,” with resulting staffing shortages across sectors that in turn continue to exacerbate the same phenomenon due to increasing demands on those remaining. Everyone is expected to do more with less, while continuing to innovate and build on prior successes. These effects, along with ongoing changes in funding, working, staffing, and traveling patterns, could result in further insecurity within the library information industry.

In some cases, we see differing views that highlight pragmatism versus idealism. We also reiterate that the survey is designed to measure individual views, rather than institutional or organizational priorities on behalf of vendors or libraries. Thus, we see results that might reflect personal service philosophies.

As noted in Findings, the top high priority/dealbreaker statements across all respondent groups were “a library vendor must provide a method for remote access to resources (e.g., EZproxy, OpenAthens, etc.)” and “a library vendor representative must have a strong working knowledge of their products & services.” These statements were rated higher than others relating to vendor employment and communication practices, conference dinners and sponsorships, and characteristics such as trustworthiness and promptness. They were also rated higher than other operational statements regarding access, pricing, usage statistics, and invoicing. This is not surprising when considered from an entirely practical standpoint. Other aspects of the library/vendor relationship diminish in importance, relative to the need for products to function as expected. Library workers, vendor workers, and consortial workers are in alignment in valuing the operational practicalities that allow them to do their jobs and provide a reliable service to their user bases. As one respondent states, “I would honestly question the ethics of respondents who feel that vendors should set some medium to high level of priority of exhibiting at professional conferences/sponsoring conference events/treating existing or potential clients to meals, as important criteria when comparing competitive vendors. Someone is paying for all of those conference-related activities.” Free-text comments also illustrate the reality many library workers face in compromising their own values or wants over the needs of their user base. Personal values rarely have the luxury of taking precedence over professional necessity.

Though the survey was not designed for or marketed to consortia, we received an unanticipated yet valuable set of responses from consortia workers. Some individuals reached out before answering the survey. They were encouraged to do so and to note that they represent consortia. Due to the nature of the mediating role of consortia, these responses reflect a blend, or perhaps a middle road, of the perspectives of library and vendor workers. However, the sample size from this sector is so small that it is difficult to draw generalizations. The authors considered whether to include these responses in the analysis and chose to do so, because of the importance of consortial perspectives on the topic at hand. In consideration of the low sample size, which may be attributed to the survey not being purposefully designed to include consortia, we were intentional in inviting a consortial representative to join a panel discussion at the 2022 Charleston Conference to help address this gap in the results.

Presentations at both the 2022 Charleston Conference and the preceding 2022 Electronic Resources & Libraries conference enabled us to extend the study by sharing lively insight from vendor and consortial representatives. Amy Pham, Assistant Director for Strategic Library Services & Communications at SCELC joined the panel presentation. When asked why she believes the narrative that library workers and vendors do not share the same priorities persists, she shared an anecdote about working through challenges with an established vendor, “As people, we were all able to put aside preconceptions and approach this new working relationship with an open mind. That was a great reminder, oftentimes that we forget we’re really working with other people, not just a company.” Shannon Spurlock, Sales Director for Kanopy, also joined the panel. When asked the same, she states, “There’s always this idea that vendors are trying to make as much money as possible while libraries are trying to provide as many resources as possible but for the lowest dollar amount, and I don’t believe either of those are true, because if we do collaborate with each other and break down the barriers … there are typically solutions that meet both needs.”22

The current study yields insights that build on the previous research by Ostergaard & Rossmann and others. Free-text comments allowed respondents the space to share personal opinions at a more granular level, but overall, those working in the library information industry should take heart in knowing that we share many of the same priorities. Assessing values, opinions, and perceptions across sectors in the library information industry, and being transparent about wishes and needs, can only strengthen relationships and partnerships. Results can perhaps best be summarized by the following comment from a vendor respondent:

There has always been a disconnect between what librarians expect from library vendors and what is realistic. There are many more librarians than vendors in the world, and it is impossible to cover all the needs of all librarians. At the same time, many librarians don’t

know or understand the publishing business and the challenges publishers — especially smaller academic publishers — face. I hope this survey will shed some light on the chasm.

Suggestions for Further Research and Concluding Thoughts

In the form of free-text comments, respondents provided valuable feedback on the survey design that will prove useful for future iterations and further research around the topic. Most notably, the survey did not include questions about justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion; user data confidentiality; or interface accessibility. As previously mentioned, there was no customized survey track for consortial representatives; consortial workers provide an indispensable perspective, and this warrants further study. A number of respondents stated that they would have preferred a 5-point scale that could distinguish high priorities from dealbreakers. Considering the nature of free-text comments around the separation of these two rating levels, future survey results could reveal more nuanced thought in choosing the dealbreaker response.

This study will potentially be replicated in five years with enhancements that incorporate these suggestions. The initial survey can be restructured easily to capture the perceptions of additional aspects of industry partnerships. Future studies could measure how the library information industry changes in the intervening years, as funding, working, staffing, and traveling patterns continue to evolve in each sector. We also recognize that the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, and the ensuing ethical considerations for libraries, publishers, and vendors, would be a valuable item to assess in future studies.

Library and vendor workers are no strangers to change. We operate in a profession rife with upheaval due to constant disruption and evolution in publishing, technology, and user expectations. Seismic shifts in our profession brought about in the midst and in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic will be more fully realized in the coming years. We already see these changes manifest in library worker and vendor dynamics. The inability to travel and engage with others face-to-face has greatly affected how we communicate and in which modes. In-person visits and conference attendance will continue to be re-evaluated, considering the success of virtual options. Both vendors and library workers will reckon with budgetary realities as the economic shockwaves of the pandemic affect funding and user needs. At the core of these shifts is the user — student, community member, researcher, book lover — whose behaviors and needs drive our services.

In many ways, the forced isolation and pragmatism brought by the pandemic laid bare the basic values and priorities shared across our profession. And, as revealed in this study, those values and priorities stand to connect us, not separate us. Tensions are inevitable in long-term buyer-seller relationships, but through deeper understanding of what library workers value in these relationships, we can be even more intentional in reframing narratives of opposition.

Data Availability

Permission was not granted by respondents for their data to be shared. In the interest of protecting confidentiality, sharing full responses would compromise this commitment.

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to Julie C. Harwell for ideas, survey design, and project management.

Appendix A

The Library Vendor Service Expectations Survey is available at https://www.charleston-hub.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ Survey-Appendix-A.pdf.

Endnotes

1. Katy Ginanni, Anne E. McKee, Jenni Wilson, and Linda A. Brown, “Yer Doin’ it Wrong: How NOT to Interact with Vendors, Publishers, or Librarians,” The Serials Librarian 68, no. 1-4) (2015): 255-261, https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1023131

2. Kirsten, Ostergaard, and Doralyn Rossmann, “There’s Work to be Done: Exploring Library-Vendor Relations,” Technical Services Quarterly 34, no. 1 (2017): 13-33, https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2017.1238196.

3. James H. Walther, “Assessing Library Vendor Relations: A Focus on Evaluation and Communication,” The Bottom Line 11, no. 4 (1998), https://doi.org/10.1108/08880459810242380.

4. Journal of Library Administration 44, no. 3/4 (2006), https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjla20/44/3-4. Also published as: Sam Brooks and David H. Carlson, eds., Library/Vendor Relationships (2006), Routledge.

5. Michael Gruenberg, “Both Sides Now: Vendors and Librarians column,” Charleston Hub, September 30, 2022, accessed May 2, 2024, https://www.charleston-hub.com/2022/09/both-sides-now-vendors-and-librarians-association-trade-shows-what-theyshould-be-can-be-and-must-be/

6. Michael Gruenberg, “Both Sides Now: Vendors and Librarians–It’s the Relationship,” Against the Grain 31, no. 6 (2019): 60-62, https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg/vol31/iss6/32/.

7. Josh Nicholson, “Working Together: How Libraries and Vendors can Better Help Patrons through Co-Marketing,” Charleston Hub, February 2, 2022, accessed May 2, 2024, https://www.charleston-hub.com/2022/02/working-together-how-libraries-and-vendorscan-better-help-patrons-through-co-marketing/.

8. Sarah Forzetting, “Do’s and Don’ts of Hosting Content and Service Providers at Your Library: A Few Tips for Your Next Meeting,” Against the Grain 27, no. 6 (2015): 18, https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7223&context=atg

9. Katy DiVittorio and Lorelle Gianelli, “Ethical Financial Stewardship: One Library’s Examination of Vendors’ Business Practices,” In the Library with the Lead Pipe, March 31, 2021, accessed May 2, 2024, https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2021/ ethical-financial-stewardship/

10. Ray Laura Henry, “Library Software Vendors: Improving Relationships,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 5 (2016): 620-621, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.07.004

11. Dawn McKinnon and Clara Turp, “Are Library Vendors Doing Enough to Protect Users? A Content Analysis of Major ILS Privacy Policies,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48, no. 2 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102505.

12. Devin GawneMark and Sarah Nichols, “Happy Together: How to Foster Mutually-Beneficial Librarian-Vendor Partnerships,” AALL Spectrum 13, no. 4, 24-27 (2009), https://www.aallnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/pub_sp0902.pdf

13. Erin Gallagher, “What Collaboration Means to Me: Perspectives on Library/Vendor Collaboration,” Collaborative Librarianship 10, no. 1 (2018), https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol10/iss1/3

14. Ostergaard, “There’s Work to be Done.”

15. Janet L. Flowers, “Negotiations with Library Materials Vendors: Preparation and Tips,” The Bottom Line 16, no. 3 (2003), https:// doi.org/10.1108/08880450310488012

16. Rick Anderson and Jane F. White, “How to Be a Good Customer: Building and Maintaining Productive Relationships with Vendors,” The Serials Librarian 48, no. 3/4 (2005): 321-326, https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v48n03_15. Also published in Patricia Sheldahl French and Margaret Mering, eds., Growth, Creativity, and Collaboration: Great Visions on a Great Lake (2005), Haworth Press: 321-326.

17. Christine Stamison, Bob Persing, Chris Beckett, and Chris Brady, “What They Never Told You About Vendors in Library School,” The Serials Librarian 56, no. 1-4 (2009): 139-145, https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260802665555

18. Maggie Farrell, “The Care and Feeding of Partnerships,” Against the Grain, 30, no. 2 (2018): 24, 26, https://www.charleston-hub. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ATG_v30-2-1.pdf.

19. Michael Rodriguez, Jason Chabak, Lindsay Cronk, Allen Jones, and Christine M. Stamison, “Managing Vendor Relationships,” Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference (2018): 276-280, https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2018/management/6/.

20. Elizabeth Speer, “Diversity Evaluation and Vendor Communication: The Effect on a Collection and Vendor Relationships,” NASIG Proceedings 37 (2022), https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/nasig/article/id/4307/

21. Courtney McAllister, Erin Gallagher, Kate Hill, and Daniel Brown, “Tales from the Other Side: Librarians and Vendors Get Real,” NASIG Proceedings 37 (2022), https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/nasig/article/id/4022/

22. Erin Gallagher, Jonathan Harwell, Amy Pham, and Shannon Spurlock, “Co-pilots or Backseat Drivers? Perspectives of Vendors & Library Workers on Vendor Services,” Conference Presentation, Charleston Conference, Charleston, SC, United States, 2022, accessed May 2, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y4GZ99rzoo.