In this article I will try to give background on how recent LBI Standards have evolved, why the current Standard needs change and how I think that change should come about. I have considered the reasonable arguments that others have made concerning my proposal for an amendment for a multi-product Standard. I believe that the course of action that I recommend in this article is appropriate for our industry

One of the primary benefits of an industry standard is to establish a flat playing field. Clearly defined products, enable objective comparison by the customer and ethical competition by binders. If non-standard products are commonly requested because the LBI Standard does not define the products that the marketplace requires, there is no way for customers to evaluate the relative value of these products. Binders may substitute materials and methods at their discretion (when producing non-standard products) if they adhere to no independently monitored specifications.

The seventh edition of the LBI Standard was published in 1980. In July 1983 the Los Angeles Preconference on Library Binding sponsored by the American Library Association highlighted the need for dramatic change in our industry Standard. An LBI Standard that looked to the past by insisting that oversewing was the only "certified" method of leaf attachment was hopelessly out of touch with the market. In 1983 librarians who recognized the advantages of recasing, sewing through-the-fold and double-fan adhesive binding wisely pressured the LBI to legitimize these procedures in the Standard.

Library binders first use of adhesive binding was identified with the label "Economy" to overcome librarian's apprehension of the process and to entice them with a lower price. When these volumes proved to be more flexible for reading and photocopying despite narrow margins, and when they proved to hold up perfectly to heavy library use, librarians appropriately demanded that the adhesive binding option be made available for LBI Standard products. Librarians justifiably wanted a binding standard that included the leaf attachment options that their collections demanded. Binders were forced to master new processes and purchase new equipment because their customers gave them no alternative. The Standard merely reflected the law of the market. The "ECONOMY" label that allowed adhesive binding to compete with more established methods (oversewing) did not stand in the way of ultimate customer acceptance.

The 1986 LBI Standard was applauded because it embraced needed binding options that the living laboratory of the stacks had tested and approved. Today I believe we approach another cross road. Different binding options have been offered for years by most library binderies. The value rating that binders have assigned to these products is tied up in their names. If I may borrow a phrase from Jim Larsen and his April 1992 TNLS article; Custom, Standard and Economy are not the invention of "some medieval marketing wizard" . They are terms used in most industries to enable the customer to evaluate the relative VALUE of different products. Value and quality are not necessarily the same. Quality is a ranking that customers assign to products based upon the match of specific characteristics to their particular needs. Durability, price, service, product features, appearance and cachet all affect one's assessment of quality.

The question of flat backed volumes with wide hinges versus rounded/backed volumes with traditional hinges does not have a black and white answer. The LBI Standard Amendment Proposal that I support recognizes that binders serve a broad spectrum of libraries and that the diverse nature of library collections requires a MULTI-Product Standard. In my opinion, it is good business to open up our binding standard to embrace product diversity. Does the array of binding options that the LBI Standard provides specifications for define an acceptable/affordable binding for every conceivable product that a library might require? To the extent that it does not, then the leaders of our trade association have not fulfilled their responsibility to our members (librarians, binders and suppliers).

If a company chooses to offer one product only, because it feels that other products are inferior, it has that right. If other companies feel that a variety of products increases the value that they offer to their customers, they too have that privilege. The binding standard must include both camps.

After the 1986 LBI Standard was published it was quickly embraced by libraries, suppliers and binders. Those that warned of the dangers of watering down the Standard found that nothing really had changed. Librarians were demanding a range of options for leaf attachment methods and binders had no choice but to go along. It is always good for business people to listen to the wishes of the customer. For library binders this was especially so. Following the release of the LBI Standard, 8th edition, a period of unprecedented cooperation ensued. The PAX BINDIANUS enabled binders and librarians to collaborate on many cooperative ventures. The products of this cooperation were the two ALA Institutes on Library Binding (two-day workshops that taught binding preparation staff to tailor the new gospel of binding options to their local needs), The Guide to the LBI Standard (a hand book that explains these options and introduces some that are not listed in the Standard--including Economy Binding), and the Library of Congress video on library binding. Binders and librarians worked together to study adhesives used for double-fan adhesive binding and recently decided to take the giant step to bring the binding standard up to the level of a NISO standard.

There are many solid reasons to ignore the wisdom of the marketplace until we are dead certain that we are not making a mistake. What is there to be afraid of? Some say that binders cannot agree on names or specifications for alternative products. If we substitute the labels Type I, Type II and Type III for Custom, Standard, and Economy, we avoid the question of value judgements but do we duck the key question? Which product is better?

I do not think that the product labels are the issue. The issue is whether or not we are willing to accept product choice in our industry Standard and whether binders are willing to offer these choices to their customers. If we define more than one product in the LBI Standard, there is the risk that some will confuse these descriptive labels with quality rankings. Does this mean that the Standard can only define one product and everything else must be described as Non-Standard? How is that helpful to our market or our industry? Product choice has existed in this industry for many years. It is about time that we incorporate it into the binding standard.

Despite these statements, there exists valid controversy over the ranking scheme that a multi-product Standard would invite. Binders on both sides of the debate are solid in their convictions. To resolve this dilemma to everyone's satisfaction we must find a solution that relies on facts rather than popular opinion. I believe that the answer has long been within our grasp but we have failed to embrace it. Like Dorothy and the Ruby Slippers, we can quickly find our answer if we really want to.

In 1987, Claudia Chaback wrote a Master of Science thesis at RIT entitled "A Performance Comparison Between A Wide-Hinged Endpaper Construction and the Library Binding Institute Standard Endpaper Construction." Although Ms. Chaback's thesis addressed the question of rounding and backing versus flat backing and traditional hinge vs. wide hinge, it was widely criticized and her results were considered inconclusive. Everyone agrees that there were several major flaws in her research.

1. She did not have access to the latest LBI Standard issued in 1986.
2. She did not consider double-fan adhesive bound volumes, volumes sewn through the fold, or volumes that have been recased. She only tested volumes that were oversewn and side sewn. In today' market the subset of leaf attachment methods that she omitted from her research is as much as 80% in most libraries and 100% in others.
3. All samples were not manufactured with identical batches of thread, adhesives, spine lining, board (grain and thickness), or covering material. Since these materials affect binding performance, a valid test should have eliminated these variables.
4. All samples were not manufactured in the same bindery. Different equipment, personnel and level of skill used to manufacture the samples would affect their performance when tested. These variables should also have been eliminated.
5. Specifics of the manufacturing process are not documented in many cases. For example, there is no note of the exact number of sewing stitches in each oversewn volume or the thickness of sewn sections. How the volumes were sewn would affect their performance. All manufacturing steps must be documented and held constant between sample batches.

Traditional LBI Standard binding is generally agreed to be more aesthetically pleasing. It is also known to be more expensive to manufacture than flat-backed wide-hinged bindings. Once conclusive testing has been conducted to show which volumes are more sturdy and easier to read and photocopy, then we will be able to conclude this chapter in the development of the LBI Standard. Before that time comes, we can only continue to debate our opinions.

I honestly do not want to force inappropriate change to a document that is the lifeblood of our industry. I merely want to enable that document to live up to the high praise that our French colleague at the Bibliotheque de France recently bestowed on the LBI and the LBI Standard. Jean-Paul Oddos states that the LBI's "major originality is being organized for permanent dialogue between binders, librarians, equipment manufacturers and suppliers." The LBI Standard "is not closed or definite, ignoring technological progress, but on the contrary, an open standard, in a state of continual evolution and re-evaluation." I believe that binders will find solutions to their challenges by supporting the LBI and the Standard. If we work together, this industry will prosper by embracing factory automation, enhanced service and a willingness to listen to the customer.

Paul Parisi, President
Acme Bookbinding