The Bookseller.com

7th September 2008

Jake Hope is children's librarian for Lancashire libraries, and a freelance consultant

Age range or deranged?

02.05.08

In 2005, the Publishers Association began investigating the impact age classification would have on the children’s book market, starting with a consultation exercise involving booksellers and suppliers. Peculiarly, the 4000-plus library sites across the UK were excluded from this, with only their suppliers being consulted—an odd move when suppliers, unlike libraries, have no direct contact with children or their ­carers.

Three head-office respondents from book chains that constitute a major portion of UK book sales did not feel age-ranging would be helpful, while independents felt it undermined their unique selling point—the provision of guidance and advice.

Then in 2006, Acacia Avenue explored buying habits, with its research apparently corroborating the need for age categorisation. What has not been addressed is the fact that a staggering 88% of respondents felt book buying for children was easy; the 12% stating otherwise does not represent a significant growth area. Equally, of a variety of gifting options listed for children, including DVDs, music and computer games, books were felt to be the easiest to purchase.

One of the significant growth areas identified by the Acacia Avenue research was what it termed “lower socio-economic groups”, but many such individuals are disenfranchised from the education system, and do not value or desire books. Such attitudes to wards books are unlikely to be altered through the mere application of an age range.

The final part of the research focused on children and adults’ selection methods. It was found that 85% of children involved selected their favourite books from those primarily aimed at their age group, irrespective of age-guidance printing. Similarly, 75% of parents chose a book primarily aimed at their child’s age group irrespective of age-guidance printing. This casts severe doubt on the need for age guidance.

Claims that children did not appear to be put off titles based on the age guidance not only lack statistical rigour, but fail to constitute a fair test scenario regarding stigmatisation, because test conditions do not embody the social environment within which children operate and within which peer pressure occurs.

It seems paradoxical that in the National Year of Reading, a time when the egalitarian approach to reading should surely be encouraged and embraced, publishers who have worked so hard to generate crossover markets, to engage with opportunities for providing more inclusive access to books through schemes such as Diversity Matters and In the Picture, should limit this so greatly and adopt a rigid approach that fails to grapple with the complex dialectic involved in choosing books for children.

Comments on this article