Amid a 15-year Slide in IMLS Usage Stats, U.K. Library Advocate Renews Call for Libraries to Refocus on Print, and Library Buildings
"There are many services that have been initiated over the last 15 years which command significant resources but which very few people use," Coates argues. "Meanwhile, book collections, which people say they still overwhelmingly value libraries for the most, have seen a steady decline."
This week, in a video presentation hosted by the EveryLibrary Institute, U.K.-based library advocate Tim Coates released his new, slimmer version of the Freckle Report, which, since 2019, has been tracking official IMLS stats alongside a proprietary reader survey. This year, there is no written report, just the presentation (which is available here). And for now, just the IMLS stats. But for Coates, the message in 2026 remains the same: the decline in library usage as measured by the IMLS statistics represents a massive challenge to the U.S. library system, and the best way to reverse these declines is to focus on what libraries do best: high-quality print book collections in attractive welcoming, buildings.
Words & Money caught up with Coates this week to talk about this year's Freckle Report.
You’re a veteran in the book business, not a librarian, and you’re in the U.K. For our readers who may still not know you, or the Freckle Report, what got you interested in the U.S. library market—and particularly in the IMLS survey, which is some pretty bone dry data?
I’ve been working actively in public and academic libraries now for 30 years. Even before that, when I was involved in opening bookstores, I used local public libraries as a reference for what people in a particular town were reading. You could see their tastes and interests from the date stamp labels. Then I watched as U.K. libraries fell apart, starting around 1995. I believe library leaders had become confused about the right role to play amid emerging technologies.
By 2002 or 2003, I had recognized there was a serious problem, and I began to gather all data, which was clearly showing the extent of damage as it was happening, including serious declines in circulations and visits. But corrections were never made, despite this being a problem for which I believe there were and are solutions, solutions with which I was familiar with from my retail experience. And today you can see the result—the library service in the U.K. today is in a terrible state. Since 2000, annual visits to English public libraries have fallen from by half, from 292 million visits to 145 million, and book circulation has fallen by two thirds, from 363 million to 124 million.
Because the reading and publishing worlds are very similar in the U.K. and the U.S., I began watching out for the same problems in the U.S. And, sure enough, in 2010, the IMLS surveys began to clearly show declines.
Your 2026 Freckle Report comes the same week as the release of a Knight Foundation survey that finds Americans love and trust their libraries. It’s not hard to believe that people love their libraries, but as you report, the IMLS figures certainly do suggest that Americans are using them less, especially in terms of physical circulation and visits less over the last 15 years. How do you view the discrepancy between how Americans say they feel about libraries and the stats showing declining usage?
I am now working with several individual libraries, and we talk a lot about how their communities love their libraries but don’t use them. There are many services that have been initiated over the last 15 years which command significant resources, both in staff time and money, but which very few people use. Meanwhile, book collections, which people say they still overwhelmingly value libraries for the most, have seen a steady decline. The IMLS data shows this clearly.
Logic says libraries should scale back these other services and devote more resources to improving and marketing their physical collections. But the money has gone elsewhere, and any effort to reverse course must be done in the most sensitive way, and slowly. Library directors and their trustees have to be very careful and mindful of their reputation. It is a genuine issue.
Tim Coates
In the U.S., librarians are working to address inequities in the library ebook market. As someone who unabashedly advocates for a focus on print collections, what’s your message to librarians who are trying to get the major publishers to offer better terms in the digital market?
In the libraries in which I am working I advise the directors not to get involved in the library ebook argument at all. There is a whole set of issues about digital material, of which the prices and terms of licenses are only a part. I would prefer to see changes in the whole supply chain of digital material—ebooks and audio.
But the fact is, librarians are spending too much time worrying about this issue, and I think it is much more important for libraries to concentrate on their physical collections and their buildings. Libraries need more visitors. Libraries need more books. That is far more important, because, as I’ve witnessed here in the U.K., if libraries don’t have those things, I fear politicians will at some point begin to view the buildings as a waste of money and they will be shut.
Over the years, you’ve taken some heat from librarians who disagree with your conclusions that librarians in the digital age should go back to focusing on print and physical collections. Has that changed over the years you’ve been doing the report? In your webinar with EveryLibrary’s John Chrastka released this week, you note that you’re working with some libraries, without saying much more. What can you say about how your findings—and more importantly—your advice is being received in 2026?
In the libraries in which I am working, we have agreed that I won’t talk publicly about any details of the discussions or the data. That is for them to do when they are ready. And that’s understandable. However, I would say that the directors with whom I’ve been working have been brave and honest. They see there is a problem, and they understand that it goes right to the roots of the way libraries have been working for nearly their entire working lives.
The libraries I have been working with are true pioneers and I really respect them for it. We have looked at figures that they would not normally have looked at, and drawn conclusions that, frankly, they would otherwise have been very hesitant to embrace. Yet, when we set the priorities and when they take the actions on which we agree the results, in terms of increasing usage, are outstanding. And fast.
I’m not surprised, because I know that we are only giving people what they expect a library to provide. But they are astonished, and very pleased with the results. And I would love to open these discussions in more libraries.
As a publishing industry veteran and self-professed library advocate, can I ask you to share your thoughts on the role of libraries in the reading enterprise? As you know, there is tension between libraries and publishers over the digital issue, which speaks to the longstanding questions over library lends vs. actual sales. But how do you see the role of libraries in the book business?
Anywhere I’m working, my opening line is “the public library exists to help people find and enjoy what they want to read.” And it is remarkable to me how controversial that line can be. But I believe it to be true.
Public libraries play—and should play—a huge role in the reading enterprise. And if there are statistics showing that people are reading less, then libraries need to step up and make sure they are playing their best part. If the use of the libraries is falling, which the IMLS statistics show to be happening, then that is a serious issue that cannot be ignored and from which no diversion can be justified. Libraries must never back away from being a principal source of the widest range of reading material.
As for the tension around digital books and library lending, for me, the starting point is that both libraries and publishers want people to read. They share that. They may approach that mission with different financial models. But both of those models need to work—and can work.
I absolutely don’t believe this needs to be a matter of law. It is a matter for greater mutual understanding and honesty around the role each party plays. And both publishers and libraries have to base their actions on a more candid view of reality.
Tim Coates has worked in the book industry for four decades, including as the former CEO of Waterstone's and WH Smith in Europe. He has tracked, advised, commented on, and worked in the public library service for 20 years in the U.K., U.S., and other countries. He can be reached at tim@freckle.us.
