Weighing in on One Big Library

If you have somehow failed to see the announcement on other, more noteworthy blogs, York University in Toronto will be hosting a One Big Library conference in June. There has been some hubbub over the title alone...which I can only assume might have been at least part of the reason to name it that. Librarians, as a rule, tend to get in a snit when one mentions the idea that not everything needs local control. Collection development in particular is one area where librarians often become quite territorial. So the idea that all libraries could, concievably, be under the umbrella of one institution scares the bejeezus out of many of us.

I'm not sure where I stand on the idea, exactly. I wish I could go to the conference and participate, to really get a grip on some of the issues involved. But at first glance, the idea makes a fair amount of sense...depending on how it would be implemented. I could see libraries working as a type of franchise (please hold the "Want fries with that?" jokes...I know it's hard). Locally, libraries could choose the materials best suited to their localities. But the mother library organization (corporate headquarters?) provides guidance and significant marketing and PR investment on behalf of ALL libraries.

Individually, libraries just don't have the resources to do effective marketing in today's world. We attempt to brand ourselves individually with little or no result. Imagine if all libraries combined their resources and gave their dollars to one huge marketing effort geared to getting people into/using their local libraries?

An additional benefit of the franchise idea is consistent branding and fufillment of customer expectations. When someone goes into a chain store or restauarant, they are comfortable because they know what they're going to get in terms of service and products and atmosphere. Libraries don't currently have that advantage; each library is different, we all have different ILS systems, we can't share materials across borders easily, etc. A good marketing campaign could actually take advantage of that somewhat, promoting the message not only that libraries are useful, but each one is a different adventure in discovery. Let the customer expect that they will be different, yet know that libraries are important and there to serve the patron.

I think there could be significant issues with trying to create "One Big Library." I'm sure others have blogged about those already. But I would love to see "One Big Library Marketing Campaign."

Finish this sentence: "A public library is________."

Conceptually, public libraries are in turmoil. And, collectively, our perceptions of what public libraries are might be at the root of it. This became very clear to me as I waded through my feed reader and one of my paper files this morning.

On the one hand, we have sessions like this at PLA. This session points out that the traditional public libraries model isn't working any more and that they need to challenge many assumptions of legacy librarianship. On the other, we have editorials like this that point out that that we are shooting ourselves in the foot because we are "attempting to placate those who perceive themselves as too busy to come to the library."

What is a public library? What is our mission? Has it ever struck anyone as odd that every single public library has its own mission statement? Public libraries are having major difficulties defining themselves and can't even agree on a consistent purpose of existence. If we don't define ourselves, others will.

"If public libraries become ineffectual and are consigned to the dustbin of history, I'm afraid we will have no one to blame but ourselves."--Harold N. Boyer

And again the question is being asked...

Why pay for the public library? This time from Gainesville, Florida.

And I'm sure you've seen this one also...

I know, I'm way behind on reporting these things...new jobs and moving and such will do that, I hear. Anyways, In case you actually missed it, here is the Slate slideshow about builiding libraries in the age of Google.

People can argue the question all they want. However, if the question is being asked in such a large-scale way, this is just further proof that the public libraries in this country are in serious trouble. When people question the need for an institution's existence, it would seem that the institution has done a poor job of marketing itself or instilling itself in the public perception.

Now it's official, libraries have a timeline for death throes

If you read nearly any other library-related blog, you've no doubt seen this already. Nonetheless, it is part of the ongoing documentary here. Just being thorough.

Even this consultant admits that libraries need rescuing

...and she is making a career out of it. Check out the interview here.

The devaluing of librarians

From LISNews:

WI Librarians Demoted: "Librarians today do less complex work"

This should be a surprise to no one. This is a direct result of not educating the public about the importance of libraries and the kind of work that librarians really do. Public perception is based on what the public observes and believes, not necessarily on fact. I think we're going to see a lot more of this as long as libraries as a whole continually fail to market themselves effectively (or at all).

Courses they should teach at library school

I'm really starting to like the Annoyed Librarian. I'm not nearly as anti-Web 2.0 as he/she is but many of the points this anonymous blogger makes cause me to silently cheer. This one, "Courses I Wish I'd Had in Library School," especially made me laugh (and remember, humor is funny because it has at least a grain of truth). The comments are particularly insightful. If you're considering an MLS, this post and the responses will likely make you think twice.

"Coddle those who cower in fear...? Never."

"None of the BS about having to cater to the whims of non-technical people. Listen to them and their needs? Absolutely. Try to understand and meet those needs? Postively in every case. But coddle those who cower in fear and refuse to understand? Never."

--from a library IT staff person on how he would proceed if he were in charge

Many IT people I know are actually very patient teachers and understand that repeating the answers to the same questions, over and over, is simply part of the territory. What upsets them isn't usually repetition or hand-holding; it's dealing with the technophobic and even hostile reactions of some librarians.

Think about it for just a moment; how many times have you introduced someone to the Internet, or even to the mouse for the first time? What if that person is nervous or outright terrified? You'd probably be sympathetic and understanding, right? Now, imagine that that same person is being paid, as part of their job, to learn that skill. And they don't want to. And they're simmering with hostility and fear. And wanting to foil your attempts to teach them, in some underlying, vain hope that they somehow will be exempt from upgrading their skills. Getting the picture? Imagine if you had to deal with that attitude on a regular basis. Getting burned out yet? Maybe at least a little cranky?

IT people don't want librarians to necessarily love technology. I bet most wouldn't even necessarily expect everyone to like it. But I believe that most IT people in libraries would appreciate it if they didn't get shot as as the messengers, so to speak. Information technology requires upgrades to skillsets all the time, for everyone who comes in contact with it. We all get paid to keep up.

We all need to put a brave face on it and show that librarians are flexible and still relevant in this fast-paced world the Internet has wrought.

"Libraries are absolutely *terrible* online"

From Tim Spalding, of LibraryThing, comes this bit of reality:

You can't Google a book and find out where in town to get a copy. You can't Google a book and find out whether your public library has a copy. Your library doesn't know the author is touring the area. The author doesn't know which independent bookstores are selling the most copies, and so where to read. Bookstore software is crap and most independent bookstores aren't online at all. The second-largest US bookstore chain—Borders—is less online that Powell's! Libraries are absolutely *terrible* online; you will rarely get a library in the first ten pages of a Google search because search engines can't "see inside" library websites. Library data is largely inaccessible and dominated by an inflexible data monopoly. Book data is mostly from Amazon or from a welter of other companies that don't or can't help any but the largest providers. Publisher websites a seldom more than 1990s brochure-ware. Small presses sometimes have good websites, but aren't included in the book-data game. There's no online network for authors and agents. There isn't even a decent "works" system for books—and to the extent there are systems like this, publishers and libraries have completely different systems.

This should not be a surprise to anyone in libraries; just another reason why $OPACS=="suck."