What's wrong with virtual reference?

[Elena OMalley]

>Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:26:24 -0700
>From: "K.G. Schneider" <kgs at bluehighways.com>
>To: "'Multiple recipients of list'" <web4lib at webjunction.org>
>Subject: RE: What's wrong with virtual reference?
>Message-ID: <20041001182628.E979056E2CF at frontend2.messagingengine.com>
>
>>...the answers on VR's low usage. Maybe all the reasons aren't bad 
>>things we need to fix or fight...
>
>Welllllll, maybe, but that reminds me a bit of the mainstream Protestant
>churches facing declining attendance that try to redefine low membership as
>a plus, even though a trip to the local Starbucks and nearby megachurch can
>reveal where the bodies went. I'm not sure it's a plus that most people
>haven't heard of VR, don't know what it is, and don't know where to find it,
>even though a lot of libraries offer it. But I would welcome a study that
>eliminated this as a variable. :-)
>
>Karen G. Schneider
>kgs at bluehighways.com

I wasn't saying the other factors were good, but possibly neutral. 

Lack of, or bad, marketing as a major problem is attractive because
it's fixable. However, let's examine all those other factors
first and try to determine their relative influence on VR before we 
make the possibly expensive investment in determining advertising's
impact on VR usage numbers. Although there's danger in stagnating 
during a reassess period when maybe VR is about to hit critical 
mass, I'd recommend we be conservative with our resources while we
regroup and synthesize the research or it hits some word-of-mouth 
breakpoint on its own. I worry we'll throw good money after good money 
(I believe VR is worthwhile) but consider ourselves failures because 
we've successfully expanded our services but haven't won the lottery. 

Elena O'Malley (who has no more to say on this now and so encourages
Karen, Bernie, or anyone else to have the last word)