[WEB4LIB] Re: library marketing (long, but with an on-topic point)

[Mr. Brian Collier]

Everyone,

As a librarian, I can't simply let the statement that libraries "don't
give people what they want, at all" go unchallenged. There is an
on-topic argument at the end if you'd rather scroll straight down to
that and read about how libraries should use Web services to fulfill
their missions.

I'm responding to two people in particular, so I want to be clear that
there are two messages quoted here.

On Mon, February 14, 2005 7:24 pm, Amos Lakos said:
> Mr. Collier - I wonder?
> how do you know that libraries are delivering what the customers want?
> do you have some data or assessment to rely on?

Well, call me old fashioned, but I ask my patrons. (I don't have
customers.) How often does Google ask you how they're doing? They don't.
They're not focused on service, they're focused on revenue.

> and what is wrong with being popular or trendy - what is wrong with 
> Starbucks?

Nothing wrong with popular, but "trendy" is something that bends to the
whims of people's fancy. "Oh, look, keyword searches that return over
40,000 hits. Let's all do that!" Is wrong because more is not always
better. I don't want my patrons saying, "Damn, I've scrolled through 33
pages of sites and still not found what I need." Trendy is not why
libraries are here. We are not fashion, we are access to information.
(And don't get me started on what's wrong with Starbucks.) 

> Why should library services not strive for online success such as 
> Google's? Who says we can't compete with this or that, just because we
are not 
> private?

That's like asking why Walmart doesn't strive to serve coffee like
Starbucks. Walmart is a department store and Starbucks is already doing
it. We are not Google and Google is already doing the online thing
better than we can because that's Google's mission and it's all Google
does. If we try to be Google, then we water down our purpose as
libraries. There's nothing negative in suggesting that we do what we're
here to do and do it better than anyone else.

On Monday, February 14, 2005 9:10 PM, Ross Singer wrote
>I have to agree with Amos, here (for the umpteenth time).  
>As even academic libraries struggle with irrelevance to their 
>core constituency...

If you feel that libraries are irrelevant, then why bother? Why have a
library at all? This is my point, we are not irrelevant to our core
constituency. Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, etc, do not provide access to
everything, nor do they provide the services that we do. We are
necessary.

>Even more important than "trendy" (because it would be like 
>"trendy with longevity")would be "ubiquity".  If only we could 
>achieve the market share of a Starbucks (anyone?) or a Google, 
>there wouldn't be the need to slash monograph budgets to pay for 
>increasing serials bills.

That's a totally different topic.

>If libraries want to survive, it is going to have to be by at 
>least paying attention to free-market success stories.  We must 
>have public interfaces that are as easy to use as Amazon or Google.  
>We must make it easier to get the material that the user wants over 
>Amazon's marketplace.  As long as my local public library takes 5 
>weeks /to deliver a book from another branch/, I will opt for buying 
>the damn thing used off of Amazon for $3.50. 
>I would love to say that this is just isolated to one inefficient
library 
>system, but I see it again and again.

I have no argument against improving efficiency and service to our
patrons, but while you may have access to a PC and a cable modem, over
half of the U.S. population does not. They can't go to Amazon and order
that book. What do they do? They come to the library. If they have the
$3.50 to spend, they can use the public P.C. to order it, and Hey! we've
just provided a service they needed. If they don't have the $3.50, they
will wait for the book and we will get it for them for free.

>Why is it that sites with ISBNs have links to Amazon or Barnes 
>and Noble and Powell's, but never to your public library?  
>Certainly there are a kickbacks, but not in every case.

I disagree. People put those links up because they get money for doing
it. If you want empirical evidence, look at those "what I'm reading"
links from Xanga to Amazon? Yep, kickbacks.

>"There's no question that we provide what people want. Barnes and 
>Noble, the NY Times, Netflix, and ISPs charge for the same stuff 
>that libraries GIVE AWAY in the form of books, movies, periodicals,
>and computer access." This very quote negates itself because these 
>/very successful enterprises/ can /charge/ what for what we /give
away/.

No, it doesn't. It shows that people want books, periodicals, movies,
etc, and we give it to them. The fact that someone else sells the same
thing we provide for free does not negate the fact that people want what
we offer.

>We don't give many people what they want, at all, and we better 
>figure out something soon, because someday somebody who charges 
>for what we do (Questia, Elsevier, Google?) might take away those 
>remaining "customers", as well.
>-Ross.

And Amos tells me to be positive? I seriously hope you're just playing
Devil's advocate (I get that impression from your response to Fiona's
post) but if you really think that we don't give people what they want
at all, I don't see how you can stand being a librarian. 

If you're in a strange town and go to the Starbucks for your
over-roasted cup of coffee, that's cool, but I'm going to ask a local
where the better coffee is. The better example would be, if you slice
your finger off while fixing the lawn mower, are you going to surf over
to Web M.D. while you bleed to death at the keyboard, or are you going
to a surgeon?

We are the surgeons of the information world. We provide access, we
provide guidance, and we provide expertise. If we're doing our jobs, we
give people more than what they want, we give them what they need.    

There is nothing wrong with stepping into the 21st century and utilizing
the technology to make what we offer more easily accessible, but
following the latest trend and slapping an RSS feed on the library page
only further confuses the patron who does happen to try looking for
information there.

We have problems, I agree with you there, but being trendy is not one of
them. I completely agree that ubiquity is where we're falling short. We
simply aren't seen. If we promoted ourselves a fifth as much as Amazon
or Google, then we'd have people queuing up around the block. How about
it, Techies, let's come up with a way to ubiquitize awareness of
libraries without spending billions on advertising.

I also agree that inefficiency is a huge issue with libraries. So, how
about this idea: instead of competing against Google, how about if we
work with them? Let them digitize our holdings and then make those
holdings keyword searchable with full text available online so people
don't have to wait five weeks for a book...oh, wait, someone's doing
that already!

This is what we should strive for: utilizing technology to get relevant,
reliable information into the minds of the people who want it as
efficiently as possible. 

Brian Collier