Library Revolution

I had a really great compliment paid to me the other day by John Klima of Library Angst.

What he said is that sometimes I make him angry.

While I really appreciate all of the supportive comments from everyone who agrees with what I have to say here (who doesn’t like knowing they are not alone in their opinions??), I feel like this is one of most promising best responses I have gotten so far.

There was a lot of talk in the library blogoshphere a short time ago about things being a bit echo chamber-y and nicey-nice with everyone just loving what everyone else had to say without much critical commentary. I don’t know that I 100% agree with that (See! Disagreement!).

Of course there is going to be a certain level of agreement among Library bloggers as we all come to blogging with a certain amount of shared assumptions. For example, that blogging (and libraries) are worthwhile. So a lot of agreement on basic points is to be expected.

But debate is healthy in any field, and to be desired. Disagreeing and then discussing our disagreements is the way that a profession grows and flourishes. Intellectual discourse is exactly what most of us are really looking for. So it’s great to see that many people don’t agree with a lot of what I have to say here.

Not only that, but I was happy to see that John didn’t just disagree with me. I make him angry. How flattering!

I was a great fan of Kathy Sierra’s Creating Passionate Users, which is now, sadly, no longer an active blog. (Go back and read through her archives if you are unfamiliar with this blog. I guarantee you will learn loads.) One of the great lessons I learned from her is that to create passion (and by extension, motivation and discussion!), you have to avoid the “Zone of Mediocrity.”

Having people love you (or agree with you) is great. Having people hate you (or in this case, making people angry) is great, too. What you want to avoid is “Eh.” Passion and motivation come from love and hate – everything in the middle is apathy-inducing drivel.

So I hope that I can keep on making people angry, and I hope that other members of the Library blogging community will strive to do the same. With all due respect, I want to piss some of you off. And I’ll do my best to do so – so that we can discuss what’s pissing us all off… and hopefully make some changes.

I should say that I think the same could be said about libraries. Make your users love you by making them hate you.

If you only read library blogs, think twice. One of my favorite categories of “non-library” blogs is the marketing blog. Marketing blogs give great insight into the psyche of our patrons and they always seem to clue me in to the ways that the business world is/can/should be tapping into their markets. Invaluable advice for libraries, IMO. I count 14 marketing blogs in my aggregator as of today. Tomorrow there will probably be more.

Take Drew’s Marketing Minute. If this post isn’t applicable to LibraryWorld, then I don’t know what is. Drew talks about the customer of the future and the likelihood (certainty??) that online social networking is here to stay! He asks the important question:

If the 17-34 year olds are already engaged in social media, do you suppose they’re going to unplug when they hit 35,40 or 50?

And he doesn’t even get into the possibilities for the generation after that! I mean, they’re starting ‘em really young these days…

So I have two very disjointed points:

1. Social Networking isn’t a fad that’s going to disappear next year. So how are we going to go about adapting library service  to appeal to a populace that loves their online networks? And how will we address their needs?

2. Read some marketing stuff today. You’ll be a better public servant and library professional for it.

Here I am in beautiful San Jose, and I can see San Jose State from my hotel room window. How appropriate, then, that I saw this video today!

I have had very mixed feelings on Second Life in LibraryWorld… but I must admit this looks like a really great effort. And I love the video itself.

Now that I have pumped out my long-winded conference impressions, I’d just like to point out that my little blog has been going for one month now. I can’t believe how supportive people have been of my dumb little rants and how fast I’ve been able to gather a little readership. In the past month I have had visits from ten countries as well as from all over the U.S. And people appear to be coming back for more. Astounding. I’m really flattered and I hope to hear more from you all soon!

I love the idea of a readers advisory blog for a public library. There are a lot of these blogs out there, and some of them really seem to have met with some success. One of our local libraries gave a presentation at the LILC about theirs – and I was mostly very impressed by what they have done. But there was one big thing that left me… well, puzzled.

The presenter kept referring to their strategy of using a single “corporate persona” on their blogs. In the case of their reader’s advisory blog, they had invented a young person named Hunter to be the voice of their blog. Every staff member contributing to the blog signs in and writes as Hunter.

The presenter explained her library’s justifications for adopting this strategy. She cited the necessity of creating a professional “feel” to the blog, as it was representing the organization. She spoke about the desire to present a consistent tone from post to post and throughout the blog, especially as a way to keep the readers from “getting confused.” She also cited the need for many staff members to be able to contribute (this one I simply didn’t get. How many blogs out there have multiple contributors???) They also seemed to have a lot of concerns about preserving the anonymity of the librarians.

I understand wanting to sound “professional” and the anxiety that may come from representing your organization in a public forum. We always want our organization to come across well in the public mind, especially when we’re talking about a high profile service based profession like ours. But I would be inclined to encourage contributing bloggers to follow a set of loose content guidelines in their posts and trust them in their own sense of professionalism.

One of the main strategies driving corporate blogging is the trend towards presenting organizations with more “human” faces. Blogging is a great way for companies to seem less corporate, less distant from customers, and to become more of something that the customers can identify with on a personal level. Companies are finding out that customers are looking to deal with “kinder, gentler” organizations with a certain level of transparency. Imagine that! People want to deal with other people, not just big, scary corporations!

This is a strategy that I think libraries could easily use, since most users already have some sort of personal connection or association with library use. So let’s take advantage of this connection and help it grow by letting our blogs take on real, authentic, human personalities our users can identify with. Maybe that means taking a true multi-user approach where contributors all have their own voices – an approach I really don’t think folks would find confusing at all, especially in the context of the larger blogosphere!

The part of the presentation that really didn’t sit well with me was the fact that the presenter kept referring to the idea (and I am definitely paraphrasing!) of keeping a level of anonymity for the blogging librarians, preventing those pesky patrons from bothering them because of the blog. This really bothered me, because I really firmly believe in blogging as a way to open lines of communication between libraries and patrons – crating the means for a conversation that goes both ways. Blogging, for me, is all about community building. It’s about reaching out to people who you hope will reach back. And encouraging them to reach back.

In order to do that, you need to be approachable. In fact, in order to be an effective public services librarian, you need to be approachable. Anonymous, in my opinion, is not approachable. It really doesn’t do much to encourage communication with your customers. Doesn’t the adoption of a single corporate persona bring us right back to the old newsletter/press release broadcast model of corporate communication – you know, the one where communication means talking to, but not necessarily with your customers?

I don’t want to sound like I am bashing the particular readers advisory blog being discussed at the conference. I think most of what they were doing with it was so terrific. And it’s obviously a success for them. I just wonder about this one aspect of the project, which is an aspect I see reflected in many “official” library blogs. Is a “corporate persona” the right way to go when trying to engage your customers? Could taking a different approach help a reasonably successful blog then become something remarkable? Could opening up communications help an already wonderful library (and this one is!) reach new heights in the hearts and minds of their community?

Many companies have found out the hard way that hiding behind a made up corporate persona when blogging not only doesn’t work as well as they thought it would, but they can even backfire. Required reading for any libraries considering organizational blogging: Naked Conversations.

Another great part of the “Electronic Communication” session at the LILC was Ellen Druda’s presentation on AIM Reference services (Hi Ellen, I know you’ll read this!).

Ellen talked about her library’s experimentation with providing a IM Reference service. This isn’t a new idea in LibraryLand by any means, but it is one that the public libraries of this area have been slow to embrace… or even to explore.

One of the really interesting points that she brought up was when she talked about the success they had when they handed out information about this new service in the local schools. I thought this was a great idea for reaching a demographic that will be likely to actually use this particular service.

Too often, I think libraries fall into the trap of treating their newsletter as the be-all and end-all of communication with their patrons. Of course, there are about a million things wrong with this assumption. Many people (like me!) throw out the newsletter with the rest of the junk mail (GASP!!!). Newsletters are not a good way to actually engage your patrons in a real conversation. Newsletters appeal only to a limited amount of your potential users… and probably only the ones who already use your library.

I don’t mean to bash on the newsletter. It’s a great way for libraries to reach some of their customers regarding some of their services. But we need to think outside the newsletter and not let our marketing efforts end there. What Ellen’s library really did right was to assess their new service, decide on a target population who was likely to make use of it, and aimed their marketing at this demographic. And it worked!

Another trap public libraries tend to fall into is trying to make all of their services “be everything to everyone.” All too often I see potential new library services/programs/initiatives get the axe before they even get started because it doesn’t appeal to a wide enough audience. Children’s programs are the big exception, of course. Nobody complains that the three-year-old storytime won’t appeal to 8-year-olds. Of course not – that program isn’t for them!!

If only we could take that attitude more and target some of our services towards some niche audiences – without ignoring the needs of those patrons to whom those services won’t appeal (a delicate balance we all deal with)? And without trying to make specialized services appeal to everyone? Sometimes great ideas get killed that way when the real essence of the project gets diluted in the name of appealing to a broader audience.

Ellen’s library didn’t sacrifice traditional reference services when implementing their new AIM service. And they didn’t try to foist it on people who were not interested in it – including disinterested staff members. They put the service in place for the patrons who wanted it, and then brought the service to selected portions of their potential users. And they got a great response!! Good for you! I hope this is a good example for other libraries thinking of implementing new services that might not appeal to everyone.

And the title of this post? Ellen commented on how often the get the question “Are you a robot or a real person?” LOL!

One of the great presentations I saw at the Long Island Library Conference yesterday was one showcasing Lindenhurst Library’s podcasting project, presented by director Peter Ward. I thought it was a great example of a library experimenting with the possibilities of becoming a content producer, not just a repository and access point. They use podcasts as a way to distribute library programming and create new audiences for library services, as well as reach out to the community in a unique way.

As a former musician, I was particularly intrigued by the chamber music they have recorded (performed by young, local musicians). This was a great example of how anyone can be a content creator these days… even if you’re not that good. J

I wonder if this general trend might mark a sort of renaissance for amateur musicians… Accomplished amateur musicians were really prevalent in the nineteenth century, and sort of faded into oblivion as access to music created by “real” (professional) performers became easier and easier. It became a case of music consumption being associated with recordings, which were expensive and difficult to make, produce, and disseminate. But recordings are easily consumed. Therefore, it was left to professionals to make the recordings so that everyone else could consume music… And the popularity of amateur music making declined steadily. I know it’s much more complex than that, but that’s the gist of how things went in the 20^th century.

(But I digress!)

Now media production is nearly as easy and access able as media consumption, and is certainly becoming more and more a part of the culture. So I wonder if the proficient amateur musician (or photographer, or filmmaker, etc. etc. etc) is staging a comeback. We are now all empowered to produce and disseminate content, rather than just consume it, and already we are seeing many examples out there of people getting really good at it.

So I think that we need to really think about the role libraries can play – or should play? – in this new age of the proficient amateur producer of content. And I think it’s important for us to think about the ways in which libraries themselves can fit in the role of content producer. Finally, I wonder what trends will develop when it comes to the issue of libraries possibly having a role in preserving this content down the road?

At Lindenhurst, the library is serving as a platform for disseminating user-generated content and is creating and disseminating content of their own making. They are building links in their community by podcasting information about the schools, local performances, and local interest content. Well done!

So, after a long time of resisting the siren call, I’ve finally started playing around with Twitter. (See my updates on my sidebar???) I’m still not sure how this is useful, but maybe that’s not the important part. Does everything have to be useful for it to appeal to librarians? Or normal people? Maybe it’s enough that it’s fun.

And maybe, like I talked about a little while ago, trying new things isn’t always about finding something that you’re going to find great uses for from now on. Maybe it’s more important that we keep up with new fun things just so that we’re ready for the next “next big thing.” So now, when the Twitter fad fades away, I’ll be ready to try the next fun thing… armed with the knowledge and comfort level my Twitter experience gave me.

Seriously, though… I have no friends! Who wants to help me remedy that???

… or costly, or even time consuming to create a web presence for your organization and its services. This is something I try to explain to librarians all of the time, and usually get a blank stare or a glazed over look in return.

Look, I know that the Internet is a big, bad place that can seem completely overwhelming. But it doesn’t have to be if complicated isn’t what you need.

Seth Godin, (whose books and blogs I totally love) posted a very common sense approach to building a web presence for small local businesses. Read it.

Now, how can libraries put this sort of approach to work in promoting themselves and their services, programs, and so on? Come on, it’s not that great a stretch.

And the best part is that Seth’s suggestions are cheap, easy, and quick. So I don’t want to hear any excuses, OK?

It must have been a couple of months ago when a very excellent reference librarian I know was telling me an interesting anecdote passed to her from a friend. Apparently, the friend, an academic librarian working reference at a university, got an IM reference question. The question was no big deal – she asked the online patron to hold on a second while she got up to find the answer. While doing so, she noticed a student who was acting a little strangely while he sat typing into a computer at a nearby table. Of course, it turned out at the end of the story that this was the student who was asking IM reference questions… from about 10 feet away.

The story gave me a good laugh – it seems so silly to IM someone sitting 10 feet away when you could just ask, right? (which isn’t to say I haven’t done it myself…) But as we discussed the incident, the person telling the story used it as an example of how online reference can be “misused” by patrons. After all, wasn’t that student just being lazy? Wouldn’t have been better for him to just go speak to the librarian face to face? Is this what young people have come to? And are we just going to let them do this sort of thing? On the face of things, how could I but agree?

I’ve been thinking this conversation over ever since. And the more I think about it, the more I think we were wrong to jump to negative conclusions about the student, the technology, and the service. In the end, I’ve really come to view this situation as one where the librarian involved was perhaps mistaken when she confronted the student (did I mention that part?) and when she drew the conclusion that the service was being misused.

 After all, the reference librarian is there to answer questions and help students. Check. The student needed an answer, which he got. The librarian spent approximately the same amount of time answering his question online as she would have “in person.” The library got it’s reference statistic for the question. And maybe, just maybe, the student felt more comfortable conversing through IM, a format I’m sure he is quite adept at using. Plus, he doesn’t have to ace a big, scary libarian (let’s face it – our image isn’t all that great and you know it!)

The IM reference service is there to be used for the benefit of the patrons. It was used, and the patron benefited. Sounds good to me.