virtually a librarian

David Lee King posts a closing thought for the year and asks us to ponder the physical library in the 21st century: is it’s demise looming? Prompted by comments on his post about Ignoring our digital community, DLK asks his readers to consider how we might bring people back into the physical library.

This is an important topic. We do need to provide programming and services that bring those people who like using the library in person, but have stopped doing so (for any number of reasons, including that we’re not offering them the things they want) back into the physical building.

How do we get people back into the physical library?

I think the answer is fairly obvious: we need to offer services and programming that are relevant and appealing to them, and promote them using the channels our users tune into. To do this, we need to consult with community members and groups and ask them what they want. We need to look at the communities around us and the activities that are happening in our areas and seek out synergies for service development and delivery. And then we need to be responsive - ready to tweak or redevelop services as the community demands it. And we need to evaluate, review, reshape, over and over again.

Not an easy task, but surely we can get the people who want to be in the library back into the library, with some careful planning and programming?

I know this is a tad simplistic and this is a a much bigger issue, deserving more attention than I’ve given it here… But what I’d like to focus on in this post is something a little different…

Should we really be so hung up on getting people back into the library?

There’s a proportion of our user base that doesn’t come into the library, and doesn’t ever want to. For those library users who only want to interact with us online (users like - I have to confess - myself), no amount of in-library programming or redefinition of in-library services is going to get them back into the library. And we need to accept that it’s perfectly fine if they never, ever walk into a library again - so long as we’re supplying them with what they want and need online.

We don’t want to neglect our physical library customers… because then we’ll end up with no physical libraries!

For the forseable future (always?), some people are going to want to visit the physical library in person, and we should absolutely cater for those people. We don’t want to get into the situation where usage is so low we’re forced to stop providing physical library facilities and services – at least not while there is a demand or a need for physical library services. But I don’t know that usage is going to drop to that degree any time soon. (Especially not if we offer the right services and programs.)

But all this talk about getting people through our physical doors makes me think we’re worried about the wrong issue. Is it really all about the number of people we get through the door?

DLK’s post was written in response to this comment on a previous post:

David, this is all great, but - really, I’m serious - what happens to the physical library? If Topeka Public mails the holds to patrons and they can drop the returned item at boxes, and the patrons need not come to the physical library, we may have crowds online and remote access and whatever, but an administrator comes in and sees the empty library and orders it closed, the librarians fired and a small studio in the country to be opened in the library’s stead that can be maintained by two technicians.

To my mind, we need to revisit the reason we do what we do. We provide physical libraries because people want or need physical libraries. We don’t provide physical libraries simply for the sake of providing physical libraries. We shouldn’t be hung up on getting people through the door for the sake of justifying our physical libraries. We should be hung up on providing the services people want and need. Right now, there’s a demand for physical library services. But if, at some point in the future, there’s a broadband connected computer in every household and a majority of people choose to use libraries online rather than in person, will we still be harping on about getting people back through our doors?

I don’t want to see our physical libraries closed because they’re underpopulated any more than the next person. But success in library service provision should not be measured by door counters and full car parks (or, for that matter, numbers through our digital doors). We should be measuring success by (at least in part) asking our users if we’re providing the services they want. The door count is not the be all and end all. If Topeka can make it easier for people to access library collections by mailing them their holds, then hallelujah for Topeka! Seriously, I’d love to see what this does for their circulation statistics and customer satisfaction levels.

Getting the people through the door… Are we asking the right question?

DLK asks how we get our customers to visit the physical library. The answer is pretty straightforward: provide the services and programs people want, deliver them the way they want them delivered, promote ourselves through the channels that reach our customers, and be prepared to evaluate, review and change constantly. Simple, right?! Ha! What a challenge!

But let’s not focus only on our physical buildings. I would suggest that we need to invest proportionate amounts of energy in both our user camps: those who want to come into the library, and those who want to interact with us in other ways. If we’re looking at ways to get our users back through our physical doors, we should also look at ways to entice our digital communities through our digital doors.

To my mind, DLK’s question is not the one I think I should be worrying about, because as I’ve said, I don’t see bums on seats as the one and only measure of successful service provision. If we’re looking to just increase numbers through the door, then we could just stick free wifi in all our libraries and forget about programming. But, I’m not looking for bums on seats as justification for our physical libraries (plus, where I work, we don’t have any lack of people coming through our doors - maybe this colours my POV on this issue a little).

So, as someone whose job is concerned predominantly with online library services, the questions I’ll be refocusing on as I head into 2008 are: What are the needs and wants of our in-library and online customers? How can technology assist us meet those needs? What suite of services should we offer, and how do our customers want to access them? With any luck, if we get the answers to these three questions right, the issue of getting people through the doors (both physical and digital) should take care of itself.

[Did I just talk round in a great big circle?]

Second Life: we’ve all heard about it, many of us think it’s pretty cool, and we can see applications for future service delivery. But are the users there yet? Is anyone, other than librarians, looking for library services in Second Life?

My feeling is: probably not. I went to a forum called Generation MySpace on Monday (more on that later), and in one lightbulb moment, I scrawled across the page in big, scratchy letters: “Second Life - hype far exceeds usage”. This really resonated with me, because I’ve been thinking for a long time that setting up library services in Second Life right now is a tad preemptive. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be exploring Second Life… Far from it. I think we should be actively playing in Second Life, so that we’re ready when (and if) there is a real demand (or at least a clear indication of potential demand) for library services within this space. But from what I can tell (and I admit, this is an outsider’s perspective, as I’m not a Second Lifer myself), it just doesn’t seem like the users are there yet.

Apparently, 90% of Second Life’s reported 6 million+ accounts have been abandoned. Indeed, I’ve read one article that estimates the number of active users is something like 320 000 - in fact, less than 320 000 (NB data from early 2007). Yup, that’s still an impressive statistic. Yup, usage is on the increase. And, yup, our users might be there one day… but…

In the future, will the average person inhabit virtual worlds as a matter of course, as part of their day-to-day business? Possibly. But IMO, I just don’t think that Second Life is going to be the next big thing. Big? Maybe. But not the next big thing. (What is? Mobile phones, but that’s a separate post altogether.)

When shiny, exciting new things hit my radar, I usually latch onto them pretty quickly. I am a true digital native, and a self confessed nerd. I work, study, play, pay my bills, plan my life etc online. For me to say “nope, this technology is not where we should be right now” takes a fair bit of thought, because it’s in my nature to want to try every new tech tool that comes along. Some technologies I see the value of and just don’t take them up myself because I can’t see a need for me to use them, but I get that they are useful for other people, or, more to the point, that they’ve got viable service delivery applications.

But with Second Life, I just don’t think the potential is there, in terms of it being a space to deliver our services, or even, really, to promote them. Not yet anyway. Not because the technology is lacking or it can’t be harnessed to deliver the kinds of services libraries deliver in other ways now. But just because I think there are surer bets - services our users are actually looking for - that we should be exploring right now.

Peter Binkley said in one sentence what I’ve been trying to articulate through this long, rambling post:

I’m not persuaded that this is the best use of our time: libraries have so many challenges and opportunities these days in the online world, and the resources to act on so few of them.

For now, I’m putting my energy elsewhere. But I’m glad that there are other librarians out there, trying out service models in Second Life. And who knows? One day, when I find some spare time, I might join them…

But for now, this virtual librarian is not gonna get a second life (hey, I’m still trying to find a first one!).