Libraries Pay the Piper as New Producers, New Markets, and New Tastemakers for Products of The Long Tail

More about Chris Anderson's The Long Tail Chris Anderson [discussion begins below] and a reference to Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online Meredith Farkas (2007)

Unlike the giants of the hit parade, the bulk of the niche producers operate without financial backing. They represent the “l’art pour l’art” [art for art’s sake] of the media world.

Very simply, the art for art’s sake movement was a purist philosophy that depended upon art’s being created for completely noncommercial reasons. In the media world, this movement probably would not include Oprah Winfrey, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, John Grisham, Stephen King, Katie Couric, etc. Any of these people may have begun with more noble aspirations; but at this point, they are cornerstones of the media “hit parade.” Even they would probably agree that now they represent a huge commercial enterprise.

In media, the niche markets are small pockets--often of the media’s “starving artists.” Largely, the producers are amateurs. Chris Anderson reminds us that “. . . the word ‘amateur’ derives from the Latin amator, ‘lover,’ from amare, ‘to love’).” (p. 63).

In music, the niche producers are the veritable garage bands. In literature and other journalism, the niche producers are the bloggers and the online journalists. In short, the niche markets have evolved with very little monetary exchange.

Again, the niche markets represent “l’art pour l’art.”

The idea is virtuous; but any movement without some means of financial support is doomed. At the very least, someone has to pay the rent and buy the food. To be commonly blunt, "Someone has to pay the piper." Unless all of the niche producers married or inherited well, they ultimately must be paid; elect to starve and/or be homeless; or else focus their time and energy in some area that does pay.

Chris Anderson says that for the “Long Tail” of niche markets to survive, someone or something has to push patrons (financial supporters) down into that tail—thus allowing the patrons (the finances) and the producers to connect. In short, the patrons must “find” the niche producers.

Unfortunately, because of their sheer numbers, dilution, and obscurity—the niche producers are not easily found. Discovering them is like finding the proverbial “needle in a haystack.” At least, that is the case, without filtering and aggregators.

In serving as filters and aggregators, libraries can be instrumental in helping the patrons and the niche producers connect—thus, in driving financial solvency down into and maintaining the “Long Tail.” And they can do so, on equitable terms. [Most of America's libraries are still "Free"].

In her book Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online Meredith Farkas (2007) says that libraries are “physical hubs” of their communities. (p. 73).

Ideally, libraries are equipped with technological tools that can help the niche producers create their wares. [This would further a tendency Anderson refers to as "democratizing production."] After the wares are created, libraries, as hubs, can help filter these wares to the public. [Anderson would no doubt refer to this as "democratizing distribution."] Because libraries are connected [via ILL and other networks], all of the individual hubs can be linked to create a national—even an international vein or web [worldwide web]--to unite niche markets and the public.

In determining which of the niche markets to support, circulate, aggregate, filter, and maintain, libraries are powerful agents in developing and fostering public taste. In doing so, America's Free Public Libraries are inadvertently long arms with the power to touch and fan the flame of an economic and philosophic revolution.

In essence, libraries are inadvertently "paying the piper."

In light of the continuous threat of funding cuts, one might question who would pay the piper of the pipers?