Is It True That Everthing "Bad" Is Good for Us -- or Do We Merely Need to Re-Define "Bad"

Let's play a game. Everyone close your eyes and focus for a second. When I say a word, don't speak--just visualize the word that I have said.

Okay -- Get Ready -- Here's the Word: "Library."

Of course, I can't say this for sure; but I bet most of you thought about a physical place--probably of bricks and glass--filled with books. It was probably a quiet place. It may have even been a fairly empty place--in regards to patrons. Yet, the patrons and the staff that you envisioned were probably flesh and blood humans--and the library and books were probably also real, and tangible.

If this is fairly close to what you have envisioned, you are correct--at least as far as the traditional concept of a library goes; but you are only partially correct, in terms of the ways that things are evolving.

The traditional library was created in the 19th century. This is the 21st century. In the 19th century, books were the stock and trade of the library. In the 21st century, books are only part of what the library must encompass. Now, libraries are challenged to also function digitally--to deal with bits--as well as books.

Things have changed. Information itself has changed. The needs of the patrons have changed. If the library hopes to continue to serve the patrons, it must also change--in many ways.

But the primary change that is required is one of attitude.

Above all else, today's library must be open. It must be willing to consider new ideas, new data, and new ways of doing things, because these new ideas, this new data, and these new ways of doing things ARE the patrons--and most importantly, the Patrons ARE the library.

A library for today's patrons--especially for today's younger patrons--must include options for electronic gaming, music, dvd's, computers, technological gadgets, multimedia software, etc. Many potential patrons, who would prefer to never read another book, would enjoy these other services and items.

It is important for the library to realize that these other items--that these other non-book services have significant merit, in their own rights.

In his book, Everything Bad is Good For You, Steven Johnson discusses the merits of the nonliterary popular culture. Among other things, he says the following:

"Increasingly, the nonliterary popular culture is honing different mental skills that are just as important as the ones exercised by reading books." (p. 23).

Most libraries need to expand their services so that the 21st century patrons are served in the media that THEY deem to be valid.

The library can elect to keep doing things the same, old, bricks and mortar, books-only, 19th century way--and hope that an occasional fly will flit through the building. Or it can opt to change and serve today's patrons, just the way that they are--not the way that the library wishes that they were.

When In Rome Do As the Romans Do.

When In the 21st Century Do As the 21st Centurians Do --

Or Don't Do As the 21st Centurains Do. Those are our options.

But if the choice is the latter, we should not be surprised to discover that funding is affected. After all, if the taxpayers are not being served by the library, why should the taxpayers continue to support it?

In summary, I'd like to return to my original point: the primary change that is required is one of attitude.

I have to think that the title of Steven Johnson's book [Everything Bad Is Good For You] is a tease. The title should actually be something along the line of: Many Things That You Traditionally Have Thought Were "Bad" Are Actually Good For You: Let's Reconsider the Meaning of "Bad." Let's Examine Our Attitudes.

Johnson, Steven. (2005). Everything ad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York: Penguin Group.

Libraries Can Benefit from Their Long Tails

To summarize: In his book The Long Tail, Chris Anderson discusses a recent trend in the media industries. Once dominated by a few major players, the media market now includes a diluted, extended trail—a “Long Tail”—of minor players, who have created a string of niche markets.

I really can’t speak for all libraries; but my little library has a very long tail—especially in the adult sections. The problem is not as acute in the children’s section, because that department is new. The children’s section has an abundance of the best, the brightest, and the freshest available. There are also numerous dusty, old books [like the Dr. Doolittle treasure that I recently found]; but the flashy books prevail. Our new children’s books fly off of our shelves.

The adult part of the library has been ongoing for many decades; and it is clouded by a plethora of tired, worn books that really don’t reach out and grab passersby. Still, many--like the old Dr. Dolittle--are gems, rotting in mildewed caves.

Anderson speaks of an 80/20 rule, saying that 20% of the population accounts for 80% of the results. In the adult section of our library, that figure is a dream. A narrow pocket of books circulate; and the rest sit. I’d venture to guess that the ratio is more like 95/5.

Our library has an extremely long tail, just sitting and withering—right inside our own walls. That says nothing about the untapped niche markets lying within the grasp of ILL.

My little library is a Free Public Library—at least that is currently the case. I am a Children’s Librarian; and I spend very little time with our library’s statistics. Yet, even I am aware that the threat of funding cuts looms on the horizon. Funding is somehow allocated according to circulation. Anderson’s book speaks of sales; in public libraries, circulation numbers are money.

Anderson also speaks of the satisfaction ratio, when buyers discover the long tail. Several factors affect which of the media becomes the hit parade and which falls by the wayside. In most cases, quality is not the prevailing factor. In many cases, the bestsellers and the rest of the hit parade are mediocre. They are designed to appeal to a mass of people. They are often formulaic. Media of higher quality—media designed to provoke thought and foster satisfaction often falls outside the cut. Many patrons would welcome discovering the niche markets. They just don’t know they are there.

If the public realized exactly what the library offers—for no money, things would no doubt be different. The quiet, empty tombs would probably become thriving, pulsating marketplaces--veritable tag sales. If the public realized exactly what the library offers—for no money, public policy makers would have a very short platform for preaching funding cuts.

Absolutely, our libraries need to find ways to push our patrons down into our long tails—the physical, brick and mortar ones and the longer, virtual tail. We need to increase our circulation statistics. Beyond that, we need to pull away the blanket that masks the treasures that are hiding—just beyond reach. If patrons are unaware that books and media are available, they really cannot be expected to “check them out.”

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?

Anderson's Long Tail -- and the Future of Libraries

Image is from www.booksamillion.com

Anderson, Chris. ( 2006). The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. [Also in Audio--as Shown in the Above Image].

Background of the Book:

In his book, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More, Chris Anderson talks about ways that technology has impacted the entertainment and media businesses.

Among other things, Anderson discusses how Indy artists and self publishers have been able to emerge from the shadows—bringing with them the niche markets and a wider selection in these areas.

In surfing the Internet, looking for these new artists and authors, customers discovered a plethora of previously unrecognized media. Consequently, the appetites of the public have shifted—have broadened—beyond the traditional hit parade, which had previously fostered the efforts of a select few.

In order to satisfy these broadened appetites, it would have been necessary for stores to carry a vast selection of media—much of it might have never sold.

In terms of shelf space and square footage, the traditional store—housed in a physical building—became inadequate for meeting the demands of these niche markets; and the costs of expanding stores to accommodate the new markets were prohibitive.

Virtual stores—requiring very little shelf space, yet, capable of distributing a wide variety of media—became the new business model.

What should librarians note from Anderson’s observations in this book?

Librarians are also in the media and entertainment business--the book business. Some might argue with that point; yet, in light of funding cuts and a diminishing client base, it has become evident that libraries must become good businesses to survive.

Most libraries are still operating as traditional stores or "buckets" of books. In terms of shelf space and square footage, libraries are limited--in the same ways that businesses are limited--actually, more so.

In order to expand their media selections, librarians must also enhance their digital services.

The good news for libraries is that ILL is ahead of this game. ILL is a means through which libraries can greatly extend their physical holdings. It is crucial that libraries take advantage of the ILL services and market this service to their clients.

Yes, I said "market." Part of surviving in the business world is sufficient marketing. Libraries also need to improve in that department; but that is fodder for another blog.