My belief is that our users don’t care if our OPAC (if they even know exactly what that is) is local or not. They want to know if we have the book, if it is available right now, what formats is it available in, etc. Can a national provider deliver this service? If it can do so as well as our local opac, and provide enhancements we cannot, its something serious to consider

Usually I also choose a citation from Google Scholar that I know from the URL is going to lead to a publisher website and ask for a VISA card. That is the moment when I say: “But don’t spend your money to buy the article: use the library’s deep web databases and you get the article free of charge, or use the library’s interlibrary loan service to get the article free of charge.”

Voila! Google has now been turned into a promoter of library services!

Reading this also got me thinking again of the Dec. 2005 issue of Library Journal. I love the architecture issues! Item number 5 above–redesign your premium product. Many times that product is the library’s physical space and how the building iteself reflects our (and our community’s) values and changing needs. The article “Power Users” on pp.72-75 is particularly interesting about how designing buidlings and services from the user’s viewpoint transforms access for everyone and how libraries have done this–with great success.

And, YES, to number 1–Steal from Google. Their mission is: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Sounds good to me. And let’s steal ideas from retail too–Barnes & Noble, Starbuck’s, etc. I’ve recently come to a library with a lot going for it but a really LOUSY physical layout (that cannot be changed). Using ideas from the LJ article, I’m going to “Use my readers” (#6 above) to help me redesign the physical package–and then get to the virtual product a little later.

First, in my days as an education librarian, I definitely provided “premium product” to certain user groups, e.g., graduate students, faculty, and the Dean’s Office. This included providing regular updates to the College discussion list, packaging customized “new book” alerts based on known program interests (e.g., “Look at all these new juvenile, non-fiction science titles I just acquired” – a message to our Science Education faculty that resulted in, no lie, all 40 new titles being off the shelf and out of the library in student hands within 48 hours), and providing information useful to administrators or to our partners around the state, e.g., the Superintendent of Public Instruction. As I became an administrator, I looked into ways to provide “premium product” to other administrators at the Dean level and higher.

This didn’t mean that we abandoned the undergraduates, who, among other indicators, were coming into the library for instruction at an ever-increasing pace. It did mean that we looked to catch the eye of key constituencies who might not realize the full range of information services that can be provided by an academic library staffed by professional librarians (if this argument sounds familiar, that’s because it is one of the roles for school librarians identified years ago in Information Power, i.e., the library as information center for the school). And that, as I understand the gist of the source article under discussion, is the real point.

And, it’s not the same as what Barbara characterized as paying greater attention to our regular users; it’s about being strategic in thinking about how to serve both our regular users and to use “premium” information product to regain the eye of important constituencies who are no longer regular users.

You knew I’d say that.

As for the 20-20 strategy, I think we already do shower more attention on our regular users. I’m far more likely to send e-mails about new books or articles I’ve bumped into to faculty and students who I’ve already helped with something or who appear to live in the library. I’m more likely to have an engaged faculty member try to engage their reluctant students by designing interesting assignments.

Now, engaging those faculty and students who don’t come in the door – that’s a harder challenge. Academics tend to be rugged individualists who leave each other alone to teach the way they want – so transfer from faculty to faculty is harder than faculty to student, where there is a power differential. Even when you offer stipends for faculty development, you’re likely to attract people who are already library users.

So if anyone has ideas about catching the attention of faculty who seem content to get by without the library – let me know. I’ll still pamper my regulars.

Yes, the 20-20 strategy is controversial, but I didn’t say we would abandon the 80% of low-level users – perhaps just offer them a minimal level of service – while putting more resources into the best users to give them a truly rewarding experience for which we ask – a premium? Probably not since that may be heresy. But if the 20% who use libraries the most get even better service they could become more intense users – who might be better community advocates than the majority that really doesn’t care – or has already been lost to the competition.

That’s like saying we’re in competition with newspapers – if people get information from the paper they might not need to come to the library. Or that we’re in competition with museums. If they go to museums they may not have time for the library. We help people find information (in newspapers, on the Web, and elsewhere, and yes, for some of it we have to pay a bunch of money on behalf of our user community. And people who go to museums (and who use the Web) are quite as likely, if not more likely, than those who don’t to use libraries.

I also think the idea of a premium edition library is not only against our core values, it’s a huge mistake. The New York Times is trying it … we’ll see if it works. It annoys the $%&$# out of me and I’m a subscriber! But I can’t share my reading with others who aren’t and that means their content will lose readers. The Washington Post, on the other hand, just made the decision to extend their free access to six months. Why? So that the links on blogs will work. So that people will read the Post. So that the ideas will circulate more and they will gain readers who will then respect them as a source and maybe even subscribe. The idea of enhancing services to people who already can help themselves to the banquet won’t enhance our services generally or give us more “business.” It could, however, alienate people who have every reason to use libraries but feel excluded or intimidated or simply haven’t yet had the pleasure.

We aren’t paid by our “customers.” We aren’t pressed, like newspapers, to make shareholders happy with higher short-term profits. We need to think of libraries as a necessary common ground for the public and we need to make them places that are vibrant, interesting, wholly owned by their users, and responsible to the past and future.

What’s so hard about that?