I went to three workshops today and two of them were great. The third, it was alright. That's OK, though; there are always a few sessions that don't turn out to be as interesting as you'd thought they'd be. The first session of the morning was "Digital Library Landscape" by OCLC's Roy Tennant. As Roy explained, the time constraints of these sessions don't allow for a real in-depth investigation of any one issue affecting libraries so, for that reason, Roy presented the "30,000 foot" view of what's happening in libraries today. And it wasn't pretty either. He started with a slide that read, "Libraries are in imminent danger". What is that danger? Pointing to a 2005 study titled Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources, Tennant explained that the vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of people think automatically and almost solely of books when they think of the library. Beside the point that library folk know how inaccurate this perception is, what's the big deal if this is how we're perceived? Well, considering the rate at which books are being digitized and advances are being made in the development of electronic readers that folks can use to download books in their own home, our users' perceptions are apt to start at "the library is all about books" and end at "what do I need the library for, I can get any book I need without leaving the house". That's a bad situation. In fact, Tennant put it pretty bluntly himself when he said that "the value of libraries to society decreases as easy access to information increases".
And the fact remains that we are a few years away yet from the experience of really getting any book we want delivered automatically via the Internet onto a reading device that delivers a pleasant experience. However, right now there are tons of reasonable online experiences related to finding books but we all know that our library catalogs are not one of those reasonable experiences. Our catalogs stink compared to what folks get from non-library book searches (e.g. Amazon). Tennant said that our OPACs are nothing but a card catalog card on a screen. True enough. As an example of what he called the SOPAC (that's Social OPAC), Tennant showed the Darien Library catalog and emphasized the importance of including every opportunity possible in the OPACs for allowing customer participation of informal metadata. Allow and encourage ratings, reviews (also known as comments), and tags. And just as important, if not more so than creating a library catalog that encourages participation in the development of the library on the part of the users are our efforts (the one's we should be making, anyway) at "becoming essential in the new ecology"; inserting ourselves into the lives that our users are living outside of the library. We should syndicate our content so it the users don't have to come to us as often.
Of course, what we aren't trying to do is keep our users from visiting us which raises another point that Tennant emphasized. We should "be the place where stuff happens". We are always going to have books (and music and movies and magazines and…) but, if Tennant is right and we are going to lose a big share of our market on books, we need to do something. While Tennant didn't tell us what it is that we need to do specifically, he issued a good starting point: "You have to solve their problems. Once you solve their problems, you solve yours." So, the big question is what problems do we need to solve for public library users? I certainly don't have the answer but I sure intend to use this question as a method of framing my thinking when working on service improvements.
The second excellent workshop I attended today was "Micro Interactions, Conversations, and Customers" with David Lee King, Julie Strange, and Amy Kearns. For the most part, this session was another discussion of the utility of Twitter (though not entirely exclusively of other social networking tools) in libraries but the real message was more about the philosophy behind using social networking tools as additional routes for customer engagement rather than focusing on the tools themselves. Basically, to use David's term, a micro interaction happens anytime a library representative talks to a customer via website comments, wall posts, tweets, IM's, status updates, or even when we retweet something that might be of interest to other customers. As guidelines for jumping in and using these tools to foster micro interactions, David gave a several pointers; here's a few:
- Say what's in your head – Don't worry about what you have to say; if you're thinking it (within reason!) and feel like sharing it, somebody will find it useful. Libraries' online presences really shouldn't be stuffy and formal. Speak in an authentic voice and you'll get authentic responses.
- You have to give to get – This is the bottom line. If you don't add to the conversation, nobody is going to pay attention. Find something to say!
- Ask and ye shall receive – Much like Bobbi Newman mentioned in an earlier session, a strong social network of likeminded professionals is an incredible resource. Develop your network and ask these folks your questions; they'll answer!
Amy and Julie followed David and talked more specifically about using Twitter to connect with your users. I found their three C's of Twitter, connections, collaborations, and conversations, to be useful in answering the questions of your library peers who don't understand the value that Twitter brings to the customer development table. With Twitter (and Facebook , Flickr, FriendFeed, etc.) we can create more "real" relationships with users (some of whom are and some of whom aren't frequent face-to-face visitors) by working with them to answer questions, solve problems, and just talk about what's going on in the community. Amy and Julie also mentioned Twitter's potential for "harnessing the hive" or crowdsourcing when you have a question. With Bobbi, David, and Amy and Julie zeroing in on this idea, it seems clear that Twitter is establishing itself as a tool we can all take advantage of for problem solving if we develop strong networks.