The key quote which I find so relevant to the ideas Aaron presents in this blog post are well represented in this quote:

“I had coffee with the executive producer of a network news show last week. He told me that every year, in addition to getting smaller in size, his audience, on average, ages almost a year. The people he needs in order to maintain his monopoly are finding something else to do with their time.”

The excerpt above was taken from:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/12/monopolies-seve.html

“finger-pointing” — you bet.
“scapegoating” — I wouldn’t go that far. These people are responsible for a lot.
“stereotyping” — sure. hey, stereotypes are built on what people see, and sometimes people see a spade as a spade.
“unrealistic” — actually, I think I’m very realistic, tho leaning hard toward the pessimistic side.

as for boards “not knowing crap,” it’s not a nice thing to say, but it’s often true. too many people sit on library boards and make decisions on topics that they don’t fully understand. and yes, libs often fail to educate board members or, more often, try to educate them in a last-minute panic, like when something major is up for a vote (filters, privacy, social stuff). by then, it’s too late. board members are one target market that PLs should pay a lot more attention to.

I agree that we’re limited by “conservative funding bodies who won’t sanction the expense of increasingly public dollars on experiment.” this is part of the problem. If your board was made up of Aaron Schmidts, Meredith Farkases, and Jenny Levines, would they vote differently b/c they understand what’s at stake w/ these experiments? (I do value the “outsiders’ POV” of boards but they need to know our side too!)

and yes, I did tar lots of people w/ a wide brush. that doesn’t mean there wasn’t plenty of tarring to be done. not everyone is bad or uneducated; none of us are uncaring. but when any sizeable portion of “conserative” folks is holding back the progress that libraries desperately need to survive, I can’t sit back quietly.

the whole “we want progress” vs “oh dear, we can’t do that!” is summed up w/ great humor in this animation (http://usingdata.typepad.com/usingdata/2009/03/web.html). I saw the link on Stephen Abram’s blog. Does it stereotype? you bet. Is there lots of truth in it? sure is. I’m just trying to push all of us toward embracing the new ideas and being less conserative in thought and deed.

Will libraries still be about content in 20, 30, 50 years? I dunno. But if we’re not, we’d better have something that people still want. The best way to assure that is to try harder to go with our constituents’ flow, not to stay frozen in time inside our own glacial floe.

“It’s all moot, until the people who run libraries stop insisting that every little change be approved by stodgy directors, boards of people who don’t know crap about libraries, endless committees, and huge glacial associations. *This* is what we need to transform first. Until the library industry as a whole develops a culture of change, we ain’t gettin’ nowhere.”

Aw, c’mon. This is:
a) finger-pointing scapegoating
b) stereotyping
c) unrealistic

Where to start? There’s a library industry? Guess I’m too stodgy to have noticed it. Our library is part of our City government. That means our Mayor and Alderpersons have a big voice in our budget. That means we’re overseen by a board of trustees, who are volunteers not professionals, but who care a lot. They’re often our biggest boosters, and saying they “don’t know crap” is both an insult and and acknowledgement that we have failed to educate them.

Some directors may be stodgy, some may not. Some staff people may stodgily resist management attempts to break down hierarchies. I think in many ways we have a wonderful culture of change, but we are limited by demands that out-strip resources and conservative funding bodies who won’t sanction the expense of increasingly public dollars on experiment. Despite this, a lot of libraries are doing great innovative things, so be careful how broadly you tar with that brush.

Bottom line: we’re a profession, not an industry. We’re all in it together. What we have in common are our library schools, our publications and blogs and our glacial associations. Let’s make the best of it. Don’t like the way your director is doing it? Go do better, elsewhere if need be. Or maybe talk to the director — they can’t work in isolation, and trust is a two-way street.

Your mileage may vary.

Exactly. How are we going to be nimble in our service offerings if we are anything but nimble in our organization? While we remain extremely hierarchical, we will be stodgy. So I ask: How do we incorporate some of the radical trust that characterizes web 2.0 into the structure of our libraries? Is that even possible?

One thing I especially agreed w/ here came from henry up at #15. he said: “Nimble is a good word to describe what libraries ought to be, but in that simple word is basically everything libraries have never been…. Until you can unhinge today’s library from it primeval roots you have a serious conundrum betwixt all of this wonderful librarian intent, budgetary constraint and changing patron desire.”

If libraries ever stop focusing on content, it had better be *after* they manage to become known for something else that’s really appealing.

As far as movie discussions & games, etc in libraries… I just don’t feel like that’s The Next Big Thing. mind you, I’m not saying I’m against all of that. And I’m not even married to the “core mission” of providing “stuff” for everyone (meaning, largely, those who can’t afford it). I think that’s part of our downfall, trying to be all things to all people — pleasing the techiest by having ebooks in all the latest formats while still offering simple paperbacks for the underprivileged who can’t buy their own. All while being community centers and event sites… When you look at all those missions, it’s just crazy. We can’t keep it up, especially when we’re losing funding.

I try to teach librarians to promote themselves and their services. I love libraries and I try to be hopeful, but overall, they don’t do a good job of the marketing that is more essential than ever.

And as far as being meeting places for community discussion… I just read a whole thread on PRTalk this week where PLs exchanged policies on meeting room usage. Burning questions included: Do you even allow for-profit groups to use the rooms? (often not) Do you dare charge a fee? (OMG!) Who pays for the janitors? People are still mired in this minutae. Most small PLs are running on their 100-yr-old value sets and are scared to change any tradition. Which is why I liked henry’s assessment so much… We need to be nimble to face the future, but this industry is anything but.

I appreciate reading all these great thoughts of the future, and even have my own sometimes. But here’s my biggest concern: It’s all moot, until the people who run libraries stop insisting that every little change be approved by stodgy directors, boards of people who don’t know crap about libraries, endless committees, and huge glacial associations. *This* is what we need to transform first. Until the library industry as a whole develops a culture of change, we ain’t gettin’ nowhere.

The Pessimist Has Spoken. Aren’t ya glad I chimed in??

Book circulation continues to increase and our stacks have lots of folks browsing. This is not the time to assume that content is passe, nor that broadband access to a variety of electronic media will be universally available. Even people who can buy a Kindle or iPhone and subscribe to Netflix are likely to support public library collections for those less affluent.

Sure, we’re developing a mobile website, etc. But we’re putting even more effort into collecting physical items. Materials aren’t loss leaders; they’re the core of our services, and will be for the foreseeable future.

And I think tens of millions of Americans–let’s say roughly half, since the median household income in March 2007 was $48,201 in 2006 dollars–may not agree that stuff is so cheap they’ll just buy everything for their ebook devices because it’s so convenient. Those are the people who NEED libraries with good circulating collections. (Remember: Median: That means almost exactly half the households in America have *less* income. And that’s gross income, not spendable.)

At any rate, I don’t disagree with you that a
“premature flight” away from lending materials isn’t a good idea. My point is that libraries could very well be forced to take this flight considering how ubiquitous, *convenient* and cheap popular materials are becoming.