Marketing the Library
OCLC Perceptions Survey Analysis
Julie Burke, 2/14/07
Oranges and Apples : Will OCLC Squeeze the Content out of Libraries in Order to
Compete with Google?
Libraries are like apples: firm, solid.
Google is like an orange: squishy and fluid.
OCLC has commissioned a survey in which the overarching finding is that, in the
mind of Everyman Q. Webuser, libraries are the same as Google, but not as handy. In
other words, the public has correctly equated Google: the organizer of the body of online
knowledge, with library: the organizer of the body of mostly offline knowledge. This
survey is one of consumer perceptions, which are informed by many factors: cost,
convenience, marketing, word of mouth. The library is the antithesis of these things, as it
is informed by tradition, research, education, and scientific thinking.
Proposing that librarians must compete with Google and the Web is like saying
that schools must compete with Google and the Web, or that doctors and public health
agencies must compete with Google and the Web. Considering that Google has serious
limitations in its access to ‘authoritative’ knowledge, which still lies well in the pay-to play realm, comparing the library to Google is equating apples to oranges.
Do doctors anticipate saying to a patient “I’ve diagnosed your cancer, it was easy,
I just did a Google search of your symptoms?” Or if investment brokers, “these are sure
picks for your retirement portfolio, according to my Google sources.” At colleges and
universities, a battle wages between professors and their students who attempt to cite
Wikipedia as a source on research papers. The public does not understand either entity,
relying on wishful thinking that Google can deliver, and reluctance to spend time
negotiating with those crabby librarians. Education professionals, slow to the mark, are
only now proposing a nationwide curriculum of information literacy, meanwhile having
lost a couple of generations of citizens, who will forever be in danger of believing
everything they read on the internet. Librarians and educators have their work cut out, in
deprogramming the masses of students and information seekers who are willing to
swallow any Web source that touts ‘Trust me, Cite me, I’m Free!”
Without a doubt the availability of this public information drinking fountain has
impacted library services. The calls for phone numbers, addresses, zip codes, and ‘how
many s’es in Mississippi?’ have slowed. One would think that online homework help
would have dissolved the gaggles of students gathering in public libraries after school,
but that has not happened, they have computers at home but not supervision.
If you asked a librarian, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if everyone had a small home reference
collection and used it?’ you would expect affirmation. A miracle has occurred -- many
do have this, if they have a computer and know how to use it. Minor reference questions
are on the decline, and good riddance. Should this not be cause for rejoicing? Should
librarians not expand their vision to bigger and better services? Is this not an opportunity
to resume the library mission of education?
Web users don’t know how to find good sources, or judge their veracity of what they
see. Generational cohorts have specific information needs and would love to know how
to really use library and web resources, from seniors pursuing genealogy, investments,
and hobbies, to mid-lifers making career changes, to the 30-somethings raising families
and establishing careers. How about programs for parents and students to attend together,
in how to use Web resources for homework? Not enough libraries offer programs in
financial research, wellness resources, real estate and job hunting.
Computers have transformed the drudgery of research. The new job of the reference
librarian is information literacy, yet this is promoted mainly in academic libraries. The
goal of an educated citizenry still eludes us, and we must redouble our efforts. Public
libraries attempt to prove their taxworthiness by engaging in early literacy education.
Where are the badly-needed adult retraining programs, the business incubation programs,
the support for adult online college students? If librarians are wary of straying too far out
of their expertise, why not partner with expert health care providers, trainers, investment
advisors, and prep academies, to provide such education? Libraries engage in computer
education with zeal, and hire computer experts to fill in when librarians do not suffice -in other words, we’re both actively promoting Google to our patrons, and regretting
doing so. Let us change our tactics and provide what Google cannot.
Amazon is the biggest challenger to book borrowing. But if the library could tell a
caller “you can pick it up tomorrow for free,” libraries would have no fear of Amazon.
Amazon taps into nearly every book available for sale on earth, who says libraries are
expected to compete with that? Yet one could say that libraries, or more precisely
OCLC, can tap into every book cataloged on earth. The fate of OCLC is tied to that of
libraries. OCLC could be planning to market a service to libraries that supports superILL within a 1-day mailing geographic area (something like Blockbuster for books)
which some systems already do on a modest scale.
Are libraries really expected to compete with a robot software program that simply
scans the Web and reports what is to be found? Libraries are not software companies,
cyberspace is not their natural environment. Yet OCLC could create a product, let us call
it ‘Library.com’ that would function as a single cyber-library site, indexing and
connecting all of the (shareable) reference, collection, and information resources of all of
its member libraries. In this way, a single-source library web site might conceivably
achieve a respectable hit count compared to Google.
You get what you pay for, and libraries pay a lot to provide accurate materials,
physical resources, and expert assistance. Google is a freeloading web-bot, a value-
added product that creates the illusion of organization over the chaos of the Web. If
library patrons had to pay for the cost of services up front, they would not be
visiting the library often. Libraries have survived because of the illusion that services
are ‘free,’ when in fact taxpayers are covering the expense. The Google user who adores
‘free’ is equally oblivious of the cost of books, materials, and personnel when he walks
into the library
Libraries once had no competition for their services, and thrived because society
respects tradition and books. Now that libraries do have competitors, they must change or
vanish. And there are many factors in favor of libraries. As long as books, videos, CDs
are costly, libraries will have patrons for these items. If they choose to do so, Libraries
can provide public space for face to face socializing, which the Web cannot. Libraries can
provide more computers, and the public will use them. Libraries can offer more
programs and educational events. Libraries can partner with schools and tutoring
companies to provide meaningful aftercare programs to students. Rebranding is not a bad
idea, if the book collection is no longer the primary interest of patrons. The library could
be incorporated as one component of a community information/recreation center.
Research library use will be increasingly distinguished from recreational library use,
due to the high cost of research information sources. What is apparent from the OCLC
survey is that people only use quality, authoritative research sources if they are forced to
by school or work, and are taught how. For everyone else, Wikipedia will do, and they
will not ask a librarian. This situation frees us from attempting to be all things to all
patrons. Libraries should become more specialized, with research support and reference
centralized at certain branches, genealogy at others, rather than spreading precious
expertise thinly over many sites in a system.
I do not think that libraries were ever ‘relevant’ to information consumers as
defined by the OCLC study. The information consumer is ‘anyone who uses the internet,’
which is to say, ‘everyone’. Many of these respondents never were, and never will be
library users, just as a century ago, many could not read, and did not read by choice. The
information consumer gobbles information indiscriminately, and cannot distinguish junk
facts from truth, much like the food consumer who cannot distinguish junk food from that
which is nutritious. By having a prominent and popular presence on the Web, the library
might attract some of these consumers to a library web site, but the consumer would not
know the difference.
In the long run, libraries must keep the faith and maintain their standards. Just as email is becoming useless due to exponential amounts of spam, so the Web will become
increasingly difficult to use as it grows ever-larger, and the percentage of junk
information outweighs that which is of value. Today, the effort required to sift the grain
from the chaff on the Web is considerable, and information users extend this effort only
under duress.
But if OCLC member libraries believe that they must compete with Google, the only
way to compete is online, which OCLC can do well, and individual libraries cannot.
I would not be surprised to see new collaboration services proposed by OCLC that
attempt to address the situation which is documented in this survey. Book publishing is
thriving in the age of Borders and Amazon, and copyright is alive and well, at the cost of
losing independent bookstores. Will a similar information shakedown occur in libraries,
with ‘chain’ library brands such as OCLC emerging, just as used booksellers are
surviving by banding together to establish a web presence?
It is difficult to see how the immense valuable content of libraries could be legally
squeezed out of the physical facility and offered up in competition with Google, but this
is the only way to compete on Google’s turf. As information users do not condescend to
exit cyberspace to visit the library, libraries can only be a contender online. Being a
student in this class, I cannot help but think about the specifics of the survey sample, and
how the results of this market survey may influence future OCLC products and services.