The Information Industry Revolution: Implications for Librarians
By George R. Plosker
Ah, the "L" word.
The profession has been debating whether or not to use the "L word"—librarian—for quite some
time. The debate has found its way through the naming of graduate (library) schools, which have
emerged with multiple permutations, including School of Information (no L word), Graduate
Library School (traditional), and hybrid—School of Library and Information Science/Studies.
Over the course of the past 3 years or so, the Special Libraries Association has engaged in a
similar debate. The key issue: Does the word "library" adequately convey the utility and value of
what librarians, in this case, corporate or special librarians, contribute to their organizations?
This debate reflects a profession in transition. Information professionals have been dealing with
change brought on by technology for over 30 years. The year 2002 marked the 30th anniversary
of commercial service from Dialog; 2003 brought the same anniversary for LexisNexis.
Technology has touched every aspect of library services, including cataloging, reference,
interlibrary loan, document delivery, circulation, and training.
With the coming of the Web, change moved at a dramatic pace, as patrons and corporate users
began to use online services on their own. Changing user expectations and needs have resulted in
new models of library service—use of print and actual visits to the reference desk are down;
remote usage of library services is up; and instructional models have gone through major
revisions both in approach and curriculum. The roles of users, librarians, publishers, and vendors
have all been impacted.
At the 2003 annual meeting of the Special Libraries Association (SLA), I found myself in a
position to discuss and discover the key factors influencing the work of the information content
profession today. Following an invitation from Jane Dysart, past president of SLA and a wellknown industry speaker and conference organizer, I found myself on a panel called, "Information
Industry Revolution," which was part of the always-stimulating SLA Hot Topics Sessions.
My fellow panelists included two gurus of the SLA world, Gary Price and Stephen Abram. Gary
is a librarian and renowned author of the book The Invisible Web, and he also creates a daily
updated Weblog, The Resource Shelf [www.resourceshelf.com]. Stephen is an industry
luminary who just received SLA's highest honor, the John Cotton Dana award. The three of us
emphatically agreed that "Information Industry Revolution" was an apt title for the discussion
and for the environment in which we find ourselves.
MOVING AT HYPERSPEED
We wanted to give the attendees a frame of reference for how to react to the daily changes taking
place in our industry and to suggest specific tools and tactics for successfully dealing with library
users in today's environment. Looking back, this panel served as a tangible counterpoint to the
branding and name issues facing the conference attendees.
http://www.infotoday.com/online/nov03/plosker.shtml
1
Long before the conference, Dysart challenged the panelists by asking us to react to this
statement and ensuing questions: "Hyperspeed changes in our industry sector and new
alignments and mergers are surprising and shocking us every day. Why would Google buy a
blogging software company and what does it mean for us as information professionals? What do
we do when our subscription agent disappears overnight? Is the number of suppliers of
information resources we need shrinking? And, what does that mean for my paper and electronic
collections?"
Calling Gary, Stephen, and I "experts in the field and industry watchdogs," she asked us to
predict the following: "How will these changes impact on our work in the future?" Jane
envisioned that the panel would provide a "snapshot of the state of the information industry and
its implications—for practitioners, publishers, and vendors."
In the ensuing months, Stephen, Gary, and I exchanged numerous e-mails, had several
conference calls, and received suggestions, guidance, and encouragement from Jane. We
essentially ranted and raved regarding the state of our industry and what is going on with Web
searching and information retrieval, industry consolidation and business development, and user
expectations and behaviors. Our discussions were based on our prior experience, what we were
seeing and reading about in our day-to-day professional lives, and on the work that we were
doing. Several key themes emerged:
• The Open Web and the information professional
• Industry consolidation
• Product quality
• Changing roles and responsibilities
• Engineering solutions
• Marketing and communications programs
OPEN WEB INFILTRATION
Based on feedback at presentations and on-site visits to well-regarded special libraries, we
became increasingly concerned that professionals and researchers sincerely believe that
searching the Open Web, particularly Google, is "good enough." Groups with degrees from
excellent schools, Ph.D.s in environments that included technical R&D, and even biomedical and
pharmaceutical professionals were using Google, not recognizing the significant differences in
authority and quality between the Open Web and premium subscription content typically
provided by the information centers/libraries.
We heard stories in which common misunderstandings about electronic content were leading to
disastrous results. Consider the article that appeared in late May in the Rocky Mountain News,
"Denver Health Expected to Shut Medical Library." In an effort to trim $12 million from the
public hospital's budget, it was expected that the organization would close its medical library by
July 1. "Chief Executive Officer Patricia Gabor would not confirm the closure. But, she said that
because of the availability of electronic journals, closing the library, which has been under
http://www.infotoday.com/online/nov03/plosker.shtml
2
discussion for some time, is likely." We wondered if Ms. Gabor had read the story of an
unnecessary death at Johns Hopkins University during a clinical trial when the researcher did not
consult an experienced medical librarian.
It became clear in that the Open Web would be a large portion of our discussion, but we also
observed the on-going number of mergers and consolidation in the information content vendor
world. We called this the "one-big-vendor" phenomenon. Was industry consolidation having an
impact on the added value that vendors provide to corporate libraries? What could librarians do
about it?
Following the Tasini decision and its aftermath, significant discussion occurred throughout the
profession regarding the completeness of online databases. Separating the facts from the fiction
was difficult. What is going on with content completeness today? What effect were publisher
exclusives having on content aggregators and their customers? Is the industry going backward as
Patrick Spain, founder of Hoover's and current chairman and CEO of Alacritude, asserted at his
keynote address at the InfoToday 2003 conference? We even heard a new term—
disaggregation—emerge. Can technology initiatives, such as e-journals, Open URLs, federated
searching, DOIs, and open ILL systems overcome these trends in terms of providing complete
electronic content solutions?
While these are significant issues influencing user behaviors and expectations, we all agreed that
ineffective marketing was perhaps the most important and controllable concern. With the
pervasiveness of Open Web search engines and super bookstores, the profession is simply not
adequately or effectively communicating the value of libraries, library resources, and the
librarian.
With plenty to talk about, we decided to recruit Jane as our Oprah and to keep us under control
and focused by using a moderated Q&A format. After composing and reviewing the questions,
we headed to New York for the conference.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK; THE PANEL ITSELF
The panel took place in the Morgan Suite of the New York Hilton on June 9th, 2003. We
probably could have used a larger room. Every seat was taken, people sat on the floor, and there
was a large group standing in the back of the room literally bulging out the back entry way.
As might be expected, our discussion of the Open Web and its impact on the profession began
with Google. The panel agreed that Google has done a great job. No one in the information
content profession can deny Google's influence, both real and perceived, on information-seeking
behaviors and expectations. Google's incredible response time, relevance ranking and page rank
algorithms, subtle business model, clean look, and ease-of-use were appropriately recognized.
We particularly admired the incredible marketing that Google has done, mostly through word-ofmouth "viral marketing." In a very short period of time, Google went from newbie to industry
leader. Its well-known brand has even spawned a verb. "To google" now means to search, find,
and explore. (Google, as a company, is trying hard to squelch this verbification.)
To obtain a sense of Google's scale, we quoted Craig Silverstein, the director of technology at
Google. He recently stated that Google is now getting 250 million search requests per day!
http://www.infotoday.com/online/nov03/plosker.shtml
3
According to Searcher editor Barbara Quint, Google gets more searches in 3 days than all
libraries combined globally get in 1 year. This volume and popularity have made electronic
access to information ubiquitous—a good thing. What remains to be done is to inform and
educate users that there is more to the content world than the Open Web.
DOUGHNUTS, COFFEE, AND QUALITY INFORMATION
Stephen Abram, the master of the analogy, compared high- and low-nutrition diets with content
quality. He often has breakfast in the hotel lobby during his frequent travels and these
"breakfasts" on the road might consist of a Krispy Kreme and Starbucks. While he appreciates
the taste (and marketing) of these popular commodities, would he want to have doughnuts and
coffee for breakfast every day? Similarly, while Google and the Open Web are excellent as a
short-term fix and for distinct categories of content, would he depend on them on a daily basis?
The panel thought not.
Fortunately, information professionals, especially reference librarians, have for the most part
overcome their initially tentative relationship with the Internet and the World Wide Web.
Librarians have gradually recognized the added value the Web brings to their ability to answer a
broader range of patron questions. Now, there is widespread acceptance that, either alone or in
combination with more traditional resources, the Web expands the capabilities of reference
professionals. We all see that Google has a place in the spectrum of information services.
The panel discussed the issue of going with, complementing, and becoming authoritative in the
current environment. In order to be credible and to communicate with today's user, the
profession can no longer resist these influences on the content environment, nor maintain dated
points of view. What we learned in library school is not enough. We cannot sit at the reference
desk and proclaim, "We only support premium content databases." The audience was praised for
their willingness to continually update their professional knowledge.
DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
We then moved into the disruptive nature of the Internet. It has impacted all industry players—
authors, publishers, vendors, intermediaries, libraries, and other organizations—and changed the
content landscape. Participants are no longer clear about their roles and responsibilities. In some
cases, the current environment has created a regressive view of self-interest.
We discussed the "Industry Insights" column by Leslie Jacobs in the May/June 2003 issue of
ONLINE, in which Leslie states that vendors and publishers are not "working and playing well
with others." Even when libraries, information centers, and practitioners are coming to these
vendors with a clearly articulated vision of what they want to accomplish in their environments,
they often find themselves unable to fulfill the vision due to lack of cooperation or compatibility
from their vendors. Jacobs specifically cited that "recent examples of e-content logjam include
problems when combining sources from multiple vendors, frustrations when integrating
electronic journals into a library collection, and difficulties in providing documents in a preview
mode."
The panelists also cautioned against an over-reliance on technology or vendor solutions without
appropriate expert management by information professionals. We have seen a variety of new
technologies emerge, all trying to provide libraries with a search environment that is more
http://www.infotoday.com/online/nov03/plosker.shtml
4
compelling and complete in order to compete with the appeal of the Open Web. While no one on
the panel had a problem with more powerful contextual linking, Open URLs, or federated
searching, we did stress that it is critical for the content expert to maintain control of vendor
implementations.
It is important not to accept "default" technical solutions that are really in the best interest of the
vendor rather than the library or library user. For example, some of the tools mentioned above
have a range of customizable settings that can be utilized to overcome "defaults." The panelists
stressed that the "reference engineer" must assume a project management role in these
implementations to ensure that technical choices and solutions add up to the right answers and
responses for the typical patron. It is especially critical to not ignore the tenets of our profession.
Content/database selection should retrieve the best answer—not just any answer, or worse,
retrieve enormous numbers of "hits" due to the broad recall search algorithms built into the
technology.
ONE BIG VENDOR
From the Open Web and professional responses to the Open Web, we then moved into the area
of industry consolidation. Jane asked us, "Are you worried about the ONE-BIG-VENDOR
phenomenon? What do you think all these mergers will mean?"
As always, it is the detail that matters. The panelists felt that there were essentially two ways to
look at this industry trend. On the good side, mergers and acquisitions can drive synergies that
benefit the client. Mergers have created new generations of products that provide superior
navigation and powerful content integration. In some cases, we have seen considerable vendor
investment in the underlying structure of these tools, such as re-engineered authority files that
allow for content linkage and improved navigation.
Of course, we have also seen the bad side—a lack of common product structure, tools not tied
together, no common vocabulary, artificial divisions maintained based on a financially driven
point of view. Customer support is fragmented. There is no common billing, or perhaps more
importantly, purchases across the formerly separate companies are not tied together for discount
purposes. We meet with representatives who really don't know how these products are related, at
least in the client's mind, in terms of providing more complete solutions.
Mergers usually focus on the financial side of things, as opposed to being customer- or marketdriven. In the worst case, the acquisition comes at too high a cost—the acquiring company
overpays. In that case, in addition to traditional expectations on operating income and revenue,
the new company must also pay off the debt burden. This results in more financially driven
thinking, less investment in new and improved products, and more pressure on the vendorcustomer relationship.
ROLE OF THE AGGREGATORS
Jane then moved us into the area of existing products, pointing out that many librarians depend
on information aggregators for the value-add they provide to content—indexing, metadata,
licensing, abstracts, and conversion. What is happening with quality? In the post-Tasini era, what
is happening with content completeness? Are there special challenges happening here and how
do these challenges change the roles special librarians and information professionals must play?
http://www.infotoday.com/online/nov03/plosker.shtml
5
In what became a common theme, the panelists saw an increased burden/responsibility for the
information professional in terms of monitoring the status of current products. Practitioners need
to remain vigilant about what is changing in the products and to ask questions.
• Is indexing applied to all document types?
• Is a keyword strategy casting a broader net than using a thesaurus-dependent search?
• What content is in the product?
• What content is not in the product due to exclusives or other publisher approaches?
• Organizations that purchase premium databases must report content issues and problems to
their vendors—might alert a vendor to a problem with a conversion vendor or internal system
• Customer advocacy is a must—"What would Barbara Quint (our own Ralph Nader)
do/recommend?"
One panelist (OK, me) told a story about a client who would sign her e-mails to various customer
service departments, "The Pest." In truth, customer service found her input so useful and
insightful that her comments were often shared throughout the organization. We really
considered her to be a "bellwether" customer, and over time, product and technology teams when
making changes to a product often requested her input. This reminds me of the line we have
heard from all of our mothers: "If you don't ask, you won't get."
RELATIONSHIPS IN THE INDUSTRY
Jane then asked about the status of key industry relationships. "In the past there was a virtuous
circle of a relationship among publishers and vendors and intermediaries. There appears to have
been some pretty big disruptions in these relationships. Can each of you comment?" Several
themes emerged from those comments:
• We
is key
need
to
stay
on
the
high
road
communication
between
parties
• Disruptions to the relationships are based on lack of understanding of the common challenges
facing the players. We need to focus on the big picture of the common challenges we are facing.
• We need a new definition of self-interest for the parties.
• Old values are still relevant in terms of powerful content alternatives to the Open Web.
• However, we need to position premium content tools in a context and in the language that the
end-user understands—we must include awareness of their perception and view of the
information landscape.
The panel described an environment where it is increasingly necessary for librarians and vendors
to work together to provide content solutions that go beyond the convenience of the Open Web.
There are two key areas in which this is particularly true. First, it has become more critical than
http://www.infotoday.com/online/nov03/plosker.shtml
6
ever for libraries to let the public know about the content jewels to be found as part of the
library's services. In other words, marketing. It can no longer be assumed that individuals will
find their way to the library for information. We are not the only game in town.
Second, these tools must provide both superior content and powerful intuitive navigation that
make the Open Web look like a device designed for novices. Given our quality, content, and
better service, the library world needs to take back some market share. If it is critical to
differentiate the content alternatives now available to the public, how can we do it?
MARKETING LIBRARY SERVICES
Marketing needs to include some basics. The panel agreed that it is more important today for
outreach communications to be in the user's language and approachable. A message something
like, "Yes, you can really do this," needs to be included when guiding users to library solutions,
especially to remote access tools, where a physical librarian is not available to help out.
Messaging needs to elucidate benefits—better content and better decisions—rather than a list of
URLs and functions. "A world of information compiled and organized by information
professionals" is not sufficient. Remember the user is interested in "what's in it for me." Stress
that library content is not selling anything. We are talking about humankind's recorded
knowledge. Be specific. Pick themes that are meaningful to your patron groups or constituencies.
[Editor's Note: Subscribing to MLS: Marketing Library Services (www.infotoday.com/mls)
would be a great way to pick up new library marketing ideas.]
The panel also thought that point-of-use support materials need to focus more on database
selection and less on search strategy. Let's face it—searchers will do the search strategies that
make sense to them. If we can at least get them in the right body of content, chances are that
success rates will increase noticeably. The panel also agreed that remote access to premium
databases, an engineered reference solution, is a powerful mechanism to extend library services
beyond the four walls of the library. These remote access solutions must offer quick paths to the
needed content as well as describe why the specific content tool has the needed answer. Today's
Web searcher is accustomed to "drill-down" via topic trees—libraries should leverage this knowhow. Make it easy to locate the right source for the topic at hand.
Finally, the panel felt that some level of cooperative marketing would be useful for the entire
professional community. How can we get the players in the premium content industry to work
together to meet this common challenge? For example, we might consider some type of
overview marketing campaign. Look at the example of the dairy industry: "Got Milk?" Why not,
"Got librarians?"
Information professionals should work with SLA to improve the resources and marketing
messages available via the www.sla.org Web site. Also, we should work with our vendors.
Discuss your marketing plans with them. How can they help? Most vendors provide a wide range
of free marketing and support materials, frequently on their Web sites. Free marketing materials
typically include posters, publicity guidelines, templates, bookmarks, fliers, print ad templates,
and even radio scripts.
Be flexible and open regarding today's user. Work to engineer solutions that work for them. The
old model of one-off reference is no longer adequate. Don't be afraid to use your knowledge.
Hold on to the values that demand quality and completeness. Improve the overall marketing
http://www.infotoday.com/online/nov03/plosker.shtml
7
situation. All too many people have no idea what libraries and the content industry can do for
them. A major goal for information professionals in the information industry revolution is to
communicate the substance of the profession to those outside the profession.
George Plosker [gplosker@comcast.net] is principal of George Plosker & Associates, a
consulting firm providing services and training to the information industry, technology
companies, and libraries on content deployment and marketing, information access, account,
and staff development strategies. The author wishes to thank Jane Dysart, Gary Price, and
Stephen Abram for their contributions.
http://www.infotoday.com/online/nov03/plosker.shtml
8