Dog Beach Morning in South Jersey

Libraries Can Benefit from Their Long Tails

To summarize: In his book The Long Tail, Chris Anderson discusses a recent trend in the media industries. Once dominated by a few major players, the media market now includes a diluted, extended trail—a “Long Tail”—of minor players, who have created a string of niche markets.

I really can’t speak for all libraries; but my little library has a very long tail—especially in the adult sections. The problem is not as acute in the children’s section, because that department is new. The children’s section has an abundance of the best, the brightest, and the freshest available. There are also numerous dusty, old books [like the Dr. Doolittle treasure that I recently found]; but the flashy books prevail. Our new children’s books fly off of our shelves.

The adult part of the library has been ongoing for many decades; and it is clouded by a plethora of tired, worn books that really don’t reach out and grab passersby. Still, many--like the old Dr. Dolittle--are gems, rotting in mildewed caves.

Anderson speaks of an 80/20 rule, saying that 20% of the population accounts for 80% of the results. In the adult section of our library, that figure is a dream. A narrow pocket of books circulate; and the rest sit. I’d venture to guess that the ratio is more like 95/5.

Our library has an extremely long tail, just sitting and withering—right inside our own walls. That says nothing about the untapped niche markets lying within the grasp of ILL.

My little library is a Free Public Library—at least that is currently the case. I am a Children’s Librarian; and I spend very little time with our library’s statistics. Yet, even I am aware that the threat of funding cuts looms on the horizon. Funding is somehow allocated according to circulation. Anderson’s book speaks of sales; in public libraries, circulation numbers are money.

Anderson also speaks of the satisfaction ratio, when buyers discover the long tail. Several factors affect which of the media becomes the hit parade and which falls by the wayside. In most cases, quality is not the prevailing factor. In many cases, the bestsellers and the rest of the hit parade are mediocre. They are designed to appeal to a mass of people. They are often formulaic. Media of higher quality—media designed to provoke thought and foster satisfaction often falls outside the cut. Many patrons would welcome discovering the niche markets. They just don’t know they are there.

If the public realized exactly what the library offers—for no money, things would no doubt be different. The quiet, empty tombs would probably become thriving, pulsating marketplaces--veritable tag sales. If the public realized exactly what the library offers—for no money, public policy makers would have a very short platform for preaching funding cuts.

Absolutely, our libraries need to find ways to push our patrons down into our long tails—the physical, brick and mortar ones and the longer, virtual tail. We need to increase our circulation statistics. Beyond that, we need to pull away the blanket that masks the treasures that are hiding—just beyond reach. If patrons are unaware that books and media are available, they really cannot be expected to “check them out.”

Libraries Pay the Piper: Functioning as New Producers, New Markets, and New Tastemakers for Products of The Long Tail

Images from Booksamillion and Amazon Uk

In his book The Long Tail Chris Anderson discusses a recent trend in the media industries. Once dominated by a few major players, the media market now includes a diluted, extended trail—a “Long Tail”—of minor players, who have created a string of niche markets.

Unlike the giants of the hit parade, the bulk of the niche producers operate without financial backing. They represent the “l’art pour l’art” [art for art’s sake] of the media world.

Very simply, the art for art’s sake movement was a purist philosophy that depended upon art’s being created for completely noncommercial reasons. In the media world, this movement probably would not include Oprah Winfrey, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, John Grisham, Stephen King, Katie Couric, etc. Any of these people may have begun with more noble aspirations; but at this point, they are cornerstones of the media “hit parade.” Even they would probably agree that now they represent a huge commercial enterprise.

In media, the niche markets are small pockets--often of the media’s “starving artists.” Largely, the producers are amateurs. Chris Anderson reminds us that “. . . the word ‘amateur’ derives from the Latin amator, ‘lover,’ from amare, ‘to love’).” (p. 63).

In music, the niche producers are the veritable garage bands. In literature and other journalism, the niche producers are the bloggers and the online journalists. In short, the niche markets have evolved with very little monetary exchange.

Again, the niche markets represent “l’art pour l’art.”

The idea is virtuous; but any movement without some means of financial support is doomed. At the very least, someone has to pay the rent and buy the food. To be commonly blunt, "Someone has to pay the piper." Unless all of the niche producers married or inherited well, they ultimately must be paid; elect to starve and/or be homeless; or else focus their time and energy in some area that does pay.

Chris Anderson says that for the “Long Tail” of niche markets to survive, someone or something has to push patrons (financial supporters) down into that tail—thus allowing the patrons (the finances) and the producers to connect. In short, the patrons must “find” the niche producers.

Unfortunately, because of their sheer numbers, dilution, and obscurity—the niche producers are not easily found. Discovering them is like finding the proverbial “needle in a haystack.” At least, that is the case, without filtering and aggregators.

In serving as filters and aggregators, libraries can be instrumental in helping the patrons and the niche producers connect—thus, in driving financial solvency down into and maintaining the “Long Tail.” And they can do so, on equitable terms. [Most of America's libraries are still Free Public Libraries].

In her book Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online Meredith Farkas (2007) says that libraries are “physical hubs” of their communities. (p. 73).

Ideally, libraries are equipped with technological tools that can help the niche producers create their wares. [This would further a tendency Anderson refers to as "democratizing production."] After the wares are created, libraries, as hubs, can help filter these wares to the public. [Anderson would no doubt refer to this as "democratizing distribution."] Because libraries are connected [via ILL and other networks], all of the individual hubs can be linked to create a national—even an international vein or web [worldwide web]--to unite niche markets and the public.

In determining which of the niche markets to support, circulate, aggregate, filter, and maintain, libraries are powerful agents in developing and fostering public taste. In doing so, America's Free Public Libraries are inadvertently long arms with the power to touch and fan the flame of an economic and philosophic revolution.

In essence, libraries are inadvertently "paying the piper."

In light of the continuous threat of funding cuts, one might question who will pay the piper of the pipers?

Anderson's Long Tail -- and the Future of Libraries

Image from www.booksamillion.com

Anderson, Chris. ( 2006). The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. [Also in Audio--as Shown in the Above Image].

Background of the Book:

In his book, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More, Chris Anderson talks about ways that technology has impacted the entertainment and media businesses.

Among other things, Anderson discusses how Indy artists and self publishers have been able to emerge from the shadows—bringing with them the niche markets and a wider selection in these areas.

In surfing the Internet, looking for these new artists and authors, customers discovered a plethora of previously unrecognized media. Consequently, the appetites of the public have shifted—have broadened—beyond the traditional hit parade, which had previously fostered the efforts of a select few.

In order to satisfy the broadened appetites of the customers, stores would have been required to carry a vast selection of media—much of it might never sell.

In terms of shelf space and square footage, the traditional store—housed in a physical building—was inadequate; and the costs of expanding stores to accommodate the new market were prohibitive.

Virtual stores—requiring very little shelf space, yet, capable of distributing a wide variety of media—became the new business model.

What should librarians note from Anderson’s observations in this book?

Librarians are also in the book business. Some might argue with this point; yet, in light of funding cuts and a diminishing client base, it has become evident that libraries must become good businesses to survive.

Most libraries are still operating as traditional stores or "buckets" of books. In terms of shelf space and square footage, libraries are limited--in the same ways that businesses are limited--actually, more so.

The only way for libraries to sufficiently expand their media selections is to enhance digital services.

The good news for libraries is that the ILL is ahead of this game. The ILL is a means through which libraries can greatly extend their physical holdings. It is crucial that libraries take advantage of the ILL services and market this service to their clients.

Yes, I said "market." Part of surviving in the business world is sufficient marketing. Libraries also need to improve in that department; but that is fodder for another blog.

RSS Me?

Blog Me! IM Me—no Meebo Me! Wiki Me? Twitter Me? Am I a Chicklet? [Probably not—at least, not yet]!

Feed Me? Rss Me? Well, Maybe Me!

i want to be del.icio.us!

Wow! My head is spinning!

A week ago, I had hardly heard of Web 2.0. I was not born in the Information Age. I think my “Tail is Long”— but I’m really not sure! I know that I was not “Born with a Chip!”

I have spent days signing up for accounts—checking them out—trying to absorb them; and honestly, at this point—I have to say that I am suffering from a serious case of Too Much Information!

Yet, I have glimpses of how Web 2.0 is going to help me!

Blogging is my new best friend. For 58 years, I have had thoughts and ideas that I knew I should be recording somewhere—reliable! I have always jotted them down—lost them—typed them into a Word document—lost them—but I think that Blog is going to be a good resource for keeping some things straight—in a place that won’t crash.

[Actually, I read somewhere that there is some speculation that the Internet might crash. I don’t know where I read that—that was before I learned to Blog]!

I am trying to understand RSS and Chicklets—but honestly, at this point, I am almost brain dead!
Everything that I have read says that RSS is the Cat’s Meow!

Personally, I like Dogs!

At this point, RSS has been a source of Information Overload for me; but that problem lies with me—not with RSS!

Who has time to listen, watch, and absorb all of that RSS?
You can lead this horse to water; but she doesn’t have time to drink?

Tux Paint - Open Source Paint Program for Young Children

Tux Paint has many features that are similar to those in Firefox -- even in Photoshop. Yet, this free program is simple enough to be handled by very young children.

In today's landscape with an ever-widening mulitmedia horizon, this is an excellent program--to help children become more technologically literate.

It is also good as an outlet for creativity.

The Text Tools and images can be combined, so that children can write and illustrate together.

Features, such as the Shapes Tool and the Stamp Tool could be used for teaching math.

The program can be downloaded, with or without the extra Stamp Software, at:

http://www.tuxpaint.org/

Both are free at this time.

M. T. Anderson's Feed -- and Me

Image from www.booksamillion.com

Anderson, M. T. ( 2002). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Candlewick Press.

For Spring Break, Titus and his buddies take a trip, meet some girls, and get into a bit of trouble.

There’s nothing new about that storyline; but M. T. Anderson’s Feed is much more than the typical teen tale. It is an excursion into the not too distant future—and oddly, also deep into the present.

One might ask: “How can a book be both?” The answer is simple.

In one way, Feed is a sci-fi, fantasy book that paints a picture of life as it has not actually become.

In a Dickensian way, it is “Christmas Yet To Come.”

Yet, because of its outstanding writing and character development, it is also a candid, revealing reflection of the human spirit—an essence that is timeless.

The book takes place, after the citizens of Earth have essentially destroyed her. In a technological sense, most of the kids have a plethora of sophisticated toys. In fact, they, themselves, are basically technological toys. Almost all of them have an embedded, computerized “feed.” Not unlike today, the people with more financial resources are equipped with more bells and whistles.

In order to keep the feeds up and running, the physicians are essentially computer technicians. Again, those with more resources are able to afford better technical support; and those without adequate resources are simply out of luck. Unfortunately, Violet, the girl that Titus met on the moon, falls into the latter category.

Because of ecological problems, some of the health issues—the lesions, for example—are beyond treatment. But there seems to be little concern about the skin lesions. Everyone has them—they have become the fashion rage.

The plot, to this point, is basically futuristic science fiction. Yet, the characters are not at all futuristic.

The boys, who travel to the moon, are just teen boys. They horse around and do silly things. At times, the kids are insensitive and callous; but that is certainly not something new. When the they showed up in their ripped and shredded Riot clothes, I immediately thought of the $100 destroyed Abercrombie jeans—that line my son’s closet. While it is a bit shocking, the sporting of the lesions is much the same type of fashion-reaction.

Some of the girls have actually cut themselves and accentuated their lesions. That seems especially appalling; but most women today have similarly “cut” into themselves to accommodate pierced earrings. In some cultures, human scarification and piercings have persisted since antiquity.

The book takes place in the future; but it is a reflection of people—who always have been.

Superficially, the book is shocking; but on closer inspection, it is not.

I was appalled that Violet was allowed to desist—simply because she could not pay for technical support; but the scenario is actually not all that far-fetched.

Recently, I mortgaged my soul and bought what appeared would be my dream computer system. Unfortunately, the dream didn’t last long. I seem to have bought a lemon—and none of my problems are covered—without my continuously paying for live support, to adjust this or that. Just last week, I had to totally scrub my computer and start over. Certainly, I was not dying; but I felt as though I was.

Like almost everyone else, I am much too busy to stop and deal with computer problems. Yet, in scrubbing my computer, I lost more than time—I lost pictures, digital art, flash documents, business transactions, music, tomes of research, my own writing, and much of who I actually am.

My computer is not embedded inside my body; I don’t even wear it like a backpack—but it is very much a part of me. When my computer is "down," I am cast into panic. When my computer dies, part of me dies, as well. That, in itself, is a little scary.

In final analysis, I would have to say that Feed is a fantasy book that is more real than not. After reading the book, I must say that the thing that most shocks me about Feed is that it truly does not shock me at all.

Libraries and Librarians Learn from Brown and Duguid

A Discussion of the Book: The Social Life of Information by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. (2002). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

In The Social Life of Information, Brown and Duguid make several points that Libraries/Librarians should find to be insightful.

• The major theme of The Social Life of Information is balance. Technological Information is powerful; but not without the people who process and use that information.
• Both people and technology are vital to our culture’s prosperity. Utilization of both must be balanced.
• Libraries/Librarians must not fall for false hype and launch an all-out removal of traditional books and other media.
  
• Digitization is important; but its usage must also be balanced.
• Traditional books are not a dying breed.
  
• Libraries/Librarians must respond to changes being evoked by technology. They must become and remain current; but they must also preserve much of their traditional services.
• Libraries/Librarians must create options for the sharing of social information and for the evolution of learning communities. Web 2.0 is invaluable for this.
• Most importantly, Libraries/Librarians can be assured that the machine is not replacing them.

In addition, administrators are reminded of the importance of remaining connected to the trenches—of remaining active in the actual workings of the library and the collaborations among the staff.

Administrators are also reminded of the value of the divergent thinker and the need to foster communication and fraternization among staff members.

The major points of the book are elaborated upon in other of my blogs.

[See Blogs Posted June 5, 2008: “Are Machines Replacing People?” “Administration from an Ivory Tower vs. Collaboration,” “Don't Stamp Out the Stand-Outs,” “Information vs. Knowledge,” and “Are Libraries Going All Digital—Are Traditional Books a Dying Breed?”]

Are Libraries Going All Digital—Are Traditional Books a Dying Breed? My Experience with Dr. Dolittle Says Not

Image from the Wikipedia article: The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle

Not long ago, I noticed an old, 1922 edition of The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle, resting on one of the shelves in our library. The book was scuffed and bland—certainly not as flashy as many of the books published now. Nothing about the book called out to passersby; and it had not been circulating. Like a lonely, little onion in a petunia patch, the old, gray book just sat—waiting. Perhaps, it was waiting for me. On that particular day, it certainly seemed that way.

As I pulled the book from the shelf, I got a sour-sweet whiff of old-book smell. I rubbed my fingers across the heavy, granular cover [with corners missing--revealing layers of curled cardboard] and also through the brittle-thick, yellowed pages. In a matter of seconds, I was 50 years younger—back in the dusty, little farm community and the dark, musty library, where I first discovered books.

The significant thing about my reaction that day is that it had very little—perhaps nothing—to do with the stories inside the book. Hugh Lofting’s writing and illustrations are treasures that I discovered long after my childhood. My reaction to the old masterpiece was provoked by the book itself—and not by the subject matter within the book. The old book reminded me of The Bobsey Twin books that I actually did read as a child. The old book carried me back home—if only for a moment.

There is no way to digitize this type of experience.

In the library world, the question is often asked: Are Libraries Going All Digital—Are Traditional Books a Dying Breed? In The Social Life of Information, Brown and Duguid offer an answer to that question. They talk about the value of books, as physical objects. According to these experts, there are numerous reasons that libraries must not consider going all digital; but they further assert that numbers indicate that this is not an actual threat. In the current landscape of rampant technology and mass digitization, book sales are surprisingly up—not down.

As far as I am concerned, this is great news!

The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle received the Newberry Medal in 1923. An interesting, open blog project, on all the Newberry Winners is located at the following site: http://newberryproject.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Voyages%20of%20Doctor%20Doolittle

Incidentally, The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle can be read free online at the following site: http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Hugh_Lofting/The_Voyages_of_Doctor_Dolittle/

I warn you, however, compared to my old, 1922 volume of the book, the digitized version is just a bunch of words.

People Are Not Sponges: Information vs. Knowledge

In The Social Life of Information, Brown and Duguid (2002) distinguish between mere information and learning—or knowledge, asserting that humans are not mere sponges. They say that if information, alone, equates knowledge, bots might indeed replace the need for human involvement toward prosperity. Yet, they assure that this is not the case.

Learning is a human response to information—it entails a knower and it requires processing, understanding, and internalizing of information.

Information stands alone.

Brown and Duguid develop this idea as follows: “In general, it sounds right to ask, ‘Where is that information?’ but odd to ask, ‘Where’s that knowledge?” (p. 119).

“People treat information as a self-contained substance. It is something that people pick up, possess, pass around, put in a database, lose, find, write down, accumulate, count, compare, and so forth. . . . You might expect, for example, someone to send you or point you to the information they have, but not to the knowledge they have.” (p. 120).

"Knowledge is something we digest rather than merely hold. It entails the knower’s understanding and some degree of commitment. Thus while one person often has conflicting information, he or she will not usually have conflicting knowledge. And while it seems quite reasonable to say, ‘I’ve got the information, but I don’t understand it,’ it seems less reasonable to say, ‘I know, but I don’t understand,’ or ‘I have the knowledge, but I can’t see what it means.’ “ (p. 120).

Learning is constructive assimilation.

As an individual selects information to process and further internalizes and learns that information, he/she constructs or molds the core of his/her being.

Don't Stamp Out the Stand-Outs: Sameness and Smooth Sailing

Left-Brainers vs. Right-Brainers

In many businesses and organizations, sameness is encouraged. When sameness prevails, the water is calm. When differences are introduced, waves begin to ripple and wave—sometimes to a point that seems out of control.

Administrators typically dislike waves. Calmness is much simpler. Therefore, the people in the organization, who do not make waves, are often smiled upon.

The divergent thinkers are often regarded less favorably.

In favor of smooth sailing, a short-sighted Administrator might consider totally eradicating the divergent. Yet, in doing so, something crucial is lost.

In The Social Life of Information, Brown and Duguid (2002) address this concern, saying that a balance between the two factions is in order. In summarizing their points, they say the following: “. . . routine behavior. . . is the key to orderly process. . . . On the other hand, to survive in a changing world, organizations also need to improvise, to break routine, by trying new things, exploring new regions, finding new markets, developing new models. Improvisation, however, inevitably disrupts routine. Consequently, all organizations have to balance routine and improvisation. “ (p. 109).

Administration from an Ivory Tower vs. Collaboration

Practice Makes Perfect

In many businesses, schools, hospitals, libraries, etc., the best practitioners are elevated to positions of authority. After their promotions, these administrators relinquish their involvement with the everyday functioning of their organizations and begin operating from Ivory Towers. While the concept is ideologically impressive, the actual results are less favorable.

In The Social Life of Information, Brown and Duguid (2002) allude to an experiment at Xerox PARC. Xerox relies upon the successes of their service people. If the machines are not operating correctly, Xerox fails. It would seem that one of Xerox’s priorities would be the involvement of the administration in the face-to-face training, inspiring, and communicating with the service technicians. Consultant Julian Orr found that this was not happening.

Instead of actually collaborating with their technicians—instead of actually operating from the trenches—the administration provided a how-to-manual and expected the technicians to resolve issues by referring to that manual.

Orr “. . . was not surprised, then, to find that what looked quite clear and simple from above was much more opaque and confusing on the ground." (p. 100).

In other words, the manuals were unable to explain and demonstrate in the ways that humans can do.

Orr discovered that the reps were best served by their involvements with informal peer gatherings (breakfasts), where many issues were resolved via discussion.

As a result of these informal gatherings, communities were formed and collaboration evolved.

In collaboration, separate and unique individuals pool their resources, their backgrounds, and their ideas for growth and reinforcement.

“. . . as Orr showed, the reps provided much more than comforting noises. They were critical resources for each other. The informal and extracurricular group helped each member to reach beyond the limits of an individual’s knowledge. . . “(p. 103).

When administrators attempt to lead from their Ivory Towers, they not only lose touch with what is truly happening on a day-to-day basis, they also remove themselves from the collaborations.

In essence, administrators—people who have been promoted to leadership, because of their practical strengths—remove themselves from the actual practice.

And we all know that it is Practice that Makes Perfect.

Are Machines Replacing People?

Highlights from the Book:

The Social Life of Information by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. (2002). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

In The Social Life of Information, Brown and Duguid assure the reader of the importance of people in The Information Age.

In the not too distant past, information was limited and progress was impeded. Because of technology, that is no longer true. In today’s landscape, there is an excess of information. The current challenge lies in navigating through, organizing, and aggregating the information overflow

"Where once there seemed too little [information] to swim in, now it's hard to stay afloat." (p. 12).

Chatterbots, also called bots or “autonomous agents,” have proven to be helpful in managing the informational glut; but the bots, or machines, are not the total solution.

“These technologies are quite remarkable, but what they do remarkably is very different from what humans do.” (p. xii).

“The human and the digital are significantly, and usefully, distinct. Human planning, coordinating, decision making and negotiating seem quite different from automated information searches or following digital footsteps. So for all their progress, and it is extraordinary, the current infobots, knobots, shopbots, and chatterbots are still a long way from the predicted insertion into the woof and warp of ordinary life.” (p. 61).

The humans, behind these machines—beyond technology—are also invaluable. Machines and humans are separate, but complementary ingredients of the recipe for success.

“We are not trying to ignore or denigrate information technologies. . . Rather, we are arguing that by engaging the social context in which these technologies are inevitably embedded, better designs and uses will emerge.” (p. x).