Library Patrons Are Like Ships That Pass in the Night -- Social Networks Could Bring Them Into the Same Harbor

For many years, people have considered America’s librarians to be physical places—what Chris Anderson (Long Tail 2006) would call bricks and mortar places—that serve flesh and blood people.

Many of the people who share the same libraries don’t actually know each other. Occasionally, they pass each other—like ships in the night—as they come and go. Woven into a library’s common web, they have what Boyd & Eillson (2007) call “latent ties.” They exist in a mutual community; but they don’t really connect. [Incidentally, statistics seem to indicate that the members of the traditional library community don’t actually come to the library very often either; and for many reasons their absences are felt.]

Libraries could learn several things from social communities—like MySpace and Facebook.

In another post, I discussed the manner in which like-minded people find each other in social networks. I discussed the cohesiveness that results from their virtual connections, saying the following: “When visitors look at various profiles, they gravitate toward others who seem most like themselves. This discovering and connecting with the familiar becomes a cohesiveness—a glue that binds people within social groups. Thus, it is the “stickiness” that holds the networks together and brings users back again and again.”

If libraries learn nothing else from social networks, they need to take note of this last trend. This “stickiness” that occurs when people connect.

In their article "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship," Boyd & Ellison say that the people who ultimately connect in virtual communities actually had “latent ties” beforehand. Again, they were like ships in the night—merely passing. It was the connecting that mattered—that gave the relationship purpose—that brings the people back into the site again and again.

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

I certainly cannot speak for all of the nation’s libraries; but from what I have observed, I would amend Farkas and say that a few libraries have become their communities’ physical hubs. I would say that most libraries have the potential to be that physical hub; but that they fail to step up to the plate.

When I think of a wheel and a hub, I think of spokes that connect and circulate—that function as a unit. Ships that pass in the night are not wheels—they are not hubs. The library needs to find ways to pull its ships into the same harbor. Social networks—virtual communities could help.

Anderson, Chris. ( 2006). The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More.
boyd, danah. 2007. "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace ." Apophenia Blog Essay. June 24 . http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.htm

Farkas, Meredith. (2007). Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online.

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?