Social Networking Literacy For Librarians

Today, I attended a METRO Science Librarian Special Interest Group lecture hosted by Joe Murphy, a science librarian at Yale University. The subject was Social Network Literacy for Librarians, and there were about 20 (or more) librarians there from public, non-profit and academic libraries.

Joe Murphy is an exceedingly smart young guy, and he’s on the cutting edge. He’s a social media proponent to the nth degree, and he says rather controversial things in a matter-of-fact kind of way. He says things that perhaps we’re too afraid to say, like “Print is dead,” and (as a librarian, no less) “There is no time during my day that I ever come in contact with a book.” He suggested that librarians carry around smart phones and get rid of desk-top computers. He mentioned that he got repremanded at work for fiddling around with his iPhone during meetings, but he was just taking notes. He doesn’t use pen and paper.

The last bit about using his iPhone in meetings is an interesting illustration of how some of the lecture went down – there was resistance to what Murphy had to say. A couple of people brought up the digital divide and said that they’d have trouble implementing social networking, and making assumptions about users’ technological savvy. One mentioned that “undergrads don’t use Twitter.”

Some salient issues that were brought up during this two-hour event that evolved into more of a discussion than a lecture:

• Librarians need to become early adopters and lead in information technology. The time for meeting users where they are is over.
• If librarians do not adopt social networking skills, libraries will become less and less relevant–Murphy says that in many ways, they already are irrelevant.
• Murphy loves the character restrictions of Twitter and expects all of his information to reach him in short, blurb-like bursts. Is this what information-glutted users are also expecting?
• @val_forrestal, who was in the audience and has given her own Twitter in Libraries lectures, said that Twitter is a great way to show that librarians can use their special skills to be information filterers in this era of information overload. This is a wonderful strength to have these days, and librarians can use this skill in new and innovative ways with social media.  

Important links:

Murphy’s ACRL Paper, on which this lecture was based.

Etherpad notes from today’s meeting

A summary of today’s meeting

Follow Joe Murphy on Twitter: @libraryfuture

Is Google a Threat to Libraries?

Imagine a world where one entity controls all of the information that you see. The one entity can decide that you should be sheltered from certain information, or could surreptitiously alter information. The entity can decide what price you pay for information at will. No, this isn’t a fascist regime or even Orwell’s dystopian paranoia, this is conceivably our digital future, thanks to Google.

Nobody’s saying that this will happen for sure. After all, Google’s motto is “don’t be evil,” but I attended a lecture that suggested that this was a possibility.

Yesterday evening I hied myself up to Columbia University to listen to Robert Darnton speak on Google, Libraries and the Digital Future. Darnton, the Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and director of the University Library at

Darnton & an analog book from the distant past.

 Harvard University, gave an impassioned lecture about Google Book Search and what it might portend for the library in the future.

Some of what he spoke about can be found in his February 2009 article from the New York Review of Books entitled “Google and the Future of Books.” Google Book Search, the initiative to digitize and make searchable millions of books from the world’s research libraries, will change the way we read, search for and gather information. Digitizing and making books searchable sounds wonderful–what’s the threat?

It’s not free, and it seems that Google never intended it to be.  

Google has won a settlement (subject to approval from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York) over copyright with authors of some of the books that have been digitized. 

In order for the authors to get paid, Google had to set up a Book Rights Registry, which represents the rights of the authors. Google will sell access to the databank of mostly out-of-print books to libraries, who will have to pay for an institutional license (much like article databases). Consumers can also pay for individual licenses. The copyright holder will get 63% of the revenue, and Google will retain 37%.

Sidestepping for a moment the outrageous effrontery of Google selling libraries’ own books back to them, Darnton’s point is that Google is the only entity with the foresight, power and capital to undertake such a huge project, and because of the nature of this settlement could eventually result in Google having a monopoly on the world’s information. The law suit was a class-action suit, so that it basically covered every author with a work in copyright. Therefore, authors are left in an opt-out situation, without ever seemingly having the choice to opt IN in the first place. If their book is in a library that has agreed to Google Books’ offer to have their collection digitized, it will be digitized, unless the author expressly opts out. Even more daunting: no other digitizing initiative can get their project off the ground without, as Darnton puts it, ”winning their (the authors’) assent one by one.” So this settlement, if approved, basically gives Google the rights to digitize every book covered by copyright in the United States.

What could this do to the library? Libraries would be in thrall to Google, subject to their pricing structures, to enable them to provide their users with, as Darnton puts it, “the world’s largest book business—not a chain of stores but an electronic supply service that could out-Amazon Amazon.” The cynics would ask whether, with Google Book Search, we’ll even need physical libraries anymore. Google Book Search, after all, is a library.

People will be watching to see what happens on October 7, when the settlement goes to court. In the meantime, Google continues to digitize books to create the largest library and the largest book business that have ever existed, possibly scaling totalitarian heights that even Orwell couldn’t imagine.

Books? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Books!

I opened my email on Friday morning to find an email from my niece about an unbelievable article in the Boston Globe. My niece, also a librarian, was disturbed by the article and the subject line, “Is this for real!?” exposed her utter confusion. The message said that she felt that she’d woken up in an alternate universe when she opened her paper that morning, and the story left her depressed and speechless.

The article, entitled “Welcome to the Library. Say Goodbye to the Books,” is about a private school, Cushing Academy, near Boston, that got rid of all of their books and replaced them with 18 Kindles and three large flat-screens displaying “data from the Internet.” They replaced the reference desk with a $50,000 coffee shop that includes a $12,000 cappuccino maker. It will no longer be called a library, but will now be referred to as a “learning center.” The headmaster of the school, James Tracy, says, “When I look at books, I see an outdated technology, like scrolls before books.’’

I’m sure that Mr. Tracy means well. I’m sure that he didn’t give away their 20,000 volumes frivolously, and I’m sure that he believes that he’s doing his best to prepare his students for a digital future.

But.

I posted the article on my grad school’s listserv and got a flurry of responses. The responses were mostly outraged, but a couple–from a professor, no less–were relatively, though not entirely, supportive of the school’s bookless initiative. Some of the concerns mentioned in the responses were:

• Loss of the serendipitous find. Remember looking for something specific in a library, and accidentally coming across 2 or 3 more items that would either help you with your research or teach you something new? No longer possible without books–or, not in the way it is with books, I should say. Most of the responders believed that kids would really be missing out without this factor.

•  Respondents felt that they were going too far, and missing an intermediary step, where books peacefully coexist with technology. They thought that with this type of scenario, students would enjoy the best of both worlds…and this is what modern libraries today strive for, in most cases.
• Respondents were concerned that the students would be lost when they entered college. Would they know how to do real research without having had the benefit of information literacy, which is not mentioned in the article? Would they be thrown when they don’t find Kindles everywhere?

•  There was concern that the “library” as a whole might become obsolete if this model were to become the norm. The professor thought that this was the overweening concern of the article, saying that a “library” is an ideological concept and not a physical structure. He believes that the ideology and the structure are becoming increasingly incompatible, and that the physical structure may not be the best “technology” to achieve “library” anymore. He thinks that librarians should get over their book bias.
• Respondents discussed their experiences with research and talked about the pros and cons of databases vs. print resources. The age of the respondents probably explains a lot about whether they preferred electronic resources over print. But the consensus, generally, is that both are needed at this point.
• There is also a fear that if other schools see this as an option, they will follow suit. But it remains to be seen if this sort of drastic measure will be successful yet.
• A respondent was eager to point out that at least they hadn’t gotten rid of any staff, which is good news in an age of lay offs and library closings. It was also mentioned that at least the school was generously funding the new “learning center,” which is also good news for the same reason.

The future is knocking on the door, and perhaps it’s only a matter of time before many libraries go this route. But, in the meantime, should we take such a drastic leap yet? Can we, or should we, take our time, easing people into the digital age? Are we experiencing the “birth pangs” of library 2.0 (apologies to Condi Rice)?

CNN writes about this recently in an article entitled, “The Future of Libraries, With or Without Books.” The article, taking a deep dive into what the library of the future might be like, using examples from today, explains how the role of a librarian might change:

In a world where information is more social and more online, librarians are becoming debate moderators, givers of technical support and community outreach coordinators.

They’re also no longer bound to the physical library, said Greenwalt, of the library in Skokie, Illinois. Librarians must venture into the digital space, where their potential patrons exist, to show them why the physical library is still necessary, he said.

Social Media For Business

Would you rather be Bruno or a Basterd?

 

 

 

 

 

Mashable recently put out this article called 5 Fresh Ideas for Social Media, which details the following ways that companies can use social media as a business utility:

1. Engage a unique audience with themes: like Sony, who are appealing to dads with the digidads online community/project site.

2. Deals for the new generation: taking coupons and discounts to a local level and also taking them mobile.

3. Advertise in a whole new space: how about buying space on a person? [Bringing to mind the Paco Underhill comment, "If I wear your logo on my clothes, I expect to be paid."]

4. Be extreme: Grab peoples’ attention. Think about it – what viral video is really all that tame? Or, as this example states, you could send dead grasshoppers to people in the mail. Yes, that should get their attention. Or, it could get them to stop opening their mail…forever.

5. Embrace the Twitter effect: What is the Twitter Effect, you ask? Instant reviews of your product, brand or movie. Apparently, opening night reviews on Twitter for Bruno were negative, and the movie didn’t make as much money as it was expected to. Inglourious Basterds, however, did GREAT on Twitter, and also very well at the box office. Quality of each film notwithstanding.

So, marketers can take inspiration from these examples and go for it!

Social Media Revolution!

Why marketers should care about social media: Check out the part about how many years it takes certain media to reach 50 million users. Facebook can add twice that in 1 month!

New Feature! Subscribe by Email!

Tired of being proactive? Can’t bring yourself to bookmark? Now you can subscribe to MADLibrarian and get postings delivered directly to your email inbox! No fuss, no muss. Simply click on the link to the right and follow the directions. I look forward to providing you with fresh insight and interesting facts regularly. Thank you!

What, Really? Wow!

I’ve been away from the blog for over a month now. My sincere apologies–I took a little summer break. While I was gone, there have been several things that I’ve seen and wanted to write about, but I just didn’t. So, here’s a quick little compendium of exciting items that have occurred that deserve more real estate than I’m giving them, but I’m sure enough has been written already without my adding too much hackneyed commentary. So, here goes:

1. Razorfish (which I just discovered today has been sold to Publicis!) has just published a fantastic study on how social media influences purchasing decisions. As far as I know, this is the first of its kind and will likely be discussed by marketers for years to come. Especially marketers looking to understand how social media can be measured. You can access the study by clicking here.

2. On the same tip, Altimeter, Charlene Li’s  blog, has recently reported the release of a study that Li co-wrote with Wetpaint. The study shows the correlation between social media engagement and a brand’s financial performance. This is another one for the history books, and another one that marketers can point to when trying to make a case to management for getting involved in this new media space. 

3. Free, by Chris Anderson was released online for the low, low price of…well, guess. Learn more about the book by listening to Anderson discuss it in this podcast.

4. Inmagic, a database software company that has its products in places like libraries and NASA, is poised on the cutting edge of social knowledge management.  After the SLA Conference at the end of June, Inmagic blogged about the different ways the information revolution was being dealt with by SLA and by Enterprise 2.0, and how to bridge the gap. This short and poignant piece is very telling and shows why Inmagic is leading the way in social librarianship.

5. Last but not least, this story was in the NY Times today, on textbooks of the future. The article says that California and a couple of other states are beginning to experiement with digital textbooks. I am all for the digital revolution, but where do we draw the line? There are pros and cons on both sides of this issue–I’ll just mention one of each that occurred to me. Pro: Easy updating of information that would quickly be outdated in paper textbooks. Con: Easy revising of history, for evil, not good. Plus, where is the permanence? And how can we ensure that the important info will be saved in a format that will be easily accessed later? What about the digital divide? Do kids without computers at home just not get to study? OK, that’s more than one con, that’s several. Still in the early stages, this initiative will need careful consideration. Plus, isn’t California bankrupt? Where are they getting the money for this sort of thing? 

Hoping to be back again in short order. Until then…

My POWERLOGO

So, you may or may not have noticed that MADLibrarian has a new logo! I uploaded it last month. I think it’s marvellous, and I think it conveys what I’m trying to do with this blog.

According to William Haig, PhD, logo expert and consultant:
“The company logo is probably the most important marketing tool on your business card or on your website. It gives your company a competitive advantage and will help you achieve company goals. This is not the role of just any logo. You must have a POWERLOGO.” And that is exactly what I have here.

So, I would like to thank the logo designer, Rob Kimmel for his hard work and diligence. He submitted several versions and we both agreed that this was the best. I hope you agree as well.

Rob is a great designer and a great American. He can be found HERE.

Thou Shalt Be Social. And Here’s How.

Fast Company’s telling us how to incorporate social media into our business lives, with this article called The 10 Commandments of Social Media. It’s by Lon Safko, who wrote a book called “The Social Media Bible,” and has a blog by the same name.

Here are his recommendations for social media usage for business success:

Thou Shalt Blog (like crazy).

Thou Shalt Create Profiles (everywhere).

Thou Shalt Upload Photos (lots of them).

Thou Shalt Upload Videos (all you can find).

Thou Shalt Podcast (often).

Thou Shalt Set Alerts (immediately).

Thou Shalt Comment (on a multitude of blogs).

Thou Shalt Get Connected (with everyone).

Thou Shalt Explore Social Media (30 minutes per week).

Thou Shalt Be Creative (go forth and create creatively)!

A May 2009 ANA survey found that social media marketing was one of the marketing activities that was likely to get a budget increase during the recession:

And, the survey goes on to explain that once the recession ends, budget increases are expected for general media (68% of marketers), social networking (41%) and testing and innovation (40%). 

This is cool – marketers are really willing to try something new in order to reach consumers during the tough times and beyond. But they’re not quite there yet; a lot of marketers seem to still be uncomfortable with new technology, and they are not quite willing to go all the way.

For example, a recent Deloitte survey found that 55% of executives admitted that their companies do not have an official policy for social networks—and 22% would like to use social nets, but don’t know how. Furthermore, the survey found that nearly three-quarters of employees agreed that it’s easy to damage a company’s reputation on social media, including 24% who strongly agreed.

That’s enough to cause most companies to be very careful, if not scare them away completely.

I recently went to LibCampNYC 2009, which was an “unconference” gathering consisting of a choice of four sessions that covered various important current librarian issues. It was attended by about 140 information professionals across several disciplines: academic, public and special/corporate librarians (like yours truly). 

I probably don’t have to mention that social media figured prominently in the schedule and continued to surface during conversations and discussions throughout the day.

One particular session was called “Social Media Marketing,” and was facilitated by iLibrarian blogger extraordinaire, Ellyssa Kroski. During the discussion, New York Public librarians explained how they use Twitter to push content and make their users aware of new collections and events going on in the library. An interesting change that was noted in the discussion is that before social media, all marketing was top-down, and marketing-department-controlled. Now, many people are contributing, and it’s a way for everybody to get in on marketing.

This is a perfect opportunity to leverage brand ambassadors - from within the enterprise and the library or information center.

Moving Beyond the Printed Word

Another in-house news library closed today – this time, for ABC News. They canceled all of their print subscriptions, and are looking to donate all of their books. To this end, they are implementing a “state of the art research system” with an outside “research consultant” so that employees can do their own research from their desktops.

One can only wonder what this is, and can only speculate what this will mean for the future quality of reportage at ABC. Who could this outside research consultant be, and how could this affect ABC in the long run, or save money?

I blogged about this in April, around the time when the Wall Street Journal closed its library. It also reminds me of what happened at Forbes library, to a friend of mine who works there.

I contacted her because she posted on the SLA listserv that she was trying to get rid of most of her print collection. When the alarmed people on the listserv thought that Forbes was closing their library for good, she replied that the library was staying open, but, in the spirit of ABC, would have more of a digital presence than a print presence.

At the time, at my organization, we were considering moving towards a more “paperless” situation, and implementing print subscription cutbacks. We still are doing some of this, but we are not getting rid of our books entirely, as we first envisioned. For this reason, I reached out to the librarian at Forbes to see how they managed it – and learned a few things:

• Transition to digital came about due to cutbacks and staff attrition. The librarian I spoke to is the only librarian left, and she has one support staff member.
• Clippings files were abandoned before this librarian began working at Forbes, in the early ‘00s – they were called “morgue files” because they became out-of-date quickly (i.e. “dead information.”)
•  They are moving to a new space that will be about the size of an office, and they were only able to bring a very select few print items due to space concerns. The rest were given to a Baruch College program that donates books to China.
• Their “digital library” consists of online databases such as Moody’s, Lancer Analytics, Hoover’s, Thomson Gale databases, Investext, Nexis and Forbes archives. Each writer/reporter at Forbes has Factiva on his desktop, and most do their own research.
• They are currently looking into digitizing Forbes archives from 1917-1975 (these currently exist in microfilm).

I don’t really know what to say about this except to mourn the state of news librarianship. By sidelining news librarians, I believe these organizations are making a big mistake that will probably affect them negatively in the long run.

In the meantime, more and more librarians are either losing their jobs or are, as in the case of my friend at Forbes, being overwhelmed with work and left with little or no support.

There’s no doubt that a lot of this has to do with the state of the economy, but it also has to do with short-sighted CEOs whose cuts may be too deep to easily recover from.