BendTech

Hopefully I don’t need to convince you that the digital-book tidal wave is headed our way.  But in case I do, have a read of this lengthy-but-fascinating interview (more of a discussion, really) by authors Barry Eisler and Joe Konrath about Eisler’s recent decision to turn down a $500,000 book contract in favor of self-publishing his next novel, and the reasoning behind it.  The entire article is quote worthy; they go into juicy detail  about royalty figures, trends in digital content, pricing strategies… you name it.

‘Still not convinced?  Check out USA Today’s article about Amanda Hocking, a 26-year old author who has sold over 500,000 copies of her self-published books. Her words: “More than 99% were e-books”.  And then there are the 8 million people bought a Kindle last year and the 7 million who bought iPads.  All told, according to this IDC report, over 22 million e-readers were sold last year.  The forecast for 2011 is 59 million units, and for 2012?  87 million units. Readers are demanding digital content in ever increasing numbers.

The implications for the traditional book publishing industry are as obvious as they are ominous.  But what about those other shrine’s to books, the ones every community in America has built …

When the printed word is no longer “printed”, what happens to our libraries?

We have a great library here in Bend.  In fact, we recently opened a second branch.  Both branches are modern, well staffed, and well used, but it’s not hard to make the argument that expanding was a mistake, that we may not need either one for much longer – just start with the assertion that libraries are a relic of an age when books were expensive, hard to make, and hard to distribute.  We needed libraries when maintaining a book collection was a significant undertaking.  But that is simply not the case anymore.

From a purely technical standpoint maintaining, copying, and distributing digital content costs mere fractions of a penny per book.  In fact, it’s basically free, so you certainly don’t need to be a library to do it.  It might even be better if you aren’t – that way you’re not distracted by leaky pipes, city councils and (ugh) actual patrons walking in the door asking for real books.

That’s the bad news:  Any library that insists it’s primary duty is to simply satisfy its community’s demand for books is about to be hustled out the door by the new bouncers of the book trade: Amazon, Google’s ebookstore, and Apple iBooks; or more politely asked to leave by the bartenders, Project Gutenberg and The Internet Archive; or simply ignored by the hot 20-somethings starting to join the party – authors that understand the new model is to develop an avid, loyal,and global fan base by selling ebooks for $1/copy and engaging with their audience directly, rather than letting publishers stand between them and their readers.  Oh, and let’s not forget the party crashers who insist on sneaking in the backdoor and cleaning out the buffet: content pirates that illegally publish copyrighted works (what their role is here is uncertain, but you can’t discount them, not when Google makes it so easy to take advantage of what they have to offer.)

So what’s a library todo?!?

First, libraries must recognize they can’t afford to be responsible for providing digital content to their patrons. This is an absolutely critical first step! It also the hardest because it goes against the grain of everything that has, historically, made libraries successful.  We all think of our library as “where you go to get books”, and as our tastes shift towards things digital we’ll be pleading with them to come with us, to make this wonderful transition with us.  It’s a siren call that is going to be hard to resist.  But it has to be resisted for all sorts of reasons:

• It’s confusing.   A library website that lets you discover what’s actually in the library is a great thing.  But if that site also mixes in a lot of stuff that’s not in actually in the library, then things get confusing, especially for those patrons who aren’t interested in digital content.
• It’s strategically distracting.  Integrating something like the  OverDrive® Digital Library Reserve™ system is huge time-suck for library executives and technical staff.  If such systems do not add obvious, significant value to a library’s core mission than it’s a waste of time, time that could be spent better preparing for the coming upheaval.
• $$$$$.  The OverDrive system that allows libraries to provide big-6 titles imposes a lending system modeled as closely as possible on that of current libraries (at devastating cost to the user experience, btw).  So it’s not hard to guess that it also imposes a similar cost-model.  Which means libraries have to double their purchasing budget to satisfy the demand for both forms of titles.  It also means they can’t fund new initiatives that will help them stay relevant.
• [Edit: new bullet] This is the wrong time to invest in a single strategy.  The publishing world is getting turned on it’s head.  Nobody knows for sure who’s going to come out on top, especially as author’s abandon the established publishers in search of new, more author-friendly distribution systems.  Odds are that solutions like OverDrive are going to quickly fall out of favor as other, better, solutions emerge.  It’s simply not the right time to be betting the farm on the one solution available.
• Libraries are not technology specialists. Libraries suck at doing technology.  Even the good ones suck at it.  Take a look at your library’s website, then go look at the “bouncers” and “bartenders” I mention above.  That’s the competition.  Their job is to get this digital-book thing right, and they’re much better at it.  It makes no sense for a library to provide a one-off solution for their local community when someone like Google is providing better solutions on a global scale.
• It draws attention to the wrong things.  The fate of libraries is going to be a political hot potato in the years ahead.  If they’re to survive, they need to draw attention to what they do well, and the ways they add unique value to the community.  There is simply no upside to digital content in this regard.  At best libraries will achieve a kind of “*meh*, so what?” parity with the big boys tackling this space.
• Succeeding is failing.  Even if a library succeeds at satisfying their patrons demand for e-books, what have they accomplished?  They’ve just killed the #1 reason people have to actually walk into the library. They have only succeeded in bolstering the arguments of their critics who say a library isn’t necessary.  Fail.

The digital content arena is simply not one in which libraries can efficiently and economically add value.  It’s too… too… orthogonal to what they do, too unrelated to what they’re good at.

So what are they good at that will keep them relevant?  It’s not caretaking of books.  Oh, they’re good at that, for sure, but this only keeps them relevant for as long as books are in demand, and that will taper off this decade just as demand for CDs did in the 2000′s. The future mission of libraries requires a bigger-picture view. The value of a library is not the books, it’s what’s in the books and what our desire for those books represents …

A library connects its community to the global experience – the canvas of ideas, knowledge and stories generated by humanity – by providing resources that cannot be afforded or acquired by one individual.

Is that too vague?  Perhaps.  I’ve tried to describe the essence of why we have libraries.  But how does that translate into a concrete roadmap for libraries today?  What should they be doing to justify keeping them around?   The only way I know to answer that is to describe what I see as some of the opportunities the emergence of technology has created.  Let me end by outlining a few of them …

What resources might a library provide to book clubs that can’t be found at any old coffee shop?  What about something unique like, say, a good teleconference system.  Imagine a book club that was more than just local chitchat, where the club could use Skype to talk with book authors directly, or to talk directly to other experts and resources related to the books they’re reading.

What resources might a library to provide to give better context to world events?   Could the library be where people go to learn and analyze what’s going on in the world around them.  Imagine using that teleconference system in the wake of the Japan Tsunami to connect our people here with experts in emergency relief, seismology, or nuclear reactors.

In a similar vein, should the library be where we go to connect with events in our local community?  Bend has the Cyclocross nationals, and the National Beard and Mustache Championships!  Why not host a series of classes around the history of cyclocross, the art of straight-razor shaving, and the science of bicycle frame building, and finish with a Q & A with the winners of the race.  Have a local barber shops host “How To Shave Like A Real Man!” events.  And stream this stuff over the Internet so people anywhere could watch and participate.

Host a lighthearted “Soapbox Sunday” hour, where people are encouraged to (literally!) get up on a soapbox, ala Hyde Park, and rant about whatever issues are near and dear to their heart.  (Get a local brewery to sponsor it to keep it appropriately informal, of course)

Coordinate cultural-exchange conferences between local and foreign children.  I would love to hear Bend high school students compare notes with their Egyptian counterparts on the meaning of “democracy”!

The possibilities here are endless.  Our libraries are under threat only because the model by which we have traditionally shared the written word is breaking down, not because we’re losing our appetite for knowledge and stories they convey.  All that’s required here is a change of mindset.  We can and will redefine what “library” means.  It’s just a question of whether or not the libraries of today want to be a part of that.