Entry 9 – Geek the Library, Part 2

I suppose I’ll go a bit section by section on this, as it is a long read and I’d like to get through as much as I can in the time that I have. I’ve started now on the section titled “Geek the Library Theory,” which is actually the first actual chapter in the study.

So the questions I had left at the end of the last segment of this seems to have been answered in the first few sentences. I had been concerned about why a library would require funding for increased activity when I had thought library activity had decreased. I was also concerned about where increased activity might be coming from. Apparently, most U.S. public libraries have increased traffic due to an increased demand for computer and Internet access, with people using such resources to find jobs or to “reeducate themselves”. At the same time, however, libraries are facing more and more budget cuts—which I have to admit, I do not in the least bit understand. I suppose that’s another misconception of mine: that places like libraries, post offices, parks and public services are untouchable by a sinking economy. I’m guessing the economy is the reason for budget cuts, anyway.

The report goes on to address the strategies that would be employed in their funding initiative, and it seems that most of the potential funds libraries are looking at are to come from the voting community—not from organizations, banks, or anything like that, that I can see. In researching potential funding groups, the report also mentions the creation of “segmentation,” an important role in advertising and understanding consumer demand, according to the previous report by Kathy Dempsey.

Something interesting to me is that, according to the report, perception and attitude towards libraries and librarians is more important in funding efforts than other demographics, such as age, gender, race, income, and so on. Perception and attitude seem to play a great deal in much of the success this initiative finds, actually. This fun and understandable visual aid was created with the use of segmentation to chart, from top to bottom, who would be the most and least supportive in funding:



I think I now understand where voting plays a vital role in funding initiatives, as voters are segmented as well into those who probably would not vote for a library referendum, those who definitely wouldn’t, and those who definitely would, as well as sub-sections of those categories. One aspect affecting these categories is what people do and do not know about their local libraries—and apparently the average voting population does not know a lot. There is also the perception that those who visit the library most often would be the most likely supporter of their library’s funding, but the two do not necessarily correlate. So perhaps it is not important for funding supporters to know exactly what services a library provides, only that it does provide a community service. This is again where perception plays a role.

There were enough charts and graphs in this section to leave me boggled for hours, so I don’t think I’ll interpret them here. What these charts essentially came down to is the question of “how well do we know our supporters, and how well do our supporters know us?” The report makes the statement in one sub-section that “the library must be repositioned. The library can no longer be viewed as an institution that is ‘nice to have,’ but rather as a vital part of the community infrastructure.” All of this requires a change in perspective for the voter or supporter or whatever else—maybe not a one-eighty transformation, but at least a slight turn of the head in understanding the role of the public library and its importance alongside other public services that require tax dollars and public funding to function.