“Now, if you really believe that your library is an “information service,” then maybe Olson’s advice makes sense. For many special/corporate libraries, that’s a reasonably accurate definition.”

“Many” certainly doesn’t mean “all” or even “most.” A colleague has suggested that corporate libraries may be more likely to benefit from the “it’s not really a library” idea than other special libraries (medical, law, etc.). I should have thought about that–after all, I’ve spoken twice at SLA, and both times noticed that it’s really two dozen little conventions held jointly more than it is one medium-sized convention.

I have to assume that Olson’s clients felt they benefited from her advice. I’m certainly not arguing that other special libraries should automatically follow that advice–I’m just arguing that public libraries should not.

I have to second what Fiona says about our relying too much on business publications for our ideas. We worry far too much about “market share” – even though nobody will corner the marketplace of ideas. It is important to let people know about libraries, and to make them at least as comfortable and pleasant as book stores, but we have a much richer tradition in sustaining the public sphere than any of our “competitors.”

A related note – the number of library branding and marketing ‘experts’ that have been popping up in library magazines writing regular columns, ‘borrowing’ ideas from a hodgepodge of different industries and ‘transforming’ libraries is simply staggering. Libraries aren’t retail units, and to just borrow everything that retail does, lingo complete, does libraries a real disservice.

I have nothing against reference librarians, bibliographic instruction, or librarians as information expert: I think those are all great. And I agree that Librarians make great information experts. But if that’s all public librarians are, it’s a tough sell…

And yes, expanding the library brand from “just books” makes sense–but, for public libraries in particular, abandoning the Book brand is a dangerous proposition.

[Just to clarify: This was a response to the first comment. Dave's comment, which didn't require moderation, came in as I was writing my response.]

A more important question, is Which is Chris Olson? In the blurb at the end of her piece in “Informed Librarian”, I see nothing to indicate that she is either.

Thanks for pointing out that the library was NEVER the sole or primary information source in the community. We serve as information resources to some of the people some of the time. Our success in that role has deluded some of us to think that we need to serve all of the people all of the time. If that is our goal, Mr. Lincoln would remind us that we are only fooling ourselves. Public libraries are primarily in the educational entertainment business — and do a damn good job. No apologies are needed. Any other public agency would love to have an 80% approval rating.

If we want to shift a library brand, I think a better way might be to shift the brand of “book.” I could envision a series of posters. Something witty to play off of libraries being an open, accepting community area – “All Books Allowed” with the words e-book, paperback, audiobook, digital, and what not floating around in the background. Maybe a central image of a half and half book with the left side traditional pages and the right side of the book an e-book reader screen. Or something like “What’s Your Story” or “Billions and Billions of Stories Served.”

Still, I will maintain that I think we need librarians to serve as “information experts.” It’s a big world out there, and it sure can help to have a guide along the way. People can do a lot for themselves, but they also need an information help desk for when they hit a snag. I also will just as strongly defend that we need LIBRARIANS as guides. Why throw away such a wonderful word that so many know and love?