Academics make some of the ugliest/most terrifying/most pointless Powerpoints on the face of the earth.
Why are people so convinced that 20-something slides with plain font and word art is somehow a better alternative than a couple well-formatted pages? Or just a couple pages in default font that I can send to my Kindle and spend less time burning out my vision on my laptop screen?
Jurassic library!!!
I’m conflicted when reading an article from The Digital Shift discussing Random House’s decision to recommit to library ebook lending…while raising prices on said ebooks for wholesalers who sell to libraries.
I’m glad they’ve decided to keep their entire selection open for library purchase without limitations, unlike the other Big 6 publishers who are either avoiding the market entirely, restricting the available collection, or trying to establish arbitrary limits on how their ebook copies can be purchased and used.
They at least offer some rational explanation for their price increase only for library copies: their audiobooks have always been sold to libraries at a higher price point, so they’re just switching to that business model.
But how does that business model really impact their sales? Amazon just announced that their Kindle Lending Library program has higher sales compared to a group of users not using the service. A study conducted by Library Journal discovered that “over 50% of library users report purchasing books by an author they were introduced to in the library.”
How does the cost of marketing compare to the buzz the libraries create…and yet still pay for? It’s a little weird to think about, but every time a library features an author or title on display, we are advertising it…and we pay for the privilege.
Many in the library community believe that Random House’s new plan is at least palatable, a best possible option when the reactions of the other Big 6 seem outright hostile, even abusive to libraries. Publisher’s Weekly is reporting the arrangement as a “fair trade.”
I still don’t see that. This deal may be the best possible option of those that have been put on the table, but the entire deal reinforces that publishers are still clinging to business models that tend to view libraries as competition rather than collaborators.
Or a security risk to be evaluated and assessed, as described by the statement that, “Random House has confidence that its encryption technology is strong enough to support “all-out” library elending.”
More DRM, like libraries are a particularly risky market for piracy. Of course the problem is not in a publisher’s business model, pricing structure, or overall demand for product.
At least Random House is willing to play ball with libraries on a generally level playing field. But it’s a shame we have to set the bar for good relationships with publishers that low.
Maybe the Twitterverse overreacted to the town hall meetings concerning the next step in the Harvard restructuring project. After all, “It is inaccurate to say that all library staff will need to reapply for their positions,” according to a statement made to Library Journal by Kira Poplowski, the library’s director of communications.
Sifting through the tweets, Feral Librarian’s Chris Bourg has gleaned the information that while layoffs and voluntary staff reductions are imminent only in Shared Services areas like technical services, preservation, and access services, every library employee is being encouraged to complete a profile in the next month including a CV and other job search information, with this information to be taken into account in the continued restructuring. Workshops have been set up to help employees in creating these profiles.
I can understand why people are freaking out.
In an already saturated field facing near constant budget cuts, libraries have consistently been one of the sacrificial lambs. We’ve seen an increase in professional full time positions being eliminated and replaced with either part time or non-professional (or both) positions or simply not replaced at all. The current library job market is a joke for all those who believed the advertising of a field just waiting to burst with great opportunities as loads of professionals hit retirement age.
While it seems like only the Shared Services staff have to immediately deal with the bowel-clenching idea of applying for their own jobs or similar but changed positions, the prompt to all staff to fill out similar profiles encourages an atmosphere that has almost no chance to foster trust and employee buy-in of this reorganization scheme.
Asking people to preemptively fill out job application materials, even if you provide workshops to assist them in the task, is casting huge doubts about employment security on the entire staff, even those in relatively safe positions. It also strikes up a sense of competition between staff in similar positions.
If John starts working an extra two hours a day to make sure he processes X number of books a week, but Sarah has to leave to pick up her kids and only processes 80% of X a week, how does that translate to a resume or CV? Sarah may be the better cataloguer, working on more complex materials or difficult subject areas, but these things do not lend themselves to bullet points as readily as John’s readily quantifiable work. This example might be (somewhat) extreme, but I think it is definitely emblematic of the problems created by this approach to reorganization.
Yes, libraries should evolve to determine how to best meet the needs of their users, but all that really resonates from this Harvard Libraries reorganization is a sense of understandable anxiety and insecurity.
Edited to Add: While writing this response, the transcript of the sessions has been posted…and I still think this is an example of one of the worst possible ways to attempt to reorganize any type of organization, destroying inter-employee and institutional trust by implementing what appears to be a closed, top-down process.
