Last month in part one, we explored what the Googles and their ilk do well in the world and what they do poorly. This month I try to take a clear-eyed view of where the strengths of libraries and library workers lie and where we need to improve.

Are we misguided in our thinking about competing with Google? Are we trying to get the library cat to bark? Shouldn’t we be building on our strengths rather than trying to ape the search titans?

What do libraries do well?

1.      Libraries are nonpartisan. We cannot overemphasize this point. We are not unbiased. We are biased towards our communities’ needs. We’re biased towards quality information and safe environments. We are biased to user privacy. We share a common value system that focuses on protecting the record and empowering the user.

2.      Libraries are all about community – workplaces, neighborhoods, research, and learning communities.

3.      Libraries are about learning – schools, colleges, universities, and lifelong learning. We understand that learning happens in a magical way. It’s not just about reading, literacy, and providing access to and delivering “content.” It’s a much broader experience than that.

4.      There is a difference between algorithmic ranking and filtering. Libraries filter – we select or provide the key tools for our users to select the best. In a world overwhelmed with information, this critical capability and talent trumps everything. I think this is the most salient insight from Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail. Read it.

5.      Librarians are strong protagonists in the economy of questions. Google is a protagonist in the economy of advertising. We both work with information as a key tool. Librarians excel at improving the quality of the question before it is asked. Google tries to guess at the question and deliver a best guess answer. Often this works. Sometimes is doesn’t.

6.      “How?” and “Why?” are the tough questions that librarians use in interviewing techniques to get at the root needs. No computer is nearly ready to inform the search equation with the knowledge derived from a well-done research interview. We need to promote and develop new respect for these skills. Give unto Google what is Google’s. Give unto librarians what is the librarian’s.

7.      The human quality of sense-making is a very special skill. It is about understanding context and delivering what is right for that context. Libraries excel at understanding context. We are challenged by making this work in a virtual world. We need to find new ways to introduce sense and context back into the virtual world - specialized search, pathfinders, interactions through virtual reference and IM, etc.

8.      Libraries do “local” well. Whether we are the center of the campus, the school, or the community, we do local very well. Our challenge is to use the new technologies to extend our reach into the community – both physically and virtually. We need to go beyond our traditional “Outreach” initiatives and just do “Reach.”

9.      Libraries do collections well. Things have changed, though. While we once bragged about collecting comprehensively, we now must move to collecting selectively to meet a need. It won’t be hard. Our core skills and competencies for developing collections, resource sharing, and connecting core collections to the world at large – through search and ILL – mark us as the first of the “g-locals.”

10.  One weakness of the digital world was identified many decades ago by John Naisbitt in Megatrends (1982). The first trend was that high tech would drive a need for greater “high touch.” This should be known as our greatest strength – the personal human touch. Can we position this for the new age?

What do libraries do poorly?

It could be a long list if a bunch of us got together in a whiney mood. To my mind, though, the list below is our half dozen or so greatest weaknesses as a profession and sector. It’s nothing that hasn’t been said before but, in the context of Google competition, they could be terminal:

1.      We are poor at marketing and promoting the library and librarians. We fail to build on a positive positioning in the minds of our users. We lack confidence, a strong enough message, and we don’t seek and sustain attention. I can’t think of another profit or not-for-profit entity that has consistently done such a poor job over so many years.

2.      We need to develop some selling skills. Many library workers turn up their noses at selling. "Selling" is not a dirty word. Whether we like it or not, people pay, whether there’s a monetary transaction or not. They pay for their library visit with time, taxes, prestige, and their own success. We must recognize this and influence this process. If we need more money, donors, bigger budgets, or whatever – it never happens without asking for the sale.

3.      We fail to merchandise our offerings in a way that is engaging and is integrated into our culture. When our libraries are exceptionally well merchandized – they stand out. But if we were all doing it right, the poorly merchandized libraries would stand out.

4.      We must become better advocates for libraries. Influence is a currency in today’s world, and our bank account is in overdraft. Since we must get more money, support, and donations, we have to get better at influencing the folks who matter for that. We need more political, advocacy, and influencing skills across the board.

5.      We like to think that libraries are good at collaborating. We aren’t particularly. If you study our buying groups, consortia, and associations, you may discover that we have more divisions and barriers than synergies. We have to take our collaborations to the next level! When some states and provinces have literally hundreds of collaborative entities, the financial returns are hard to justify under the weight of “administrivia” and governance. Simplify is the order of the day.

6.      In the school, college, and academic spaces, we are underperforming in our connection to our institutional efforts in e-Learning, distance education, and through such environments as Blackboard and others. We must make library services relevant at the lesson level and fully integrated into the pedagogy of education and continuous learning.

7.      We are known for books. This is both good and bad. As the OCLC Perceptions study concluded, we are in dire need of expanding our positioning beyond books in everyone’s mind. Your positioning is the essential element of any marketing strategy. Our strategy is narrow, and it appears to be like the weather. Too few are doing anything about it.

Where is the jury still out?

There are a few areas in our field where you could toss a coin to decide who’s doing the better job. In the field of full text book searching, we have a plethora of initiatives in both the public and private sector. No one looks perfect yet, but it is early. As for digitization initiatives, we again have a global panoply of great products and pilots. We know that mobile devices are quickly becoming the communication and information tool of choice – PDAs, cell phones, Blackberries, Treos, etc. No one handheld has captured the hearts and minds of end uses, but that day is coming. Social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook and socially driven content like Wikis are giving us a glimpse of a different world where your content, context, and contacts converge. Not one is dominating yet, and there’s still time to learn from the early stage start-ups.

Stay tuned for the third part in this series next month, where I’ll list a few key strategic areas for all types of libraries to invest their time and efforts. Maybe we can get the cat to roar! Barking is probably overrated anyway.

Stephen Abram, MLS, is vice president, Innovation, for SirsiDynix. He is an SLA Fellow, president-elect of SLA, and the past president of the Ontario Library Association and the Canadian Library Association. Stephen would love to hear from you at stephen.abram@sirsidynix.com.