Some libraries enhance their reference availability by participating in shared reference with other libraries. I’ve never worked in a library that participated in such an arrangement, but we should all do our best to be responsive to our patrons.

When I worked at Norwich, I was really proud of how quickly we responded to virtual reference questions. We checked email and Meebo every day (including weekends). I liked seeing that our colleagues would even reply to lengthy or complicated questions with a quick note saying “Got your message, I’ll look for some information and be in touch.” Responding promptly to our patrons’ questions is a pretty simple way to keep our them happy and coming back for more.

(I’ll admit: once I knew I wasn’t going to return to work after kiddo was born, I toyed with the idea of becoming a ChaCha Guide or kgb Agent during my extended leave from librarianship. While I’m home with Jacey, why not help settle bar bets, send driving directions, and relay weather reports in 140 characters or less? Earn Mama some spending money one dime at a time.)

anyway, i think that chacha has done a really good job of building an audience & getting people’s trust even though there are occasionally some reeeally bad answers. people use it for any question that can be answered in 140 characters. or just to kill time (chacha is free, ad-supported).

i don’t see it as having that much overlap with what a library does, or what people look for from a library. absolutely, you can call a library & ask them sports trivia. but i think that most people choose not to bug librarians for stuff like that. i think they save the serious stuff for libraries. which, is that really such a bad thing? obviously at a reference desk you don’t distinguish between which questions are worth your time or not, so isn’t it good that patrons decide on their own?

i have told chacha info-seekers to go to a library for certain questions. like legal information, for example, that depends on their location, and it’s complex & better answered in person & without a character limit.

i think the main reason it’s not feasible for libraries to provide a similar service is that kgb & chacha are nationwide. libraries are local, and even a state-wide effort might not get enough questions to keep people busy 24/7.

The point of OCLC’s report on the library brand wasn’t that the brand needs to change, but that we need to use what we’ve got to get what we want. Leverage what we have to serve our communities.

True, books represent “the old way of doing things”, your parents generation and the bourgeois cultural elite. But they also symbolize literacy, education, and self-achievement. Books are awesome.

So even if you, like me, recognize that the role of books in academia and in world culture at large is changing rapidly, you have got to come up with a better plan than settling bar bets. Meredith is on the right track – lets get together and do something cool. But please, don’t let it involve sending text messages to drunk people.
<soapbox/>

Actually, I think the big problem is what buddhabrarian said: “we have yet to successfully re-brand ourselves”. Honestly, I don’t think we ever branded ourselves in the first place. We were branded by time and society. “We” had nothing to do with it. “We” don’t tend to market ourselves well if at all. In fact, there is very often too little “we” working together. Think of all the librarians and libraries in North American, if not the entire world, that could easily be working together (at least easier than almost all other organizations), bringing much more force behind our acquisitions, our technological efforts and of course our marketing schemes. But no, we work virtually alone, and the occasional librarian or library that makes an effort does not have the money or the resources or the time to compete will all the others vying for attention. Can’t we even have an infomercial on at 2:30 in the morning?

Of course, when I read your quoted “use restrictions”, the first thing that came to my mind is that there is a huge gap between legally dictated usage and actual intended usage. Saying that it “is not intended for use as assigned course material in academic institutions” and that it “is licensed for… private individual use” is ludicrous. They are well aware that it is being sold to academic institutions not for individual use, and almost guaranteed to be “incorporated into course resources” in some way.

Perhaps they don’t believe that their content is acceptable as educational material? Or at least that content filtered through EBSCOhost. Well, that could only mean that the content is different… Is EBSCOhost altering their content? All sarcasm aside, regardless of how essential they are, the more barriers they put up to usage, the more damage they are doing to themselves. Do they really think that keeping their content out of the classroom will help them keep their status? With this generation of students? Good luck HBR!

I think “the library brand is books” idea lost it’s allure a long time ago, and we have yet to successfully re-brand ourselves. As much as I’d like it, “the library brand is information” just isn’t going to sell in the internet age. But maybe “the library brand is personalized, accurate information from an information expert” might.

And I think we do have to find better ways to be available 24/7