Call me cranky. Say I am just not willing to write anything positive about this organization. Whatever. I inwardly cheered when I read Tim Spalding’s (LibraryThing) critique of OCLC’s latest report. It is right on target. By way of contrast, Andrew Pace gushes about how “this is our report; we paid for it” and how we should be proud of OCLC for producing it and making it freely available. Gag. This is NOT our (the entire world of libraries) report! And why should we (again, the implication is that ‘we’ encompasses all librarians) be thrilled with a glossy report that cost how much? to produce, and a weird new logo that cost how much? for someone to dream up? Ugh. All I can see are dollar signs when most libraries have relatively little dollars to spend.
Tim makes a more cogent point that the report makes no mention of LibraryThing or any of its competitors, yet purports to be a report that discusses social networks. That is pretty strange, I agree.
Why am I being so negative? Well, for one thing, I think we (yes, I am implying all librarians) are way too ready to swallow any old codswallop presented to us in a nice package. Let’s be a lot more discerning and critical for a change. Also, and more precisely, I strongly object to the idea that keeps getting pushed by prominent techie leaders that OCLC represents us (implying, all libraries). It represents many, but not all.
What I wrote was not intended as a “gush,” as much as a relative comparison to the lack of any such product from organizations which generate a lot of revenue from libraries. For instance, the ILS industry is a (reportedly…I rely on Marshall Breeding for numbers like this) $500M per year business. Are any of those vendors writing white papers, doing pure or even applied research, or giving back to the community in a substantial way?
If my brief report is to be interpreted as gushing, then Tim’s could at least be described as self-interested, as he himself described it. I don’t think the breadth and depth of the report should be over-shadowed by glossy pictures and a new logo.
As for representation, you are right, not every library is an OCLC member. But I don’t see the connection in saying that what they do somehow excludes the libraries who don’t use their services.
Andrew, the use of the word “gush” was a bit over the top, I admit.
I agree that not many other institutions or organizations are developing white papers and supporting research like OCLC does. But that comes about precisely because of all the money that OCLC member libraries shell out to the cooperative. And the amounted shelled out is excessive in terms of ROI, in my personal opinion. Or let me put it another way: I think we should do more to question and test the ROI, short-term and long-term, of investment in OCLC. Too often we just pony up the dollars demanded of us and do not push back enough and question enough how our money is being spent and whether it is for our best interests. I am sure that for some libraries, investment in OCLC provides a good ROI, but I am equally certain that’s not true of all.
A key area that makes me question ROI is handing over all rights to the metadata we (member libraries) create to OCLC and ceding complete control over our own uses of that data.
Finally, what they (OCLC) do does exclude libraries who don’t pay for their services. (This is in response to your last sentence. If I misunderstood it, please correct me.) As Barbara Fister has pointed out (see http://tinyurl.com/2624j8 for more) and Jessamyn West before her, Open WorldCat work to the disadvantage of any non-member library. In fact, their information can be downright deceptive or open to misinterpretation by users.
Oh, and Tim’s response is self-interested, sure. Why shouldn’t it be? I don’t see why that lessens what he has to say about the report in any way, especially given that he makes that clear from the get-go.
Steve
“I agree that not many other institutions or organizations are developing white papers and supporting research like OCLC does. But that comes about precisely because of all the money that OCLC member libraries shell out to the cooperative.”
Hmmm, I don’t buy that. The argument that OCLC is draining libraries dry–to the point where it directly impacts their ability to write openly accessible white papers or conduct R&D–would need a lot of evidence for me to believe it.
Karen, it took me a few seconds to figure out your response. My confusion, I think, comes from my choice of words in my previous comment. Here is what I wrote: “I agree that not many other institutions or organizations are developing white papers and supporting research like OCLC does. But that comes about precisely because of all the money that OCLC member libraries shell out to the cooperative.”
What I meant to write is as follows, with emphasis on the altered wording: “I agree that not many other institutions or organizations are developing white papers and supporting research like OCLC does. OCLC’s efforts in this area are beneficial. But their ability to do this stuff comes about precisely because of all the money that OCLC member libraries shell out to the cooperative.”
This hopefully fits better into the following narrative about ROI. I was not trying to say that member libraries are spending so much money on OCLC that they are unable to invest in white papers and research. Rather, I am saying that while this kind of stuff is nice, is it worth the money? Do all libraries benefit from OCLC’s efforts? Is the “OCLC way” the best or only way for libraries to invest in?
Steve
I don’t know. Attacking OCLC continually is probably NOT in LibraryThing’s interest. I know it’s earned us a lot of enemies. I do it because I believe in it. But, you know, whatever. I try to persuade on arguments, not motives. That post wasn’t meant to persuade, however, just react and very briefly.
Wow, Steve, you’re cranky! (Hey, you asked for it…). So I guess you would prefer OCLC to charge libraries less for services and give them less in return? I’m just trying to figure this out. We’re a not-for-profit membership organization. We’re not Google, for cryin’ out loud, or Microsoft, or Innovative Interfaces, or (name your favorite commercial company here).
I know I’ve been as much a broken record about this as you have been, but we are a membership organization. If your library is a member of the cooperative, you help elect representatives to the Members Council which in turn elects members to the Board of Trustees, which wields a good deal of power over the direction of the cooperative. If you don’t like what’s happening, there are official channels where you can make your voice heard. Heck, run for Member’s Council (and the Board) yourself.
But of course that isn’t the only way, your bully pulpit is read by me and others if at no other time than when you drag our name through the mud. But I still have a hard time figuring out what your root beef is — is it that you object to the cost of particular services? What, exactly, do you think needs to be changed? Would you prefer that libraries NOT have an organization that instead of being focused on making a buck actually plows the investments of individual libraries into research and products that leverage the benefits to all libraries?
Sure, we don’t (yet) include every library on the planet as part of our membership, but we’re working on it. Nonetheless, we are without a doubt the largest library cooperative in the world. We are, in simple fact, the only chance libraries have at having a seat at the table that includes outfits like Google, Microsoft, and other players that understand what it means to operate at web scale. We are the only opportunity for small libraries to be in front of their clientele when they’re out on the web and not thinking about their local public library. We’re it.
So I’m grasping at straws here to understand how we’ve hurt you so. How many of your postings pillory vendors owned by investment firms with no interest in libraries except for whatever return on their investment they can squeeze from them? What have we done to merit such vitriol that describes an unprecedented survey and report that tells libraries more than they would ever be able to discover on their own as “old codswallop”?
We live in unprecedented times. I can think of no better time to come together around common problems and build common solutions. Can you? What would your world be without OCLC? Even if you think we do nothing for you now, wait three years and ask yourself the same question. I would bet my last dime that you would beg for it to be created if we didn’t exist. Because if you think OCLC is a burden for libraries instead of a benefit imagine a world where there is nothing — absolutely nothing — between your library and the cold hard world at large that largely doesn’t care about you or your concerns.
I sure wouldn’t want to live in that world, and after spending my entire adult life (since 17, actually) working in libraries I finally joined OCLC this year because I simply couldn’t imagine a better place to make real my personal dreams for libraries — that our services be as valued and supported as they truly deserve. I’m still hoping I can convince you to join us in this collective effort. We have too much at stake to be divided over internal issues when external issues appear to threaten our very existence. If there were ever a time to pull together, this would be it.
Pingback:
Sorry so late on this but Andrew, WRT: “Are any of those vendors writing white papers, doing pure or even applied research, or giving back to the community in a substantial way?”
Gee, does all of what Stephen Abram does for SLA on Sirsi Dynix time mean nothing? It’s not peer reviewed but he writes a regular column and he is our incoming president (oh maybe SLA doesn’t count?)