For libraries, it would free them of the conundrums/high costs of “just-in-case” collection development and enable them to focus on becoming discovery zones and promoters of good work. With strong leadership from the NPL, they could position their assets – which no other entity in the value chain has (widespread public trust, intimate embodied connections with people in nearly every city, town and hamlet in America, and trained librarians who know how to find and associate content, do reader’s advisory, etc.) – and the Institution as a valuable player in the broad, emergent content ecosystem. This is something they’ve thus far been unable to do.

Authors/publishers who create & distribute good material would be highly compensated. They’d have every reason to support libraries who were promoting their content.

Retailers such as Amazon, Apple and Google could view libraries as competition – though if libraries played it right they could position themselves as “frienemies” and co-exist with the large retailers. This is because they’d be courting and reaching customers who would not otherwise purchase content from the larger retailers. And, if libraries were smart enough to stay out of the device business (a real rat hole for them) they could be seen as helping drive the device business for the large retailers by growing and servicing content consumers.

Patrons would have a variety of means to access good content. Some would prefer the convenience of acquiring their books and toothpaste in the same place, and the large retailers serve that need well. Others would value the embodied community and personalized context and recommendations libraries are well-suited to provide.

So it would be a win for everyone … except the purveyors of poor product who benefit now from the inefficiencies and inexplicables of our current distribution systems (as John notes in his description).

There would be lots of details to work out, for sure. The intense fragmentation and resource disparities within our current library ecosystem mitigate libraries’ ability to engage in meaningful discussion and execute a new model today. It would be possible, however, if the national organization I envision was in place with top-notch leadership and staff to work through the complexities (terms, software, resources, training) on behalf of all libraries.

IMLS reports that in 2009, total revenue for U.S. public libraries was $11.59 billion. There were nearly 17,000 outlets employing 145,000 FTEs. Add in grant money from large foundations and the support of thousands and thousands of Friends groups … Then add it the revenue and human resources of academic, state and special libraries. We’re talking about an enterprise larger than most commercial behemoths. Heck, it may be larger than some small countries

And yet it is weak because of it’s intense fragmentation. It’s got a bunch of small players starting from ground zero on everything, stretched way too thin trying to serve too large a mission, governed by far too many small-fish-in-big-ponds(see below). We can do better.

The best solution, in my mind, is to form a National Public Library Corporation similar to our public broadcasting outlets. This is a proven structure that has enabled great things by centralizing where it makes sense and maintaining local autonomy where it matters most. This model would work well for libraries, I think, and be the perfect addition to our existing structures. I’ve called NPR-PBS-NPL an unbeatable information trifecta!

*****
The Buffalo & Erie County Library operates now as a federated system with 37 library buildings run by 23 trustee boards. That includes the 15-member Library Board appointed by the county executive and the mayor of Buffalo, as well as 22 other boards made up of roughly 130 people appointed by local towns and villages.

With so many outside threats, it does not seem right to only be concerned with your own situation (although it is quite understandable). I realize some librairies are closer to the edge, but if we can’t make a strong case for all libraries, then we can all go down. what happens to one happens to us all. Having worked in several different types of libraries and library settings, i see many commonailities.

The other thread that you identify in your closing raises a whole other set of issues, which has to do with unity in practice. Increasingly I find in all areas of life, your experience completely depends on who you interact with. I would hope that the unity in principles (which may be an illusion) would create some unity in practice and I wonder why that is not the case (see reference to illusion).

So I guess in this case you need many local leaders rather than one supreme leader. But is this profession made up more of leaders or followers?