Librarian of Fortune

Seth Godin to publisher: Buh-bye

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal has an interesting article about Seth Godin's decision that, going forward, he would solely self-publish. He no longer needs a traditional publisher like Penguin Books. Notably, Godin defines "publishing" far more broadly than a traditional publisher; he plans on distributing his content in a number of media -- audiobooks, apps, podcasts, PDFs, print-on-demand, etc. As long as some version of it appears in Amazon.com, it's on the same virtual store shelf as any traditional book.

As for the value of publishers, Godin comments:

Publishers provide a huge resource to authors who don't know who reads their books... What the Internet has done for me, and a lot of others, is enable me to know my readers.

I wonder if we're seeing the beginning of a disintermediation between the content creator and the content user, similar to the old one between library users and high-end digital information.

There's still a role for content aggregators, but perhaps a far different one than in the past. In an environment in which we content creators interact directly with our readers - in multiple settings, no less - any intermediary (publisher / news aggregator) has to show its tangible value to both the originator and the user of the content.

If publishers can't find new ways to create a market for an author's content, and if more successful authors shift to Seth Godin's model, we may get to the point where print publishers are seen as the vanity press and high-quality self-publishing is the new professional standard.

As someone who has had 6 books published by traditional print publishers, I have seen the transformation of a manuscript to an edited, indexed, laid-out publication. It is a sight to behold, and certainly something I couldn't do on my own. And there are other ways that I can distribute content directly to my readers.

Traditional publishers have all the tools needed to create vibrant communities for their content providers authors. Can they, in essence, get out of the way and help their writers make direct connections with their readers? Can they expand their vision of publishing to include the media in which ideas flow most easily, if not freely?

Does information want to be free?

For your beach reading, don't forget to bring along my latest EContent column, Divas and D&B Reports, in which I opine:

I never did believe that information wanted to be free ... just respected for more than its good looks. Apparently, no one else got the memo.
[...]
E-content, in and of itself, often isn't seen as particularly valuable. We can find the same material elsewhere on the web if we look hard enough, or we can find something else that we perceive as good enough. For information-and access to it-to be priced profitably, the value of the content must be readily apparent.

WWMEBD, or, where's the info profession heading?

In April, I was invited by the SLA student members of the GSLIS program at Simmons College to host a conversation about where our profession is heading and how to position ourselves most effectively. I had a fabulous time, and met some LIS students who are going to be great assets to their employers.

You can listen to my presentation and the Q&A here. And yes, there were actually signs on the hallways pointing the way to WWMEBD. Obviously, it's time to start ordering wristbands...

Plus ça change...

In 2003, I was asked to give a short talk at the Information Online 2003 conference in Sydney on the role of information professionals in the online environment. I predicted the day when we saw the distinction between librarY and librarIAN, when info pros permeated the workplace, when we were seen as an essential component of every information management function within organizations and institutions.

I re-discovered it when migrating to a new laptop and realized that almost all of what I said then applies just as much today. It's here, on my Extras page. What do you think? Besides the Microsoft Watch, which is now a smartphone, I think it's still applicable today.

Competing on value, not price

I had a few talks that I had recorded and needed transcribing. I headed over to Elance to see how cheaply I could get it done. After looking through some listings of transcriptionists, I would up selecting Jenifer Toussant (jenifertoussant.elance.com), who's based in the US. I asked her how she survives while competing with $3/hour off-shore transcriptionists and here's what she said:

I do run into lots of people who use an offshore transcription service for about 1/3 of the price that I offer, but that has drawbacks for those clients, both tangible and intangible.  I  know I cannot compete on price so I must stand apart in quality, both the quality of my work and the quality of my relationship with my client.  To this end I also provide broader, one-stop services as far as article writing, editing and proofreading - skills that require an amount of critical thinking or artistic flair. I can build a larger network by offering higher-end freelance services than I could by just marketing to people in my local area, which is still depressed economically.

This is exactly how I think that info pros can also address the challenge of offshoring or outsourcing. Offer tangible value that an off-shored person can't offer, and you'll keep your clients, and your job.

Measuring the Intangible

Andrea Meyer is one of the smartest people I know, as well as a truly delightful person. I suggest you follow her on Twitter. And read this blog on Measuring the Intangible. It's a quick and thoughtful look at how companies can look at publicly-available data on your product, brand, or city...

Flickr, Twitter and blogs are all rich sources of user-generated photos, opinions or reviews. Analyze which features or aspects of your product are displayed or mentioned. This data helps reveal how customers portray, experience or feel about your product.

latest columns online

My November and December columns for EContent are up.

• "Of Moore and Magic">As a lifetime geek, two axioms have always offered me the promise of ever-expanding possibilities. The first is Moore's Law, in which Gordon Moore projected a doubling every 2 years of the number of transistors that could fit on an integrated circuit. The second axiom is Arthur C. Clarke's observation in 1973 that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I see correlations between us info pros and both Moore's Law and Clarke's law of prediction.... EContent, November 2009


• "Publishing 2.0"" These are interesting times for the publishing industry. Newspapers are shuddering after watching their classified ad revenue disappear, their subscribers die off, and their readers migrate to news content that is more current than the morning edition. Editors complain bitterly about the public's apparent preference for unverified crowdsourcing and (even worse) blogs over professional journalism.... EContent, December 2009

The future of the info industry

I was just interviewed by Dick Kaser and Marydee Ojala at the Online Information conference in London. My conversation with Marydee wound up on the virtual cutting room floor, but the segment in which I talked about the future of the information profession and my take on the current challenges for the premium-priced online services are at the Infotoday Blog.

More thoughts on SLA name change

I think one of the underlying issues in the debate over SLA's proposed name change is whether or not affiliating with an association called "Special Libraries Association" helps or hinders our professional standing and, even more importantly, best ensures that we are -- and are seen as -- strategic players within our organization. Many people, like me, describe ourselves as librarians. However, for us to restrict the vision of our association to the members who have "librarian" as a job title is to preclude our association from reaching out and retaining members who are doing work that isn't within their organization's idea of "library" but which is in fact being responsible for thinking strategically about information and knowledge. 

To put it another way, I anticipate that soon we won't be able to describe ourselves as "Well, never mind my title, I'm actually a librarian". Our roles will have expanded to a point where they are no longer recognizable to people who associate the word "librarian" with people are really really good at finding information.

I think it's critical for our association to find words that better reflect all that we do. If nothing else, the existing name indicates we are an association of entities (Special Libraries) rather than an association of professionals, most of whom have an MLS or equivalent, and many of whom do not use the word "librarian" in their job description. For our association to continue to identify itself with entities rather than us professionals is to severely restrict what it can do for its members, many of whom are not, technically speaking, within a special library.

Thoughts on the SLA name change

As I read the comments about the proposed name change for the Special Libraries Association, I realize that the name implies something that many members may not want to hear. They don't want to be "strategic knowledge professionals" -- they want to be librarians, running their library, providing the best information services to clients. A name change like this forces them to think about having to really stretch themselves, or to be part of an association of people who don't focus primarily on "running a library."

Personally, I think that identifying ourselves as "librarians" is career-limiting. I sometimes call myself a librarian of fortune, but that's tongue-in-cheek. I know that I have to see myself as someone who looks strategically at my clients' information needs, who is able to provide added analysis to my research, and who is always staying on the leading edge of the information industry. I expect to drive my clients' expectations of what I can do; I'm not just responding to what they ask for. That's something that I believe we all have to do in order to successfully adapt to the new information environment.

I suspect that a lot of people are thinking, "I'm busy just keeping everything going - I don't have time to be strategic!"  If it turns out that most of our members simply aren't willing or interested in seeing themselves as strategic players, then we will know that one of the challenges we as an association will face will be to encourage members to get "the vision thing", as President GHW Bush used to say.

At the end of the day, I think that people's vote will be determined by how they see themselves and what their vision is of their role within their organization. I hope that people will look at themselves and their profession expansively, and will look at themselves as strategic assets within their organizations.

[additional thoughts in next blog post]