Libraries must become more than video stores

Libraries think of themselves as video stores. This is not surprising, as video stores thought of themselves as libraries. The two models are almost identical: a limited set of materials (with a limited number of copies), shared by customers (one at a time) for a finite period, with late fees.

Video stores failed. We moved to a different business model. Netflix, iTunes, Amazon.com, and YouTube introduced new ways of delivering movies and videos to customers. The 'old guard' of Blockbuster and Videotowne fell into the dustbin.

Libraries differ from video stores: they are not competitive businesses. Video store chains competed with other video store chains, and I think that they knew (on some level) that they competed with other media for customers. They probably thought that their main competition was cable TV, but certainly television, live events, and backyard activities were competing for customer time and attention. Video stores were businesses, in business to make a profit.

In contrast, libraries view themselves not as businesses but as a public service. Their purpose is to help people (and society), not to turn a profit. And libraries are often municipal-run monopolies. (Or county-run, or state-run.) They must balance their budget, but profit is not part of their thinking. (If anything, it would be considered inappropriate and counter to their mission.)

Nor do libraries view themselves as competing. One town's libraries do not compete with another town's, since their mission of serving the community (and community-granted monopoly) means that a library has no rival to outrun.

Which is not to say that libraries do not change. Libraries expanded from books and periodicals to books on tape (and later, books on CD), videotapes (and later, DVDs). Now libraries are expanding to e-books. Yet I believe that their thinking is muddled.

Libraries know that e-books are popular, and that they must offer them. But libraries have the mindset of e-books as another form of a book, a physical device in limited quantity. They jump through hoops to limit the number of copies that they lend out, and they mandate formats that automatically expire the books at the end of the lending period.

E-books are different things from paper books, periodicals, and all of the other things that libraries have lent out. They are not physical entities, and not subject to the scarcity of such objects. A library could lend out several thousand copies of "Harry Potter".

Part of the problem is that the publishing houses and the companies that supply e-book lending software reinforce the idea of e-books as scarce commodities. Publishers fear the loss of the sales market (if customers can borrow e-books with certainty, why should they buy?) and the software suppliers are simply taking advantage of publishers' fears and libraries' naivete.

Some company is going to come along and obsolete the libraries. Just as Netflix obsoleted video stores, a company will make libraries passe. Perhaps it will be Amazon.com. Perhaps it will be Google. Perhaps it will be a start-up. Whoever it is, they will make borrowing e-books easy and convenient. They will most likely tie into the book sales channel.

Once this new company comes along, libraries will be in a difficult spot. They will have lost their primary justification for their monopoly and taxpayer support. (I recognize that libraries perform functions beyond lending books and periodicals, but the communities that support they see these as their primary responsibilities. Lose that support and you lose the tax dollars.)

Since libraries see themselves as a public service, as not in competition with other activities or other library systems, and granted a public monopoly, I suspect very few (if any) will change.