Elisabeth Leonard on Libraries

Extrinsic motivation

If Kent State Beats Goals, Professors Will Profit - Chronicle.com.

When I was growing up, my mom used to pay me to clean.  It really was the only method that worked!  I would rather be spanked than clean for free!  (Sadly, still true).  And I have heard that some schools are paying students for good grades.  But now, one university is "paying cash bonuses to faculty members if the university exceeds its goals in those areas."  I honestly can't decide if I think this is a good idea or not.  Corporations pay bonuses this way and sometimes it seems to work to motivate staff...right?!  So is the reason that this bothers me that I have the misguided notion that we should want to serve?  That said, exactly what goals are we talking about here?  There's a lot of mention about fundraising goals (which brought forth memories of mandatory pledges to United Way that I lived through at one work place)...and I can see how some of those goals are areas faculty might have been resistant to being involved in ...The best examples given for what this will mean:

Here's how the system works: Faculty members share a bonus of 10 percent of the growth in research dollars over the year before, as long as the increase is at least $2-million. For the 2008 fiscal year, Kent State brought in $32-million. So if research grants reach, say, $35-million next year, the faculty would split 10 percent of the total increase of $300,000, or about $350 for each of the 864 faculty members.

For fund raising, the faculty would receive 2 percent of the increase above the year before, as long as that increase was at least $2.8-million. Last year Kent State's foundation raised $28.5-million. For the bonuses to kick in, the university must raise at least $31.3-million next year. If Kent State hit that minimum, faculty members would then split 2 percent of the increase, which would be $56,000, or about $65 a person. If a big gift showed up, of course, the bonuses would increase accordingly.

For student retention, faculty members would receive 40 percent of the additional revenue when retention goes up at least 0.5 percent on the main campus.

Marketing for generations

.I've paid a lot of attention to marketing to various generations, especially Gen X, who I think are mostly forgotten.  In Ad Age this week, there's an article on marketing to the millennials.  While Gen X wants to be treated as individuals (niche marketing works better than mass marketing), the millennials apparently respond well to mass marketing, especially if they can customize the experience (enter social media).    That all sounds good, right?  Here's the problem for marketers, as seen through the example of Obama's campaign:
Gen Xers and boomers may have assumed that today's youth are as anti-marketing as they once were; millennials' mass adoption of Mr. Obama's brand may puzzle or alienate them. From AdAge.

Tailoring a message for any one group can lead to alienation of another group!  It means that the message must be part of what you stand for, not a new message.  It can't leave your audience puzzled or, even worse, -- angry.  How your audience responds is the point, right?

A word to the wise

I read adAge weekly.  Many weeks, there is nothing that captures my attention, but this morning, I read the following paragraph:
The Pitfalls of Megabranding - Advertising Age - Al Ries

A declining category means that consumers are leaving the market. Some consumers who used to drink cola are now drinking water and other beverages. How can "more choice" bring them back to cola? What Coca-Cola needs to do is to promote "cola," not choice.

Leaving the declining category aside (as I am not convinced that libraries are a declining category, although ready reference may be), wee need to answer what type of message are we sending and what should it be?  As much as librarians worry about patrons using the internet and bookstores, we have been torn between alienating our patrons by sending a message that is anti-internet and anti-bookstore (you won't find what you need there, come to us) or sending a message that ignores the competition (we're useful -- with an implied still at the end of we're useful...still).

Ries goes on to discuss how the brand becomes meaningless when it becomes a megabrand, with line extensions that take the brand into products that don't represent the original brand, muddying the original message.  He also quotes Steve Jobs, who said: "Everything just got simpler. That's been one of my mantras -- focus and simplicity." 

This all reminds me of the newest OCLC report, From Awareness to Funding, that states that the library is a superbrand.  People know what the library is and what it stands for.  We don't need campaigns that promote books; books are circulating just fine.  We do need campaigns that promote the transformational impact of libraries, that highlight the results of having a library, results that we have that our competitors do not.  You don't hear Google talking about literacy.  Borders doesn't champion intellectual enlightenment.  When was the last time you saw a library campaign that talked about: all libraries are forums for information and ideas?

From Awareness to Funding: A study of library support in America

http://www.oclc.org/reports/funding/
From Awareness to Funding: A study of library support in America [OCLC]

It's now published! Over 200 pages of detail, breaking down the results by type of voter, the report looks to be a treasure trove of insight into how voters perceive of the library and what goes into their voting preferences.
As soon as I can read it, I'll write my response(s).

Fundraising and public libraries

OCLC at ALA presented on the results of their research into why voters support (or don't support) library levvys. I had hoped that their report would be available by now, but until it is, you'll have to make do with my notes.

Among the findings from the report, From Awareness to Funding: A Study of Library Support in America, (which will be posted eventually at http://www.oclc.org/reports/funding/default.htm):

• The library's most committed funding supporters are not the heaviest library users
• There is no correlation between use of the library and liklihood to support the library
• Voters who see the library as 'transformational' as opposed to 'informational' are more likely to increase taxes in its support
• Transformational messages should be about the individual (ROI for me) AND about the community.  The presentation at ALA used the following quote to illustrate this point: "People who've been exposed to libraries realize that there a lot of other cultures and things out there...The library is literally a window to the world."
• These messages can be about libraries increasing the beauty in life, helping you create who you are, and that libraries help you seek the truth
• Perceptions of librarians are an important predictor of library funding support.  Passionate librarians who are committed to advocacy for their library and the library's role in the community can increase support for the library.
• Increasing support for libraries may not necessarily mean a trade-off with financial support for other public services
• People are aware of traditional library services, but much less aware of newer services like teen and senior programming.  People aren't aware of how much money goes to supporting e-resources.

Later this week, I'll post the demographic breakdowns, but for now, let me just highlight how important it is that support for the library is not tied to use of the library and that means that all our campaigns that are geared to increasing use are not having an impact on support for library.  We may need to hae 2 seperate campaigns: one for increasing use (we do still want that!) an another for increasing awareness of our power to transform a community and its individuals.  I know I have seen videos on YouTube where people talk about what the library has meant to them, that may be the type of campaign we need more of!