That's right: the title is a quote. Although i wish i could take credit for such a cleverly devised statement, this time the cynicism is not my own.
As reported in American Libraries Direct (the digital monthly version of the not-so-digital monthly for-library publication), the Latimes has recently reported on the backsliding of "real world" commerce in Second Life in their article, "Virtual marketers have second thoughts about Second Life" (i apologize but viewing the essay requires registration by Latimes.com. But don't worry, you can always make up bogus demographics and give them a fake email addy).
Of particular note in this essay, "Ludlow (University of Toronto philosophy professor Peter Ludlow that is) isn't impressed. He said most firms were more interested in the publicity they received from their ties with Second Life than in the digital world itself. "It was a way to brand themselves as being leading-edge," he said." i have a real problem with this: namely, it isn't commerce--it's advertising. This reminds one clandestinely of bumper stickers of companies sponsoring a motorcyclist in some obscure off-road competition. For a bona fide Virtual Reality, which purports to having 8,000,000 members (of which one can expect to find only 30,000 unique users during peak hours), this sort of "commerce" is offensive.
It's like businesses have stopped taking Second Life seriously. In terms of Library 2.0, there's no doubt that Second Life posses a definite "emerging technology linking patrons and library service" (my words), but for businesses, that just doesn't cut it. Given the fact that "one of the most frequently purchased items in Second Life is genitalia." (qtd. in LA Times), and users often participate in furryism and hit on strangers at the same time, it comes as no surprise that traditional companies are having difficulty reaching an interested consumer base. What can Dell, Best Buy, American Apparel or Sun Microsystems to such a, shall we say, niche demographic?
Even Nissan's innovative "automotive amusement park" can really only go so far. Visitors are not buying cars. Such fiendish marketing results in less than profitable returns. For libraries, Second Life seems to be a viable alternative for hipsters and wannabes such as myself, but for corporations, who no doubt spend the equivalent of a computer programmer's salary or more on their Second Life coordinator, it would be more than difficult to see a return on their investment.
But... what i think is worse than a waste investment, is an investor who doesn't learn from his/her mistakes. IBM who has had a strong Second Life presence, is now moving to the greener pastures of There and Entropia Universe...
Excuse me, but... how is that different from the failed experiment of Second Life? Do they actually think the demographic is more receptive on those servers? Oh please. If you've seen one non-RPG-MMORPG you've seen them all. Besides which, there are FAR more users to be found on actual RPGs such as Worlds of Warcraft, Everquest, URU or the like. When many users on the same server can't even speak the same language (other than pigeon English), doesn't that... put a whole new spin on the term "International Conglomerate"? Of course i have no idea if Sony would allow outside commerce on their servers, it seems like those companies who invested so much time and effort on Second Life, if they're not willing to change their strategy, should at least consider opening themselves up to a far larger consumer base than can be found on There or Entropia Universe. When people forgo their actual wedding to have a ceremony on WoW... wouldn't said people want a company that could take care of all the trimmings?
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Abstract vs. Concrete
According to John Blyberg's recent post "Four Little Octets" a strong composite tenet of Library 2.0 is "a set of attitudes that are less constrained by convention and more motivated by collaboration, empowerment, and hospitality." This sounds very motivating and inspiring, but the truth is, i have to come up with an insightful response. Convention is... a little vague. What and how is convention defined? i wanted to make sure i knew what i was about, so i looked it up. According to Funk & Wagnalls Standard Comprehensive International, convention is defined as: general consent, or something established by it; precedent; custom; rule, etc. Obviously there are commonly shared "conventions" when it comes to library service, but it is my belief that this word does not operate linearly.
Is the internet now a convention? How long precisely does it take for a practice to become common place and even an expected outcome of reference service? i want to believe libraries the world over are motivated by collaboration, empowerment and hospitality. If they were not they wouldn't make their millage. i thus proport that those attitudes are a given. What doesn't immediately make a lot of sense is: what is an attitude which espouses being "less constrained by convention"look like?
So again, how long? If we assume as Blyberg supposes that the internet gave rise to a revolution in library service which has only very recently been recognized as such, and if we assume the internet didn't really get off it's feet until 1994, we could easily surmise that a convention can come into being in less than 13 years. So, about a decade. Well, actually, that presupposes that the internet is in fact, a convention. But if it wasn't, i'm not at all sure what Blyberg is arguing. So if we round that down to a decade, and also suppose that most "modern" (i use the term loosely) libraries are or soon will be internet dependent you arrive at... yes, the internet must in point of fact be a convention.
Except if we go back to the composite tenet of Library 2.0, the attitude we're looking for is one in which we are less constrained by convention. Uh-oh. I smell a problem brewing. What we're looking for is a library service that isn't limited to those which are internet dependent. Yet, the alternative is what? The past. Card and CD-ROM catalogs and research that took weeks instead of hours (yes, i realize these sentences are fragments Amber). Obviously, despite its novelty reminisce-quotient, no one wants to go back to those days. But... we have yet to uncover a new platform by which to jump beyond our present methods of providing service. So... what then IS our goal here? Find new ways to utilitze old technology? We do that all the time--software is only as good as the way in which it was conceived to be used in. For example: most people utilize more than just one piece of software when they build a website. You can't create images that will do what you want in a program like Frontpage or Dreamweaver, but you also can't create code that'll function as a java script in say Adobe Photoshop. When someone goes to make a website, they'd probably be utilizing both types of software. Not because they were told to. It's just the logical conclusion.
So what is the logical conclusion to the convention of the internet? How do we move beyond the tether of the world wide web and the Internet 2? Some people are saying SmS and yes, text messaging has been used and abused very affectively in Japan for many years. But is it the natural next step? No. i would argue that while we exist in the convention of the internet, until we slip upon that eureka-like moment of designing a new technology or creative design to base library service on, Library 2.0 is dependent on the internet. Just knowing that we're dependent, as Blyberg seems to suggest here, isn't enough. Would AACR2's natural next logical step actually be RDA if we were trying to think beyond the internet? We're not all of us visionaries but we can learn as much as possible about current trends and experiment with what other's have found successful. No one's saying we shouldn't be looking to the future, but falling back on a convention doesn't necessarily equate failure to change and grow.
Is the internet now a convention? How long precisely does it take for a practice to become common place and even an expected outcome of reference service? i want to believe libraries the world over are motivated by collaboration, empowerment and hospitality. If they were not they wouldn't make their millage. i thus proport that those attitudes are a given. What doesn't immediately make a lot of sense is: what is an attitude which espouses being "less constrained by convention"look like?
So again, how long? If we assume as Blyberg supposes that the internet gave rise to a revolution in library service which has only very recently been recognized as such, and if we assume the internet didn't really get off it's feet until 1994, we could easily surmise that a convention can come into being in less than 13 years. So, about a decade. Well, actually, that presupposes that the internet is in fact, a convention. But if it wasn't, i'm not at all sure what Blyberg is arguing. So if we round that down to a decade, and also suppose that most "modern" (i use the term loosely) libraries are or soon will be internet dependent you arrive at... yes, the internet must in point of fact be a convention.
Except if we go back to the composite tenet of Library 2.0, the attitude we're looking for is one in which we are less constrained by convention. Uh-oh. I smell a problem brewing. What we're looking for is a library service that isn't limited to those which are internet dependent. Yet, the alternative is what? The past. Card and CD-ROM catalogs and research that took weeks instead of hours (yes, i realize these sentences are fragments Amber). Obviously, despite its novelty reminisce-quotient, no one wants to go back to those days. But... we have yet to uncover a new platform by which to jump beyond our present methods of providing service. So... what then IS our goal here? Find new ways to utilitze old technology? We do that all the time--software is only as good as the way in which it was conceived to be used in. For example: most people utilize more than just one piece of software when they build a website. You can't create images that will do what you want in a program like Frontpage or Dreamweaver, but you also can't create code that'll function as a java script in say Adobe Photoshop. When someone goes to make a website, they'd probably be utilizing both types of software. Not because they were told to. It's just the logical conclusion.
So what is the logical conclusion to the convention of the internet? How do we move beyond the tether of the world wide web and the Internet 2? Some people are saying SmS and yes, text messaging has been used and abused very affectively in Japan for many years. But is it the natural next step? No. i would argue that while we exist in the convention of the internet, until we slip upon that eureka-like moment of designing a new technology or creative design to base library service on, Library 2.0 is dependent on the internet. Just knowing that we're dependent, as Blyberg seems to suggest here, isn't enough. Would AACR2's natural next logical step actually be RDA if we were trying to think beyond the internet? We're not all of us visionaries but we can learn as much as possible about current trends and experiment with what other's have found successful. No one's saying we shouldn't be looking to the future, but falling back on a convention doesn't necessarily equate failure to change and grow.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Innovation vs. Stagnation
It's possible someone has already blogged on this topic as i am pathetically slow in getting these things done.
Librarian.net recently posted on "are librarians innovators? do libraries innovate?" and i like to think it echoes one of my previous blogs.
"However, when you’re the only free internet in town, taking a step like offering free wifi when the library is closed, or having a way that people can use your computers to download ebooks checked out from other libraries in other states seems pretty innovative indeed."
Such innovations seem to represent little work on the place of the administration (unless of course you have a very conservative Board of Directors), but could greatly improve service and library use. It probably goes without saying that improving library use would also lead to a increase in circ, among other things. So why aren't they doing it?
Perhaps innovation isn't necessary to keeping your library alive, but it certainly can't hurt. Probably the biggest culture shock a western experiences when visiting Japan is being dumb struck by the sheer amount of constant innovation, in industry the U.S. hasn't even looked at in decades. It's silly. Everything from super-intelligent toilets to ferris wheel parking garages hidden in old buildings to cafes where you can get cozy and are encouraged to fall asleep reading manga you haven't paid for...?! Well, suffice it to say western innovation is... found wanting.
i want to believe the biggest road block against western innovation is simple resistance to change. i find it very hard to believe that U.S., Canadian and U.K. research and development departments are simply not as creative as those in Japan. It is our economies simply are not equipped to pour much money into reinventing the wheel. Though, legislature is always opting for new methodologies like the recent bill for Stem Cell Research.
If libraries could jump on the innovating bandwagon and have our industry lead others into the 21st century, why wouldn't we?
Librarian.net recently posted on "are librarians innovators? do libraries innovate?" and i like to think it echoes one of my previous blogs.
"However, when you’re the only free internet in town, taking a step like offering free wifi when the library is closed, or having a way that people can use your computers to download ebooks checked out from other libraries in other states seems pretty innovative indeed."
Such innovations seem to represent little work on the place of the administration (unless of course you have a very conservative Board of Directors), but could greatly improve service and library use. It probably goes without saying that improving library use would also lead to a increase in circ, among other things. So why aren't they doing it?
Perhaps innovation isn't necessary to keeping your library alive, but it certainly can't hurt. Probably the biggest culture shock a western experiences when visiting Japan is being dumb struck by the sheer amount of constant innovation, in industry the U.S. hasn't even looked at in decades. It's silly. Everything from super-intelligent toilets to ferris wheel parking garages hidden in old buildings to cafes where you can get cozy and are encouraged to fall asleep reading manga you haven't paid for...?! Well, suffice it to say western innovation is... found wanting.
i want to believe the biggest road block against western innovation is simple resistance to change. i find it very hard to believe that U.S., Canadian and U.K. research and development departments are simply not as creative as those in Japan. It is our economies simply are not equipped to pour much money into reinventing the wheel. Though, legislature is always opting for new methodologies like the recent bill for Stem Cell Research.
If libraries could jump on the innovating bandwagon and have our industry lead others into the 21st century, why wouldn't we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)