Exactly one year ago today, the Google Librarian Central blog was updated.  There hasn’t been another blog post since.  That’s 365 days of no public communication with the librarian community.   I’ve also asked around and found out that Google did not have an exhibit at ALA this year.  The last Google Librarian Newsletter was in May of 2007.

So, why all the fanfare in 2006 through 2007 about loving librarians?

Books.

Google realized that in order to index the world’s data, they needed access to the billions of books held in libraries throughout the world.  So, their marketing department (those sly dogs) decided to buddy up with ALA and the entire library community to gain access to these print treasures so that they can scan and index them.   Before realizing that they needed to do this, Google didn’t chat with librarians directly since the early days of the service (circa 1996-1998), as they needed us then as well.

Am I angry with Google for using librarians?  A bit.

But even more, I’m disappointed in librarians who actually fell for this blatant marketing scheme.   Did they really think that this relationship would continue?  Did they grasp the importance of what Google was/is doing?  Will they fight back?  Or will they fit the stereotype that librarians are passive and let yet another company walk all over them?  I hope they won’t, but then again, I won’t be surprised if they do.

There is no doubt in my mind that the entire library community was used.  ALA was used.  Those academic institutions that signed up were used.  And those librarians that played a part in the PR stunt were used.   I saw this coming (and I’m not the only one)

So, Google will continue to use librarians, scan their books, profit from it, and then leave us in the information dust to rot like an old microfilm machine.

It’s sad really.  But then again, we fell for it.  Well, not me.   I know when I’m being used.  Do you?

If a librarian does great techie work, but doesn’t tell anyone about it…..who cares?

Let’s start with the news alerts.  I have always believed that the reference interview doesn’t end when the information is provided to the attorney.  The interview is over when the lawyer has completed the task that they have set out for themself.  That said, lawyers can sometimes work on the same issue for months and need to be constantly updated with new information on that issue.  So, after I answer the immediate question, I set up news alerts for the topic (using free and fee-based services).  These news alerts come to me all of the time throughout the day, but the mornings can be tough because of the amount of time since I last opened up my e-mail.  I read all of the alerts and then send them off to the attorneys.  On most days, I’ll send out about 15 news articles in the AM, with more than 10 going out throughout the day.  I try not to deluge the clients (attorneys are my clients, so I’m not confusing you), so I take care to send only the important information.  By knowing the attorneys wants and needs, I can form a keen sense as to what to send and what to skip. 

Now to the e-newsletters.  A very wise librarian taught me that importance of reading newspapers for reference work.  After I first heard that, I made it a point to read the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal as much as time could handle.  Sometimes I’d read the online version, but when it comes down to reading full articles (and many of them), I prefer the print.  To this day, I still get through the first two sections of the entire NYT on my way home from work.  By knowing what is happening in the world, reference librarians can better suit their users’ needs.  It’s not necessarily the factual information found in these articles, it’s a daily spongelike mental focus that is at the core of this theory. 

I use this theory when it comes to the practice areas of my clients.  I read what they are reading.  Whether it’s a daily e-mail update from a marketing association, an update from advertising age, a Mealey’s report on Insurance, or the daily alerts that are sent out by the New York Law Journal, I read it. There are two reasons why I do this.  First, the newspaper theory.  If I read this stuff, I learn more about the practice area, and when I get tough research requests, I know more about the issue because I’ve read up about it on a continuous basis.  I can’t express how important doing this is for my work with clients.  I see the results and, in turn, so do they.  The second reason I do this reflects back to the reference interview not being over until the attorney had concluded their work.  If I’m reading content from their practice areas, I might find an article or report that fits perfectly into an issue that they raised with me months before (We store all of our reference questions in a database) and send it along to the attorney.  I love sending e-mails that start out with, "I remember you asked me about this issue last year.  This article may be useful with that case".  And attorneys love this too.  Many are even shocked that I remembered doing the work for them in the past.  And, all the time, they are thankful for the extra effort that I put in for them.

So, it’s not only important to do research, but follow up with new content, and constantly learn about what your clients are learning about.  Find out what they are reading, and soak up the same stuff.

For the past few weeks, I have been buried in work.  You see, as a "consultant", not an "employee", the more I work I get, the more the company I work for makes (We bill by the hour).

So, I’ve been a bit busy, working almost 12 hour days and not having much else to do in the way of time than the more important stuff (family, housework, etc).  I have been on Twitter this weekend (whenever it was working), but FriendFeed is the way to go for me lately (I’m at http://www.friendfeed.com/stevencohen), and yes, the content of LS has (will!) change (yet again).  

For a while, I’ll be blogging about what I know best:  Law Libraries, Legal Research, and Law Library Marketing.

Let’s chat a bit about marketing this evening.  If you work in a legal environment, do you have a marketing department.  Most firms above 100 attorneys have one these days.  More importantly, do you work closely with that marketing department?  

I firmly believe that law librarians need to continue to market their skills and knowledge in order to not be passed by someone (or something) else.  While we know that we’re good, does everyone else in the firm know that?  Enter the marketing department.  This is what they do best, and by becoming a part of their team, they will start marketing your skills as well.  

Case:  One of our clients recently hired a new marketing director.  I made it a point to meet with her right away and describe, in detail, what I do for the firm in terms of business development, research, and management.  After our meeting, she met with all of the practice groups and told them about me and what I can do to help their departments.  My work has since increased and I am an active participant in their marketing targets to new and potential clients.  

So, step one in marketing yourself is to meet with the marketing department in your firm.  If they don’t have one (and if you feel that they need one), start rallying for one (I’ve done this for another client).  An active law librarian is a happy law librarian.

These are the last lines of my Uncle Larry’s piece yesterday. He retired after 29 years on the job as an editorial writer for the Asbury Park Press.

Now, Larry starts his second career, whatever that may be (I have a feeling we haven’t heard the last from him). I’m in a similar boat for my blog. I need to move on too. Starting tomorrow, the main content for LS will be different. I’m going to concentrate on what I know best: Law libraries, marketing the law library, and related issues. I hope you like it.

Congrats on the career Larry. I hope that in 29 years, I’ll write a piece like yours on Library Stuff.

Ooooh.  I like that.  Thanks Kate!

Interesting gallery of quickies from Boston.com.  I like this one, and this one (of course!)

Update - Ian Da Silva has some choice words for the author of the book. I’m not surprised. It’s a typical response from someone who can’t take seeing (or understanding) an opinion that’s different from them. It’s an emotional thing. The great thing about opinions is that everyone has one. Don’t like someone’s opinion? That’s ok, because you have your own.

Great discussion here.