Comments on: Adapting the Netflix Model to Libraries http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/ David Lee King is the Digital Branch & Services Manager at the Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library, where he plans, implements, and experiments with emerging technology trends. He has spoken in the U.S. and Canada about emerging trends, website usability and management, digital experience planning, and managing techie staff, and has been published in many library-related journals. David writes the Internet Spotlight column in Public Libraries Magazine with Michael Porter. David maintains a blog at http://www.davidleeking.com Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:03:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Steve Lawson http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-23485 Steve Lawson Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:51:40 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-23485 Echoing what Walt says, I don't see how you can have "weighted holds, so you’re first in line for videos" and still say "the normal, friendly, and free library service wouldn’t change." People who don't pay up wouldn't get to to the top of the hold queue for months in the case of popular materials.<br><br>As I commented on Michael's blog, I think that the public library is one of the few egalitarian institutions in this country. I don't have the research to back this up, but I'd guess that many library users prize that aspect of the public library. Having tiers of service based on a "customer's" ability to pay seems extremely problematic to me, and changes the relationship of the public to the public library for the worse.<br><br>I'm also guessing that DVDs, shipped without a case as Netflix does, are some of the only items that could economically be shipped around using first class mail like this. So why try to compete with Netflix, who already has this DVD market sewn up? They crushed Blockbuster already, right? Why would a person switch from Netflix (which seems to deliver almost any DVD a person could want quickly and affordably) to the library, which is likely to have a much smaller selection with longer queues? Echoing what Walt says, I don't see how you can have “weighted holds, so you’re first in line for videos” and still say “the normal, friendly, and free library service wouldn’t change.” People who don't pay up wouldn't get to to the top of the hold queue for months in the case of popular materials.

As I commented on Michael's blog, I think that the public library is one of the few egalitarian institutions in this country. I don't have the research to back this up, but I'd guess that many library users prize that aspect of the public library. Having tiers of service based on a “customer's” ability to pay seems extremely problematic to me, and changes the relationship of the public to the public library for the worse.

I'm also guessing that DVDs, shipped without a case as Netflix does, are some of the only items that could economically be shipped around using first class mail like this. So why try to compete with Netflix, who already has this DVD market sewn up? They crushed Blockbuster already, right? Why would a person switch from Netflix (which seems to deliver almost any DVD a person could want quickly and affordably) to the library, which is likely to have a much smaller selection with longer queues?

]]> By: David Lee King » Blog Archive » The “Missing Piece” of the Library Netflix Model http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-3720 David Lee King » Blog Archive » The “Missing Piece” of the Library Netflix Model Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:02:53 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-3720 [...] Previously, I have posted a little about Netflix and how libraries could use the model in a similar way (mainly riffing off Michael Porter’s great posts about Netflix). And then I switched jobs. [...] [...] Previously, I have posted a little about Netflix and how libraries could use the model in a similar way (mainly riffing off Michael Porter’s great posts about Netflix). And then I switched jobs. [...]

]]> By: Peter http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-1756 Peter Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:34:27 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-1756 A contrarian take: There's already a fee-based service that offers DVDs through the mail--it's called Netflix. Why would libraries want to do THAT? Let's look at the advantages of the library model for circulating DVDs. First, it's absolutely free (except in those libraries that charge a fee, but shouldn't). Next, libraries pay close to full price for DVDs but for any disc that circs more than 40 times (and most do) the cost per use is so low that it could never be matched in any pricing agreement with Netflix. Third, you don't have access to Netflix's thousands of titles at the library, but so what? Libraries do you the favor of winnowing out most of the dreck, of which there's plenty, and offering you the titles built to last. For titles the library doesn't own, there's always ILL. Fourth, you don't have to wait. In a good library collection, you'll have hundreds of titles on the shelf which you can check out that day, with no fussing around on a web site and no waiting a day or two for mail delivery. Oh, and did I mention it will be free? And finally, tax money used to buy DVDs pays for materials that stay in the community and are used there time after time after time. Tax money sent to Netflix pays for one use and pads the bottom line of a company based godknows where. I'm sure there are more advantages to the library model but I'm doing this on work time and need to get back to it. Again, I really don't see the point in having libraries provide a service that's already available, especially when doing so would create a division between library users with privileges and those without. A contrarian take: There’s already a fee-based service that offers DVDs through the mail–it’s called Netflix. Why would libraries want to do THAT? Let’s look at the advantages of the library model for circulating DVDs. First, it’s absolutely free (except in those libraries that charge a fee, but shouldn’t). Next, libraries pay close to full price for DVDs but for any disc that circs more than 40 times (and most do) the cost per use is so low that it could never be matched in any pricing agreement with Netflix. Third, you don’t have access to Netflix’s thousands of titles at the library, but so what? Libraries do you the favor of winnowing out most of the dreck, of which there’s plenty, and offering you the titles built to last. For titles the library doesn’t own, there’s always ILL. Fourth, you don’t have to wait. In a good library collection, you’ll have hundreds of titles on the shelf which you can check out that day, with no fussing around on a web site and no waiting a day or two for mail delivery. Oh, and did I mention it will be free? And finally, tax money used to buy DVDs pays for materials that stay in the community and are used there time after time after time. Tax money sent to Netflix pays for one use and pads the bottom line of a company based godknows where. I’m sure there are more advantages to the library model but I’m doing this on work time and need to get back to it. Again, I really don’t see the point in having libraries provide a service that’s already available, especially when doing so would create a division between library users with privileges and those without.

]]> By: Fee Services in Libraries at ebyblog http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-1589 Fee Services in Libraries at ebyblog Sat, 01 Jul 2006 02:31:58 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-1589 [...] Adapting the Netflix Model to Libraries [...] [...] Adapting the Netflix Model to Libraries [...]

]]> By: Eby http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-1586 Eby Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:15:21 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-1586 Two examples: AADL Zoom Lends where you pay a fee to get access to copies of high demand books (ones that have large hold lines). Supposedly very popular. http://www.aadl.org/services/materials/zoomlends Another one from library camp. I believe Darien Library plans on offering a for-pay book delivery service to the home for those who would prefer to pay over driving. Two examples:

AADL Zoom Lends where you pay a fee to get access to copies of high demand books (ones that have large hold lines). Supposedly very popular.

http://www.aadl.org/services/materials/zoomlends

Another one from library camp. I believe Darien Library plans on offering a for-pay book delivery service to the home for those who would prefer to pay over driving.

]]> By: Tina http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-1582 Tina Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:46:30 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-1582 As a librarian with a substantial previous life in the business world, I do think there are some services that could be offered for a fee, like home delivery, mailing of content. In some communities people go online to order their groceries and have them delivered to their door. Generally, this being communities where people see their time as a valuable commodity, like the Silicon Valley, where Netflix was founded. The idea of weighted holds, though, makes me start thinking about this whole discussion that is going on about a premium tiered internet. Those who pay the most get the best access, best content. No one is supposed to own the internet, and publicly funded libraries aren't really supposed to be about tiered services either. Bringing in a value added service such as mailing doesn't necessarily impact the access that other patrons have always had to content, but weighted holds would impact access for those who don't pay for it. So while I support looking for potential value added services a library could charge a fee for, I also feel that heavy thought needs to be given to any negative impact on the basic mission of a publicly funded library. As a librarian with a substantial previous life in the business world, I do think there are some services that could be offered for a fee, like home delivery, mailing of content. In some communities people go online to order their groceries and have them delivered to their door. Generally, this being communities where people see their time as a valuable commodity, like the Silicon Valley, where Netflix was founded. The idea of weighted holds, though, makes me start thinking about this whole discussion that is going on about a premium tiered internet. Those who pay the most get the best access, best content. No one is supposed to own the internet, and publicly funded libraries aren’t really supposed to be about tiered services either. Bringing in a value added service such as mailing doesn’t necessarily impact the access that other patrons have always had to content, but weighted holds would impact access for those who don’t pay for it. So while I support looking for potential value added services a library could charge a fee for, I also feel that heavy thought needs to be given to any negative impact on the basic mission of a publicly funded library.

]]> By: Tara http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-1577 Tara Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:34:55 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-1577 "this community-based version of a Netflix-like model would be friendly, personalized, and close to home - therefore more desirable than Netflix, et al." Rather than try to compete with Netflix (or Blockbuster), why don't libraries play up what makes them better than either? 1. more spontaneous and community-based than Netflix - just pop in and browse the shelves, talk to a librarian to get suggestions for what to watch, maybe read reviews from other patrons, join a movie-watching club, etc. 2. better (or at least more unique) selection than Blockbuster - I've always thought public libraries should concentrate on getting the things that Blockbuster does not do well on, like documentaries, and that Netflix users might not be aware of 3. free and equitable access “this community-based version of a Netflix-like model would be friendly, personalized, and close to home – therefore more desirable than Netflix, et al.”

Rather than try to compete with Netflix (or Blockbuster), why don’t libraries play up what makes them better than either?
1. more spontaneous and community-based than Netflix – just pop in and browse the shelves, talk to a librarian to get suggestions for what to watch, maybe read reviews from other patrons, join a movie-watching club, etc.
2. better (or at least more unique) selection than Blockbuster – I’ve always thought public libraries should concentrate on getting the things that Blockbuster does not do well on, like documentaries, and that Netflix users might not be aware of
3. free and equitable access

]]> By: Steve Lawson http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-1573 Steve Lawson Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:10:47 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-1573 But, Michael, I also said that I doubted you could effectively and cheaply mail items other than DVDs, such as hardcover books. I could be wrong about that, but that is where my "why compete with Netflix" comment is coming from. I know you plan to write more on this, Michael, so please expand on your ideas about "CONTENT," presumably as distinct from "STUFF." But, Michael, I also said that I doubted you could effectively and cheaply mail items other than DVDs, such as hardcover books. I could be wrong about that, but that is where my “why compete with Netflix” comment is coming from.

I know you plan to write more on this, Michael, so please expand on your ideas about “CONTENT,” presumably as distinct from “STUFF.”

]]> By: Michael Porter http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-1572 Michael Porter Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:35:17 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-1572 Good stuff! I'm enjoying, thinking about and learning from each and every comment. Steve said: "So why try to compete with Netflix, who already has this DVD market sewn up?" David said: "let’s not stop at videos. How about the rest of our content? " I say: That is the ultimate point of this discusiion. Yesterday, I also said: "While these posts are centered on Netflix and libraries, the big picture isn’t really about DVD’s (pun not intended). What we’re really talking about is material and CONTENT. Content of all types. That’s huge, huge, huge and nobody can come close to touching the depth and quality of material content libraries have. Yet. At this point "they" may simply sometimes have better access and provision models. We’ll figure this business out one way or another...or perhaps business already has us figured out?" http://www.libraryman.com/blog/archives/000228.html Good stuff! I’m enjoying, thinking about and learning from each and every comment.

Steve said:
“So why try to compete with Netflix, who already has this DVD market sewn up?”

David said:
“let’s not stop at videos. How about the rest of our content? ”

I say: That is the ultimate point of this discusiion.

Yesterday, I also said:
“While these posts are centered on Netflix and libraries, the big picture isn’t really about DVD’s (pun not intended). What we’re really talking about is material and CONTENT. Content of all types. That’s huge, huge, huge and nobody can come close to touching the depth and quality of material content libraries have. Yet. At this point “they” may simply sometimes have better access and provision models. We’ll figure this business out one way or another…or perhaps business already has us figured out?”
http://www.libraryman.com/blog/archives/000228.html

]]> By: Steve Lawson http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-1571 Steve Lawson Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:15:53 +0000 http://www.davidleeking.com/2006/06/29/adapting-the-netflix-model-to-libraries/#comment-1571 Echoing what Walt says, I don't see how you can have "weighted holds, so you’re first in line for videos" and still say "the normal, friendly, and free library service wouldn’t change." People who don't pay up wouldn't get to to the top of the hold queue for months in the case of popular materials. As I commented on Michael's blog, I think that the public library is one of the few egalitarian institutions in this country. I don't have the research to back this up, but I'd guess that many library users prize that aspect of the public library. Having tiers of service based on a "customer's" ability to pay seems extremely problematic to me, and changes the relationship of the public to the public library for the worse. I'm also guessing that DVDs, shipped without a case as Netflix does, are some of the only items that could economically be shipped around using first class mail like this. So why try to compete with Netflix, who already has this DVD market sewn up? They crushed Blockbuster already, right? Why would a person switch from Netflix (which seems to deliver almost any DVD a person could want quickly and affordably) to the library, which is likely to have a much smaller selection with longer queues? Echoing what Walt says, I don’t see how you can have “weighted holds, so you’re first in line for videos” and still say “the normal, friendly, and free library service wouldn’t change.” People who don’t pay up wouldn’t get to to the top of the hold queue for months in the case of popular materials.

As I commented on Michael’s blog, I think that the public library is one of the few egalitarian institutions in this country. I don’t have the research to back this up, but I’d guess that many library users prize that aspect of the public library. Having tiers of service based on a “customer’s” ability to pay seems extremely problematic to me, and changes the relationship of the public to the public library for the worse.

I’m also guessing that DVDs, shipped without a case as Netflix does, are some of the only items that could economically be shipped around using first class mail like this. So why try to compete with Netflix, who already has this DVD market sewn up? They crushed Blockbuster already, right? Why would a person switch from Netflix (which seems to deliver almost any DVD a person could want quickly and affordably) to the library, which is likely to have a much smaller selection with longer queues?

]]>