The concept of the long tail raises interesting questions as we work our way into Library 2.0.

Coined by Chris Anderson and described in his 2004 article in Wired magazine, this concept exploits the phenomenon of a statistical distribution in which a low-frequency distribution gradually tails off. Simply put, Anderson applied this concept to the business world of such sites as Amazon and Netflix, showing that the market share generated by the large number of low sales volume products exceeds that of the relatively few high sales volume products. Anderson later authored a book to expand on this idea, and now maintans a blog in which he continues to explore this concept.

The long tail is very much applicable to the Library 2.0 approach which seeks to cater to niche markets to fulfill user needs. Thinking in these terms hit home to me recently when I had a talk with my Dean about the possibility of our library setting up shop on My Space. He asked, "How many users would we reach?" He was questioning whether we would serve enough of a critical mass to make such an effort worthwhile. This is a legitimate Library 1.0 question, but my Library 2.0 mindset leads me in a different direction.

In the context of libraries, the long tail concept is relevant not only to the consumption of books, journals and other library materials, but also the consumption of services. Consider this: libraries have been engaged in long tail services for decades. Think of reference services, which cater to anyone asking any question. Think of interlibrary loan, which obtains any item possible no matter how obscure. Surely these services cater to a steady aggregation of niche markets which accumulate to a larger market share than that represented by the smaller market of identical requests. If you think about it, it's mighty impressive that we do this, and with such success.

This is not to say that libraries have been perfect long tail institutions. In actuality, our institutions can be such a strange mix. Lately I've been thinking over a controversial issue that has come up in my library over the years, the idea of offering an online e-journals list. I've always been in favor of this, given its near-ubiquity on other library sites and user preference for digital access. In addition, such a list can be enhanced with RSS links to TOC alerts, and so on. But in my library, the feelings against such a list run sky high. We offer a combined print and e-journals list through our online catalog, and the idea of offering an e-journals list in addition to this has been met with fierce and successful resistance. There have been numerous reasons stated, basically revolving around a concern for the needs of students who require a certain level of support. I've heard, "What's to be gained if we already have a list that shows every journal we offer?" "If we do this, students will stop using print." "Students will think we don't offer coverage if something is not on the e-journals list." And yes, I heard this one, too: "We shouldn't give users what they want."

Now, I can understand some of these concerns, based on a consideration of students who are unfamiliar with the research process or who need persuasion to use print when such a holding will support their research. But our libraries serve a research university. What about the Presidential Scholars? Students in the Honors College? Graduate students? Faculty? Taken altogether, the markets for these niche users probably exceed the market for the students who are such a concern to my colleagues. Rather than focusing on a single niche, it would be helpful if we found out whether the users in these other markets would value such a list and whose scholarship would not be placed at risk.

One of the values of looking at things through the lens of Library 2.0 is the opportunity it gives us to look at old issues with new eyes. It's enlightening, at least to me, to reflect about niche markets when reconsidering what goes on in my library, including this controversial issue.

We can't meet all the needs of all our users with all our services all the time. Yet we need to cater to our niche markets, and in fact have an amazing record of doing so. How can we extend this success to the collaborative, personalized world of the Web with its new mixes of delivery mechanisms? Wrapping our minds around this challenge should be enough to keep us up at night. Anyone interested in a 3 a.m. chat?