Magazines in Libraries: Don't Try This at Home, Kids

Several weeks ago, a couple staff members approached me with the idea of re-organizing the magazines.  We were in the middle of re-carpeting, and had to take a bunch of stuff off the floor, including magazines.  Why not take advantage of the opportunity and display the magazines by subject, upon their return to the floor?  You know--when you go to Walgreens or Barnes & Noble, you don't look for the "N" magazines when you want the National Enquirer.  You look for the magazines that have pictures of Britney Spears shaving her head, or of Angelina Jolie (the new Mia Farrow) with another adopted baby. 

There seemed to be decent buy-in from staff most affected by the change--Circ and Info Services--so we agreed to try it and give it a three-month trial.  Several of us had input on the categories and titles that went in each category.  There was some negotiating, but overall, we felt like we had a pretty user-friendly system.  The magazines went back out about three weeks ago, with very good finding aids and signage, so we just sat back waiting to be lauded for our genius and user-friendly orientation.

Oh. Mah. Gahd.  Response was quick and virulent. You think you've seen complainers in the library? In my 15 years on the Ref Desk, I've never seen patrons react with so much passion.  Not when we stopped allowing holds on DVDs at my previous library.  Not even, I've heard, as a result of the Great Nonfiction Multimedia Interfiling Disaster of 2003.   At first we thought that it was the usual response to change and that after a week or so, our regular users would get used to it. It seemed to us to be a great way to offer exposure to the lower-circ titles--casual browsers would be able to find a category of interest and see everything we had on the topic.   We saw evidence of this by the increased numbers of different titles scattered around on the tables.  This anecdotal evidence of success was nothing in the face of negative daily numerous comments, written and verbal.  None of the commentators offered a "Yay! Good job!"  Okay, we said, let's give it a month, rather than three months, then reevaluate.

Desk staff upstairs and down were doing a great job of trying to sell the change.  I started more roaming in the magazine stacks.  I helped people find what they were looking for, but mostly, I listened to people vent.  A couple days ago, it became apparent that we needed to respond before one month, before we started to see the torches and pitchforks climb the stairs.  So, starting next week, we'll give the people what they want and restore the magazines to ABC order.  There are a few possible reasons for this glorious failure:  the magazine shelving is not optimal for this type of display. It's hard to see the titles;  for those who wanted a specific title, it made finding a multi-step process (find the alpha title list, see which category it was in, find the category on the shelf, then find the title in the category); many users knew where to find magazines by location ("last time I was here, the magazine was right here, in the middle of the shelf"); and we all know that change of any sort is difficult for many people. 

It's made me very thoughtful about change in the library.  We thought we were being responsive. Did we hear from patrons that they wanted a change in the magazines?  No.  We were responding to what we've been reading in the journals and blogs about how libraries should be less library-like.  We were responding to how we, as consumers, look for magazines outside the library.  Now I'm wondering--when should a library try something new if patrons have not expressed a desire for change?  I don't regret our experiment at all.  I'm so pleased to work with a staff that is willing to float and try new things, and who are secure enough as professionals to step back and say, "maybe we made a mistake."  I think it's also been terrific to hear SO MUCH from patrons.  Some days you wonder if anyone pays much attention or cares.  It's nice to know that they do.  I'm hoping that our responsiveness (to our responsiveness?) is appreciated, even a tiny bit.  We are listening.

Comments

[Lindsey]

Hey! Decided to visit your blog after reading your stuff in American Libraries. This is really fascinating. Thanks for sharing. Yes, sometimes we think we are doing something revolutionary and everyone ends up hating it. Here you were trying to make things more user-friendly and they were ready to throw over the library. I wonder if they would have gotten used to it after a spell. Or perhaps your change would have been inviting to people who do not usually use libraries. I am making an assumption that most of these complainers were frequent users of your magazine section.

[Jeff]

I wouldn't be too gun-shy. It's always good to try new things as long as the patrons are aware that you attempting to provide the best services possible to them. Sometimes patron requests are easy to meet, but sometimes you have to bite the bullet and do something they don't like for a long term gain. During a recent rennovation we moved our entire paperback collection upstairs because most of the population didn't know where it was. We had to weed the collection to do it. We got howls from the paperback lovers about it. After the move, circulation tripled even though we cut the collection down by half. We replaced a lot of the old paperbacks to appease the crowd and the howls went away. It was a tough three months, but the patrons were happier. Thanks for sharing this. I like the pitchfork analogy :)

[rochelle]

Thanks all of you for the salve and shared experiences. As a staff, we're feeling collectively befuddled and will probably be a bit gun-shy for while. Glad to know that our bum experience is valued beyond our shop.

[Jenica]

I agree with Walt -- thank you for writing about something that DIDN'T work. We all need to acknowledge that sometimes we're brilliant and successful, and sometimes we're brilliant and we fail. And its reassuring to know that other people are failing brilliantly, too!

But I'll bet you can find some use for those nicely organized category lists for the people who DO want to know what all craft magazines you have.

[joshua m. neff]

At my previous place of employment, we had a similar situation when we redesigned the menu of our public computers, based on how we assumed patrons would look at and use the menu, not how they actually used it. After many questions and complaints, the menu was tweaked. I think there are still problems with it, though.

[walt]

Good essay--and I can see why your patrons were unhappy. I find the "subject" filing of journals in stores infuriating if the store has more than 300-400 titles. In bookstores or others with thousands of magazines, I'd pretty much give up. Maybe I could guess the category for a given title; maybe I couldn't.

I particularly appreciate the fact that you wrote up a failure (that is, an experiment that turned out not to be what patrons wanted and that involved a service they DO want). That's rare.

[bradley]

Up until three weeks ago, our library had a whole bunch of special collections. ( looking for Clifford the Big Red Dog? He's over there under the window, right next to the "series by different authors.)

Since the catalog did not reflect the location of the items, I decided to end this nonsense once and for all.

The past few weeks have been horrible. Just horrible. I'm afraid the patrons are organizing a lynching party....