Advertisement
Articles

Netflix-inspired Pilot Program for Borrowing in California Library Languishes

E-Mail This Link


Enter recipient's e-mail:


Close
Email
Print |
RSS |
Share | |
By Michael Kelley Nov 22, 2010

A novel, Netflix-style circulation model introduced at a Bay Area library one year ago has not yet gained significant traction.

The Hayward Public Library introduced its "Fines Free" Library Loan Program in November 2009 as a way to alleviate the burden of unresolved fines that was prohibiting about 20 percent of the library's 100,000 cardholders from borrowing material.

"We never intended for it to be a profit generator but to bring lapsed users back to the library," Sean Reinhardt, the library's director, told LJ.

Program has not met expectations
An alternative to the standard circulation plan, the three-tier subscription plan allows users to pay a monthly, automated fee in exchange for taking out items on an "endless loan." For $2.99, three items can be borrowed; for $4.99, five items; for $8.99, ten items.

As with NetFlix, no additional items can be borrowed until a checked-out item is returned. The plan does not offer mail delivery or postage-free returns, as Netflix and some libraries in New Jersey do.

"Those who participate love the program," Reinhardt said. However, only a handful of patrons have signed up so far.

"It hasn't quite met my expectations," Reinhardt said. "Adoption is slower than I would like it to be, because I think this is ahead of the curve." He did not fault the model so much as the library not having enough time or staff to push the idea out into the community and sell it.

Economy may play a role
Reinhardt also cited economic hard times as a possible reason for the program's weak uptake. "In this environment, taking on another subscription, it's challenging for people to make that jump," he said.

The program's ultimate impact on library operations and finances will have to await a statistically significant number of participants, which Reinhardt still believes will be achieved, perhaps once the economy takes a turn for the better.

"This is a big change for a public library," he said.

When the program was introduced, officials from the California State Library wrote a letter to Reinhardt saying the plan "is consistent with current California library laws regarding public libraries and the provisions of the California Library Services Act regarding equal access."

The city's willingness to adopt the automated, online recurring payments was a big step in the right direction, Reinhardt said. "From a staff perspective, we don't have to spend time managing this."

The library pays an e-commerce vendor, First Data Global Gateway, a service fee of about 35 cents for each subscription transaction, a cost more than made up for by the fees the library charges patrons.




Reader Comments (6)


Rather than a 'Netflix' model, this scheme seems to be more akin to paying the fine upfront, whether or not a fine would actually be generated by the length of time the books are retained. Other than the ability to opt out, nearly all library users are currently paying similar to the Netflix model, either monthly or annually: however, in library nomenclature it's called a property tax. Perhaps we need the courage to say that like Netflix, members have the opportunity to a limited number of items available for unlimited use. And when the user wants differing items, bring a like number back. No other strings attached.

Posted by redfeather on November 22, 2010 11:10:46PM

The National Libraries for the Blind and Handicapped have had a successful NetFlix style of lending for many years. It follows redfeather's model in many ways. The costs for NLBH are subsidized by the Federal Gov't. I don't think a membership fee for this type of service is too much to ask, to cover postage. However it will also mean that public libraries will have to stock up on the latest NYT best sellers.

Posted by Mark DP on November 23, 2010 04:55:08AM

"From a staff perspective, we don't have to spend time managing this." - and there it is. This is why I get so aggravated at libraries who try and push and push and push new things when they can hardly keep up with the things they are already trying to do.

Posted by Rachael on November 23, 2010 07:40:13PM

I'm all for trying new circ models and seeing what sticks. What surprised me in this article was that 20% of patrons are prohibited from borrowing materials due to unresolved fines. Wow, that's a sizable number. For those of you who work in public libraries (I don't), is 20% normal?

Posted by twombly on November 24, 2010 01:19:40AM

Previous | Next

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or antisocial behavior such as "spamming", "trolling", or any other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our terms of use. You are fully responsible for the content you post. All comments must comply with the Terms and Conditions of this site and by submitting comments you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Your name: *

Your email address: * (We won't publish this.)



* = Required information


 
Advertisement

LJ Reviews Database

LJ Reviews Center

Latest Stories



From the Blogs



Advertisement

Advertisement

Connect with Library Journal


Follow on Twitter








About Us | Advertising Information | Submissions | Site Map | Contact Us | RSS | Subscriptions
©2011 Media Source, Inc., All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc.