Library membership - Beware the simple assumption
I really don’t want to write this piece. First time back after a lovely holiday I should be writing about something joyful – not this. So let’s make it snappy.
This might sound really stupid but … Library membership is a measure of how many people are signed up as library members. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if you divide this number by the size of the resident population you get a metric on the % of the population who are library members. That’s it.
What you do NOT get is a measure of the % of the population who use public libraries. That is something entirely different.
Why am I getting in a tizz about this? Because I just read a report on a review of a library service that said …
“Current library membership, while close to the cohort median of 30%, is an area that needs attention. … Membership at this level indicates that 70% of the community, as non-members, miss out on the many benefits that library membership brings including access to collections, eResources and programs.”
This is just wrong. And the people who wrote the report should know better. Because the unknowing reader of this report (say a Councillor or Council executive) will assume that this statement is correct and make judgments about community use of the library based on data that is just wrong.
Why is it wrong? Well let’s just think about what happens in the real world.
Parents borrow collection items for their children. Multiple library users – one membership card.
Spouses borrow collection items for their partner (Hi Mum!). Multiple library users – one card.
Some people just use the library as a place to study or work. Library user – no card.
Some people use the library wifi or charge their devices. Library user – no card (in many libraries).
Some people walk into a library, grab a newspaper or magazine, find a comfy chair in the sunshine, … . Library user – no card.
Some people attend activities at the library. Library user – no card (in many instances).
You see what’s happening here. There are people who use public libraries who aren’t registered library users. And that’s a good thing!
Is it annoying that we don’t have a simple way of tracking who uses libraries and how. Absolutely! But we’re going to have to live with that until we implant nano-chips into every member of society. Until then can we all agree that library membership is a ‘partial but incomplete’ measure of library use.
Re library use, the best figures I have on this are from some pre-COVID surveys in Victoria that indicated 40-50% of the population used a library at least once a year, yet at the time library membership in Victoria was about 34% and active borrowing was around 16%. So if you like you could take the membership figure and increase it by 33% to get a better measure of community use. Personally, I use a 40% figure and say that this is likely to be an underestimate.
The other point I would make is that there are about 30% of the population who at any time are deliberately NOT library users. Some will never be library users – they access resources through other means, they don’t ‘need’ a library, etc. Some are not users now – but have been and will be at other times in their life. So when it comes to community use of libraries I think we are really talking about a 40-30-30 split. 40% are users now. 30% should be our active targets for engagement. 30% just need to know that libraries will be there if and when they want them.
And why is any of this important? Well, if the public library sector is to be successful in its advocacy and community engagement activities, especially in a world where there is fierce competition for the public $, it needs to be able to demonstrate a deep understanding of its own operating context. If it can’t do that then funders and others have every right to dismiss the arguments for funding and air-time.
Let’s not be an easy target.