Comments on: Reference Question of the Week – 7/1/12

By: Brian Herzog

Brian Herzog — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:48:40 +0000

@Ben: I agree – I indeed value the term “patron” for exactly this reason.

@Ally & @Kate: it’s true that some libraries do charge fees for their DVDs, which sort of justifies “rent.” My library doesn’t, and few nearby libraries do, so I don’t think that was the case here. Of course, I’ve also had patrons ask if we had a particular item “in stock” or “in the store.” I’m sure these slips are not from frequent library users, so I’m always torn about correcting them or not – it’s important to me that they, like @Ben said, think of us as the shared resource we are, and not a business, but I also don’t want to sound like a jerk.

But that also speaks to @Ally’s other point – how important it is for staff to speak clearly, without jargon, and not use a phrase like “computer card catalog” (or “OPAC”). Staff have to be accurate, or we could never hope patrons to be.

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:27:09 +0000

While the use of ‘rent’ may have reflected sloppy speaking, it could also have had its source in uncertainty – non-regular patrons often ask us how much it costs to borrow DVDs, generally after expressing surprise that we have such things at all.

It might also reflect experience at other public libraries which -do- charge a small fee for certain items. Growing up, our public library charged for borrowing VHS tapes (somewhat understandably, as this was when they were new technology and they were still very expensive to buy) and consequently my brothers and I were not allowed to take them out.

By: Ally

Ally — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:36:41 +0000

If the patron was using video to mean either DVD or VHS, that wouldn’t bother me as much as the “video = VHS” folk… But considering how many people no longer have VHS players, or don’t want to deal with them (or for that matter the hold outs I used to run into whom thought DVDs were too fragile and refused to switch – which blows my mind given the number of VHS tapes I’ve had eaten by VCRs over the years, and the fact that I’ve never scratched a DVD in my life, but?) it’s useful if you know which format the patron wants immediately.

I won’t even address “renting” except to say in my one and only public library experience, most patrons ended up with their movies at least a day late, and at $2 a day, per movie, starting the very first day it was late…it kind of was “renting” from their experience (just cheaper than blockbuster!)

While we’re on the topic of terminology – may I just say how frustrated I used to be with staff who constantly referred to the catalog as the “computer card catalog?” sigh, at least no one does that at my current library… I recognized that I shouldn’t get so upset, but hearing it used that way was the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard for me for some reason,,,

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:49:27 +0000

Well, it may be semantic, but I agree with you about the “rent” versus “borrow” splitting of hairs. In Reference class back in the day, we read an article about the psychological and service differences between thinking of library “users” as opposed to “patrons” (which the article thought was arcane enough to perhaps confuse or alienate the public) as opposed to “customers”. A patron who uses “rent” may unconsciously think of the library not as a part of a community, not part of a civic structure, but sort of a combination Blockbuster and Barnes & Noble. And perhaps unconsciously will think of the services rendered and the service expected in a different light.