What's in a name? Does it make a difference? Does it affect marketing? Is it ultimately important when considering branding? There seems to be a debate about name calling. What should the modern library and the new librarian call its public: Patron? User? Client? Customer?
The Merriam-Webster Explorer Dictionary defines a Patron as a chosen/special protector; a wealthy or influential supporter or a regular client or customer. A Customer is defined as one who patronizes or uses services; a buyer or purchaser; a regular or frequent buyer. On the other hand, a Client is a person who hires the services of a professional or someone under the protection of a patron. And a User is one who enjoys a presumptive right after long continued use.
There are elements of each of these terms which are acceptable and familiar when relating to library users. You could call the average library visitor a client or customer, but you couldn't accurately refer to everyone as a chosen special protector, or a wealthy or influential supporter per se. You might also call this person a customer because he patronizes or uses library services. But it would not be appropriate to call him a regular buyer or purchaser or an employer of library staff. Not to mention the term User conjuring up some negative images.
Because I do not feel any of these terms are wholly accurate to define this relationship, I decided to look for a different word; common yet definitive for this modern relationship which marketing has actually impacted.
As a result, I considered sponsor partly due to its being a synonym of patron, but found that a sponsor is one who accepts responsibility for another person or thing. I also came upon the term supporter: one that supports, backs up, assists. An advocate or champion. A common term, not medieval or stoic, nor squeamish. A nice sounding word which pretty well covers the personality of the frequent library lover/user. Perhaps library Supporter might encompass traits ideal for a new relationship between library visitors and library staff.
With the trends geared toward reviving, renewing and upgrading the library image and usefulness through marketing, perhaps terminology does make a difference. Creating a brand/image of the modern information giant and establishing that image is a real focus. And taking this image from the dark ages of memorizing the Dewey Decimal System to the Greek think tanks of the first librarians should be the future.
Perhaps it is time to forge ahead into that emotional bond; that connection between user and provider pursuing that element of dependency so necessary for the modern library and the new librarian to possess and nurture with its public in order to survive and thrive.
What's in a name is important. To promote a higher concept of the modern library, perhaps we should start with a higher concept of its public.
Image:ronjgiambalvo.wordpress.com/.../
