Library Members First

Personally, I don't like the feel of using the word "members" to describe our customers. Members, to me, makes it sound exclusionary-like it is a club only certain people belong to. We want the library to be open and welcoming to everyone.

I agree with mschaefer. Our mission extends far beyond our membership out into the community. How else will we make ourselves relevant to everyone by 2035? If a non-member approaches the desk, would we not serve them just as completely as an established member? Of course, we would be just as "committed to [their] success." So we need to find a better way to state this- perhaps even rewording it as Committed Service for All or Success for All

I'll chime in that I think the idea of membership goes against the free access language in our fundamental values.

I agree with everyone else that "members" has a feel of exclusivity that doesn't seem to align with our "information for all!" vibe, but I'm stuck on trying to figure out something else to call the beings that use our library (since I don't think any of them would cotton to being called a "creature" or "being." This is what I've come up with so far...
Members - too exclusive
Customers - makes us sound like a business
Guests - makes us sound like a hotel (or Disneyworld)
Users - makes us sound robotic
Patrons - too formal?
Pals - too casual
Friends - already taken
Partners - again, already taken

Any suggestions???

"Members first" makes me uncomfortable. What about the rest of the taxpayers? Will they feel excluded? My concern is that the wording here might give the impression that we intend to take everyone's tax money and use it for a select few.

I'd rather have a value statement like "We are committed to the success of our community." Members may be first in the food chain (brain chain?), but the benefits they receive from the library are taken wherever they go. The kid who uses the online driver training material we offer is going to be out on the streets, driving safely among members and nonmembers alike. The teacher who uses the databases and the manager with the armload of the latest business books are going to affect hundreds of people with the information they've learned. Someone who used library materials to score well on the ASVAB could wind up on the other side of the world commanding a whole submarine full of people! (Maybe; I'm not too clear on how that stuff works.)

And keeping a welcoming, inclusive public image will help us stay in the good graces of the taxpayers, who all deserve our best efforts.

I believe that the term 'member' is certainly more apropos than using 'customers' which implies that they are purchasing something every time they come into the library along business model lines. I don't think that 'member' is an exclusive term in the sense that all tax payers are eligible to become members. Some may choose not to do so or are unaware that they are eligible to become library members. That is where educating the public about our services comes in. My question would be if we are committed to putting library members first, what does this mean exactly? First above ourselves or those who are not eligible to use all our services? Even visitors are eligible to use our computers and brows our materials. I don't think that using the term 'first' serves any purpose. Committed to member's success in what areas? When members come to the library, staff are committed to providing materials and services that will allow members to successfully find the information they are looking for and complete the tasks they wish to. Perhaps the wording of this statement could be changed to clarify its ultimate purpose. I like "we are committed to our diverse user community."

I kind of like "member" and don't really like "customer" for the described reason: Customer : someone who buys goods or services from a business6
"One of the best explanations of why public libraries should avoid aligning themselves with the business world comes from John Buschman, currently dean of Seton Hall University Library (South Orange, NJ). He stated, “The reason some services are in the public sector: their value is very real but difficult to measure and requires a different kind of judgment and management.”9 Library leaders need to articulate the value of library service beyond traditional metrics and should be careful of aligning terminology with the business world, where profit is a measure of success. As Henry Mintzberg, a professor of management, explained, “Many activities are in the public sector precisely because of measurement problems: If everything was so crystal clear and every benefit so easily attributable, those activities would have been in the private sector long ago.”10
Here's a link to the article of which there are a bunch on the internet. http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2015/03/customers-or-patrons-how-you-lo...

I agree with all the comments about the term "members". A person that I work with has told me that in Mexico and other countries, libraries are pay-for-use, so individuals really have to be members. Personally, I have a hard time seeing why we shouldn't go back to "patrons" or "users". When I speak, I tend to prefer the term "users" because that's what they are. I also think that an alternate solution would be "community members" instead of "library members". It just strikes me as more inclusive.

As I was reading over everyone's comments, the first word that came to mind was citizen. Are we not all citizens? A person who lives in a particular place, is how Webster's defines it. And citizen allows you to be more than one - a citizen of the United States, a citizen of Oklahoma and one of Oklahoma City, so one could be a citizen of MLS and also a citizen of Belle Isle Library.
I agree that members sounds too exclusive, credit unions have members.

I agree that "members" sounds somewhat exclusive. Haven't public libraries sometimes suffered from an image, either real or perceived, of social and demographic exclusion? When I go into any of our libraries, one of the first things I usually notice is the wide diversity of customers from all walks of life and backgrounds and challenges. I think we need to include that and recognize that diversity is welcome and sought after. I like something like "We are committed to the success of our diverse community."

Oklahoma City and Oklahoma County residents pay taxes that that go to library services, which means they are paying customers. These taxes also pay for the services we provide everyone else, making them pre-paid customers.

Providing great customer service along with cutting edge services is key to any plan that involves improving the MLS.

We are committed to Your needs and interests.

...I like customers just fine- members could easily be confused as exclusive.
My concern is the second part.
If members are first, what is second? Materials? Policy? "The way it has always been done?". If we are going to say that we put people first, then we need to make sure that our policy ALWAYS puts people first, so that employees are able to put people first without conflict. And are we talking individual members or members as a group?

Patron prioritization is at the center of this statement, and the word 'member' only suggests the connotation of exclusivity is actually intentional. I don't necessarily have an issue with that but its really unclear what does and doesn't define a 'library member.' It's not intended to mean everyone or refer to the community at large, because we all will help anyone who comes through our doors. There's no consideration of priorities there; it would be at odds with itself. 'Library card holders' seems like another attractive condition for what could define membership, but we spent a lot of time and money catering to those without cards. We've also got the experience to know that the consideration of whether or not someone has a library account tends to come near the end of our interaction with a customer, rather than the beginning when the prioritization would theoretically take place. So that definition excludes a certain kind of patron, and doesn't have much grounding in practicality to boot.

If we're holding on to this idea of exclusivity, then the definition of what a member is should lie somewhere between literally anyone, and only those people with library cards, but I can't figure out where that is.

How about supporters?
That can be anyone, people who use library services and those who are happy we are here, people who pay taxes, etc.

Here is an interesting article from the Public Library Association on this very topic of what to call people who use libraries. Thank you Cheryl Mann for sending this along!
http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2015/03/customers-or-patrons-how-you-lo...