Is it important for libraries to employ social software?

Tag=Blogpostwk1

Web 2.0 is obviously about technology.  But that's not why libraries should be interested in it.  The more I hear the terms Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 thrown around, the more I start to wonder if the proponents even know what they are talking about.  Simply touting technology without an eye to what you hope to do with it can have you looking like the parody of Hewlett Packard in a recent Onion video.

 

But Web 2.0 social software tools can be incredibly useful.  There are many important reasons that libraries should be adept with social tools.  For one thing if librarians go where their patrons or potential patrons are, they will find new marketing opportunities.  Meeting Millennials at Facebook, Reddit, or Pintrest can paint librarians as approachable and interested in the kinds of sites that potential patrons are using.  Approachability and interest happen to be two of RUSA's categories for effective reference services.  And certainly once libraries have a presence on these sites, they can offer innovative ways of providing services such as reference.  For instance offering chats with reference librarians on Facebook, tapping the easy user participation of blogging sites like Tumblr, or creating a library wiki with entries about programming, services, collections, reference, etc.  

Furthermore, in my experience, as the Internet grows, my exploration of it shrinks.  I've noticed that over the last couple of years that I tend to tread the ground of only a handful of websites.  My RSS reader means I don't have to stray too far into the jungles of the Internet.  I only need to check my Gmail, my Google Reader, and my Facebook page to get many of the updates I'm interested in.  It wasn't until I started to really cultivate my interest in libraries that I began to look at library webpages.  If my use is exemplary at all, meeting patrons where they are may be the only way to bring many of them to library webpages.  Furthermore, librarians can employ their skills to trailblaze the web.  Librarians have long been leaders in aggregation: finding sources and contextualizing them.  The web is certainly a shaggy world in need of such aggregation and social software offers intuitive and easy access points both for the trailblazers and users.  Social software tools mean that librarians don't need web programming skills to curate the web.  And our users don't need to scour the web far and wide to find our information -- we can link it to them where they already are Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr,  via RSS feeds, etc.

But the biggest reason that Web 2.0 has received so much hype is that it creates a level playing field.  Anyone -- not just programming gurus -- can create content with 2.0 tools. Take for example the difference between Lead, South Dakota's Phoebe Hearst Library webpage and their Facebook presence.  (after the jump)

The site is fairly simple: most likely developed by staff with a limited budget.  It doesn't feature the best of interactive web design or sleek CSS beauty of larger library sites -- say San Francisco Public.

San Francisco Public has a gloriously simple web design.  The main page is a series of widgets that highlight most of the important services.  The catalog is immediately searchable from the front page.  There is a slide show of library highlights which adds continual visual interest.  There is no need to scroll, everything is clickable quickly.  The Phoebe Hearst page, on the other hand, is clearly more limited.

The site has a dated look, it requires frequent scrolling, the catalog is an extra click away, and the page is static.  It's clearly the result of a much more limited budget and smaller service area.  The Phoebe Hearst webpage does however prominently feature links to their Facebook page and blog.  These tools are great democratizers.   Compare the Pheobe Hearst Facebook page to the San Francisco Public Library Facebook page

From a design perspective, the two sites aren't terribly different.  Because Facebook is so easy to customize, libraries can spend the bulk of their energy on efforts of outreach and promoting library programs.  Instead of paying thousands for web design or hours wading through style sheets, librarians can get down to much more meaningful efforts.  On Facebook, Phoebe Hearst Library is sending weekly updates to its subscribers about programming and fundraising efforts.  After major events, they are uploading colorful photos.  For instance they recently had an event for patrons to dress up like their favorite celebrity.  After the event they posted a dozen or more photographs of people in colorful costumes, clearly enjoying their time in the library.  Their more static webpage doesn't provide users easy access to upcoming events.  But their Facebook friends don't have to navigate further than their own Facebook newsfeed to find out what's happening at the library.  And because the major design efforts are undertaken by Facebook programmers, the librarians don't have to spend too much time trying to customize the page (this potentially homogenous layout could also make it harder to stand above the crowd as well, which is why its doubly important that once on a site like Facebook that the real effort be put toward services not design).  This is the true benefit of social software; it connects you quickly with potential friends, clients, and patrons without undue effort or cost on your part.

The conversation about social software needs to continue, but always with an eye to what we can do with it, not whether or not we have it.  Let's not sound like the faux HP exec in the Onion video who notes that HP has "4G, 5G, 6G, basically all the Gs."

Update: Kate Williamson tried to write in, but was unable to comment for some reason.  I'm posting her comments below.  

 

Kate writes: As I said before, I completely agree with your reasons to employ social software. However I think there is still a bit of a   learning curve involved, granted not nearly as technical as designing webpages. Usually it is up to the librarian to suggest   and implement these new 2.0 tools, on top of their usual duties and research. I think that being in University it is easy to   forget how hard it is to keep up with technology and decide which one will be best for an individual library. However this is   where collaboration between librarians is the most important.  Speaking of classes, your comparison of San Francisco Public Libraries webpage and Facebook and South Dakota's   Phoebe Hearst Library webpage and their Facebook sound a lot like what is discussed in LIBR 251. Have you taken the class?  And if so, how did you like it? 

Nathan:  In response:  Kate, I haven't taken LIBR 251, but it sounds interesting.  Your point about collaboration is a really important one.  In fact, it also highlights the benefits of Web 2.0 tools.  Certainly a blog post like mine, can only scratch the surface of a topic; I'm bound to miss important or interesting things.  This is where comments like yours, which supplement and strengthen the ideas I put forward, become crucial.  We're all smarter together than alone, and a lot of these social software tools enable us to tag team more easily.  Thanks for the comment.