Connell's article is another example (in my opinion) of librarians trying to skew the numbers to create a desire for social networking tools where none actually exists ... Unlike the previous article, this one at least attempts to gather patron input on the subject, but - as you'll see - that still provides data that can be easily manipulated to "prove" the authors' point.
Connell starts off with a literature review of other attempts to drum up support for social-networking tools within the library profession, and she comes up with some interesting observations: one librarian at the Georgia Institute of Technology sent out more than 1,500 Facebook messages to students (in an apparent attempt to spread the word about the library's collection), but received a paltry 48 responses. The librarian actually had the temerity to claim that his venture was a "success," but the more logical conclusion would be that students were not interesting in hearing from a "stranger" (especially one in a position of authority like a librarian).
Another librarian mentioned in Connell's literature review had her staff sift through MySpace profiles in order to find "4,000 Brooklyn College students, faculty, and graduates.". Aside from the fact that these actions could be construed by some as "stalking" (and thus having the potential to negatively affect these students' view of the library and drive them away), the librarian sent "friend requests" to her designated targets and "seven months later had approximately 2,350 friends." On the surface, this story appears to be a success, but what about the other 2,000-odd students who ignored the request? Were they "turned off" by the obtrusive nature of this "friending" campaign? Additionally, there is no indication that any of these friends had actually come from the original 4,000 targeted; for all we know, those "friends" were nothing but MySpace spam accounts!
Connell also highlights the Mississippi State University libraries as using a different (far less "creepy") approach to attracting students via Facebook, as they advertised their site through posters and ads - but not through unsolicited "friending" - and were able to accumulate 180 members; she applauded this approach as allowing "those interested to participate but … not [forcing] the library on those not interested." It certainly seems like a more successful method, although once those students became friends, how "engaged" did they remain? The literature failed to establish whether they checked out the library's Facebook page once, and then ignored it; we do not learn what effect (if any) the method had on "repeat business" for the library.
No comments:
Post a Comment