LIS 9763

There are a couple themes that emerged in the weekly readings.  The first is that social media can be dangerous because it is deregulated. The second is that social media increases the workload of the librarian. The third is that advertising & publicity are not “dirty words.” The fourth is the idea of branding, individual or institutional. And the fifth and final is the perception of social media as a traditionally “geeky” pursuit.

First of all, this issue of deregulation and content control is a strange one.  Censorship has existed in online contexts for decades now. As an individual who has been involved in online bulletin boards, forums and other virtual communities since 1994, I can honestly say that those with no protocols for content control are in the minority—by a longshot.  So I find it a little amusing that this is such a frequently raised concern in the context of social media.  Most social networking sites have contingencies coded into them—for instance, many message boards have a script which will replace obscenities with more appropriate words (such as translating “shit” to “junk”).  Most websites can exercise a GREAT degree of control over the advertisements displayed, and the majority of blogs screen users before they’re allowed to post comments. If anything, there are MORE opportunities for control and regulation of user-generated content than ever before.

I feel the issue of and “increased workload” is also somewhat exaggerated, although many of the course readings from this week agree with me.  Establishing a social network is often the most complex part of the process, and this is frequently where most LIS professionals feel the greatest burden.  In these situations, I feel it’s important to remember that social media is a largely self-sufficient. With the right combination of supervision and employee participation, a social network operates automatically.

The next two concepts that were raised (increased focus on advertising and branding) are where I break with this week’s readings.  As wonderful as social networks are for broadening the sphere of public communication and community interaction, they carry some pretty hefty downsides when considered in relation to advertising.  With such a high priority placed on the notion of “branding,” libraries can lose sight of the fact that they are NOT a commodity to be packaged and sold to their user base.  Quite the contrary, PUBLIC libraries are institutions which exist to satisfy basic public needs.  And with this modern push toward “more is better” in terms of social media, the actual purpose of the library (the free collection and distribution of information) is being occluded.  Library websites prominently display their Twitter feeds, Flickr streams, Facebook profiles, Delicious accounts, and MySpace pages, but the content itself is scattered and buried within these various media.  Average users don’t know if the Facebook page is used to collect upcoming library events, or the MySpace page.  If we need to get in touch with a librarian, should we “Twitter” them, IM them, Skype them, email them, or post on the library bulletin board?

When libraries begin repackaging and marketing themselves as social media hotspots, they run the risk of alienating themselves from their very own modi operandi, which is not to provide a forum for online social interaction but to safeguard the public’s access to information.  In other words, “branding” oneself is a risky business—once a “brand” is established it develops a life of its own, and begins constraining the bearer in unforeseen ways.  Libraries must walk a fine line between their various responsibilities, but take care to maintain a measured approach in terms of their public image.

Finally, in one of the readings Steve Campion notes that “in the last two years, libraries have awakened to the previously geek-dominated territory of social networking.”  As an individual who characterizes himself as a geek, this remark is ludicrously off-base.  Consider that many of the most active online social forums exist to address issues of parenthood, medical health, animal ownership, and other more esoteric interests.  We geeks maintain a presence, to be sure, but one need look no further than the fact that Facebook began as a strictly Ivy League resource for confirmation that geeks hold no monopoly over social media. 

If anything, this backwards prejudice which seeks to classify all pre-2000 internet users as geeky shut-ins works against the interests of its proponents.  One the one hand, it represents a strange attempt on the part of geeks themselves to “reclaim” the history of the internet as their own.  From his job description, I surmise that Campion is one of these individuals.  On the other hand, it further alienates the “non-geek” population who are considering using social media.  In either context, the purpose of social media is to forge connections, not to restrict them. 

On the whole, I think the readings did the best job they could to discuss the problems associated with marketing social media to a library’s user base.  However, I doubt there will be any single solution to this problem as social media itself is a highly contextual tool.  A youthful user-base may respond more enthusiastically to the implementation and promotion of a library Twitter feed, while a more mature user-base may appreciate the innovation of a Flickr stream.  In other words, LIS professionals seeking a one-stop fix, or an easy answer, are liable to be disappointed or, worse, mislead.  Social media is not something to be implemented in an “all or nothing” approach. Rather, it should be deployed to respond to the needs and demands of the community using the library. This makes advertising a somewhat more problematic affair, since it becomes a matter of “preaching to the choir” for the most part. However, this is actual integral because as any experienced social media user can tell you, the ball must be started rolling by one of the USERS rather than the administrators.
.
As an aside, the topic this week reminded me of a recent blog post I read at Gawker:
http://gawker.com/5172776/snarky-farewell-from-seattle-pi-staffer
For those of you too lazy to click the link, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (one of Seattle and Washington's biggest newspapers) recently closed down their print issues and moved to an exclusively online format. Adorning the wall of the former SPI headquarters was the famous Jefferson quotation:
"...Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

To which a disgruntled and newly laid-off employee tacked to the end:
"--Or at least an online version with greatly reduced staff and lots of links."