LIS 9763

 
In his article, “Can this 2.0 Stuff Help Libraries with Promotion,” Stephen Abram argues that libraries are “not being assertive enough.” Thank you Abram’s for acknowledging this fact! Now more than ever librarians and libraries need to consistently reaffirm why their services are needed, and yet we are rather timid. Why are we afraid to toot our own horns? The very premise of marketing is to drown out competitors. How can we compete with Chapters, for example, when we do not understand the value of branding or promotion? Of course, we might be timid because we do not know how to market efficiently. However, Web 2.0 tools are at our fingertips and the marketing options available, recommended by Abram for example, are abundant.  
 
Web 2.0 marketing also involves the users. Moreover, libraries can receive almost immediate feedback through the use of these venues. In his posting “Web Strategy: How to Measure you Social Media Program,” Jeremiah Owyang stresses the concept of measurement or assessment. Instead of conducting time intensive surveys, for example, before assessing a tool, libraries can immediately assess the reception of a given service. If ongoing assessment was taken serious would Web 2.0 projects fizzle? I don’t think so because the service would reflect user needs. Casey and Stephens argue that library staff should interact with users via Web 2.0 tools. Ignoring their comments or input will only alienate the user, and defeat any marketing efforts.
 
When I was perusing the readings, I had to ask myself should libraries be as pervasive, and annoying, as other information providers or companies in general? We are inundated with promotions. Should libraries add to this? I think in order to survive it is a necessary evil. However, I think that libraries need to seriously consider what they are posting in Web 2.0 world. Are they promotional items adding value to their branding? If libraries are going to compete then they must live up to the standards of marketing. Although Web 2.0 venues are rather “laid back,” I still think that marketing items should be consistent. Casey and Stephens argue that “staff at all levels should be actively involved in telling the library’s story.” I agree that marketing should be a collaborative effort especially because it is impossible for one individual to constantly promote library services in all venues available. Media teams seem practical. Each posting reflects on the library and if there is not consistency then this might reflect negatively on the libraries’ brand.
 
At the beginning of this class, I discuss Foucault’s panopticon theory.   It seems that our users or our audience is monitoring us. Thus, we must consciously comply with their needs (demands) or their enforcement in the panoptic model. Owygang argues that assessment should be engrained in the process of marketing. I would argue that the users must be engrained in the marketing process not only as the focus but also as contributors. Moreover, they are watching us and demanding certain information needs. Are we listening?
 
Are we also being assertive? Are we saying we will meet demands!? The users’ eye will be penetrating in the Web 2.0 world. Are we ready to take on these tools, to market consistently, to involve users in the marketing process, to meet their demands, and to finally accept that we must compete?