CIL2010: Analyzing, Evaluating, and Communicating the Value of Web Presence
Amanda Clay Powers & Michael Porter
Michael started by saying: Don’t let “that’s the way we’ve always done it” or “we’re too busy” kill our libraries.
Return on investment for social media: what is it, what it is for libraries, and why you should care. Michael recommended a website from Oliver Blanchard: Social Media ROI: http://smroi.net. Having a social media presence nowadays is merely the equivalent of being listed in the yellow pages. Social media is just a tool. They are not a silver bullet. You have to use them effectively. At the same time, you do get results from these sites. Michael showed a video for “Socialnomics” showing the ROI on social media, statistics for social media use, business success stories, and that companies using social media have better profits and revenues. Free and low-cost marketing naturally has a higher margin of return on investment. Many libraries see ROI as a term of “corporate fear.” For libraries, ROI is not a matter of money or earned profits. Michael has a ton of resources listed in his slides on calculating and researching ROIs, which will be in his presentation on Slideshare later. Michael says there is nothing wrong with analysis and the metrics are out there to grab if you take the time.
Amanda Clay Powers now gets into the nitty gritty. 
She shows the analytics page for a Facebook Page. You can download the data and manipulate it any way you want. She showed an example of a library rave (yes, they had a rave) with photos that they posted to Facebook – and they got good responses to that content: higher page views, photo views. Amanda asks us to take a step back and think about what the target is for the library’s participation in these spaces. What is the data good for? What is the real value of assessment? Is it about convincing people that these spaces are a good idea or are we beyond that now? It’s about building relationships, Amanda says. Get your unique and rare resources noticed! Use Twitter to promote these and share the content from them. Are you being re-tweeted? What gets “liked”? What provokes comment? Who’s engaging with you? Who is doing it and why? What are you doing that is “sticky”? Amanda encourages us to create our own assessment tools, not a cookie cutter idea of what others think is important. Engagement is interesting, page views are not.
cil2010, computers in libraries
April 13th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
LiB,
If Michael showed the same “Socialnomics” video that Stephen Abrams showed at last year’s CIL or another recent conference I attended, then I want to point out that many commenters to the Socialnomics video questioned the authority and the accuracy of some of the videos claims. Don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of social networking sites and services, including for libraries. But I find some of the “evangelic” posturing of some library conference presenters about social media to be disappointing and distracting. I think if we were to take the take to force presenters such as Stephen Abrams to review his sources and respond to more rigorous debate, we’d all be the better for it. What do you think? Feel free to send me an email if you’d prefer.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:26 am
[...] As with all my notes, these are no where near complete and I don’t have the vocabulary to capture Michael Porter’s energy in words. I hope I can provide a decent overview of what they discussed but I’m looking for more complete notes to help fill in my gaps. (Here’s one) (Here’s another) [...]
April 17th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Steve,
This is Michael Porter here, and I wanted to respond to your comment above. I wish you could have seen the session in person as I’d love to talk with you about all of this, especially the “”evangelical” posturing” you mention. I get excited, but I use facts to back up my presented opinions and did that with this session and I did that here as best I could. One thing I tried to make clear, which is hard to get without being at the live session, was that that video tells stories, which are positive, but they do not show the data and the methods for gathering the metrics. One of the points I tried to make was that anecdotal evidence is key for libraries telling their social media stories. If we want to get statistics for a SERIOUS ROI proving campaign, it is a GIANT task most libraries would never really undertake. Showing the video was to make points about the value of the media, or course, but showing it also served two purposed in the session: 1. To show ways someone else had PRESENTED data demonstrating value of social media and 2. to show that anecdotal evidence would work best in a presentation like this, since, in order to get numbers like this you would most likely need to do a massive ROI project. You know, I really think I may have even mentioned that I didn’t have any supporting data for any of the numbers shown in the video. Regardless though, it does a good job of storytelling and as long as our numbers were solid it would be a good example. I didn’t know Stephen showed the video at another session, but if he did, it would make me feel even more like it was a good resource.
If you want to talk/email me directly about it I’d be happy to, though I imagine if we talked it over we’d end up on the same page in pretty short order.
Thanks for this post, Sarah.
-Michael Porter libraryman.com
April 18th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Slides are up now:
http://www.slideshare.net/libraryman/analyzing-evaluating-and-communicating-the-value-of-web-presence
April 20th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Sarah:
Thanks for the post.
From some previsous comments, I always get concerned when people dismiss trend identification in speeches in short YouTube videos by demanding that speakers give footnotes and cite sources in oral speeches and PowerPoint presentations. That’s a guaranteed way to make the speech boring. It is often a way to dismiss or defer taking action by starting to experiment with new ways of doing things – not being ridiculous and replacing the whole old way wholus bolus – but trying some pilots and reading the speaker’s books, articles, references, and blog posts which point to what they read and view to arrive at their positions. Just questioning the sources is often a web habit where people don’t even say ‘I went a looked for the data on this and disagree’. It’s a way to avoid doing their own due diligence or to dismiss the trend because that’s easier than addressing the issue. I don’t believe it’s a good idea to wait for absolute proofs for trends. You need to play and see what happens yourself and keep an open mind.
Anyway, these sort of trend speeches are done to spark debate and more research, not to serve as recommendations for sheep to follow. As with everything, YMMV.
It’s a shame that trend identification can be dismissed as mere evangelism. (I am always happen that I have every misspelling of my name in my alerts – those old librarian skills sure come in handy still!)
Stephen
.
April 28th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Michael and Stephen,
Thanks for your comments and your numerous contributions to the field of librarianship. Truly, I am an advocate of libraries using social media in creative and dynamic ways. I’ve engineered some projects at my two most recent places of employment, and I’ve helped facilitate discussion of these topics among hundreds of librarians in my state. I certainly have no interest in dismissing *all* social media trends as mere evangelism. I suppose I don’t think having a more in depth discussion about some of these issues would be all that boring.
Perhaps I am a bit of an academic at heart, (although I work in public libraries,) but I’d like to see an opportunity for more rigorous debate and discussion at conferences from time to time. I confess that the 45-60 minutes allotted for many CIL presentations may not be the best venue.
- Steve