1

By Tristan Harrenstein

Introduction

Recently, public archaeologists and museums have begun looking at ways of using a social

media site called Foursquare as a potentially powerful resource for the promotion of local

historic and archaeological sites (Dufton and Eve 2012; Richardson 2013). In March 2013, the

Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) branch located in Pensacola, Florida, released a

collection of lists through Foursquare featuring local sites organized into categories designed to

meet particular needs (Family Friendly Locations, Open Saturdays, Heat-less History, etc.). This

included a brief description of activities available at the site. However, these lists never gained

more than six “saves” from individuals using Foursquare.1

Foursquare itself is a social media website which operates like a location-oriented Facebook; it

allows users to “check-in” at locations, leave comments, and share lists of favorite venues with

other users. For the venues themselves, Foursquare can be used to promote their location, offer

updates to customers, and provide awards for customers who fulfill particular requirements.

Foursquare also furnishes data for venues to

monitor the impact of these tools.

To help businesses promote their venues,

Foursquare allows them to create electronic

“badges” for customers who visit or

accomplish certain tasks (Figure 1).

Foursquare is, unfortunately, tight-lipped

about the subject of cost to implement a

badge; rumors online suggest that badges cost

1 Until December 2013 this was the only method for tracking activity on the lists. Since then, however, Foursquare

has added tools that allow businesses to track activity in several ways, including lists. As of January 16, 2014, all six

lists together have accumulated 132 views.

Figure 1: An example of one collection of Foursquare badges.

Image courtesy of AdlanKhalidi.com

2

around $25,000 for a multiple month commitment (Drell 2011; Thompson 2013), though the

source of this information is never stated. This apparent inaccessibility of a Foursquare badge for

the FPAN lists suggested that an alternative approach was needed.

In an effort to raise awareness of the lists, and to promote their use, in September 2013 FPAN

released a collectible lapel pin series featuring five iconic historic locations in the Pensacola area

(see header). The Historic Pensacola Pin Series, as it was called, was in itself an experiment as

FPAN had never attempted this sort of promotional event before. This paper describes the

program and its results so that, when implementing similar methods in promoting heritage

tourism in their area, others can make use of what was learned.

The Plan

The Historic Pensacola Pin Series included six pins total, five newly designed and featuring local

historic sites, and one with the FPAN logo. To promote the series itself, the first pin, FPAN’s

logo lapel pin, was attached to a 2-sided 4x6" card with an explanation of the program on one

side, and of Foursquare and the lists on the other (Figure 2). This card, along with the first pin,

was freely handed out at local heritage events. The subsequent pins were not tied to the location

of the event; rather they were handed out sequentially (i.e., participants must have the first three

pins to get the fourth).

Figure 2: The front (left) and back (right) of the starter card.

3

To collect the pins, participants were required to:

1. Arrive at designated Pin Events announced through FPAN’s social media sites

(Foursquare, Facebook, and Twitter).

2. Check in at the event’s location using Foursquare.

3. Show the previous pin(s) collected to receive their next pin.

By running the Historic Pensacola Pin Series, we hoped to further test the viability of Foursquare

as a promotional tool, and the ability of a collectible series to promote a program. The

effectiveness of this goal was measured by individuals checking in on Foursquare, indicating a

willingness to use the site. The ability of the pins to promote a program was tracked by the

number of subscribers on the Foursquare lists, using an increase from the four subscribers at the

beginning of the project as an indicator of success.

Another goal was to promote visitation to local historic and archaeological sites through

Foursquare, the Pin Events, and the pins themselves. Partially, this was achieved through the

advertisement received from participants wearing the pins, individuals attending Pin Events at

various historic venues, and increased participation on Foursquare. To measure this effect, a new

list, called “Panhandle History,” featuring 25 (and later 26) sites across Florida’s Panhandle, was

created a month before the pin series was released. New visitors and total check-ins were

recorded daily for each venue on the list, many of which had very little or no previous activity.

Participants were given the option to acquire one of their pins by visiting 12 of the 26 sites,

check-in on Foursquare, and show an FPAN representative (at events or the FPAN office) the

Foursquare page which displays the degree of completion (i.e. “You’ve been to 13 of 26 places”)

to receive a pin.

We also hoped to test the collectible series’ ability to improve attendance at local heritage days,

historic or archaeological lectures, and similar events. This was gauged by tracking those who

attended which events, and determining if they were present because of the pins, or would have

been at the event anyway.

Finally, it was hoped that the project would encourage participants to use FPAN’s social media

sites (Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare) for event announcements. All events available to the

public in which FPAN participated were announced through this medium, though if people were

using FPAN’s social media (as opposed to the website or newsletters) to learn of events was

unknown. This was measured simply by asking participants which social media site (if any) they

used to learn of the Pin Event.

4

For quick reference, the goals for the Historic Pensacola Pin Series were to:

Test the viability of Foursquare as a promotional tool in the Pensacola region.

Test the ability of collectible lapel pins to promote a program.

Promote visitation of local historical and archaeological sites through Foursquare, the Pin

Events, and the pins themselves.

Promote attendance at local heritage days, historic or archaeological lectures, etc.

Encourage the use of FPAN's social media sites for event announcements.

Early Results

The first Pin Event occurred on September 3rd, 2013, and almost immediately problems with the

plan started to show. People were generally enthusiastic about the idea of collectible pins

featuring local historic sites and fairly readily took the starter card and pin. However, they tended

to lose interest when they learned of the requirement that they check-in on Foursquare. This,

often dismissive, reaction came in two categories: one response was dismissive because they did

not have, or did not wish to use, a mobile device, and the other was uninterested because they did

not want to be involved in Foursquare.

Any program that requires the use of particular technology runs the risk of excluding certain age

groups, individuals with a certain economic ability, and others who simply do not have access to

it. Though unfortunate, this was seen as a necessary requirement as Foursquare’s location focus

generally requires a mobile device (for check-ins and maps to the venue). However, this

appeared to be eliminating a larger number of the potential audience than expected.

Some individuals had a smartphone device, but expressed an unwillingness to download the

Foursquare app, or to create a Foursquare account. Reasons were not always expressed, however,

in at least a few cases, the individual did not see the difference between Foursquare and

Facebook, and was reluctant to download the application and sign up for yet another social

media account. Though the majority of the audience at these events was at, or near, retirement

age, there was also a significant portion of young adults and adults not yet retired who were

reluctant to use Foursquare in any way.

At five weeks and seven Pin Events into the project, these reactions, combined with zero

participation beyond the starter card and pin, made it obvious that the project was not going to be

effective as currently designed. At this point, just under halfway through the project, it was time

to make adjustments to identify the problem and to learn if any portion of the plan was

salvageable.

5

Adjusting the Plan

As most of the negative reactions were centered on smartphones and Foursquare, the obvious

variable to eliminate was the requirement that participants check-in at the event on Foursquare.

Events were still announced exclusively through FPAN’s social media sites, and the option of

obtaining a pin by visiting 12 of the 26 sites on the “Panhandle History” list still applied. The

adjusted requirements for participation looked like this:

1. Follow the Florida Public Archaeology Network - Northwest Region on Foursquare,

Facebook, or Twitter.

2. Find the FPAN representative at the announced Pin Events.

3. Show the previously collected pins to get the next one.

Of course, by removing the check-in requirements some of the goals became, at least,

disconnected from the pins. Here are the adjusted goals for the project:

Test the viability of Foursquare as a promotional tool in the Pensacola region.

Test the ability of collectible lapel pins to promote a program.

Promote visitation of local historic and archaeological sites through Foursquare, the Pin

Events, and the pins themselves.

Promote attendance at local heritage days, historic or archaeological lectures, etc.

Encourage the use of FPAN's social media sites for event announcements.

This adjusted program was intended to provide evidence to support or disprove the hypothesis

that people were not collecting pins because of the Foursquare and/or smartphone requirement. If

a behavior change was observed, this would imply that Foursquare may not be an effective

promotional tool for public archaeology in, at least, the Pensacola area at this time. However, if

no behavior change was observed, then it would suggest that the collectible lapel pins are not a

viable promotional tool.

The Results

After the requirement that participants check in on Foursquare was dropped, an immediate

change was observed. At the second Pensacola Archaeological Society (PAS) meeting on the

evening of October 8, nine pins were distributed. Reactions to the pin were universally

enthusiastic and continued to be so over the remaining eight events, though none of these had

more than five people acquire a pin (Figure 3).

6

Figure 3 also demonstrates the number of each type of pin that was distributed (sequentially) at

each event. As the data is limited, nothing can be concluded about the effectiveness of particular

events. However, the graph does clearly show the difference between the original plan using

Foursquare (from September 3rd to October 5th) and the adjusted plan (from October 8th to

November 23rd).1

In total, pins were collected in 30 unique instances (counting a person one time per event); 15

collected the first pin, nine received the second pin, six received the third, and only three

received the fourth and fifth pins. Though there is not enough data to draw any conclusions,

Figure 4 suggests a rate of decay that may prove useful as a guide when budgeting for a future

collectible series.

Figure 5 displays the degree of participation from each age group. The age groups for individuals

were approximate, as it was impractical to ask people their age, but young adults were from 18 to

35, adults were 35-60, and retirees were 60+. The groupings were intended to represent different

stages of life, rather than being proportionately equal. It is important to note that this chart

represents the ages for the unique instances of pins collected, rather than representing the

minimum number of individuals, as there is too little data to make it meaningful to break it down

any further.

The figure clearly shows that two out of three (20) of the unique instances of pins collected fell

into the “Retired” age group. This is to be expected, as that is the age group that most

consistently involved in history and archaeology events in Pensacola. The “Young Adult” age

group represented 1/5th (6) of the total participants, all of which were students from the

University of West Florida (UWF). Again, this is not surprising, as the university has a large, and

active, archaeological student body. The rest of the participants (4) fell into the “Adult” category;

no pattern was observed for this age group.

No minors participated in the program, which was unfortunate as the concept of collectible pins

has the potential to appeal to both children and teenagers. Though many of the events were

simply lectures, which would not appeal to families with young children, seven of the events

were accessible to children, and some even had children present. The lack of participation from

minors may be due to the realities of family time restrictions during the school year, though

every event took place in the evening or on weekends, or families with children may simply

require advertising that targets this group differently than the rest.

Conclusions

Despite the small data sample, the hypothesis that identified the limiting factor for the original

plan was the requirement that participants check-in at Pin Events on Foursquare is supported.

The lack of any participation during the portion of the project when this plan was active,

1 Please note that the single pin on September 10th was actually distributed without a Foursquare check-in, so, even

though it is dated before the change, it should be grouped with the events under the adjusted program.

7

compared to the adjusted plan where every event had some participation, clearly shows that

Foursquare was restricting involvement in the program.

The data itself does not offer an explanation for this lack of participation. Qualitative

observations made during this period, based upon reactions by individuals to the program,

suggest that the reasons are related to the need for a smartphone or the need for an account with

an unknown, or additional, social media site. This suggests that either Foursquare or smartphones

(or both) are not a reliable tool for public outreach in the Pensacola area at this time.

There are two likely reasons for this response. The first is generational; two thirds of the

participants belonged to an older generation, which tends to be less interested in new technology.

Also possible, and not mutually exclusive, is that some cultural aspect of the Pensacola area

results in either a smaller population with smartphones or fewer people involved in social media

compared to other areas. This means that future projects in the area should be cautious of relying

too heavily upon smart phone technology and social media.

The goal to promote visitation to local heritage sites saw no measurable effect. Figure 6 shows

the number of Foursquare check-ins for the time the program was active, as well as the month

prior, at 26 sites in Florida’s Panhandle in the “Panhandle History” list on Foursquare.1 Though

the Foursquare check-in requirement was dropped at events, the historic venue lists were still

advertised on the back of the starter card, and participants had the option of gaining one of their

pins by checking in at 12 of the 26 sites. As this option saw zero participation, and the

ineffectiveness of Foursquare as a promotional tool has already been established, this suggests

the method of measuring this goal was flawed and is unable to say anything about the project’s

ability to promote visitation itself.

The objective to promote heritage events saw more encouraging results. Out of the 30 total

instances, five attended an event as a direct result of the program which, if the ratio remains

constant with a larger sample, is a promising outcome. One particularly strong response was

witnessed by an individual who was motivated to email several times as she was concerned

about completing her collection. A single response of this nature does not prove anything, though

it does demonstrate the potential interest in such a project.

None of the participants in the program learned of and attended an event as a result of

announcements made on social media sites. Those who attended events because of the pins

learned about the event through word of mouth. As a result, the objective to encourage the use of

FPAN’s social media sites for announcements of heritage events was not successful. This

suggests that in the Florida Panhandle region social media cannot be relied upon exclusively to

operate a program at this time.

1 This graph only displays 15 venues, as 11 venues had no Foursquare check-ins during the project duration.

8

Where to go from here

Since there are so many pins remaining, and the adjusted program provided some indication that

a collectible pin series might be useful for event promotion, it is worth adjusting the program

once again sometime in the near future. Considering the results, at this time the program should

keep all three goals of the adjusted plan, but make some changes in how the program runs to

hopefully improve participation.

The promotion of the visitation to local sites, outside of Pin Events themselves, is problematic.

As social media check-ins eliminates at least part of the potential audience, they are not a viable

method for tracking changes. If this goal is to be pursued, another method of recording data is

required.

One possibility would be to use a “passport” which people could get stamped at various venues

to receive a pin upon completion. The passport program is not new, and in fact has been quite

successfully implemented by the U.S. National Park Service. However, this becomes more a test

of the passport concept rather than the collectible pin series itself. This would also require a large

number of independent venues to participate, which is problematic, and also has the drawback

that visitors may simply visit to check the site off the list.

The other option is to cooperate with venues featured on the pins so that visitors receive a

discount on entry, or perhaps some small trinket, if they have that venue’s pin (i.e. show the

lighthouse pin at the lighthouse). This has the benefit of causing visitation to be a little more

casual, and requires cooperation from fewer venues. On the other hand, these venues need to be

more closely involved, as they must give the visitor something, and measuring the effectiveness

of the program will require them to keep track of how many individuals take advantage of the

opportunity. Despite the potential problems, this plan is more promising.

Social media by itself is not effective for promoting the program. As every participant who

showed up specifically for a Pin Event learned of the event through word of mouth, it is clear

that a larger variety of methods must be used for announcing events. Pin Events need to be

announced at the beginning of the project, rather than immediately before the event, allowing

people to plan for when they want to visit, and to easily see how long they have until the

program ends.

Though relying solely on social media is not effective, the program can still be designed to

encourage the use of FPAN’s social media sites. Instead of the exclusive source for all Pin

Events, Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare will be used to remind people of upcoming Pin

Events and will be the exclusive source for additional Pin Events that are not listed on event

calendars. In this way the program does not rely upon participants making use of the social

media sites, but those who do are rewarded with extra opportunities to collect pins.

Is a collectible series program a viable tool for promoting local heritage sites? The results are not

conclusive at this point, though there are indications that it is worth investigating this question

further. The number of participants was not high enough to clearly state that this strategy is a

9

viable promotional tool, but the interest expressed, and the intensity of that interest, suggests

that, if executed differently, the program still has potential as a tool for promoting heritage

events, historic sites, and possibly social media in general, if not Foursquare in particular.

10

Figure 3: The number of pins distributed per event by type. *Note: this pin was distributed without a Foursquare check-in.

11

Figure 4: The number of pins distributed by type during the program.

15

9

6

3 3

Pensacola Lighthouse T. T. Wentworth Museum Arcadia Mill Old Christ Church Fort Pickens

Pins Distributed by Type (in sequence)

12

Figure 5: The level of participation from each age group.

Young Adult20%

Adult13%

Retired67%

Degree of Participation by Age Group

13

Figure 6: The weekly check-ins for each venue on the "Panhandle History" list. Null values excluded.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Weekly Check-ins by Venue

Air Force Armament Museum Apalachicola Maritime Museum Baker Block Museum

Blountstown Pioneer Settlement Eden Gardens State Park Fort Pickens

Goodwood Museum and Gardens Heritage Museum of Northwest Florida Historic Pensacola Village

Mission San Luis Man in the Sea Museum Pensacola Lighthouse-Nas

Stephen Foster Folk Cultre Center State Park Walton County Heritage Museum Arcadia Mill

14

Table 1: The pins distributed at each event. *Note: this pin was distributed without a Foursquare check-in.

Event Date # Participants

Pensacola

Lighthouse

T. T.

Wentworth

Museum

Arcadia

Mill

Old

Christ

Church

Fort

Pickens Totals

Gulf Breeze Public Library Lecture 9/3/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pensacola Archaeological Society* 9/10/2013 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

Gulf Breeze Historical Society Lecture 9/17/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Archaeology Café 9/18/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arcadia Mill Pin Day 9/21/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dash to the Past 9/28/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arcadia Mill Lecture Series 10/5/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pensacola Archaeological Society 10/8/2013 9 8 1 0 0 0 9

Arcadia Mill Lecture Series 10/12/2013 2 2 0 0 0 0 2

Atlatl Workshop 10/19/2013 2 2 0 0 0 0 2

Arcadia Mill Lecture Series 10/26/2013 3 0 3 0 0 0 3

Bluegrass Concert 10/26/2013 5 2 1 2 0 0 5

Pensacola Archaeological Society 11/13/2013 4 0 4 0 0 0 4

Library Lecture 11/14/2013 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

Ceramic Workshop 11/16/2013 1 0 0 1 1 1 3

Volunteer Archaeology Lab Day 11/23/2013 2 0 0 2 2 2 6

Totals 30 15 9 6 3 3 36

15

Table 2: The number of participants by age group per event. *Note: this pin was distributed without a Foursquare check-in.

Event Date Children Teens

Young

Adult Adult Retired Totals

Gulf Breeze Public Library Lecture 9/3/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pensacola Archaeological Society* 9/10/2013 0 0 0 0 1 1

Gulf Breeze Historical Society Lecture 9/17/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0

Archaeology Café 9/18/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arcadia Mill Pin Day 9/21/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dash to the Past 9/28/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arcadia Mill Lecture Series 10/5/2013 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pensacola Archaeological Society 10/8/2013 0 0 3 2 4 9

Arcadia Mill Lecture Series 10/12/2013 0 0 0 0 2 2

Atlatl Workshop 10/19/2013 0 0 0 0 2 2

Arcadia Mill Lecture Series 10/26/2013 0 0 0 0 3 3

Bluegrass Concert 10/26/2013 0 0 0 1 4 5

Pensacola Archaeological Society 11/13/2013 0 0 2 0 2 4

Library Lecture 11/14/2013 0 0 0 1 1

Ceramic Workshop 11/16/2013 0 0 0 1 0 1

Volunteer Archaeology Lab Day 11/23/2013 0 0 0 1 1 2

Totals 0 0 5 5 20 30

16

Table 3: Foursquare check-ins for venues on the “Panhandle History” list one month prior to, and during the project. *Note: The project ended on November 23rd, so this entry

represents only three days.

8/1

/2013

8/8

/2013

8/1

5/2

01

3

8/2

2/2

01

3

8/2

9/2

01

3

9/5

/2013

9/1

2/2

01

3

9/1

9/2

01

3

9/2

6/2

01

3

10/3

/201

3

10/1

0/2

013

10/1

7/2

013

10/2

4/2

013

10/3

1/2

013

11/7

/201

3

11/1

4/2

013

11/2

1/2

013

*

Air Force Armament Museum 5 8 3 8 6 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 1

Apalachicola Maritime Museum 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Baker Block Museum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Blountstown Pioneer Settlement 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Eden Gardens State Park 5 4 4 11 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

Fort Pickens 9 9 2 7 9 7 6 5 3 0 0 1 3 6 4 3 0

Goodwood Museum and Gardens 2 0 1 6 0 5 1 1 3 0 5 2 2 3 5 3 8

Heritage Museum of Northwest Florida 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Historic Pensacola Village 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Mission San Luis 1 1 0 2 1 5 1 0 3 2 0 1 6 0 2 3 2

Man in the Sea Museum 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Pensacola Lighthouse-NAS 3 13 8 8 7 2 6 9 3 2 6 5 3 1 7 4 1

Stephen Foster Folk Culture Center State Park 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 1

Walton County Heritage Museum 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arcadia Mill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

17

Bibliography

Drell, Lauren

2011 How To: Start marketing on Foursquare. Global Strategic Management Institute.

<http://mashable.com/2011/04/27/how-to-foursquare/>. Accessed January 5, 2014.

Dufton, J. Andrew, and Stuart Eve

2012 Guerrilla Foursquare: a Digital Archaeological Appropriation of Commercial Location-

Based Social Networking. Proceedings of the 40th Conference in Computer Applications and

Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Southampton, United Kingdom, 26-30 March 2012.

https://www.academia.edu/5088693/Guerrilla_Foursquare_a_Digital_Archaeological_Appropria

tion_of_Commercial_Location-Based_Social_Networking. Accessed January 5, 2014.

Khalidi, Adlan

2010 Understanding Location-Based Media: Foursquare.

<http://adlankhalidi.com/2010/understanding-location-based-media-foursquare/>. Accessed

January 5, 2014.

Richardson, Lorna

2013 Foursquare at University of Cambridge Museums.

<http://digipubarch.org/2013/04/28/foursquare-at-university-of-cambridge-museums/>.

Thompson, Christopher

2013 Foursquare NOT Phasing Out Partner Badges. About Foursquare.

<http://aboutfoursquare.com/foursquare-phasing-out-partner-badges/>. Accessed January 5,

2014.