Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
School of Information Studies
The Factors Influencing Effective Web 2.0
Tools Used to Market Library
Services & Resources
Zhixian (George) Yi
School of Information Studies
Faculty of Education
March 12, 2014
School of Information Studies
Overview
Introduction
Literature review
Study framework and hypothesis development
Methodology
Findings and discussion
Conclusions
References
School of Information Studies
INTRODUCTION
School of Information Studies
Background to the Problem
Digitisation in libraries, archives and other information agencies is a new
trend. Information technologies, especially Web 2.0, have provided more
options for people to access information.
To keep pace with evolving information technologies, librarians use a group
of software applications including blogs, wikis and podcasting, media-
sharing tools such as YouTube and Flickr, and social networking services
such as Twitter and Facebook (Hinchliffe and Leon, 2011; Moulaison and
Corrado, 2011) to market their services and resources with mixed success.
Xia (2009) examined how librarians marketed their libraries and services
using Facebook in research universities. However, it was not conclusive
about which Web 2.0 tool was more effective than any other Web 2.0 tool
in marketing services and resources.
School of Information Studies
Purpose
The purpose of this study (Yi, 2014) is to examine
how Australian academic librarians perceive effective
Web 2.0 tools used to market library services and
resources and the factors influencing perceptions of
the Web 2.0 tools used.
School of Information Studies
Research Questions
1). How do academic librarians perceive effective Web
2.0 tools used to market their services and resources?
2). What factors influence their perceptions of the Web
2.0 tools used?
School of Information Studies
Significance of This Study
This study provides a better understanding of academic
librarians’ attitudes, views as well as effective Web 2.0 tools
used to market their services and resources.
Librarians can use the results to reflect on the effectiveness of
the Web 2.0 tools used, to balance the weight of the factors’
influences and to better understand various effective Web 2.0
tools to enable them to market academic library services and
resources more effectively in the future.
School of Information Studies
LITERATURE REVIEW
School of Information Studies
Current Studies
Web 2.0 technologies have been readily adopted by information
organisations. With the enormous popularity of Web 2.0's
platforms, libraries, archives, museums and other information
agencies have embraced them as a method of promoting
themselves and marketing services and resources for their clients.
Some studies have been conducted to investigate the application
of Web 2.0 tools in university libraries (Kim & Abbas, 2010;
Nguyen 2008; Tripathi & Kumar 2010; Xu, Ouyang & Chu,
2009). However, the focus has been on their use as enhancements
to library services, rather than a means for specifically marketing
services and resources.
School of Information Studies
Literature Gaps
While the literature is quite strong on discussing, exploring and
even analysing the use of Web 2.0 tools in libraries, there has been
no real study that has examined the effective use of these tools to
market services and resources, particularly in Australian
university libraries.
Little information is given about the factors influencing
perceptions of the Web 2.0 tools used.
School of Information Studies
STUDY FRAMEWORK &
HYPOTHESISDEVELOPMENT
School of Information Studies
Study Framework
This framework is to study the relationship between the
Web 2.0 tools used and three kinds of predictors: (1)
demographics, (2) human capital and (3) library
variables.
School of Information Studies
Hypotheses According to the results of a pilot study (Yi, Lodge and
McCausland, 2013, p. 593), age and present positions were
significant predictors and other independent variables were not
significant. It is hypothesised that there are significant
relationships between age or years at present position and the Web
2.0 tools used to market services and resources.
It is also hypothesised that there are not significant relationships
between Web 2.0 tools used and gender, education level, number
of different positions, years of service, the formal study of
marketing, attendance at a marketing workshop in the last 5 years,
and library variables.
School of Information Studies
METHODOLOGY
School of Information Studies
Data
An online survey was sent to 400 academic librarians
in 37 Australian universities. The response rate was
57.5%.
In this study, 71.7% (165) of 230 respondents
returning the surveys successfully answered the
question on the effective Web 2.0 tools used to market
services and resources. The final analysis did not
include 65 incomplete questionnaires.
School of Information Studies
Variables
Dependent Variables: Web 2.0 tools (blogs, email
newsletter, Facebook advertising, Flickr, Google Voice,
instant messaging, LibraryThing, LinkedIn, mashups,
MySpace, podcasts, RSS feeds, Second Life, self-posted
Facebook, tagging, Twitter, vodcasts, wikis and
YouTube) used to market services and resources
Independent Variables: (1) demographics; (2) human
capital; and (3) library variables
School of Information Studies
Data Analysis
The collected quantitative and qualitative data were
analysed using descriptive (frequencies, percentages,
means and standard deviations) and inferential statistics
(ordinal regressions).
School of Information Studies
FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
School of Information Studies
Descriptive Results (1)
In terms of what Web 2.0 tools were effective ones used to
market services and resources, 41.2% of respondents perceived
that blogs were effective and 25.5% of respondents reported that
blogs were more effective. However, only 5.5% of respondents
thought that blogs were most effective.
32.7% of respondents thought that email newsletter was
effective. 33.9% of respondents reported that Facebook
advertising was effective. 27.9% of respondents thought that
instant messaging was an effective marketing tool, with 32.1% of
respondents perceiving that podcasts were an effective marketing
tool.
33.3% of respondents thought that RSS feeds were effective and
20% of respondents thought that RSS feeds were more effective.
School of Information Studies
Descriptive Results (2) 22.4% of respondents reported that self-posted Facebook was an
effective marketing tool and 24.8% of respondents perceived that
tagging was an effective tool.
Twitter was perceived to be effectively and more effectively used
to market services and resources by 29.1% and 18.8% of
respondents. 27.3% of respondents thought that vodcasts were
effective.
37.6% of respondents thought that wikis were an effective tool,
17.0% thought that wikis were more effective and 5.5% of
respondents reported that wikis were most effective.
39.4% of respondents thought that YouTube was an effective
tool, 34.5% thought that YouTube was more effective and 10.3%
of respondents reported that YouTube was most effective.
School of Information Studies
Dependent and Independent Variables
Table 1 below shows the percentages, medians and ranges
of the variables. The dependent variables were the Web 2.0
tools used to market services and resources. They were
ordinal variables.
Gender, formally studying marketing and attending a
workshop on marketing in the last 5 years were nominal
variables. The ordinal variables included age and education
level. The other independent variables were continuous
ones.
School of Information Studies
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of variables used in the analysis.
Variables Percent/Mean SD
Dependent Variables
Blogs 3a 4b
Email newsletter 2a 4b
Facebook advertising 2a 4b
Flickr 1a 4b
Google voice 1a 4b
Instant messaging 2a 4b
LibraryThing 1a 4b
LinkedIn 1a 4b
Mashups 1a 4b
MySpace 1a 4b
Podcasts 2a 4b
RSS feeds 2a 4b
Second life 1a 4b
Self-posted Facebook 2a 4b
Tagging 1a 4b
Twitter 2a 4b
Vodcasts 2a 4b
Wikis 3a 4b
YouTube 3a 4b
Independent Variables
Male 27.3%
Age (10-point scale) 7a 9b
Education level 3a 5b
Years of present position 6.4 5.5
Years involved in all library services 21.6 10.9
Number of different library professional positions 5.7 3.5
Number of staff 98.4 61.9
Number of library branches 4.7 3.2
Number of total population 30236.9 17859.1
Formally studying marketing 15.2%
Attending a workshop on marketing in the last 5 years 35.8%
Legend: SD = Standard deviation
ª Median, b Range
School of Information Studies
Results of Ordinal Regressions
Table 2 and Tables 2 (continued 1, 2 and 3) below demonstrate
the ordinal regression estimates predicting the effective Web 2.0
tools used to market services and resources. The results display
that independent variables— male, age, number of different
library professional positions, attending a workshop on marketing
in the last 5 years, number of staff, years of present position,
number of total patrons, and education level—significantly
impacted the outcome variables.
School of Information Studies
Table 2: Ordinal regression estimates predicting the effective Web 2.0 tools used to market library
services and resources.
Blogs
newsletter
advertising Flickr
Voice
Predictors β β β β β
Threshold 1 -1.209 -2.171** -2.199** .060 .030
(.765) (.786) (.760) (.758) (.778)
Threshold 2 .346 .449 -.484 1.769* 1.428
(.739) (.755) (.739) (.772) (.788)
Threshold 3 2.183** 2.231** 1.328 3.561*** 3.737***
(.760) (.777) (.750) (.831) (.917)
Threshold 4 4.322*** 4.441*** 3.361*** 5.128*** 5.147***
(.831) (.947) (.881) (1.037) (1.260)
Male -.541 .004 -.609 -.625* -.526
(.330) (.335) (.330) (.343) (.335)
Age .338** -.140 -.206 .092 -.042
(.122) (.123) (.120) (.123) (.126)
Education level .005 .077 .091 -.098 -.057
(.096) (.098) (.096) (.098) (.101)
Years of present position -.028 .003 -.015 -.011 .018
(.032) (.033) (.032) (.032) (.033)
Years involved in all library services -.035 .009 .037 .018 .014
(.023) (.024) (.023) (.024) (.025)
Number of different library
professional positions .018 .035 -.108* -.071 -.046
(.054) (.055) (.055) (.056) (.057)
Number of staff .004 .003 .004 .005 .006
(.003) (.003) (.003) (.003) (.003)
Number of library branches -.055 -.045 .041 .000 .010
(.052) (.054) (.052) (.053) (.055)
Number of total population .166 .536 .829 .893 .868
(.003) (.019) (.003) (.035) (.094)
Formally studying marketing .054 .067 .281 -.059 -.107
School of Information Studies
Table 2 (continued 1): Ordinal regression estimates predicting the effective Web 2.0 tools used
to market library services and resources.
Instant
messaging LibraryThing LinkedIn Mashups MySpace
Predictors β β β β β
Threshold 1 -.985 1.273 .106 .600 1.282
(.738) (.773) (.771) (.766) (.824)
Threshold 2 .342 2.743*** 1.719* 2.091** 3.128***
(.734) (.798) (.784) (.784) (.859)
Threshold 3 1.875* 4.653*** 3.359*** 3.681*** 4.575***
(.751) (.878) (.842) (.835) (.946)
Threshold 4 4.659*** 5.525*** 4.925*** 4.647*** 5.507***
(1.018) (.981) (1.046) (.921) (1.093)
Male -.598* -.528 -.748* -.572 -.310
(.329) (.347) (.355) (.347) (.365)
Age .041 .196 .012 .084 .199
(.118) (.124) (.125) (.124) (.131)
Education level -.055 .030 -.137 -.065 -.052
(.059) (.098) (.100) (.099) (.105)
Years of present position .001 .027 .038 .007 .045
(.031) (.032) (.033) (.032) (.034)
Years involved in all library
services .010 -.021 -.005 .012 -.014
(.023) (.024) (.024) (.024) (.025)
Number of different library
professional positions -.079 .025 .035 -.012 -.002
(.055) (.055) (.056) (.056) (.060)
Number of staff -.005 .002 .006* .004 .001
(.003) (.003) (.003) (.003) (.003)
Number of library branches .077 .039 .013 .006 -.052
(.052) (.053) (.054) (.053) (.059)
Number of total population .107 .793 .209 .843 .284
(.944) (.039) (.084) (.051) (.101)
School of Information Studies
Table 2 (continued 2): Ordinal regression estimates predicting the effective Web 2.0 tools used to
market library services and resources.
Podcasts RSS feeds Second Life
Self-posted
Facebook Tagging
Predictors β β β β β
Threshold 1 -.533 -2.123** 1.251 -1.298 -.083
(.742) (.771) (.851) (.745) (.739)
Threshold 2 1.059 -.088 2.812*** .219 1.249
(.742) (.742) (.880) (.738) (.746)
Threshold 3 2.839*** 1.563* 4.264*** 1.684* 2.845***
(.776) (.755) (.964) (.757) (.779)
Threshold 4 4.757*** 4.435*** 4.786*** 4.734*** 4.474***
(.909) (.950) (1.030) (1.231) (.898)
Male -.505 -.874** -.119 -.655* -.561
(.330) (.336) (.375) (.334) (.333)
Age .202 .166 .278* -.161 .191
(.120) (.120) (.136) (.119) (.120)
Education level -.067 -.151 -.125 .047 .050
(.095) (.097) (.111) (.096) (.095)
Years of present position -.044 -.070* .016 .025 -.014
(.032) (.032) (.035) (.032) (.032)
Years involved in all library
services -.021 -.003 -.044 .003 -.033
(.023) (.023) (.026) (.023) (.023)
Number of different library
professional positions .079 .018 -.015 -.050 .008
(.055) (.055) (.062) (.054) (.054)
Number of staff .006* .007* .004 .004 .007*
(.003) (.003) (.003) (.003) (.003)
Number of library branches .023 -.047 -.010 .001 -.037
(.052) (.052) (.059) (.052) (.052)
Number of total population -.072* .563 .969 .253 .675
(.016) (.022) (.146) (.004) (.023)
Formally studying marketing -.401 -.207 -.298 .212 .148
School of Information Studies
Table 2 (continued 3): Ordinal regression estimates predicting the effective Web 2.0 tools used to
market library services and resources.
Twitter Vodcasts Wikis YouTube
Predictors β β β β
Threshold 1 -1.854* -1.085 -2.386** -2.094**
(.750) (.745) (.762) (.779)
Threshold 2 -.136 .438 -1.145 -1.431
(.732) (.740) (.742) (.761)
Threshold 3 1.235 2.171** .677 .619
(.740) (.769) (.739) (.750)
Threshold 4 3.501*** 3.738*** 2.379** 2.746***
(.848) (.886) (.795) (.790)
Male -.558 -.787* -.914** -.659*
(.328) (.334) (.332) (.335)
Age -.023 .052 -.084 -.008
(.118) (.119) (.119) (.121)
Education level .056 -.137 -.194* -.038
(.095) (.096) (.096) (.097)
Years of present position -.033 -.022 -.042 -.040
(.032) (.032) (.032) (.032)
Years involved in all library services .000 -.015 .020 .009
(.023) (.023) (.023) (.024)
Number of different library professional
positions -.044 .048 -.009 -.051
(.054) (.054) (.054) (.055)
Number of staff .007* -.001 -.001 .006
(.003) (.003) (.003) (.003)
Number of library branches -.049 .044 .082 .000
(.052) (.052) (.052) (.053)
Number of total population .337 .258 .006 .040
(.942) (.998) (.943) (.017)
Formally studying marketing .360 -.185 .331 .093
(.411) (.415) (.413) .420
Attending a workshop on marketing in
School of Information Studies
CONCLUSIONS
School of Information Studies
Summary of the Findings
When marketing services and resources, librarians actually used a variety of
Web 2.0 tools. This study demonstrates that librarians had varying perceptions
of effective Web 2.0 tools used.
The key findings show that demographics, human capital and library variables
play an important and significant role in predicting librarians’ perceptions of
effective Web 2.0 tools used to market services and resources.
This study confirmed that some librarians marketed services and resources
using a variety of effective Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and email newsletter,
while others used different, but still effective, Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter,
wikis, and YouTube to market services and resources.
School of Information Studies
Practical Implications
This study provides a better understanding of academic
librarians’ attitudes, views as well as effective Web 2.0 tools used
to market their services and resources.
To market services and resources, librarians need to use effective
Web 2.0 tools to the given situations.
How to use effective Web 2.0 tools to market services and
resources may be taught in schools as well as in work places.
School of Information Studies
Limitations
Academic librarians’ views about how to market
services and resources using effective Web 2.0 tools
might be different from the views of independent
observers.
Data were collected only from librarians perceiving the
effective Web 2.0 tools used to market services and
resources for only one point in time.
School of Information Studies
Future Research
Future research will focus on how often librarians use
these Web 2.0 tools and other effective marketing tools
for marketing purposes in the digital age.
School of Information Studies
REFERENCES Kim, Y., & Abbas, J. (2010). Adoption of library 2.0 functionalities by academic libraries and users: A knowledge
management perspective. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 211-218.
Hinchliffe, L.J. & Leon, R. (2011). Innovation as a framework for adopting Web 2.0 marketing approaches. In D.
Gupta & R. Savard. (Eds.), Marketing libraries in a Web 2.0 world (pp. 58-65). Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
Moulaison, H.L. & Corrado, E.M. (2011). Staying free from ‘corporate marketing machines’ library policy for
Web 2.0 tools. In D. Gupta & R. Savard. (Eds.), Marketing libraries in a Web 2.0 world (pp. 43-55).
Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
Nguyen, C.L. (2008). A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries. Library Hi Tech,
26(4), 630-653.
Tripathi, M., & Kumar, S. (2010). Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries: A reconnaissance of the
international landscape. The International Information & Library Review, 42, 195-207.
Xia, Z.D. (2009). Marketing library services through Facebook groups. Library Management, 30(6/7), 469-478.
Xu, C., Ouyang, F., & Chu, H. (2009). The academic library meets Web 2.0: Applications and implications. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), 324-331.
Yi, Z., Lodge, D., & McCausland, S. (2013). Australian academic librarians’ perceptions of marketing services
and resources. Library Management, 34(8/9), 585-602.
Yi, Z. (2014). (in press). Australian academic librarians’ perceptions of effective Web 2.0 tools used to market
services and resources. The Journal of Academic Librarianship.
School of Information Studies
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the CSU Faculty of
Education Small Grant.
Thank respondents so much for participating in this
study.
School of Information Studies
Thank You So Much!
Questions or Comments?