Posts Back in 1993, after Peter Steiner’s “on the internet no-one knows you’re a dog” cartoon was published in The New Yorker (pg 61 of July 5, 1993), everyone seemed to have it up on their wall. I remember falling over myself laughing at it, because we were all coming to terms with online identities and their general slipperiness.
Recently there have been lots of discussion of libraries who set up their own MySpace account. For example, here, here, here and here. The recipe seems to be: “Go to where your users are (MySpace), get an account, add some information, and maybe a catalogue search box, get some friends and voila! an extra service point”. I wonder whether this is only an American trend, as I don’t know of any Australian libraries doing it…. although the Second Life Libraries have.
I know it is touted as A Good Thing, but my gut feeling when I see it is
“Nooooo it’s just for people…making real social contact, however banal…..leave them alone and don’t stick your nose in”.
The fine line between marketing and social contact is so very jumbled today, that I know it’s a naive response. Some corporations do try to find a way into online social space to market their wares, but I believe that most libraries are there because they want to be part of the conversation and to offer users better service.
In our physical spaces, social contact is definitely one of our roles – chatting with staff behind the counter as you check your books out each week is a very important part of many people’s lives. Even when we offer self-checkout stations, people will pop over to the counter after checking the books to say hello.
But last night, something occured to me that I find even more disturbing. What if avatars in Second Life stop only representing people? Already some individuals have an “alt”, or alter avatar. I suspect some SL librarians have their “professional self” avatar..and then the naughty one who rushes around buying expensive strap on appendages for a different kind of SL experience. This is a “one person/many identities” setup.
How about the “many people/one identity arrangement? What if a library set itslef up as an avatar? Let’s call her “Ima Library”. Instead of going to a building to a reference service point, you could just IM Ima. Ima could come along to distance learning classes and teach information literacy. Same principle as libraries in MySpace, but one which somehow messes more with my mind.
And then..what if a blog took on an avatar. What if LibrariansMatter DingDong offered you friendship? How about NewModelHonda Esperanz , would you chat with her? Would you feel that a cynical marketing ploy was being pulled on you?
Back in the good old days of 1993, people were just people and libraries were just libraries and we all knew who was who…except, of course, those of us who were dogs.
I think that the idea of Miss Ima Library is an interesting one. Think job share, working from home, working odd hours, timeshifting, attending meetings as representative of your group with video or still capture.Can I have afternoon shift? TB-)
TB – Woof, woof, arf, arf, arf, woof woof woof…hooowl!
Interesting point about the fine line between marketing and social contact. I think the concept of ‘marketing’ libraries, as applied to social (including but not necessarily electronic) networks is an ambiguous and complex one. As I commented on David Lee King’s library blog, if libraries develop in 2.0 directions, they need to promote the new services they are offering. It’s not enough to market ‘libraries’ as such, as if public libraries are an information brand, like Borders or Amazon.
The whole proposition of marketing is made more complex by patron’s use of Library2.0 elements being somewhat uncaptureable. If libraries are viewed as repositories, then we can measure our success (and professional importance) in the market in terms of circulation etc. But Library2.0 positions us as a conduit towards largely external nodes information/education/entertainment. I’m concerned that once we give patrons a start in new information-seeking behaviour, many will flee the nest pretty quickly. Librarians will have to wonder how muich of Library2.0 is going to be ‘about us’. This has implications for marketing concepts such as setting up MySpace-type avatars. Who will want to be our friend?
I think one of the tenet of Library 2.0 is that you need to know about YOUR users and what THEY want, not what generic “library patrons” want. We’ve always been about that, but part of the change is to become “extreme listeners” ..and change what we do in response. And even that isn’t enough….we have to let them in and create content too. I agree with you, this is very different to just branding.
As to who would want to be our friend? Good question. Much as I like my local library, I just don’t want it butting its nose in my conversations. But..if I could invite it in when I needed it…and it knew how to be in some of the digital places I hang out…(eg. to show me about local genealogy using a Second Life meeting space)…then I’d be delighted. I think I wouldn’t even care if it came to me as Ima Librarian.
Buy the way, I subscribed to your blog, but the Flickr stream you spliced into the feed was too much for me to read..do you have a version without this?
[...] to think that in February I freaked out about the absurd concept of someone creating a Second Life avatar called s… [...]
[...] Kathryn Greenhill wrote a wonderful post about trust and personality in online spaces [...]