The Factors Influencing Effective Web 2.0 Tools Used to Market - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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
• ptions for people to access information.

 To keep pace with evolving information technologies, librarians use a group

• f 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

• rganisations. 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

• f 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

• f 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%

• f respondents reported that YouTube was most effective.

School of Information Studies

Dependent and Independent Variables

Table 1 below shows the percentages, medians and ranges

• f the variables. The dependent variables were the Web 2.0

tools used to market services and resources. They were

• rdinal 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
• nes.

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 Email newsletter Facebook advertising Flickr Google 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

• f 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

• bservers.

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?