Web 2.0

This report contains an evaluative statement using three experiences documented in this journal as evidence of meeting the learning outcomes of the subject and a reflective statement on my development as a social networker.

Evaluative Statement

The three immersive learning experiences documented in this Online Learning Journal (OLJ) titled Library 2.0, Social Media Marketing and The Social Media Revolution illustrate an understanding of social networking technologies and library 2.0, the ability to evaluate social networking technologies for both users and organisations, and comprehension of developing and implementing information policy to support the use of social networking technologies.

Social media has been described as online tools which “allow for the creation and exchange of user-generated content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61) and enable “communication, participation and collaboration” (Thoring, 2011, p. 142). Social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, are the most popular type of social media, with 15 million active Australian users of Facebook as of April 2016 (Cowling, 2016). With such a membership rate, organisations must use social networking technologies in order to successfully interact with their community.

The Library 2.0 learning activity demonstrates an understanding of social networking technologies as reference is made to updating processes and technologies to move towards a more connected and collaborative library, which are specific benefits of social networking and web 2.0. This activity also identifies a current confidence with utilisation of Facebook and a desire to further explore Twitter after gaining an understanding of the dialogical benefits of the tool.

Web 2.0 describes the use of the internet as a platform for users to interact, collaborate and create content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61; Kwanya, Stilwell, & Underwood, 2013, p. 188). Library 2.0 utilises both the social media technology of Web 2.0 and the participative principles behind it. The term ultimately describes an alteration of how librarians and library patrons interact (Holmberg et al., as cited in Huvila, Holmberg, Kronquist-Berg, Nivakoski, & Widén, 2013, p. 198). Androich (2012) reiterates the importance of meeting customers in the communication channel of their preference, and increasingly this is social media. To be successful in library 2.0, librarians must be active in these channels.

The five pieces of selected advice in the Library 2.0 learning activity do not simply define library 2.0, but instead relate to improving adoption of the concept in a particular workplace. This indicates an advanced comprehension of library 2.0 and how it applies in a practical context. As a solid grasp of the concept of web 2.0 is necessary to understand library 2.0 (Kwanya et al., 2013, p. 188), it can be surmised that the Library 2.0 journal post signifies competence in the understanding of both concepts.

Social media connect people with each other and organisations in new ways. When used strategically, and selected carefully for their individual features and functionality, social networking tools can vastly improve relationships with users of organisations, and help to achieve organisational goals.

The Social Media Marketing journal activity illustrates an understanding that use of social networking tools must represent the needs of the organisation and its users. The first step is to work out what the overarching organisational goals and smaller social media targets are and then decide which tools best meet those needs.

For example, Facebook allows people to “discover what’s going on in the world” and “express what matters to them” (Facebook, 2004) while Twitter is limited to 140 characters and identifies itself with “real-time updates” and “what’s happening now (“Twitter is your window to the world,” 2016). Therefore Facebook is ideal for creating either a public community or private workplace network, and sharing opinions, information relating to the organisation, photos and videos. Twitter is particularly good for concise interactions and live tweeting during events. Both are good for receiving and responding to feedback. Use of Pinterest has been shown to have different motivators such as fashion and creative projects (Mull & Lee, 2014, p. 196), and so could be a better investment for retailers rather than information organisations.

The Library 2.0 learning activity also supports the ability to critically examine the features of particular social networking technologies, as a developing understanding of the benefits of Twitter is described. The ability to respond to feedback is also discussed as a positive functionality for organisations, as even if the feedback is negative, responding promptly shows a side of the organisation that can be seen to care about the public.

The Social Media Marketing activity demonstrates an understanding of a flexible implementation strategy after technologies are selected, consistently evaluating them to gauge if they are still successfully meeting the needs of the work group and the users of the organisation.This can be done by using the analytics capabilities of each technology (King, 2015, p. 26; Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p. 79).

In a socially networked world, where brand control has shifted to consumers (Thoring, 2011, p. 141), marketing is about participation in social media and having a conversation (Thoring, p. 142).

The Social Media Revolution learning activity displays understanding of issues arising from this need to participate in social networking. The activity shows comprehension of how individuals currently behave as digital citizens and the implications this has for information policy development. Areas identified as needing further policy include appropriate and safe internet use, information evaluation education, copyright, equal access to information and general implementation policy surrounding responsibility for social networking technologies and moderation of content.

Some important points when developing policy include ensuring the policy is not restricted to particular technologies. The policy should also support organisational goals, the culture of the organisation and its users (“Keys for developing a social media policy,” 2013).

Reflective Statement

In the introductory post at the beginning of this subject, I was using the social networking sites Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. I expressed interest in learning about other tools and discovering how social media could be maximised in the professional environment and whether the value of social media really outweighed the staff time and effort for implementation. I have found this subject to be an extremely satisfying learning experience, as although I was previously confident that I knew the unique benefits of social media and how this applied in a practical setting, I discovered that I was lacking a true understanding of just how effective social networking technologies can be when used appropriately. They are essential to meeting the needs of users and therefore achieving organisational goals.

The most noticeable development in my understanding of the benefits of social networking technologies is that they are not designed to simply push information, but should be used to have a conversation with your users (Kavada, 2015, p. 1; Thoring, 2011, p. 142). When this is in place, true interaction and collaboration begins to occur, improving the relationship with users. As needs are met, the tools become more and more successful at achieving outcomes for the organisation.

In addition to understanding the importance of using social networking technologies to have a conversation, I have also learnt that strategic use of social media allows us to shape that conversation so that it serves our purposes (Kavada, 2015, p. 1). A successful strategy requires knowing what your users need and where they prefer to communicate. Consumers influence and create content, changing the corporate message to a social one (Kilgour, Sasser, & Larke, 2015, p. 327), which is more likely to be trusted by users. Allowing users to participate, and ensuring content is relevant and interesting to them allows users to enjoy their interactions with the library, as without enjoyment it is difficult to keep followers engaged (Curran & Lennon, 2011, p. 34). Social media also offers libraries the capability for a fast response to remote user enquiries, which can improve the reputation of the library with users (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p. 72).

Prior to this subject I thought Twitter rather superfluous, however I have completely reformed my opinion. Microblogging provides opportunities for succinct client feedback, networking, customer relations and publicity, particularly live tweeting during events (Thoring, 2011, p. 143). Combining these possibilities with the easy to scan feed, meaning users can quickly find information relevant to them (Dashevsky, 2015), makes Twitter an important organisational tool. I have already started to implement the use of Twitter within my employment at a public library and look forward to further developing the service.

I have further learning to do when it comes to information policy. I have a solid understanding that use of social media should fit into the larger strategic goals of the library (King, 2015, p. 32) and that due to the evolving nature of social media, policy should be regularly updated (“Keys to developing a social media policy,” p. 44). However, there are specific issues arising from the prominence of social networking, and although I am confident in providing policy to address the digital divide or regulate internet use and behaviour, in other areas such as intellectual property, privacy and safety I will be endeavouring to improve my level of knowledge.

With this new knowledge of how to utilise social media within an organisation, I am hoping to pioneer changes in my own workplace, a public library, to evolve our use of social media to move towards the library of the future, which is an intelligent, organised network of multiple information pathways (Kwanya et al., 2013, p. 192).

My development as a social networker through this subject has led to some new goals as an information professional. I would like to clearly define the needs of our users and improve our implementation strategy for social media to more closely align with those needs. I also will be endeavouring to ensure our content is not a one-way communication but is having a conversation with our users. Setting targets for social media engagement and content, and measuring them using the analytics capabilities of the technologies will also be important. Although these steps will take time, effort and cooperation of higher level staff, by streamlining our social networking strategy opportunities exist to use our staff time more effectively. For example, ceasing the use of Pinterest and spending this time improving Facebook and Twitter interactions. These measures will enable us to obtain better results from the use of social media and create an engaged community who improve the value of our service.

References

Androich, A. (2012). They’re talking (and tweeting), are you listening? Marketing, 117    (13), 16-18. Retrieved from      http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1460760917?  accountid=10344

Cowling, D. (2016, May 1). Social media statistics Australia: April 2016 [Blog post].  Retrieved from http://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-  april-2016/

Curran, J. M., & Lennon, R. (2011). Participating in the conversation: Exploring usage of  social media networking sites. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 15 (1), 21-38.  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/915080829?  accountid=10344

Facebook. (2004). About Facebook [Facebook page]. Retrieved April 8, 2016, from  https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info/?tab=page_info

Huvila, I., Holmberg, K., Kronquist-Berg, M., Nivakoski, O., & Widén, G. (2013). What  is librarian 2.0 – new competencies or interactive relations?: A library professional  viewpoint. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45 (3), 198-205. doi:  10.1177/0961000613477122

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world unite: The challenges and  opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59-68. doi:  10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Kavada, A. (2015). Social media as conversation: A manifesto. Social Media + Society,  April-June, 1-2. doi: 10.1177/2056305115580793

Keys for developing a social media policy. (2013). Information Management Journal,  47 (6), 42-44

Kilgour, M., Sasser, S. L., & Larke, R. (2015). The social media transformation process:  Curating content into strategy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,  20 (3), 326-343. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-07-2014-0046

King, D. L. (2015). Analytics, goals and strategy for social media. Library Technology  Reports, 51 (1), 26-32. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1646465071?  accountid=10344

Kwanya, T., Stilwell, C., & Underwood, P. G. (2013). Intelligent libraries and  apomediators: Distinguishing between library 3.0 and library 2.0. Journal of  Librarianship and Information Science, 45 (3), 187-197. doi:  10.1177/0961000611435256

Mull, I. R., & Lee, S. (2014). “Pin” pointing the motivational dimensions behind  Pinterest. Computers in Human Behaviour, 33, 192-200. doi:  10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.011

Ramsey, E., & Vecchione, A. (2014). Engaging library users through a social media  strategy. Journal of Library Innovation, 5 (2), 71-82. Retrieved from  http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1628573845?  accountid=10344

Thoring, A. (2011). Corporate tweeting: Analysing the use of Twitter as a marketing tool  by UK trade publishers. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27 (2), 141-158. doi:  0.1007/s12109-011-9214-7

Twitter is your window to the world. (2016). Retrieved April 9, 2016, from  https://about.twitter.com/

What is Web 2.0?

Web 2.0 refers to services that use the web as a platform (instead of software dependent upon the device operating system), and encourage and benefit from social collaboration and user contributions (O’Reilly, 2005). A key term commonly used when defining Web 2.0 is user-generated content (O’Reilly; Schwerdtfeger, 2013; “Web 2.0,” n.d) This indicates that if a technology has no capability for user information creation and contribution, it is not a Web 2.0 technology. Primary examples of Web 2.0 include YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and blogs, although it could be said that nearly every website worth its salt now incorporates Web 2.0 components, such as comments, ratings, reviews and even clickable ads.

Web 2.0 is now completely ingrained into our web experience. It was interesting reading through the 2005 O’Reilly article, one of the earliest articles that aimed to provide a cohesive definition of Web 2.0, as it felt quite dated. A quick google search confirmed my suspicion that the article was written before the release of the first smartphone, the iPhone 1st generation, in 2007.

I believe that smartphones have done much to fully incorporate Web 2.0 into our lives as an everyday tool. Reading the 2009 O’Reilly article helped to better understand why this is so and gave a nice update to the original article. Essentially we now carry the Web around with us. This fact and the continual uploading of a variety of content by many users make it a readily accessible and current source of information, connection, business and entertainment. In short,  “the Web is now the world” (Battelle & O’Reilly, 2009).

Web 2.0 is now such a part of everyday tasks it is almost useless to speculate on life without it. It is intrinsic to the creation, categorisation and distribution of much of today’s information, particularly to the younger generations that we need to reach as part of information organisations. In addition, even those that feel most disconnected in the physical world invariably find connections online. This information sharing, connected reality is fast-paced, overwhelming and sometimes, it feels, completely full of nonsense that we shouldn’t really be wasting our time with, such as celebrity selfies or posting about change rather than making any. However, if the pitfalls can be successfully navigated, web 2.0 provides endless possibilities for marketing, collaboration, discovery, connecting with the community and more. As I delve further into this subject I am looking forward to learning more about the possibilities and how to take advantage of them.

References

Battelle, J, & O’Reilly, T. (2009). Web squared: Web 2.0 five years on. Retrieved from    http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194Battelle

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business modules for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Schwerdtfeger, P. (2013, March 17). What is web 2.0? What is social media? What comes next?? [Video  file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iStkxcK6_vY

Web 2.0. (n.d). In Wikipedia. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0