the factors influencing effective web 2.0 tools used to ...€¦ · web 2.0 technologies have been...

School of Information Studies

The Factors Influencing Effective Web 2.0

Tools Used to Market Library

Services & Resources

Zhixian (George) Yi


Faculty of Education

March 12, 2014


Overview

Introduction

Literature review

Study framework and hypothesis development

Methodology

Findings and discussion

Conclusions

References


INTRODUCTION


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.


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.


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?


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.


LITERATURE REVIEW


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.


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.


STUDY FRAMEWORK &

HYPOTHESISDEVELOPMENT


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.


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.


METHODOLOGY


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.


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


Data Analysis

The collected quantitative and qualitative data were

analysed using descriptive (frequencies, percentages,

means and standard deviations) and inferential statistics

(ordinal regressions).


FINDINGS & DISCUSSION


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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)


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)


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


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)


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


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


CONCLUSIONS


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the CSU Faculty of

Education Small Grant.

Thank respondents so much for participating in this

study.


Thank You So Much!

Questions or Comments?

the factors influencing effective web 2.0 tools used to ...€¦ · web 2.0 technologies have been...

Documents