1

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

How can the return on investment

of an academic librarys Facebook efforts
be quantified, qualified, and measured?

Colleen Sanders

April 20, 2014

LI810XO Social research methods

Keywords: Facebook, academic library, social networking,

return on investment, ROI, assessment

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Table of Contents
Introduction3
Statement of Research Problem..4
Review of Relevant Literature6
Research Aim and Questions..27
Research Hypotheses and Assumptions28
Significance of Research29
Definitions.30
References..32

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Introduction
In one short decade, the population has logged onto Facebook en masse, changing the
environment libraries inhabit as well as patrons information seeking and sharing behaviors.
Amidst the rhetoric of building a participatory learning culture, librarians have often seen
Facebook as a boon for increasing communication with patrons, although a concrete method for
assessing its return on investment (ROI) has yet to be determined.
For this reason and others explored in this document, academic libraries have been slower
to embrace Facebook than the public. This document examines Facebooks reception and
implementation in a collegiate atmosphere with an eye towards developing a successful measure
of ROI. It inventories existing scholarly literature on higher learning perspectives on Facebook
from the viewpoints of student, librarian, possible uses, and actual uses. It makes the case that
devising a strategy for measuring ROI can satisfy some of the concerns surrounding its use and
enhance the librarys service overall.
This research proposal and literature review are one of the first efforts towards building
social networking into a librarys formal assessment procedures. Issues of extracting the correct
variables to measure, both quantitative and qualitative, will require further research and
development, but it is a step in the right direction. While social networks other than Facebook do
exist, Facebook is currently the most popular (Facebook, 2014). The author understands
attaching the research to a single social network may cause its insights to expire more rapidly,
but it is hoped what is learned here might be applied to any future social networking endeavor.

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Statement of Research Problem
At the time of this writing, little research attempts to devise a systematic measure of ROI
for an academic librarys Facebook presence. Studies have examined academic libraries
campaigns (Jacobson, 2011; Phillips, 2011), parsed postings into service categories (Aharony,
2012; Chu, Chen, & Xu, 2012; Collins, 2014), and experimented with using Facebooks built-in
metrics to study traffic (Chan, 2011). However, a specific procedure for estimating Facebook
efforts against library missions and objectives is absent from scholarly research. The goal of this
study is to peruse the literature and extract the necessary elements to synthesize a legitimate
framework for assessment. It builds upon the recurring calls in academic literature for such
defined inputs and outputs (Chan, 2012; Griffin & Taylor, 2013; Romero, 2011).
Overall the approach is qualitative, as social networking defies a one-size-fits-all
approach. However, both quantitative and qualitative assessment measures must be included in
the resulting assessment template. Quantitative measures include Facebooks built-in metrics,
page view, fans, likes, and comments. Qualitative measures are given more room for adaptation
to the particular librarys mission, but may include framing collections in light of current
curriculum, garnering attendance at events, increasing awareness about library service and digital
resources, and building information literacy around database searches. It also includes a local
social networking policy and definition of the site administrators allocated time for Facebook
development.
The goal of this study is to harvest the best of what is known about Facebooks
implementation in academic libraries in order to create a replicable experiment whose inputs and
outcomes are defined, thereby producing a measurable ROI to determine the campaigns
effectiveness. This project is designed to test conclusions from research inventoried in the

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

literature review regarding best practices, information-seeking behavior, the role of social
networking in higher education, and the notion of the participatory library. The underlying notion
is that if academic libraries are going to use Facebook (and many do), then this use must be
subject to the rigors of assessment to earn its place in the librarians toolkit.

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Review of the Relevant Literature
Introduction: social networking and libraries
Social networking as a cultural phenomenon is a mere ten years old, yet already its
pervasiveness has made it the subject of much inquiry in the library community. Its newness is
one of the greatest challenges underlying its analysis (Lenartz, 2012), especially in the area of
return on investment (ROI). However, sufficient time has passed to warrant devising a system a
assess Facebook use in libraries to make the case for its success or failure to achieve specific
goals. This study attempts to break ground in that arena. An added difficulty is that as social
networking sites develop, their functionalities change and their users redirect the flow of
information, creating a moving target that is difficult to assess. While students (and the public at
large) are diving head-first into social networking, the library community remains divided on its
appropriateness in an academic context, and it is from this context a reliable measurement
system for ROI can arise as a useful catalyst.
This literature review attempts to organize the existing scholarly literature on Facebook
use in academic libraries by addressing existing opinions about its appropriateness, the nature of
its use, its strengths and weaknesses, and, finally, how to measure its effectiveness. It is loosely
based on the five broad categories of article detected by Jacobson (2011): how-tos/best-practices,
library-centered case studies on outreach/marketing, student-based research, types of services
provided, and librarians actual uses of social networking. While Jacobson (2011) notes this
template is also chronological, with one type of study inciting the undertaking of the next, this
document will examine them in an order tailored to identifying the concerns of major
stakeholders, strategies, and goals.

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

It is hoped this literature review presents a concentrated account of the best of what is
known about Facebook in order to help academic libraries implement it successfully as a tool.
The author assumes its readers have a level of familiarity with Facebook, discounting the need
for an in-depth look at how-to and best-practice articles, which abound to dubious effect in the
trade and scholarly literature surrounding Facebook.
Why Facebook?
Social networking research is a subset of the larger Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 scholarly
literature concerned with libraries reinventing themselves in the new interactive digital sphere.
Three components underlie the decision to situate this research within Facebook: first, with 1.23
billion active users monthly and growing (Facebook, Inc., 2014), Facebook holds the decided
majority of active social network users. Second, having originated as a tool to connect university
students, its population and design suit this context (Chu & Meulemans, 2009; Hendrix,
Chiarella, Hasman, Murphy, & Zafron, 2009; Lenartz, 2010). Third, academic libraries have a
history of being early adopters of new technologies (Charnigo & Barnett-Ellis, 2007; Xu,
Ouyang, & Chu, 2009; Forcier, 2013), and Facebook is no exception. While the social
networking milieu changes faster than librarians and scholars can track it, thus rendering certain
aspects of research moot within a few years of their publishing, in the current environment, any
study of the possible impact [of social networking] on academic libraries must necessarily
focus on Facebook to be relevant (Chan, 2012, 480).
As Facebook is so new, its long-term potential is unrealized, and will arguably be
determined by the way in which the library community adopts and utilizes it (De Rosa et al.,
2007). Should social networking, as the study muses, go from fad to phenomena to
infrastructure as Google did (2007, vii), then we must look to the early adopters for evidence on

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

which to build further efforts. In the early-adopter stage it is often hard for people to envision
long-term possibilities for current statistics, notes De Rosa et al. (172), citing the indifferent
response Wikipedia received in its early days. Ten years after Facebooks launch, it can be safely
assumed that the vast majority of students, faculty, and academic librarians are familiar with
Facebook, because, as the study indicates, The Internet is now familiar territory, and users are
looking for whats next (2007, vii).
Do academic libraries belong on Facebook?
Student opinions
Although it was not the first body of research produced on the subject of academic libraries
on Facebook, it makes sense to first examine if and how students would benefit from the
academic librarys presence on the social network. A small set of studies cited most frequently in
the scholarly work surrounding Facebook reveal emergent themes as well as some contradictory
results, however the overall impression is that students are more or less indifferent to whether the
library has a Facebook presence or not. Lenartz (2012) pointed out the unfounded assumption
higher education seems to make that because students use Facebook socially, they want to use it
academically. Libraries have the opportunity amidst this nonchalance to deliver unexpected
service. While students do use Facebook to independently find classmates, form study groups,
and exchange school-related information (Chu & Meulemans, 2009), the prospect of actually
interacting with the institution or conducting searches through database/catalog applications form
the basis for student-opinion research.
Burhanna & Seeholzer (2009) conducted surveys and focus groups amongst undergraduates
at Kent State University, concluding that students were uninterested in interacting with the
academic institution on Facebook. It is interesting to note they were vehemently opposed to

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

encountering professors there, but more open to the presence of librarians, who they believed
would provide authentic answers. Concerns for privacy and separating personal and academic
life characterized this preference. Towards access, students did not want Facebook to displace the
traditional library web site, and actually called for more integration of Web 2.0 tools into the
library site rather than moving the central digital access point to Facebook. This demonstrates
Facebook plays a secondary role to online resource access.
Burhanna & Seeholzers study, however, had an extremely small sample size (51 responses
total). Connell (2009) found a different picture with seven times the sample size: almost half of
the students surveyed reported wanting library updates on Facebook. 36% would ignore it, and
12.3% were vocally opposed to being contacted by the library. The overarching theme was that
so long as content is relevant and localized, students would benefit from it. Those who would
casually ignore it, of course, might eventually find something of benefit to them, depending on
the ingenuity of the sites administrator.
Much of Facebook outreach is predicated upon the concept of meeting users where they are
(Chu & Meulemans, 2009; Farkas, 2007; Solomon 2013), however the notion of academic
communication complicates its perception. Burhanna & Seeholzer (2009) and Chu & Meulemans
(2009) generated directly opposite results in one aspect: the former found students would rather
handle scholarly communication through their learning management system, whereas the latter
found students preferred social networking for that task, calling it the next e-mail (Chu &
Meulemans, 2009, 79).
What emerges is the sense that students expect an institutional presence but feel divided
about combining social and academic spaces (Lenartz, 2012; Petit, 2011; Phillips, 2011). More
research could be done in this area, but it would be more productive to do it through actual use of

10

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Facebook rather than surveys/focus groups about the topic. It could be that an academic librarys
success or failure on Facebook relates to the nature and effort of the account administrator; that
persons understanding of the utility, their choice of content and post frequency, and strategy for
defining and achieving goals may ultimately make or break their appeal to the student body.
While this subjective observation does not outwardly serve the effort to extract facets for
measuring ROI, it does hint to the some of the qualitative aspects which should be considered.
Social networking studies have shown us a rift in perceived use and actual use (Jacobson,
2011), therefore it can be assumed the best way to measure students receptivity would be to try
to contact them via Facebook directly. Few studies were found sampling student opinion about
Facebook using Facebook, thus increasing the level of abstraction surrounding the generated
responses.
Obviously it matters if students dont want a library on Facebook, but without libraries
enacting a useful model of service in that medium, student response towards the prospect of
interacting with the library on Facebook is largely theoretical. Based on the social nature of
Facebook, the proposition is likely not to be welcomed. But it is also possible the library could
devise unforeseen and useful ways to engage their patrons. It should also be noted that most of
the most-cited surveys of student opinion occurred prior over six years ago; a new study in the
new social climate would be welcome, ideally using Facebook as the medium, rather than just
the topic.
Librarian perspectives: a continuum
A fair amount of scholarly literature either includes or is devoted entirely to surveying
faculty, administrators, and librarians as to their perception of Facebook in relation to the
academic library (Aharony, 2012; Charnigo & Barnett-Ellis, 2007; Hendrix et al., 2009;

11

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Jacobson, 2011; Mack et al., 2007). Aharony summed up the lack of consensus on the subject by
writing, It seems that academic libraries do not know exactly how to use this platform (2012,
368). Yet even writers who conclude Facebook is not an ideal or effective tool to achieve certain
aspects of academic libraries missions frame participation as inevitable (Aharony, 2012;
Burhanna & Seeholzer, 2009; Jacobson, 2011; Lenartz, 2012).
The findings of librarians opinions reveal a continuum with enthusiasm on one extreme
and opposition on the other, with indifference languishing in the middle (Aharony, 2012;
Charnigo & Barnett-Ellis, 2007; Lenartz, 2012). Many surveyed were aware of Facebook but
were indifferent or hesitant regarding its usage in academic libraries, about half saw no academic
purpose for Facebook, whereas a small group felt optimistic and inspired by the tool.
Qualification for librarians reactions to Facebook
A 2007 study (De Rosa et al.) outdid all others in sample size, receiving responses to an
online survey from 382 U.S. library directors, however this was not limited to solely academic
libraries. Less than 20% of directors saw a role for social networking in libraries, and less than
14% believed the library had a role in building a social networking presence for their community.
The study also found, however, that 73% of the population uses these sites once a week or more;
it begs the question of how librarians could be indifferent so such a widely-used communication
tool. De Rosa et al. (2007) concluded that librarians focus on privacy was foundational to the
disparity between the adoption of use by directors and the public: the public claims privacy is a
high priority, but will sacrifice it readily for convenience, whereas librarians have built their
practice upon patron privacy for its role in intellectual freedom.
Within the strictly academic world, the trend toward indifference (or confusion masked
by indifference) continues in Charnigo & Barnett-Ellis 2007 survey of 126 academic libraries,

12

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

where less than half of librarians were found aware of Facebook. This exemplifies how
Facebooks sharp spike in popularity can render research irrelevant within a matter of years:
awareness would be much higher just seven years later. 17% saw no connection between the
library and Facebook, citing its social nature as inappropriate to the librarys mission. During an
era marked by paradigm shifts towards collaborative, user-centric libraries, it is no surprise this
extreme opposition to Facebook represented a small contingency. The authors found 54%
reported seeing no academic purpose in Facebook, but proposed that engagement with the
campus community is likely not accounted for by that figure. Chu & Meulemans (2009) expand
on that notion, reporting people who pose questions on their social networks are more likely to
receive help than those who do not, building information flow and relationships (74).
Therefore we see a large amount of indifferent tolerance of Facebook, bookended by
optimists and those who would brush it off. The large amount of perceived indifference or
outward opposition to using Facebook in academic libraries could be construed as lack of
experience, not having a model of success or research proving its ROI, or not accounting for the
softer aspects of university engagement including campus community, extracurricular
conversations, or the social nature of information.
Towards the aforementioned sense of inevitability towards Facebook usage, Lenartz
(2012) surveyed faculty and administrators, revealing staff felt pressure to participate in social
networking whether they wanted to or not. Sentiments surfaced similar to those in student
opinion surveys, such as privacy and blurring personal/professional boundaries. Still, whether
they were interested in using Facebook or not, the majority expressed the opinion Facebook
could be a useful tool with potential to enhance student engagement.

13

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Beside the blurring of personal and professional life, the concern over privacy, and the
lack of a clear agenda for exactly how academic libraries might benefit from their presence on a
socially-based information trading site, another relatively-unexplored theme is the concept of
controlling content. A librarys Facebook page bears the brand of the library and presents an
image of that institution publicly. Allowing users to interact, comment, and post to a librarys
page requires a relinquishing of control and opens the library up to potential misuse (Aharony,
2012; Lenartz, 2012). This concern is echoed throughout Library 2.0 literature, where the
traditional hierarchical relationship between librarian and user is flattened (Phillips, 2011).
Hillenbrand (2005) indicated some librarians reluctance to implement a Facebook presence may
be the aspect of relinquishing control of a library utility to user-generated content; that is,
libraries arent comfortable being a guest at a party they are accustomed to hosting.
Receiving Facebook: a call for balance
The prolific and divided response generated by Facebook in the academic library
community can seem a bit disproportionate when one considers the casual, superficial nature of
the tool itself. The ease with which our patrons design and contribute to their spheres on
Facebook compared to the library communitys scramble to assemble a successful strategy
unfortunately reinforces the notion that librarians are out of touch with the patrons they serve.
This is symptomatic of what Lankes (2011) describes as confusing the tools with mission, a habit
he claims librarians fall into which causes them to lose sight of the big picture in favor atomizing
the method.
In an article calling for a similar measure of balance, Bodnar & Doshi (2011) question the
library communitys response to Facebook, claiming it is polarized towards two unrealistic
extremes. In the first, a technological determinism is evidenced in librarians believing this tool

14

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

will be a panacea for reaching students (Chu & Meuluemans, 2009). These overly optimistic
articles tend to be how-to in nature, making unfounded claims about high ROI. On the other side
of the spectrum lie the nay-sayers, whose cited reasons for abstention from social networking
include privacy concerns or the belief Facebook has no place in academia or libraries. However,
studies have proven patrons are far less concerned with privacy than librarians (De Rosa et al.,
2007), and others have called into question what sacrifices librarianship might be making in
holding privacy as a top priority. McDonald & Thomas (2006) assert, Most library information
systems are not easy to customize and remain substantially limited by an enduring obsession
with individual privacy Emerging communities of research library users have demonstrated
strong preferences for exactly the kinds of network trust-building, collaboration, resource
sharing, and creativity that library technologies and policies discourage (as cited in Mack et al.,
2007).
Could our obsession with privacy be taken too far? The new world of social networking
definitely challenges our prior notions of privacy, and leaves grey areas for us to consider such as
social mining, wherein a librarian would scan postings in student groups to better inform the
services they provide. Forcier (2013) proposed Web 2.0 applications like Facebook gave libraries
the principles they needed to build a model for participatory services (14). The tool is not the
mission; but it can help us achieve it. If this is where our patrons are having conversations, how
could the library not be a part of it?
The problem with best practices
Whereas some academic literature is marked by hesitancy, the reality is many already
maintain a Facebook presence. This demonstrates the optimistic pragmatism embodied in
another of Jacobsons (2011) categories for extant research: the how-to.

15

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

How-to and best-practice articles boast the overwhelming majority of literature in both
trade and academic library publications (Aharony, 2012; Chan, 2011; Chu & Meulemans, 2009;
Farkas, 2007; Petit, 2011; Solomon, 2013). They typically include an overview of how Facebook
works, what aspects are particularly useful to libraries, and a brief and generally unsupported
account of the vast gains libraries can reap by jumping on board this free service. Jacobson
(2011) proposes the onslaught of these articles is partly in response to the claims that Facebook
has no place in academic libraries. They paint participation on Facebook as an overly-easy way
to reinvent the library as community space, when research directly points to the difficulty in
garnering two-way communication in that sphere (Aharony, 2012; Chu et al., 2012; Jacobson,
2011; Petit, 2011).
This situation, according to Solomon (2013), results in many deserted library Facebook
pages started in optimism and abandoned by lack of strategy, resources, perceived benefit, or
commitment. There is evidence, outside of the lack of research behind and largely anecdotal
nature of these articles, that how-to and best-practice articles actually do libraries a disservice.
Bodnar & Doshi (2011) claim that they encourage librarians to jump in headfirst without
anticipating the difficulties which will arise; once the libraries encounter these troubles, they
abandon the project, leaving an increasingly-outdated remnant of the librarys image left
dangling in the public sphere (Solomon, 2013). Burhanna & Seeholzer (2009) claim how-tos are
too general to be useful, as libraries must tailor their services to specific communities. This
aspect of locality poses a problem to library research in general, often barring context-specific
findings from being transmuted into discipline-wide theory. This phenomenon has particular
influence in the realm of social networking, thus it warrants some consideration of theory, which

16

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

hopefully speaks to those who have not yet discerned the deeper implications of adopting what
appears on the surface to be such a frivolous exploit as a Facebook page for an academic library.
The paradox of locality and implications for LIS theory
Library science is a discipline abundant in practical applications but lacking in
overarching theory (Connaway & Powell, 2010). The need to serve specific users is partly
responsible for this: the need to apply solutions locally to community-specific needs and
problems complicates the sublimation of practice into discipline-wide theory. And with the
advent of user-centric service in libraries, making effective service ever more local, that problem
does not seem to be going away anytime soon. The case of Facebook social research is no
different: the locality of applications and need to tailor services to users within defined
communities marks the struggle to devise an overarching theory of application, which the
ubiquitous how-to and best-practice literature attempts. What works at one library wont always
work at another conclude Burhana & Seeholzer (2009, 524), rendering the how-to article a moot
point. The point, therefore, of this literature review, is to harvest the salient points of what has
been studied regarding Facebook in order to not create yet another how-to article, but to draw up
a working template that addresses the major concerns regarding its implementation in academic
libraries, assuming that Facebook is a useful, lightweight, and effective tool at our disposal.
Changing library values & ontology
It is possible that the reluctance found amongst a sector of academia towards interacting
with the student body on Facebook is evidence of the values transition occurring in todays
library world. As Hillenbrand (2005) and Lankes (2011) explain at length, postmodern values of
socially-created meaning and dismantled hierarchies of knowledge transmission are coming to
replace the traditional notion of one-way information transfer from an established authority to

17

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

the learner, an empty vessel. The genius of social media is inclusion, thus, the strength of
Facebook is also its potential danger to upsetting the librarys equilibrium.
While student usage of Facebook is largely a social act, it has ties with a new information
paradigm. The widespread adoption of this information-based network evidences the
increasingly social nature of information (Hillenbrand, 2005; Lankes, 2011). Forcier (2013)
noted that in the hyperconnected Web 2.0 environment, information needs and behaviors have
changed as well: information is linked according to social relationships and interest groups rather
than traditional subject headings. On Facebook, information is delivered to a user according to
who they are friends with; users do not go out actively seeking information (Romero, 2011),
thereby defining a persons information-feed according to who they choose to friend. What
people want to know is increasingly linked with who they know.
Hillenbrand (2005) discusses the old paradigm of the library as a sanctuary of order,
represented by the librarian, who is threatened by the presence of the chaos of use, embodied in
the user. No longer does that vision of the library as a bastion of preserved order sustain (Lankes,
2011). For reasons beyond budgets and changing user expectations, libraries are moving to
become participatory learning commons whose services are user-centric and user-driven.
Therefore, librarians who dont believe Facebook has a place in academia may be influenced by
factors other than its usefulness as an engagement tool. It may be their reluctance to accept the
new information-sharing paradigm has more to do with an entrenched value system than actual
experience with and an informed opinion of Facebook as a tool. The point Hillenbrand (2005)
and Lankes (2011) drive at is that librarians values should be the force that propels the
profession forward as opposed to the baggage that holds it back.

18

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Again, even in the past four years since the majority of these librarian-opinion surveys
occurred, attitudes may have changed. New surveys may generate largely different data and
bring insight for innovative ways librarians can integrate Facebook into their range of services.
Actual use: perspective, strengths, and limitations
The studies that exists regarding how libraries actually administer their Facebook pages,
as opposed to how they perceive Facebook fitting into their overall strategy, show a disconnect
between theoretical and actual use (Jacobson, 2011). Advertising collections, services, and events
far outweigh any other usage, pointing to Facebook as largely a marketing channel (Jacobson,
2011), rather than a community discussion forum, information retrieval tool, or meeting place for
communities of practice.
Aharony (2012) found the wall and photos have the most usage. Only 1/3rd of subjects
had links to database searches, whereas nearly half used it to advertise collections and services.
The average library posted just 1-3 times per month. Jacobson (2011) on the other hand found a
range of 1 to 25 posts per day; suggesting a campaigns success depends heavily on the
commitment of the administrator. While Jacobson (2011) found only 1/3 of libraries attempted to
manage reference service via Facebook, Mack et al. (2007) received 29% of its reference
questions from Facebook alone during the period of its study.
Phillips (2011) found 52% of posts advertising library services to overcome the bookonly image of the library. She noted Facebook serves the community in ways not directly related
to academia by building campus and community spirit. Compared to the Hendrix et al. (2009)
study, Jacobson (2011) concluded librarians perceptions of how they use Facebook differed from
the reality of use, with more libraries offering OPAC searches and event listings, and fewer
discussions taking place.

19

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

As Bodnar & Doshi (2011) noted, librarians have tended to over-respond to the Facebook
phenomenon, whether it be positively or negatively. It is essential to keep in mind that Facebook
(and all social networking) is but one tool of many, and fairly lightweight one at that. Its
potential as a tool properly used has been rightly noted, but the froth of activity and dialogue
surrounding it might lead librarians to expect more from it than is reasonable. In her study
comparing actual usage to theoretical benefit, Jacobson summarized, We, as librarians, may be
more ambitious in our hopes for our Facebook presence than we can actually materialize, (2012,
87).
It has been established that a successful Facebook presence must be strategic and requires
maintenance (Jacobson, 2011; Solomon, 2013; Chu et al., 2012). Just being there isnt enough;
its not an if-you-build-it-they-will-come Godsend. Bodnar & Doshi (2011) challenge the
technological determinism inherent in assuming that simply implementing a Facebook presence
will organically result in the users benefit, thereby necessitating a conception and measure of
ROI at the outset.
The early adopters: learning from limited experience
Librarians viewing Facebook as an effective tool to achieve their missions have produced
a substantial body of literature on the subject. They account for improving the image of the
library (Aharony, 2012), communicating services (Burhanna & Seeholzer, 2009), outreach to
students (Petit, 2011), framing the collection in a current context (Phillips, 2011), marketing
events (Romero, 2011), soliciting feedback via surveys (De Rosa et al., 2007), taking collection
requests (Petit, 2011), answering reference questions (Mack et al., 2007), generating dialogue
(Chu et al., 2012; Jacobson, 2011), hosting an interaction space (De Rosa et al., 2007), and
building Web 2.0 functionality (Forcier, 2013).

20

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Charnigo & Barnett-Ellis (2007) found 40% reported believe libraries need to keep up
with trends, citing building rapport, meeting users in their natural environment, building online
communities of interest, and marketing library collections/services as potential functions for
Facebook. Phillips (2011) and Solomon (2013) noted the essence of social networking is longterm relationships which build trust over time; this is rapport and conversation, not blatant
promotion and marketing. Mack et al. (2007) urge librarians to consider using Facebook, but
provide recommendations for use based on prior failures. In this longitudinal case study, the
authors found 1/3 of their reference questions came in via Facebook from undergraduates when
they were aware of the option.
In the for-profit community, the concept of mining communities has been given extensive
attention; in the library community, as the previous discussion of privacy values indicates, the
subject has been left untouched. Petit (2011) highlight the outreach aspect that Facebook gives
libraries a chance to connect with students it would not reach otherwise, as well as the ability to
mine communities for content and design the libraries Facebook presence around their interests
for greater participation. This is an area which deserved further consideration, especially in
regards to ROI. As most academic libraries have a defined patron community, keeping up with
the curriculum and highlighting collections and services which relate to the students courses
would be an excellent way to show the librarys relevance, serve the students, and generate more
immediate interest (ROI) in the library. Beyond that, monitoring student group dialogue would
allow librarians to keep an ear to the ground regarding immediate student interests. It might,
however, be received coldly by those whose hold to concepts of privacy bar entrance into
upcoming modes of communication.

21

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Some authors have taken note of the fact that a Facebook presence comes at no cost
(Romero, 2011; Mack et al, 2007; Chan, 2012), however others have noted that the inputs into
social media are more difficult to gauge, such as staff time (Aharony, 2012; Griffin & Taylor,
2013; Solomon, 2013). This leads us to our next point of discussion: measuring return on
investment.
Marketing
Analyses of how libraries are actually using Facebook reveal marketing and outreach as
the primary functions (Jacobson, 2011). Chan (2012) analyzed the logic of advertising on
Facebook, concluding that because the target market (student body) is already there, information
spreads organically, and it is free, it is an ideal place for libraries to advertise. This analysis of
Facebook as free, however, does not factor in staff resources, which is half of the controlled
variables for an ROI assessment. Chan (2011 & 212) ran paid social networking advertising
(SNA) campaigns, analyzed using Facebooks free in-house metrics. A two-month campaign cost
$60, at $.23-$1.95 per new connection, depending on the advertising method used. One benefit
of using paid SNA, while it may be unsavory to libraries on already-reduced budgets, is the
ability to directly quantify the cost of generating a new follower or friend. However, analyzing
the study shows what a low rate of success the campaign truly had: out of over 450,000 views,
the library generated 64 new connections. This is a low rate of return, and likely disheartening
for libraries attempting to expand awareness on Facebook. However, Chan went on to note that
89.3% of new connections joined after seeing their own friends had joined: this is called social
conversion, and hearkens back to the discussion about the social nature of information, and
students choosing what they want to know according to who they know. Social conversions
make a strong case for library branding via Facebook networks.

22

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

It is interesting to note that only one author, Chan (2011) proposed marketing may not be
an appropriate practice for libraries on Facebook. The author discerned a need to wary of feeding
messages clearly intended for mass appeal to a student body who expect customized, local
content. Chan (2011) also wagered students might find it distasteful that a library, being outside
the for-profit sector, would adopt marketing methods to connect with them.
Conversely, Romero (2011) suggests libraries take some lessons from the private sector,
where ROI from social media has been studied ad nauseum. Benefits to the library include
visibility, improved brand, and improved quality of use by the user. Romero (2011) argued that
Facebook advertising is better for libraries economically than traditional advertising, with cost
savings and user benefit being measurable. The author points out it requires no effort on the
users part to view library advertisements, which are already tailor to the target community. As
yet another author who laments the lack of two-way conversations of Facebook, Romero (2011)
offers no concrete suggestions in the way of improving it. Unfortunately, the article suffers from
what Bodnar & Doshi (2011) pegged as unwarranted optimism, as few of his claims are
substantiated by research evidence or numbers.
Measuring ROI
If Facebook itself is a new milieu for libraries, ROI of Facebook presence is an even
newer concept (Griffin & Taylor, 2013, 259). The literature is sparse and theoretical, without a
subset of research to draw upon. Nor has an effective framework been proposed outlining exactly
what variables will be measured in completing an ROI assessment. Griffin & Taylor (2013) posit
ROI should be measured in benefits to both users and libraries, if the two can be at all
differentiated.

23

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Only a few quantitative measures are available: number of fans, number of likes, number
of comments, and traffic. Writers like Romero (2011) and Bodnar & Doshi (2011) have called
into question the validity of basing ROI on these figures alone, suggesting a qualitative level of
analysis be engaged to supplement these figures. However, as Chan (2012) notes, when
integrating a discussion of ROI from the enterprise sector into the non-profit world, terms dont
easily translate and the few metrics available are crucial. To complicate matters further, Phillips
(2011) found no correlation between school size and the number of fans a library has, indicating
a social networking campaigns success lies in the efforts of the administrator, and not in
proportion to the student body.
Romero (2011) deems that the quantitative data available (number of visits, number of
likes, number of fans) are incomplete measures of success; he argues libraries should determine
the users motivations for engaging with the library on Facebook. Chan (2012) argues the
opposite, saying the number of fans equates to the number of times a librarys post is viewed,
directly corresponding to the campaigns impact. This study argues the efficiency of using
Facebooks built-in metrics to analyze this traffic.
A realistic picture of success would have to be measured both quantitatively and
qualitatively; it would be an item gauged by the pages administrator over an extended period of
time. The quantitative numbers could be contextualized by the qualitative analysis of the
campaigns methodology, which would ultimately be tailor to the needs of the local student body
and achieved according to locally-specified outcomes. Benefit to libraries would be cost savings
over using traditional advertising methods (Chan, 2012), whereas benefit to students might be
higher engagement with the library (Romero, 2011). However, throughout the literature there is

24

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

an underlying lamentation of the stubbornly one-way nature of librarys Facebook efforts: Griffin
& Taylor (2013) posit advertising works on Facebook, whereas two-way dialogue does not.
The quest for student response
If the number of fans a library page has does not fully indicate the quality of participation
of its patrons, what does? It is easy to imagine a library collecting a high number of fans, then
allowing the page to stagnate and remain a meaningless link. In this case, one would argue a
library would be more successful doing a great level of service to a small number of fans than
mediocre service to a large audience.
The crux of the question as to whether and how academic libraries belong on Facebook
lies in finding what Facebook excels at delivering, and while many writers have hypothesized
this is dialogue, conversation, feedback, or a two-way conversation, all find that component
distinctly lacking practice. It seems this component would be the proof of ROI libraries are
searching for, but have yet to find. A number of studies indicate the desire to generate more
student comments on library postings, framing it as the elusive but much sought-after Holy Grail
of return on investment (Aharony, 2012; Chu et al, 2012; Collins & Quan-Haase, 2014; Phillips,
2011; Romero, 2011). Jacobsons 2011 content analysis of multiple library Facebook pages
found a mere 4% of library posts generating user comments, concluding This is not what one
would consider to be user participation, (84).
While information seeking behaviors on Facebook have been defined as largely passive
(Lenartz, 2012; Mack et al., 2007; Romero, 2011), a theme underscoring this subset of scholarly
literature is that sharing library messages with a passive audience is but the first step. User
participation is the next, as Forcier (2013) notes, being conveyed as a to-do rather than a

25

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

convention. He notes an element of awkwardness still exists in the student-librarian interaction
on Facebook, which may be one reason for student reluctance to engage on the librarys page.
Other barriers to participation may be self-induced: Bodnar & Doshi (2011) note some
academic libraries, in an attempt to guard against inappropriate posting, shut off the usercomment function on their Facebook pages, thus rendering the dialogue function impossible.
They cite this as a case of using Facebooks inherent design functions against the mission of the
library. Burhanna & Seeholzer (2009) found students appreciation for librarians as authorities on
information barred them from posting to the page, assuming they could not contribute anything
above what librarians already know. Aharony (2012) suggests linking Facebook to other Web 2.0
functionalities such as the library blog, where the larger body of content might spur a
conversation. This aspect of ROI would be measured qualitatively, and success in this area would
form a landmark in the trajectory of Facebook implementation in academic libraries.
Conclusion
This literature review has covered research on student and librarian opinions on the
academic library maintaining a presence on Facebook, concluding the two mirror each other in
uncertainty towards the viability of this hybrid social/academic experiment. Both, however,
maintain an openness and optimism for the prospect, despite vocal minorities opposed to the
prospect.
The polarized reaction of the library community to an academic adoption of Facebook
has underscored the possible overestimation of the tools abilities to bridge the ever-treacherous
communication gap between library and patron. Facebook, as one tool of many, should not be
burdened with the expectation of instantly converting the traditional library to the idealized
Library 2.0. Librarians ambitions for it often overextend the limits of its actual implementation.

26

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

That said, amidst the reimagining of libraries as learning commons whose values support
collaboration and user-generated content, Facebook is a timely, cost-efficient, and convenient
utility. Students show a marked preference for its information-sharing behaviors and an
unspoken precedent or expectation does exist for an institutional presence therein. The question
remains what the presence should look like, and how it should be assessed along with other
library services.

27

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Research Aim and Questions
The aim of this research is to contextualize a Facebook campaign within the academic
librarys mission and establish which elements can be measured and how. This research is
designed to be replicable in any academic library, with the appropriate amount of qualitative
interpretation to suit that institutions mission and student body. Also, as ROI could be measured
in terms of student benefit or benefit to the library, the decision is left up to the institution to
align the studys findings with their circumstances. Further research might include a comparative
analysis of assessment techniques for other library services to build on the Facebook-specific
work accomplished in this document.

1. Which elements of an academic librarys Facebook presence can be accounted for

quantitatively?
2. What aspects of an academic librarys Facebook presence should be accounted for
qualitatively?
3. What are the librarys goals for a Facebook campaign, and how do they extend from the
librarys mission?
4. What is the appropriate period of time between implementation and assessment?
5. How should this data best be represented for analysis, then shared with the library
community?

28

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Research hypotheses/Assumptions of the research
This study is qualitative in nature, designed to synthesize a framework for integration into
academic libraries existing or emerging Facebook pages. It assumes, first of all, that Facebook
can be a worthy enterprise for an academic library, and that patrons do benefit from successful
implementation of social networks as an access point. Success is subjectively defined as having
the appropriate planning, maintenance, and resources allotted to achieve pre-defined user-centric
goals. In supporting the deliberate use of Facebook in a higher learning environment, this
research also assumes that the role of the librarian could venture into a less formal and more
personable form to the patrons.
This research does not assume that sheer quantity of followers translates to greater
success; while that measure is important, it has been shown that there is no correlation between
number of fans and school size (Phillips, 2011). As well, it assumes that a library who serves a
small number of followers well should be considered more successful than a library who serves a
large number of followers superficially.
Finally, it assumes truths at both ends of the theory-practice continuum: it is true that
there are best practices derived from research and analysis, and it is also true that the specificity
of each library community will demand an infinite spectrum of adapting, rejecting reworking
those practices. Facebook is a local endeavor, and while no grand theory of success exists, a
template for assessing efforts can be established. As a Facebook presence is unique to each
librarys student body, assessment can be achieved according to libraries shared missions, and
must be held to the same level of accountability as other library services.

29

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Significance of the Research
This research should benefit academic libraries which currently use or are considering
using Facebook as a tool to engage patrons. By proposing an assessment schema, it brings the
investment of resources in Facebook on par with other library services and increases the
efficiency of its use. Librarians who want to adopt Facebook but face skepticism from their
directors may employ the strategies proposed here to justify adopting this service, as well as
those who require outcome-based evidence for their social networking presence to budget
committees. Applying the ROI framework may also help libraries realign their strategies to
greater effect, or decide to abandon their social networking efforts altogether. Facebook usage is
a reality in many libraries whether a framework supports it or not; it is hoped this research will
bring a measure of formality to the process.
Present opinion is divided regarding Facebook as a viable tool to achieve academic
library missions. While consensus may never be fully achieved, being able to justify a social
networking effort with a clear agenda of numbers and qualifications may be the necessary proof
for some abstainers. Possible outcomes of this research are a bolstering of support for Facebook
in academic libraries, as well as further analysis towards its best application. Social media use is
prevalent amongst student bodies yet not so with their librarians; it is possible this research could
help bridge that disparity.
It is hoped this research will provide a practical approach to assessing social networking
strategy and value, as well as an appreciation of the deeper theoretical implications of social
networking participation by libraries. By applying the groundwork generated in this research,
LIS knowledge and praxis towards this prominent Web 2.0 tool can expand both in quality and
evidence.

30

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Definitions
1. Web 2.0 The current evolutionary stage of the World Wide Web, characterized by
interactivity and user-generated content. This much-debated term represents a
paradigmatic shift from the static, text-based Web 1.0 to a more participatory Internet
culture. Xu et al. (2009) claim the fundamental elements of Web 2.0 are user-centricity,
multimedia capacity, social richness, and community innovation. Tim OReilly is often
cited as the ruling authority on delineating this vision. http://oreilly.com/tim/p2p/

2. Library 2.0 Alternately attributed to Michael Casey in 2005 or Michael Habib in 2006,
Library 2.0 is another term used so widely as to defy concrete definition. It represents all
the efforts to harness to values of Web 2.0 in the library sphere based on a participatory
model integrated into the physical and digital spheres. Its functions are collaboration,
sharing, annotating, remixing and teaching, and its applications include social
networking, folksonomies, wikis, blogs, OPACs, and virtual reference.
http://mchabib.com/2006/08/22/academic-library-20-concept-models-basic-v2-anddetailed/

3. Social media Forcier defines social media as applications or software that build on the
ideological and technological coundations of Web 2.0 by allowing the creation and
exchange of user-generated content (2013, 29). A broad term, social media includes but
is not limited to social networks.

31

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

4. Social network Social networks in this paper refer to online communities of users who
interact according to shared mutual interests. Farkas (2007) locates their origins in
Stanley Milgrams 1960s small-world experiments, whose modern digital incarnations
include sites like Facebook, MySpace, Tumblr, Flickr, and LinkedIn, to name a few. The
user profile is the central feature by which individual navigate into groups and interact
with others. Lenartz defines social networking as the use of online tools, websites, and
applications to establish a relationship between individual and groups of people with a
common area of interest (2012, 14).

5. Facebook Facebook is currently the worlds largest social network (Facebook, 2014). A
few students at Harvard started it to link students on campus, until its popularity caused
them to open accounts up to the public. As it originally specialized in collegiate networks,
it has an 85% market share at U.S. higher learning institutions (Hendrix et al., 2009).

6. Return on investment (ROI) In the financial world, this term has a more technical
definition than is intended in this document. The concept refers to measuring the gains
achieved after expenditures have been deducted. In this context, ROI is being measured
both quantitatively and qualitatively, thus it is largely subjective and assessed in terms of
the librarys pre-defined goals. It will loosely juxtapose staff input time with gains
achieved in user engagement with library services.

32

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

References
Aharony, N. (2012). Facebook use in libraries: An exploratory analysis. New Information
Perspectives, 64(4), 358-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531211244725
Bodnar, J., & Doshi, A. (2011). Asking the right questions: A critique of Facebook, social media,
and libraries. Public Services Quarterly, 7(3-4), 102-110.
Burhanna, K.J., & Seeholzer, J. (2009). No natives here: A focus group of student perceptions of
Web 2.0 and the academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 523532.
Chan, C. (2011). Using online advertising to increase the impact of a library Facebook page.
Library Management, 32(4/5), 361-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435121111132347
Chan, C. (2012). Marketing the academic library with online social network advertising. Library
Management, 33(8/9), 479-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435121211279849
Charnigo, L., & Barnett-Ellis, P. (2007). Checking out Facebook.com: The impact of a digital
trend on academic libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(1), 23-35.
Chu, M., & Meulemans, Y. (2009). The problems and potential of MySpace and Facebook usage
in academic libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 69-85.
http://dx.doi/org/10.1300/J136v12n01_04
Chu, S., Chen, D., & Xu, S. (2012). How do libraries use social networking sites to interact with
users. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
49(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504901085
Collins, G., & Quan-Haase, A. (2014). Are social media ubiquitous in academic libraries? A
longitudinal study of adoption and usage patterns. Journal of Web Librarianship, 8(1),
48-68. http://dx/doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2014.873663

33

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

Connaway, L.S., & Powell, R.R. (2010). Basic research methods for librarians. Santa Barbara,
California: Libraries Unlimited.
Connell, R. S. (2009). Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and student outreach: A
survey of student opinion. Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 25-36.
De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J., & Jenkins, L. (2007). Sharing, privacy, and trust
in our networked world: a report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC.
Facebook, Inc. (2014 January 29). Facebook Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2013
Results. Retrieved April 14, 2014 at http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?
ReleaseID=821954
Farkas, M. (2007). Social software in libraries. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Forcier, E. (2013). The shoemakers son: A substantive theory of social media use for knowledge
sharing in academic libraries. (Masters thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Full Text. (MR85961)
Griffin, M., & Taylor, T. J. (2013). Of fans, friends and followers: Methods for assessing social
media outreach in special collections repositories. Journal of Web Librarianship, 7(3),
255-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2013.812471
Hendrix, D., Chiarella, D., Hasman, L., Murphy, S., & Zafron, M.L. (2009). Use of Facebook in
academic health sciences libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97(1), 4346. http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.008
Hillenbrand, C. (2005). Librarianship in the 21st century crisis or transformation? The
Australian Library Journal, 54(2), 164-181.
Griffin, M., & Taylor, T. I. (2013). Of fans, friends, and followers: Methods for assessing social
media outreach in special collections repositories. Journal of Web Librarianship, 7(3),

34

Academic libraries and Facebook: Return on investment

255-271.
Jacobson, T. B. (2011). Facebook as a library tool: Perceived vs. actual use. College and
Research Libraries, 72(1), 79-90.
Lankes, R. D. (2011). The atlas of new librarianship. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lenartz, A. J. (2012). All my rowdy friends: The use of social media in higher education.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text.
(3509820)
Mack, D., Behler, A., Roberts, B., & Rimland, E. (2007). Reaching students with Facebook:
Data and best practices. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8(2).
Retrieved from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n02/mack_d01.html
Petit, J. (2011). Twitter and Facebook use for collection requests. Collection Management, 36(4),
253-258. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01462679.2011.605830
Phillips, N. K. (2011). Academic library use of Facebook: Building relationships with students.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(6), 512-522.
Romero, N. L. (2011). ROI. Measuring the social media return on investment in a library. The
Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 24(2), 145-151.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08880451111169223
Solomon, L. (2013). The librarians nitty-gritty guide to social media. Chicago, IL: ALA
Editions.
Xu, C., Ouyang, F., Chu, H. (2009). The academic library meets Web 2.0: Applications and
implications. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), 324-331.