Go to where the conversations are

I have to confess that I was somewhat surprised at the extent to which my CILIP FAIL post generated debate last week and over the weekend; that's the thing with posts - you never really know what's going to hit a nerve or what will sink without a trace. I got many things from the conversations (in Twitter, my blog and Bob's blog) that I've been thinking about over the weekend. Some are positive and some are not.

Conversations are increasingly taking place in a wider variety of places, and at different speeds. We no longer have the luxury of being able to spend hours or days crafting responses as we did in a print format. However, while instant communication is becoming the norm we still do need to take time to work out what we want to say (or indeed what we think) about a subject. Twitter and other microblogging platforms can actually work positively here - a quick comment to say 'Good point, we're working on this' provides an instant response while at the same time acting as a placeholder. It's like being on hold; it's nice if the person at the other end pops back every few minutes to say they're still working on your query.

In order for this to work however, it's necessary to go to where the conversations are. The role of the website has changed as much as everything else - it's no longer the place that you can expect people to come in order to interact with you (if indeed it ever was that) - it's becoming a signpost. In the 'old days' I would often use a website to give me contact details, because I wanted to talk to a real person. Now I expect a website to still do that job, but across a much wider range. I want to see links to a person/organisational weblog, I want to see a Twitter stream, I want to see links to their Facebook account or groups, perhaps their photographs via Flickr; I'm expecting to see ways that I can contact them perhaps via instant messenger and so on.

From my own experience I'm firmly of the opinion that we're becoming cyber nomads, and will chat where and when we feel like it. If we're unable to chat in one place - because we're restricted via moderated blog comments for example, we'll do it elsewhere - because we can. An understanding and appreciation of that is really becoming important - if an organisation wants to get their message out they need to visit all of these places to see what conversations are taking place, or perhaps to start them! This makes the role of the information professional even more important - we know information, we know that it's spread everywhere and we know how to gather it together. Would we expect all the discussion of a topic to take place in one academic journal? Of course not - it may be a focal point, but the letters page (for example) is only going to be one venue for comment.

This is why I find it so annoying when I hear people say that Twitter is blocked, or they can't get into Facebook, or YouTube has been banned - these are all useful places to find information, to discuss things, seek help or advice, leave a calling card or placeholder. They're resources information professionals should be able to use in their data gathering quest, and just as importantly, they're places that they need to inhabit on a daily basis, because that's where the conversations are. If an organisation doesn't inhabit that space it simply means they're not involved in the opportunity to engage in discussions, or to raise awareness of issues and so on.

I was surprised at how many people said that they were not members of CILIP, and how disillusioned they were; to say nothing of the members who were also disillusioned! On a more positive note however, I think that the many comments (even though some were perhaps slightly intemperant due to frustration) do show that people want CILIP to succeed, to address their issues, to be a beacon of excellence, and to engage with them wherever they are. It's certainly what I want CILIP to do, and my main frustration resulted from CILIP's apparent lack of understanding that information and conversation on the internet are no longer in the domain of the website or under the control of one organisation.

My initial post was simply my way of expressing my irritation, but I'm glad that other people found it useful and that it helped stimulate a debate on the role of communication between CILIP and its members and non-members. I'm hopeful this can continue. Bob has asked for more comments and ideas, which is great, and for what they're worth my personal 'shopping list' is:

To see CILIP open up their website to allow comments from everyone, members and non-members alike. Moderate by all means to eliminate spam and any inappropriate material, but to foster an inclusive, not exclusive approach.

To make it easier to comment! So many people have expressed a frustration about how hard it is to comment on a CILIP blog, and really it doesn't need to be.

To have an 'official' presence on places such as Twitter, Facebook and so on. This doesn't mean that 'official' communications have to go through such channels, but they can be used as an alerting service, as a monitoring resource and a placeholder for example.

To incorporate such resources on the CILIP website and to encourage their use at conferences and on training courses.

Seek to explore resources and tools and to encourage those information professionals who are currently doing that - to speak out against the banning of Twitter et al in organisations.

To start saying 'Yes, let's try that' instead of 'of course not'.

Perhaps it's an idealistic list, and hopelessly naive, but if only one or two of those things can be achieved I think CILIP will be moving in the right direction. I'm certainly happy to help, and it's obvious that plenty of other people are as well, so how about a day or half day CILIP event where we can talk it through - with similtaneous Twittering, webcasting, Flickr images and live blogging so that everyone can participate?

Comments

[Matthew Mezey]

PHIL'S TWITTER ARTICLE IN NEXT 'LIBRARY AND INFORMATION UPDATE' MAGAZINE

As I mention in my 'Blogwatch' column in the new issue of CILIP's member magazine Update, a 4-page article looking at how LIS pros can use Twitter will appear in the next issue.

And it's written by Update's 'Internet Q+A' columnist... Phil Bradley :-)

Don't miss it!

Rather than 140 characters long, however, it is in fact 13,151 characters long... ;-)

By chance, my latest Blogwatch column also included a link so that CILIP members can view Tweets about 'CILIP'.

I had no idea that there was going to be *quite* so much to read about CILIP on Twitter at this time...

Also, if you're interested in how to you can use social media tools to increase your PR effectiveness – and how to monitor the conversations about your organsiation - I gave a presentation that covered many of these 'PR 2.0' issues to CILIP's Commercial, Legal and Scientific Information Group late last year.

It was titled: 'PR and Media Know-how
- for personal and organisational effectiveness'.

Anyone – including non-members of CILIP – can read a pdf of the presentation here:
http://communities.cilip.org.uk/files/folders/32052/download.aspx
(sorry some pix get a bit grainy on the pdf)

Phil Bradley was one of the people who kindly offered me great advice about what to include (as did others: Sheila Webber, Euan Semple, Karen Blakeman etc etc).

Matthew Mezey
(News Editor, Library and Information Update magazine)

[Owen Stephens]

From Phil's wishlist:

"To see CILIP open up their website to allow comments from everyone ..."
Yes - absolutely, please, now?

"To make it easier to comment!"
Yes - no brainer.

"To have an 'official' presence on places such as Twitter, Facebook and so on"
Not quite so convinced. Personally I'd prefer to see engagement at an individual level and see some aggregation of this by CILIP (CILIPers who Twitter or some such) - but some engagement in these venues would be welcome.

"To incorporate such resources on the CILIP website and to encourage their use at conferences and on training courses."
Yes - we need to weave adjusting to new technology and challenges into what we do.

"Seek to explore resources and tools and to encourage those information professionals who are currently doing that - to speak out against the banning of Twitter et al in organisations."
Yes - I've heard stories of IT policies stopping this kind of engagement from people working in many kinds of libraries. If people in public libraries can't access these tools, how are they to engage with their customers who are using them?

"To start saying 'Yes, let's try that' instead of 'of course not'."
This is fundamental - lets the spirit of innovation and experimentation that I see from individual librarians/information workers from their professional body.

[Mick Fortune]

Amen to all this, but I am still a little concerned that we (or probably just I) need better tools - or better skills - to find these conversations in the first place.

Having been tied up writing specs for two hours I had to scroll through several pages before I found the twitter reference that led here. Now of course had I been using Tweetdeck I would have seen "Phil Bradley" in my "Top Twitterers" group but then if I filter all the people I follow who knows what gems I may miss when one of the less active feels moved to speak?

But that's probably all down to experience and taking the time to "read the manual".

More importantly I agree that CILIP needs to open up, and worry less about managing the message. As I mentioned elsewhere I find it slightly strange that SLIC actively uses all the routes to market it can in complete contrast to its London-based counterpart.

Let's hope some of that enthusiasm for experiment finds its way south eventually.

[Caroline Moss-Gibbons]

CILIP Council is in the midst of developing a Communications Framework for the institution (initiated some months ago), which we hope to have completed by July. We are including consideration of engagement through Twitter, Facebook, and all the other newer communications in the Framework, so this recent discussion prompted by Phil's piece last week (and his shopping list today) is very timely.

I'm chairing the small group developing the Framework, and would welcome input from members and non-members alike. I'm on Twitter, or can be contacted direct through the Council pages on the CILIP website.

And of course will be watching *this* space with particular interest!

Caroline Moss-Gibbons, Leader - CILIP Council.

[Helen Dean]

Seems to me like COPAC tweets are a good example of how an organisation can use the Twitter platform to reach out with up-dates and quick hit information. As for finding the conversations, there are plenty of ways of keeping involved even if we're not always up-to-date and in lots of ways just being in the game is important. Maybe some info pros hide behind a firewall purposely so that they don't have to engage in these applications and learn something new that they don't readily accept/expect will be relevant to them as individuals. Enthusiasm for experiment indeed!

[Scott]

It is pleasing to see Caroline's response here, and Bob's second post on the original post (looking forward to her post tomorrow). Hopefully this is the start of some real engagement and of 'going to where the conversation is', because otherwise I really do fear for the future of CILIP.

From my own experince, over half the people I know in public and private libraries have ditched their membership in the past 5 years. This is a problem and it is always harder to get people back you've lost, especially when they find they can do just fine without membership and its 'benefits'.

[Matthew Mezey]

LIS PROS HIDING BEHIND THE FIREWALL...?

Hi Helen,

One of the things I highlighted in the presentation I did on 'PR 2.0' etc - download it here: http://communities.cilip.org.uk/files/folders/32052/download.aspx - was the importance of putting an end to 'anonymity' amongst LIS pros.

“You have to be *seen* to be heard!”, says library consultant Lesley Robinson.

My most text-heavy slide was this quote, from Stephen Abram (of Sirsi-Dynix/President of SLA) - who argues that “Anonymity just isn’t working for us”:

"Librarians cannot afford to be…

...anonymous and generic. We need to state we’re pretty good more often. We want to be treated as professionals and far too many of us seem to hide under the cloak of anonymity. What other professionals won’t tell you their name right away. Would you find them and employ them if they had Web pages that described their services but didn’t show their names, specialties, work projects and pictures. Why do I see so many library website and intranet pages that display a wonderful range of services and so few images of the professionals behind the services. Why do so many librarians blog anonymously? How can we expect to raise our professionals profile if we don’t remove the cloak and shyness and head out into the big world of professional services."

Stephen Abram, Sirsi-Dynix, President of SLA

[Danielle]

Yes-let all comment on Cilip's blogs (Cilip authorities are you reading?). I have no idea why only members can comment. It doesn't add value, it takes away value.

I've been blown away with the conversation and impressed that something has brought people out of the woodwork as this has.

I know plenty of people that are disillusioned with Cilip and have dropped their membership. Time to woo members and work for them.

I've blogged on Bob McKee's response to Phil's first post as well.