12 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
etc), bulletin boards, faculty meetings, newsletters,
magazines, and pamphlets.
Evaluation
Only 34% of the respondents indicated that they have
evaluated their promotional activities. LibQUAL+
,surveys, focus groups, Web traffic, usage statis-
tics, observations, and unprompted user feedback
were the most commonly reported assessment met-
rics. When asked to describe which promotional ac-
tivities they found most successful, participants indi-
cated that giveaways, flyers, and campus newspaper
articles and advertisements are the most effective
ways to reach users.
Challenges
Just as there are many ways to promote the library,
there are many challenges associated with these ac-
tivities. One hurdle that many participants shared
was deciding what to promote and how to craft an
appropriate message. Respondents also remarked
that reaching the appropriate audience could be
difficult—some campaigns aim for the widest vis-
ibility possible, while others focus on narrower seg-
ments. Staff time, costs and funding, production,
design work, skill sets, and assessment were other
challenges that many of the participants specified.
Finally, several internal factors materialized, such
as gaining support or buy-in throughout the entire
organization, as well as updating, communicating,
and collaborating across library departments.
Conclusion
Promotional activities are now a necessary part of a
research library’s strategic plan. Rather than asking,
“Do we need to promote the library?” librarians are
asking, “What kinds of promotional strategies best
target specific segments of our intended audience?”
In other words, now that research libraries must com-
pete with other information providers and spaces on
campus for the attention of their users, librarians are
focusing on promotional activities that target users
across a variety of communication channels.
While each ARL member library is unique in
terms of its staffing, budget, and production capabili-
ties, each one faces similar challenges to achieving its
promotional objectives. Research libraries are experi-
menting with new technologies and communication
channels as a means of communicating with their
users. These experiments reveal the extent to which
libraries must adapt their outreach efforts to their lo-
cal academic and campus cultures—what works for
one library will not necessarily work well for another.
Furthermore, because many of these marketing and
promotional initiatives remain experimental, librar-
ians have not yet reached a consensus about how to
assess their effectiveness.
Although it is true that research libraries have be-
gun to target specific segments, or categories of users,
the responsibility for coordinating those campaigns
remains distributed throughout the library. Just as
various departments within the organization provide
users with a variety of resources and services, the
librarians and library staff working in those depart-
ments engage in a wide array of promotional activi-
ties: Reference librarians tend to promote databases
and instructional assistance, archivists and special
collection librarians emphasize unique holdings and
primary source materials, and development officers
typically target alumni, potential donors, and uni-
versity stakeholders.
In short, library promotions is thriving and will
continue to grow. Librarians are adopting new tech-
niques and seeking new opportunities to interact and
share information with their users. For this progress
to continue, a more consolidated effort must guide the
communications effort. Furthermore, dedicated bud-
gets, better assessment, and media related skills are
crucial for the advancement of the marketing effort.
However, perhaps the single most important aspect
that is necessary for better promotions is a shared
vision and buy-in among library staff. Without ev-
eryone working together on the same page, research
libraries cannot expect to be effective communica-
tors.
etc), bulletin boards, faculty meetings, newsletters,
magazines, and pamphlets.
Evaluation
Only 34% of the respondents indicated that they have
evaluated their promotional activities. LibQUAL+
,surveys, focus groups, Web traffic, usage statis-
tics, observations, and unprompted user feedback
were the most commonly reported assessment met-
rics. When asked to describe which promotional ac-
tivities they found most successful, participants indi-
cated that giveaways, flyers, and campus newspaper
articles and advertisements are the most effective
ways to reach users.
Challenges
Just as there are many ways to promote the library,
there are many challenges associated with these ac-
tivities. One hurdle that many participants shared
was deciding what to promote and how to craft an
appropriate message. Respondents also remarked
that reaching the appropriate audience could be
difficult—some campaigns aim for the widest vis-
ibility possible, while others focus on narrower seg-
ments. Staff time, costs and funding, production,
design work, skill sets, and assessment were other
challenges that many of the participants specified.
Finally, several internal factors materialized, such
as gaining support or buy-in throughout the entire
organization, as well as updating, communicating,
and collaborating across library departments.
Conclusion
Promotional activities are now a necessary part of a
research library’s strategic plan. Rather than asking,
“Do we need to promote the library?” librarians are
asking, “What kinds of promotional strategies best
target specific segments of our intended audience?”
In other words, now that research libraries must com-
pete with other information providers and spaces on
campus for the attention of their users, librarians are
focusing on promotional activities that target users
across a variety of communication channels.
While each ARL member library is unique in
terms of its staffing, budget, and production capabili-
ties, each one faces similar challenges to achieving its
promotional objectives. Research libraries are experi-
menting with new technologies and communication
channels as a means of communicating with their
users. These experiments reveal the extent to which
libraries must adapt their outreach efforts to their lo-
cal academic and campus cultures—what works for
one library will not necessarily work well for another.
Furthermore, because many of these marketing and
promotional initiatives remain experimental, librar-
ians have not yet reached a consensus about how to
assess their effectiveness.
Although it is true that research libraries have be-
gun to target specific segments, or categories of users,
the responsibility for coordinating those campaigns
remains distributed throughout the library. Just as
various departments within the organization provide
users with a variety of resources and services, the
librarians and library staff working in those depart-
ments engage in a wide array of promotional activi-
ties: Reference librarians tend to promote databases
and instructional assistance, archivists and special
collection librarians emphasize unique holdings and
primary source materials, and development officers
typically target alumni, potential donors, and uni-
versity stakeholders.
In short, library promotions is thriving and will
continue to grow. Librarians are adopting new tech-
niques and seeking new opportunities to interact and
share information with their users. For this progress
to continue, a more consolidated effort must guide the
communications effort. Furthermore, dedicated bud-
gets, better assessment, and media related skills are
crucial for the advancement of the marketing effort.
However, perhaps the single most important aspect
that is necessary for better promotions is a shared
vision and buy-in among library staff. Without ev-
eryone working together on the same page, research
libraries cannot expect to be effective communica-
tors.
