The Door Count Fallacy in Library Social Media

Have you encountered among your library colleagues the door count fallacy in the use of social media?  Here it is, in a nutshell:

• Library use of social media should be focused only toward local patrons (i.e., those people coming through the library doors)

You can detect the door count fallacy in these actual library social media use directives:

• "Book trailers must reflect books that the library has on its shelves (or has ordered)."

• "Facebook and Twitter posts shall be limited to library programs, events, collection items, and technologies and services available in the library."

• "Instagram shall be used exclusively to promote youth services programs."

• "Library videos shall promote library programs or library collections."

• "Reposting is prohibited on any social media, as these reposts may not reflect the libraries' services or collections."

Limiting social media use to those patrons who actually visit the physical library (or its outreach activities) seriously underestimates the audience libraries may reach.  Social media, by definition, potentially can reach anyone with internet access.  That's billions of prospective patrons who might pay attention to a library's online content if they're sufficiently interested.  (Minus delusions of grandeur, let's assume tens or hundreds of thousands at best.)  If they see it, they're actual library patrons, both statistically and substantively, regardless of their geographic locations.

Inherent in the door count fallacy is an unreasonable restriction to the term visitors.  Those visiting the library go beyond the ones who walk through the entrance of the physical building.  If social media content can be tailored to appeal to the broadest possible audience, then you're addressing thousands (possibly tens to hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions) of interested people rather than a handful who pass through the library's doors.

This approach should not denigrate people visiting the physical facility.  These "locals" are obviously important--visitors are the primary mission of any library--and they should never be ignored.  Clearly, social media content should be specialized toward a local audience to communicate information they need to know, such as program dates and times, schedule changes, new equipment or services, the latest items added to the catalog, etc.  But that should not be the exclusive audience for a library's social media content.  Broad-appeal content aimed at a national (or even international) audience will also appeal to "locals," and it enhances your social media reach a thousand fold.

These two different objectives--reaching your local patrons and reaching a larger audience--can be accomplished together successfully. Reach for reach's sake is not the goal; rather, broader-audience content should achieve something meaningful to the patron and for the library.  Social media content should always be service-oriented.  Just accumulating statistics doesn't really count for much.

Librarians responsible for social media content probably find this all self-evident.  Of course social media allows libraries to establish a global footprint.  If you're one of them, I apologize for stating the obvious.  However, I wonder if you haven't encountered resistance from your colleagues (or superiors) to broad-appeal social media use.  Have you ever been told to limit your Facebook or Twitter posts to what's happening in the library?  To restrict your YouTube videos to book trailers or book reviews only for items you have (or will soon have) on your shelves?  To recreate virtual children's programs to precisely mirror what you're doing (or used to be doing, before the COVID-19 pandemic) in programs held at the library?  Each of these constrictions is an exercise in the door count fallacy.  They artificially reduce your social media effectiveness by excessively narrowing your potential audience.

How do you change the minds of other librarians, administrators, or board members suffering from the door count fallacy?  By statistics, of course (despite what I said above).  Take my library as a typical example.  I work in a small township library serving under 15,000, of which about one-third hold library cards (or, more accurately, have ever held library cards, as many accounts are expired or disused because people move away, lose interest, etc.).  Our daily door count averaged 200-300 before COVID-19; now there are considerably fewer visitors walking through our entrance.  Most of these are repeat visitors, so we're attracting a few thousand people annually into our building.  Those are significant numbers, to be sure.  But there are other, larger numbers of people that we're serving.  Our social media collectively during the past decade have reached over four million patrons.  Remember, we're a township library with a staff of 18 employees, about a half-dozen of which contribute to library social media.  That four million audience is comprised of real-life, breathing people who spent some fraction of their busy lives watching, listening to, or reading our social media content, presumably because it satisfied an informational need or gave them a moment's entertainment.  Tell your board members that your library positively affects the lives of millions and see if that gets their attention.

This is not to suggest, however, that garnering huge audience numbers is, in itself, the desired goal.  It is also not intended to imply that libraries, particularly smaller ones, shouldn't focus their social media attention on those most likely to utilize or benefit from their libraries' resources.  My complaint is when we're restricted by policies to confine our social media efforts exclusively to "through-the-door" clientele.  There's a larger audience out there who might be interested in, and benefit from, your social media efforts.

Fortunately, the constraining effect of the door count fallacy is diminishing, as librarians continue to explore and realize the expansive potentialities available through social media use.