Library Marketing Toolkit

It's 10 years since The Library Marketing Toolkit was published!

It’s a summer of Tin anniversaries for me - first 10 years of freelancing, and now 10 years since my book, The Library Marketing Toolkit, was launched into the world on this very day in 2012.

Facet Publishing approached me in late 2010 about writing a book on marketing libraries. They were actively seeking to bring more ‘new professionals’ into their author-pool at the time, and I think I was a major beneficiary of that - I wasn’t nearly as qualified to write a book on this subject back then than I am now! Bethan Ruddock also wrote The New Professionals Toolkit over the same sort of time-period, and it was an exciting era for sure.

The timing was actually pretty tricky for me, because another thing that happened in 2010 was my daughter being born. When I was asked about writing the book I initially said ‘I would love to do this but I can’t do it this year’ and whilst Facet were very understanding, they did say that the book would be written by SOMEONE this year and they’d like it be me, but if it would happen without me if I couldn’t do it. So my wife and I talked about it and decided that for the doors it would open, writing a book would be a worthwhile short-term crisis to have… It was, just about, but I wouldn’t recommend having a new baby and a book to write to anyone, because if you’ve got a full-time job as I did then you’re writing at weekends and in the evenings, whilst trying to parent, and that is pretty brutal. Thank you so much to Alice for putting up with all the accommodations necessary to get the book done.

The sales figures

Books about libraries are niche. There are a handful of publishers, most selling books at VERY high prices in order to meet their costs, selling mainly to libraries and sometimes to librarians. The books don’t sell in large numbers; I was told that 300 would be a decent number to sell.

Mine turned out to be one of Facet’s best ever sellers, and the total sales figures after a decade are these: 2118 books sold, of which 1916 are paperbacks and 202 are ebooks. It continues to sell a handful of copies each year.

I took this screenshot when it reached number 1 in the Amazon.co.uk chart (and by chart I mean the super-specialist chart library-related books go into…); I had a similar one when it did the same thing in the US Amazon chart but I can’t find it now. I don’t mind telling you I was unashamedly thrilled about this!

Screenshot the Amazon library management chart, showing The Library Marketing Toolkit at number 1

Is this Windows XP? Either way it’s time-capsule of a screen-shot…

I didn’t keep a regular track on its chart position, but in 2013 it did briefly rise to number 17 in the overall (not just library-related, but all industries) chart for Public Relations, which was exciting…

The Open Access debate: does it harm sales? (Spoiler alert: no.)

One particular detail I find interesting, is what happened when I made chapters available Open Access. When I wrote the book in 2010/11, OA was not something I was aware of at all. Then as I was educated about it by my network on Twitter, I started to pester Facet about letting me make some or all of the Toolkit available Open Access. They were kind enough to let me make four chapters available OA: I know this isn’t the ideal scenario of the whole book but this was a new area to them with their policy still under development, and I really appreciated them being more flexible than saying either ‘no’ or ‘one chapter only’.

Anyway, up until 2015, the Toolkit sales had basically halved each year. It happened like clockwork - around 1,000 sales in the first year, around 500 in the second, around 250 in the third and so on. However, the year after I made the OA chapters available, sales didn’t halve, for the first time ever; in fact they stayed the same as the previous year.

Now, there is definitely correlation there - can we claim causation? Of course we can’t be completely sure - who knows what other factors were at play in book sales over the 12 months - but I see it as fairly compelling evidence that apart from being A Good Thing generally, OA can also lead to more book sales than would have been the case without it.

In addition to this of course, lots more people have read the OA chapters so more people see the work. At the time of writing, the most popular OA chapter from the Toolkit is the Strategic Marketing chapter, which has been downloaded 2,042 times, which is very close to the 2,118 book sales; between them the OA chapters have been downloaded over 4,000 times.

The writing process

Some stuff came very easily as I was writing - all the social media things for example - and other things required a lot more chipping away at to work properly. I showed the chapter on strategy to my friend Andy Priestner because I was really struggling with it. He gave me SUCH useful feedback, especially about the level of ambition the chapter was showing: essentially his point was (and my memory is genuinely abject so sorry if I’m misquoting you here Andy): if you’re going to get people to do strategic marketing, they need to aim higher than you’re suggesting in your chapter: they need to change user behaviour and that’s no small thing. This advice was so important, no just to the book but to my overall approach to marketing, and I still talk about ambition in marketing in the workshops I run today, 11 years later.

I have learned things about the way my brain works over time: one is that I have to get SOMETHING down and then make it good later, rather than trying to write well straight away. Whether it’s a presentation, an article, or even a whole book: some sort of draft - honestly, it can be any old nonsense - is needed before I can make sense of ideas and organise them. I then rewrite the rubbish draft, and then refine, refine, refine. So in I finished a draft and sent it off to Facet in December 2011, not in the hope that they’d like it but in order to have finished part 1 of the process - writing something down - so I could get on with part 2, writing something good.

At this point I started making major revisions, literally ditching entire chapters and restructuring whole sections of the book, and in the meantime Facet sent the 1st draft to Antony Brewerton, I think at my suggestion because I really admired his thoughts on libraries. He came back with a review of it, and quite honestly it was BRUTAL. There was nothing unkind about it and he was very encouraging, but he pointed some flaws I was all too aware of and it was savage to read it.

I just found it and reread it, 10 and a half years later, and it was still painful: my skin went hot and I think I probably went red, sat here at my PC in 2022 - it was so spot on as to the problems with the book. As well as pointing out stuff I already knew was a problem, he also had a huge number of constructive suggestions and drew attention to lots of things I didn’t know were problematic until he pointed them out.

In short, it was exactly what I needed. Some things I couldn’t change (Antony wanted to see more evidence of marketing campaigns I’d run, but at that stage I simply hadn’t led any!) but all the things I could change I did. In early 2012 between January 25 and February 20 I rewrote the book into the version that exists today.

If by any chance you’ve read the book and found it useful, thank Andy and Antony if you see them!

The publishing process

The publishing process itself was surprisingly painless. An early conversation with the publisher was about writing style - could I write in my own voice? The answer came back yes, very much so. I think this the only way I could have got through it, because I dislike academic writing intensely. The amount of great ideas that haven’t had the traction they should have in librarianship, because their authors have used the construct of academic writing to communicate, drives me mad.

Facet worked with me on the process of working out exactly what the book should be and the kinds of chapters it should contain. They were happy for me to either write it all or edit a volume of contributed chapters; I wanted a halfway house with case studies, which they were fine with. We agreed the deadline and wordcount, they supplied me with a style guide, and then largely left me to get on with it, rather than constantly checking on progress, which I hugely appreciated. They were really supportive when I needed support (especially Sarah Busby, the commissioning editor at the time), but didn’t micromanage anything.

I opted to pay for an indexer rather than to do the indexing myself - a decision I would highly recommend! They’re really good at it and by that stage of the process you are completely sick of your own work… It’s worth noting that while a publisher will do some marketing of your book, it’s really on you. If you want to sell copies, you need to put the work in to market it. So I set up a website for mine, I made a Slideshare presentation about it, it had its own twitter account. I really went for it, and that’s what you have to do to raise awareness and shift copies.

There were some great reviews, and the ones I loved were the ones which really got where I was coming from - not just telling people how to market their library, but trying to reassure them that they could. One review in the Australian Library Journal ended like this and really made my week:

“The whole book has a reassuring and inspiring tone: ideas and approaches outlined in the book appear absolutely achievable and commonsensical. I suggest that you buy, borrow or beg a copy today.”

The case studies

To be absolutely frank, there’s not a lot of my own writing in the book which I fully stand by now. It’s not that I disagree with past me, it’s that I’ve learned so much since that’s superseded what I wrote.

However what really holds up a decade later is the case studies. I could not believe the people who said yes to writing for my book! I am still honoured they did, and they wrote REALLY great stuff. Thank you so much to everyone who contributed to this! They all did so for free (I actually negotiated my own royalties down in order to get them each a free copy of the book as payment) and I’m hugely grateful.

The follow-up…

I’ve been asked more than once to write a sequel to the book, and I have not done so. This is mainly because it was a huge amount of work, a sort of once-in-a-lifetime level of commitment.

I haven’t ruled out self-publishing a book though: the attraction would be I could sell it waaay cheaper, I could publish it on the timeline of my choosing, and make it the length I wanted rather than needing to achieve any sort of target. So if I ever write a follow-up, I’ll let you know.

If you’ve bought the Toolkit for yourself or your library, or read any of the OA chapters, then thank you! I hope it was useful.

10 top tips to take your organisation's Twitter account up a level

My current column for Library Journal is all about taking a Twitter account to the next level. It's hard to keep organisational accounts progressing - a lot of them plateau after a while - so there's 10 golden rules to get you past that point.  

Image of the LJ column online

 

The 10 golden rules in brief, are:

  1. Only tweet about your library one time in four
  2. Analyse your tweets
  3. Tweet multimedia
  4. Tweet more pictures
  5. If something is important, tweet it four times
  6. Use hashtags (but don’t go mad)
  7. Ask questions
  8. Get retweeted and your network will grow
  9. Put your Twitter handle EVERYWHERE
  10. Finally, avoid these pitfalls .

Read the full article with expanded information about each rule, here.

People don't need to know about all the services we provide - they just have to know what's relevant to them

Reblogged from the Library Marketing Toolkit Pew Internet have just released their 10 key findings from their Library research:

The slide I'm particularly interested in is number 11, which tells us that:

  • 22% say they know all or most of the services their libraries offer
  • 46% know some of what their libraries offer
  • 31% know not much or nothing at all of what their libraries offer . .

Initially this makes somewhat depressing reading, statistical proof of what we've all known for a long time: the public don't understand what modern libraries actually DO. The library brand is so synonymous with 'book' that there's little room for the many and varied services we offer, and it really is the services we must emphasize in our marketing, now the content we provide is often readily available by other means. Ambiguity or confusion is the enemy of great marketing - simple messages stick so much better. But inevitably, as we change to accommodate the new needs of our users, and add more and more aspects to the offer we make, it becomes harder to summarize the modern library and easily communicate how we can help people in their lives.

Actually though, the figures aren't that bad. 22% is a surprisingly high number to know most or all of the services their library offers - I'm not sure I know all the services my library offers and I work there! With an offering as diverse as ours no one needs ALL that we offer, so what matters is not everyone knowing everything, but each group knowing what is relevant for them. Perhaps it's time to stop worrying about whether people 'understand' modern libraries in general, and move on to simply ensuring that the parents know what services we offer for children, the people on the wrong side of the digital divide know we can help them get online and use new technology , the people who hold the purse strings know how important we are to the local community, and so on.

This process is formally referred to as 'segmentation' or 'segmenting the market' - dividing your users up into groups, basically, and tailoring the message to suit each one. It's something library marketing types go on about a lot, and perhaps fills non-marketing types with dread... But it doesn't have to be intimidating. At its simplest level, you’re targeting each group with a slightly different aspect of the same message, making sure they know about one key service relevant to them, and then letting them discover the rest once they’re in through the door.

Going back to Pew’s findings. the 31% who know nothing of the library is much more worrying. But again, the approach needn't be 'how do we tell all 31% everything we do in the Library!' - it can be about dividing that 31% up into existing segments, and targeting them with relevant services. The average person in the street doesn't need to think 'I know all about the Library'; they just need to think 'I want to start looking into the genealogy of my family tree, and I know the Library can help me', or whatever their need might be.  Segmenting the market is hard to do, but it's proper marketing - the results can be hugely beneficial.

Repeat after me: host content externally, embed content locally

Reblogged from the Library Marketing Toolkit Modern library websites now have ALL KINDS of content. Where there used to be lots of text and a few images, there's now much more dynamic content. We've got presentations, videos, audio, even embedded documents. This opens up a great opportunity to reach more and varied people.

It is possible to host all this stuff on your own website. But why do that when you can host them externally, and just embed them locally? It will save you an enormous amount of bandwidth, but more importantly, it will make your content infinitely more discoverable. We can't rely on people going right to the Library wesbite; we have to show up in their Google searches too.

As we all know, a lot of people don't know what libraries can do these days. If we host our content elsewhere on the internet, we're going to the people rather than relying on them guessing that the library might be the one to help. We're showing up in their searches. We're appearing on the platforms they frequent anyway. We're boosting our reputation among other libraries.

If you host a video on YouTube it will get views from people browsing that platform, as well as the views it will get embedded in your library website. The same applies for images which, if they're magnificent Special Collections images for example, you could put on Flickr in their own group, and embed them in the Library website (and why not set a up a Tumblr blog or a Pinterest board for them while you're at it?).

If you have Prezi or Slideshare presentations these can be picked up and featured by the hosting sites, leading to an exponentially increased audience. The same goes for PDFs too - host them on Issuu.com (like the new case studies for this website) or Scribd.com and they look good, get a lot more use (because people know what they're getting without having to open a file) and could become featured documents.

The Twitter for research PDF I recently uploaded to Scribd, to my organisation's account, was seen by around 3,000 people in its first two weeks of publication, because Scribd featured it on their homepage. So it was very useful locally, because putting on Scribd meant we could embed it locally making it more useable for our staff and students. But it was also useful internationally because it helped our institution reach a large audience, as a provider of useful guidance in an emerging area.

And what about Library news - why write it on the library website itself when you can host it on a blog and embed the RSS feed on your own site? Basically anything you think of can be hosted externally, embedded locally. What this means is you are AMPLIFYING your content and increasing discoverability - essentially, the work you put into your resources is going to be more richly rewarded.

So, repeat after me! Host externally, embed locally

A small change in the way these blogs operate

Picture of a spanner

Short version of this post

I will occasionally be reblogging content from the other blog I write, at librarymarketingtoolkit.com, on here.

Longer version

This blog, thewikiman, used to have a lot of content about marketing libraries on it. In fact that's partly why I got asked to write a book on the subject in the first place. When the book came out and I launched the website to go with it, I started blogging about marketing stuff on there, and in order not duplicate content, I stopped talking about marketing stuff on here.

However, after thinking about it for a while and talking to people who read one or both of the blogs, I'll now be reblogging relevant content from the Toolkit blog on thewikiman blog. This for a number of reasons:

  • The content I'll be reblogging is relevant to both audiences
  • I blog far less these days anyway so splitting the posts between blogs makes them even scarcer...
  • I still sometimes hear this wikiman blog referred to on Twitter as 'one to follow for marketing' so there's an expectation that it'll have some marketing stuff!
  • This blog gets a larger audience than the Toolkit blog, and generally speaking I want as many people to read my posts as possible .

So I'm going to start by reblogging the last couple of posts from the Toolkit blog, and then carry on as normal from there. It won't be that the blogs are identical - there'll be plenty of stuff on here about library issues generally which doesn't make it onto the Toolkit blog, and the odd obscure marketing post on the Toolkit blog that doesn't make it on to here.

I hope that's okay with everyone! :)

Cheers,

Ned