Along with a reported 5000 other individuals, this week I am attending the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Museums in Houston Texas. The impact of social media in Outreach efforts is evident by the number of sessions devoted to the topic.
If the first session I attended on Sunday is any indication, then the Annual Meeting will prove well worth the 10-hour drive from the flooded Mississippi Delta at Memphis to the furnace of hot winds blowing in southeast Texas. The session was We have 10,000 followers . . . Now What? Evaluating Social Media’s Impact. I suspect this title resonates with many folks in Museum and other nonprofit institutions. For many, the aggressive Facebook or Twitter campaigns were launched, likes and followers signed on, and then came the “so what do we do now?” Web tutorials on building social media platforms abound but there is considerably less discussion on the hows and whys of sustaining the presence. The AAM session provided some great insights in filling this void.
The presenters were Elizabeth Bolander from the Cleveland Museum of Art, Sarah Elizabeth Banks from the National Museum of Natural Hisotry (NMNH) at the Smithonian, Jay Geneske from Echo Green, and Ryan French from the Walker Art Center.
The discussion opened by challenging institutions to define their goals in using social media. Too often museums only conceptualize social media as a seemingly cheap form of marketing to drive visitation to a museum or event. Sarah Elizabeth Banks provided an alternative approach from the Smithsonian. Social media at the NMNH is also viewed as a tool for engaging the public directly in research and then disseminating the research results. For example, when NMNH scientists in Africa needed immediate assistance to identify fish species. They announced the project on Facebook, uploaded the images of the fish to Flickr, and via email sent out a call for participation. As well, the Smithsonian blog reported the project that was also featured on the Smithsonian website. Ultimately the fish identification was a “Facebook Story of the Week for the NMNH. With support from the virtual community the NMNH scientists completed the identifications in record time. Instead of viewing social media as a marketing tool to drive visitation, the fish identification project demonstrated how a research project can be assisted through social media.
The session speakers all agreed that social media must flow from the museum’s mission. As such, institutions need to incorporate social media into the forefront of activities and not as an afterthought.
The Walker Art Center uses YouTube videos to take visitors behind the scenes in exhibit construction. The speakers also pointed to the power of memory when posting photographs to Flickr of past events and visitors. Both the Walker Art Center and the Smithsonian actively invite the public to upload their photographs to these projects.
Speakers noted the tremendous resource drain social media can have on a staff. For example, the Walker Art Center runs 10 separate Facebook pages, blogs, YouTube channels, Twitter feeds and more. Out of the 150 attending this AAM session only one individual’s job responsibilities were full-time in social media. Most attendees performed social media tasks as an added assignment. The speakers expressed considerable variation in how their institutions controlled social media output. However, the need for radical trust was a theme in all the presentations.
At the C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa, over the past couple of years, we have thrown a lot of virtual spaghetti at the social media wall. A good bit has stuck. We, like many or most other institutions now must sit back and soberly assess the impact, and strategically plan our next steps. My ultimate takeaway from the session is that social media is moving to the forefront of all that we do in Museums and Outreach. We need to be fully engaged, intentional, and mission driven with this tool as we move forward.
How are you evaluating your social media experiences as you plan for the future?