Guest post part 2: If I had a dime for every time...

Guest post by Erin Blasco, public programs coordinator and manager of the National Postal Museum’s Facebook and Twitter accounts

If I had a time for every time I heard, "Social media communities grow quickly and are basically self-sustaining," I’d be a pretty rich museum professional!

But I’d also probably not stop to consider why this statement triggers an instant eye roll. I’d never develop strategies to make conversations about social media more productive. For the upcoming Museums and the Web conference, a group of museum professionals is asking you to do just that: discuss the biggest myths in museum social media in a productive, thoughtful way. For details on why you should participate and how to do this, see the previous post.

Here’s some food for thought related to this statement: “Museum social media communities grow quickly and are relatively self-sustaining.”

· “Social media is a monologue waiting, sometimes fruitlessly, to become a dialogue. Despite that it will grow - doing so around a hub of particularly engaging participants who drive the media by virtue of their skills and depth of (or, diversity of) knowledge. The same drivers found in successful face-to-face conversation.” - @POPinDC

· “I agree that social media communities CAN grow quickly and be relatively self-sustaining if they are built on pre-existing in-person networks or communities of interest. The idea that any social media outlet once opened will automatically (a) gain a following and (b) turn this following into a community is misleading.” - @Museums365

· “Social media helps us engage our members. New species discoveries, job opportunities, we've even live tweeted an expedition” - @labroides

· “I mean, to a certain extent it depends, but self-sustaining SM communities will be the outliers, not the rule.” - @RyanD

What is a “community?”

Members of communities have to share something, whether it’s physical space or interests, often both. If a museum creates a Facebook page and posts images and stories from the collection twice a week, are their followers a community? As a manager of two museum social media accounts, I see evidence of various interest groups within our followers—Civil War buffs, stamp collectors, former postal workers—but they seem like subscribers, not active community members.

On the other hand, members of niche interest groups follow the museum on social media to feed their interests and inform their hobbies. The comments may not buzz with thoughtful debate or the swapping of stories, but the occasional “I used to work at the post office in Rhode Island” followed by “Me too!” shouldn’t be belittled—that’s a human connection! By sharing our collections and stories in a social space, the museum invited community members to hang out and do whatever it is that communities do.

How do you define social media followers? Is forming a “community” a goal at your institution? Or is it more about increasing followers?

Growing quickly?

There’s a big emphasis on follower numbers in social media, maybe because it can be challenging to gauge success through other metrics. Under what circumstances do social media communities grow quickly? And is quick growth always desirable? At my own institution, we measure annual growth and set steadily increasing benchmarks but the numbers we pick are fairly arbitrary and we aren’t sure exactly how (or why) to impact the rate of growth. I’ve noticed that museum tweetups, which typically have limited space, are sought-after experiences partially because they’re so exclusive. What if we capped follower numbers at 500 and asked each new follower to complete a three question application? Would we have a more dedicated, engaged community or would everyone just get cranky?

Is quick growth important to your museum? If not, what metrics are more important? Have you seen a community grow exponentially or not at all?

Self-sustaining?

Very few museum professionals would expect a monthly “chat with a scientist” program to be completely self-sustaining but somehow that expectation is often applied to social media communities. Why do you think this is?

I agree that there are self-sustaining communities online. I recently had a question about my goldfish tank and joined an online forum for people who are passionate about fish. These folks had invested time and money in their own tanks and definitely considered themselves members of a real community that they worked hard to sustain. Could art fans, history buffs, or other museum followers reach that level of commitment and interaction on a museum social media site to the point that it would sustain itself? Is that the goal? Is interest in “self-sustaining” communities just another way to say that social media isn’t worth staff time and resources?

So share your reactions, experiences, case studies, and favorite links!