One recurring comment from staff was that teens may be giving up something else
in order to use library services – their sense of independence. This highlights a theme
that ran through many of the interviews – that marketing to teens cannot done in
isolation; their parents are an important part, too. Examples previously mentioned
include parents noticing displays and authorising teens’ library membership. In
addition parents may still have a role in monitoring and allowing teens’ library visits,
their choice in reading material, and their participation in library events. There was not
a “one size fits all” approach by parents, either: interviewees felt that some parents
were willing to leave their teens alone all day in the library, while at the other extreme
there were parents who wanted to be heavily involved in their teens’ library use. This
variation held for teens as well – some did not want to involve their parents at all,
while others wanted parents to share their library experiences. Despite the fact that
many of the interviewed staff had noticed the role parents played in teens’
relationships with libraries, this does not seem to be captured in any formal way in the
marketing at either Library. Marketing is still very much directed only at teens.
Library B clearly sees that “place” refers to the virtual world as well as the library’s
physical buildings, with a web site set up to direct teens straight to sites that will
benefit them, and making themselves accessible through Facebook and Twitter.
Library A presents a more complex picture; it has designated teen spaces in all its
libraries, yet some strategic staff questioned whether this is necessary. Library A’s
web site already seems to be experimenting with this theory, with no one specific area
for teens to access teen-focused resources.
There is obviously some ongoing evaluation of the marketing mix at both Libraries
– re-evaluating pricing is an example of this, as is adopting new technologies for
promotion.What is less obvious is how this evaluation happens. Use of library services
is generally measured quantitatively and this form of measurement has its limitations
– for instance, libraries take door-counts but it is impossible to find out patron
demographics just by counting. Library surveys are conducted at both Libraries, but
teens do not always participate in these. One of the branch libraries at Library B has
started recording teens’ verbal responses to events, but this is a new initiative and its
viability on a wider scale has not yet been ascertained.
With neither Library currently having a teen marketing strategy in place,
marketing appears to be more tactical than strategic. At the community level,
marketing for specific products is carried out by the library staff who have designed or
are interested in promoting that product. This kind of marketing is driven in a
bottom-up manner, and given that no operational staff respondents had formal
marketing knowledge and did not know any details of their Library’s marketing
strategy, it is obvious that the marketing of community-level products is conducted in
a tactical manner, with marketing concepts only influencing marketing at a late stage,
if at all.
This is categorically not to say that these products are being poorly or
unsuccessfully marketed. Because of their close relationship with teens, operational
staff are able to talk directly and informally with them to find out what they want.
Branch library staff also hold a good deal of institutional knowledge, and know what
has been trialled in the past and how teens reacted – there are even instances of this
knowledge trumping the suggestions of those with a marketing role within the
organisation: “So sometimes you get marketing type people saying, we should do this,