Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam !
Museum communication 2.0 The pros and cons of using social media in a museum environment
Supervisor: Dr. I Kamphof
Matthijs van der Meulen ID: 596582 11/06/2009 MA Media Culture
University of Maastricht, The Netherlands Reflexive Report
!
1
! Museum communication 2.0
1! 3!
Preface
1 Introduction 1.1! Introduction 1.2! Research question
5! 5! 7! 7!
Sub questions
2 Social media
8! 9! 10! 10! 11! 13!
2.1 What are social media? 2.2 A short history of social media and key applications Facebook YouTube Flickr
3 Museums and social media
15! 15! 16!
3.1 Museums throughout history 3.2 Museums and social media
4 Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam
18! 18! 19! 19! 20! 21! 21! 23! 25!
4.1 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 4.2 Stedelijk on the Internet 4.3 Stedelijkindestad.nl 4.4 Stedelijk museum Amsterdam and the use of social media 4.5 What can be learned from their experience with social media so far? Advantages and disadvantages, problems, difficulties and hindrances Future website Recommendations
5 Case study: Z33
26! 26! 27! 27! 28! 28! 29! 30! 30!
5.1 History 5.2 Z33.be 5.3 Z33 and social media Museumplatform project Facebook Flickr YouTube Future website
6 Conclusion
32! 33!
Recommendations and observations
7 Bibliography !
35! 35! 35!
7.1 Bibliography Online sources
!
2
Introduction
Preface During the nineties I started to document a part of modern-day youth culture. I was, and still am, very passionate about: graffiti art. As a hobby photographer I created a collection of thousands of pictures on the subject. It was in 1997 when I decided to publish this collection on the Internet when I started the website www.dutchdamage.com. To my own surprise the website rapidly became one of the most successful ones on the subject of graffiti art worldwide. The website provided an online platform for graffiti artists and enthusiasts to share their knowledge on the subject, discuss art related topics, and so on. By making use of the platform function of the website I took the opportunity to organize various art events throughout the Netherlands and in the meantime I published two books about graffiti culture and curated a graffiti art exhibition in Amsterdam. Intrigued by the almost overnight success of the website and the possibilities and influence new media seemed to have I started a Bachelor study in Interactive Media at The Hogeschool van Amsterdam in 2003, which I completed successfully, and in 2008 I joined the Media Culture Master program at the University of Maastricht. The paper you are reading is the end result of the research I did during the final semester of that program. I think by now it will be clear that my interests has been with the arts and interactive media for a long time now and it’s where those two meet that I am most interested in. When I ran into a newspaper article about the Australian Powerhouse museum and how they had started using social media it caught my attention immediately. Of course I was already aware of the rising popularity of social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube over the last few years as I make daily use of these platforms myself. And although I noticed how companies tried to catch up with the rapidly changing media landscape nowadays I never had given it any serious thought in the context of museums, the museum experience and the role of a museum. An interesting project and research idea that combined both my interests in the arts and interactive media to finish my master degree program was born.
3
Introduction With only four months to do the research project, choices had to be made. As time was limited I decided to focus on qualitive research by doing various interviews and at the same timework closely together with museums and art centres to get hands on experience with the use of social media in a museum context. For this research project I invited Gregor Bierhals and Yasmin Abdol Hamid to work with me as my project partners and as a team we got the chance to work with art centre Z33 in Hasselt, Belgium and interviewed the following people: •
Carolien de Bruijn, webmaster of Stedelijkindestad.nl, website of the Stedelijk museum in Amsterdam
•
Jan Boelen: director of art centre Z33
•
Tim Toubac: communication advisor of art centre Z33 in Hasselt, Belgium
•
Nina Simon: exhibition designer, curator at the Tech museum of innovation in San Jose, the United States and webmaster of the Museum 2.0 website, expert on the use of social media in a museum context
•
Floor Krooi, project leader of art centre Marres in Maastricht, The Netherlands
•
Björn Stenvers, head of marketing and communications of the Amsterdams historisch museum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands
I would like to thank them all for their co-operation, and useful insights they provided me with. Dr. Ike Kamphof supervised the research project; I would like to thank her especially for her great support and feedback over the last few months.
4
Introduction
1 Introduction !
1.1 Introduction !
Museums all over the world are confronted with increased pressure to attract visitors and public funding. People have limited spare time, and a younger demographic may not even consider a museum visit as something attractive to do in their spare time. Some people see a museum as an old fashioned, dusty institute, dominated by a socio-economic elite. But in recent years, there have been changes. Museums have begun to show a greater interest and respect for their audiences’ needs. They have started to adopt marketing and communication practices to attract a wider audience, also focusing on a younger public. There is more emphasis on making a visit to the museum a “unique experience”. Technology is also being used to breathe more life into exhibitions and subjects. Museums are trying to establish a direct relationship with the public, and collect feedback from them to improve services. The Internet could possibly be the most powerful tool to provide these changes. At this point, most museums are represented on the web, but in general, most of their websites are rather simplistic, brochure styled pages, not taking full advantage of the new possibilities of the medium. They basically apply the “rules” of an old medium, print, to a new medium, the Internet, something we call remediating. (Bolter & Grusin, 1999) Recently, some museums have started to incorporate more interactive features to their pages, and some have made efforts to make their collection available online to the public. A handful are now starting to make use of social media such as weblogs, You Tube and Facebook to enhance the museum experience both on and offline. These sites also serve as new channels for museum public relations and marketing. The Indianapolis Museum of Art, and the Brooklyn Museum are two good examples of museums that try to explore
5
Introduction the possibilities interactive media can provide as new ways of communicating with the audience. These two museums make good use of the Internet to engage in a direct conversation with their audience. In the light of these developments and the potential that museums can obtain by incorporating more interactive elements on their websites, I was inspired to begin a project that would study this phenomenon. This interest was further inspired by a recent report on museums in the region of Limburg, the region I currently stay in at the moment of writing this paper, by the “Visitatie Commissie Limburg�1. It stated explicitly that these museums should all make more use of interactive media. I explored the possibility of working on a project with a regional art institute as I intended to consult a regional museum or art centre and study their use of interactive and social media. I found the perfect project partner in Z33, an art centre in Hasselt. Although academic research about the impact and use of social media now slowly starts to take off, research on social media in the context of the museum specifically is still in its infancy, and that’s why I believe my research project and the experience I gained while working closely with an art centre can provide new insights in this field. In this report I will first introduce the reader to the concept of social media. What is social media, how did social media emerge and what are key applications? Then we will look into the use of social media by museums and art centres more specifically as the biggest part of the paper will focus on two case studies. The Stedelijk museum in Amsterdam was one of the first Dutch museums to incorporate social media features in their website and thus have relevant experience on the subject we can learn from. Then there is Z33, a Belgian art centre that is about to have their current website rebuild and is keen
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1
Rapportage Visitatiecommisssie drie provinciale musea : http://www.limburg.nl/upload/pdf/Musea_RapportageVisitatiecommissiesLimbM useumBonnefmuseumIndustrion.pdf
6
Introduction on learning about incorporating social media features in their new online presence and who I worked with closely during this research project.
1.2 !
Research question
What possibilities do social media offer to art museums and art institutes and what are the hindrances of using social media?
Sub questions What are social media? How do social media affect museum communication?
7
Social media
2 Social media It’s obvious the media landscape changed drastically over the last two hundred years. Where in the 19th century the print culture dominated, things really started to change rapidly when radio, film and television were introduced. At the end of the 80’s a new culture emerged when personal computers, and other ICT (Information and Communication Technology) tools became widely available. A digital culture or e-culture was born. (Manovich, 2001) When in 1990 Tim Benners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, the graphical interface of the Internet, it suddenly became possible to access digital information from anywhere in the world by making use of a web browser. Not only did this provide easy access to all kinds of digital information, the new medium could also be used to publish information on a global scale at almost no cost. People praised the new medium for its interactivity and ease of use for publishing purposes from the start. But there were still a lot of barriers to be taken down in those early years for it to reach its full potential as a platform where people could interact with each other and publish their own material. Creating content on the web required technical and programming skills and Internet connection speeds were slow, making it difficult to publish larger data files such as images, audio and video. Of course technologies progress and improve constantly and the Internet now starts to live up to the expectations people had in those first years in terms of interactivity and possibilities as a publishing platform. (Hauben & Hauben, 1996) Where in the past companies and governments were in control of the socalled mass media, the Internet now allows the audience to become a publisher, a producer. Examples of this new role of the audience can be found on platforms such as YouTube where millions of people create, upload and share their videos or in the immense popularity of writing personal weblogs. This shift
8
Social media from consumer to producer of media is what Henry Jenkins describes as a participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006). He argues that indeed high speed Internet and new software and technology accelerated the process. But he also sees the promotion of “do it yourself” media and economic trends as important factors (Jenkins, 2006).
2.1 What are social media? !
Over the last few years the terms “Web 2.0” and “social media” have been the buzzwords in the field of interactive media. Throughout this paper these terms will recur often. Many people use these two terms interchangeably, something I do not agree with. There is not one clear definition of what Web 2.0 incorporates, or as social media expert Kevin Skarritt points out: “If you talk to 100 technology people and ask them for their definition of what Web 2.0 is, it is an extremely overused phrase, and you’ll probably get 105 answers." (Skariitt, 2007) In this paper I will use the following distinction: Web 2.0 is the technology behind the applications that make it possible to participate with others users, it is the “infrastructure” of the “new” web, needed for social media to exist. Examples of such technologies are AJAX, XML, RSS and APIs. These Web 2.0 technologies created the possibility to make media such as text, images and video “social”, as people are now able to share them, comment on them, edit them etcetera. This is where we see Jenkins’ participatory culture at work. It changed the way we read, share and discover digital information, as content is now easier to access and easier to track. Communication on the Internet went from a one-to-many to a many-to-many model, from a monolog to a dialog. So social media can also be described as another shift in culture, as it is not only about the tools and technology that is being used, but also a new way of using media. An interesting note comes from Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web, as he claims, “The web is more a social creation than a technical one. I designed it for
9
Social media a social effect – to help people work together. The ultimate goal of the web is to support and improve our web-like existence in the world.” (Berners-Lee, 1999, p123) So the web was meant to be “social” from the start, according to its designer. Only the technology needed for the web to become really “social” was not available yet.
2.2 A short history of social media and key applications ! To get a better understanding of the usage, popularity and rapid growth of social media and social media applications we will look at some of these applications specifically: Facebook, a social network platform, YouTube, a video sharing platform and Flickr, a photo sharing platform. The reason why I chose these three out of all available platforms is based on the fact that they each have the largest user base in their category. At the same time these are also the platforms we chose to work with during our project with art centre Z33.
Facebook It is 2003 when Mark Zuckerberg, a then 20 year old computer science student at Harvard, launches a website where fellow Harvard students are able to rate people’s attractiveness. The website makes use of pictures from online face books, pictures that are stored on Harvard’s computer network. Within a day, over 450 students sign up, and 22.000 pages are viewed. But when school officials find out about the abuse of the school’s property, they shut down Mark’s Internet access and the website is taken down immediately. Mark is surprised by the overnight success and says he learned a valuable lesson, as "People are more voyeuristic than I would have thought." (Hoffman, 2008) With this in mind he starts working on what later becomes thefacebook.com, a Harvard only social-networking site launched early 2004. It only took a month before half of the campus signed up and had a profile on the website. With the help of his friends and roommates Chris Hughes and Dustin Moskovitz, he started to expand to other elite institutions such as Stanford and later on to colleges all over the United States. By the end of the year the site already had
10
Social media over one million users. In 2005 Facebook opened up to companies and high schools as well, and a year later the platform was finally accessible for everybody worldwide. (Boyd, 2009) At the beginning of 2009 the website now has over 200 million users and is the most visited social networking website on the Internet. Microsoft invested 240 million US Dollars in Facebook in 2007 at a 1,6% stake, valuing the company at 15 billion US Dollars. (Hempel, 2009) What Facebook had set apart from previous existing social networking sites was the fact that it focussed on schools exclusively and not everybody was able to join, as only students from elite schools were able to join in the beginning. By doing so it kept users from registering anonymously, as happened so often at other social networking websites as Friendster and MySpace. The clean design of the website and a user-friendly interface further added to the appeal of Facebook.
YouTube At the beginning of 2005, three former employees of e-commerce business PayPal started a website where users could easily upload, view and share video material, free of charge. The idea for this website sprouted when the three found it very difficult to share a video online they recorded of a dinner party they had together. In May 2005 the team, consisting of Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, launched the first beta version of the website. In November of that same year, the first version of the website was made available to the public, with a $3.5 million of funding from Sequoia Capital. (Yadav, 2006) The website was an almost overnight success, with millions of new unique visitors every month, and it quickly became the world’s fastest growing website of the year 2006, based on its visitor numbers. (Nielsen, 2006) It didn’t take long before companies such as Yahoo, Sony and Time Warner started to show interest in YouTube, but at the end of 2006 it was Google that bought the website for the staggering amount of 1.65 billion US dollar. Although Google already had their own video sharing service with Google Video, they decided to buy YouTube nevertheless. Google did not buy the service to acquire new
11
Social media technology, since Google Video was actually running on superior software, but because of it’s large, and rapid growing user base. (van Dijck, 2007) Google also had strong ideas on how to make the service profitable, something that had been a problem before, due to the high running costs of the video platform. Google added different types of advertising, further strengthening their dominance in online advertising and made deals with big media companies such as Disney, CBS, and the Universal Music group to provide premium content to its users. (La Monica, 2006) The popularity and rapid growth of the platform has various reasons. First of all, the timing for a video-sharing platform was near perfect. At the end of 2005 an increasing number of people were able to make use of fast Internet connections that allowed them to upload video material, and cheap video recording devices and webcams became widely available. Another important factor was the core idea of the platform, the easy use of the video service, all made possible by the new web 2.0 technologies. For example, users did no longer need to have an understanding of how to convert their video files to a format that could be displayed online, as the software now did this automatically. Then there was the choice for Macromedia’s Flash as the used technology, making it compatible with almost all available Internet browsers. YouTube also quickly realized that their users wanted to be able to interact with the material that was shown on the website. They added the possibility to add comments to the videos, a rating system and various ways to filter the large amount of content; all to make finding the most relevant content as easy as possible for the end user. Another feature that is often overlooked and was crucial to the success of the platform is the possibility to easily embed a YouTube movie in other websites.
12
Social media
Flickr Flickr was created by a start up company from Vancouver, Canada, that was at that time developing online games. One of the engineers of the company created a tool that made it possible to share pictures within the online game they were working on. The owners of the company quickly realized that “the fun was in the photo sharing," (Fake, 2006) and decided to drop the game completely and focus on developing a photo sharing website instead. (Graham, 2006) Yahoo bought the company in 2005 for an estimated amount of 35 million US dollars. (Speck, 2007) In that same year the site grew from 25.000 registered users to over two million and at the end of 2008 the 3 billionth picture was uploaded (Flickr, 2008) Although other photo upload sites already existed before Flickr, it were again Web 2.0 technologies that made this platform so popular. Flickr was one of the first websites to add the possibility to ‘tag’’ (label) pictures, so other users were able to find pictures more easily. All three platforms have a couple of things in common. They are all based on a relatively simple idea. Sharing videos or pictures and the possibility to create a user profile. All these concepts existed already in a Web 1.0 environment, but by using new Web 2.0 technology they were able to set themselves apart from other similar platforms. The new platforms made it possible to create, share and comment on content in a much easier way than their competitors at that time. But we have to keep in mind that these technologies were not the key for its adaption and overnight success. Of course there are triggers that drive early adapters interested in the latest technologies to these sites, but the most important factor in the success of these platforms is whether or not it is the place where all of your friends hangout. In each of these cases, network effects played a significant role in the spread and adoption of the site. (Boyd, 2009) Especially nowadays when there are other, even more technically advanced or better designed platforms available. But what’s the use of a social media platform if there is nobody to share your content with? That’s obviously one of the major pitfalls for these social media platforms, as users opinions can change from one day to the other. The best example is probably
13
Social media Friendster, a site that was one of the first social network sites of its kind and also became very popular within no time. But people left the platform almost as quick as they joined due to slow loading times of the site and the company almost went bankrupt. (Boyd, 2007) So we see that this change is not only a change in technology but also a social one. We could say that today we finally have the Web that Tim BennersLee had in mind when he invented it. The audience is now actively participating on all these platforms, as they upload, share and comment on online content, something that changed their online behaviour and how people interact with other users. Furthermore it changed the relationship between the audience on the one side and companies and governments on the other side as it puts the audience in the position of media producers, creating a “participatory culture�.
14
Museums and social media
3 Museums and social media 3.1 Museums throughout history The role of the museum in society has changed over time. What started out as private collections owned by royalty became public collections and the museums went from a place that was used to display the wealth of the royalty to a place of education. In the 70’s and 80’s of the last century the social movements had great influence on society as a whole and again changed the museum world. (Knell et all, 2007) On top of that fundings for museums were cut short, due to the financial crisis in these years. Slowly they started to make use of marketing and communication practices to attract a wider audience and generate more income. (Britannica, 2009) Museums embraced visitor studies to learn about the needs of their customers and they started to focus more on a younger public then they did before. Nowadays most museums are no longer just providing information about the collections they hold, but try to provide personalized services to the visitors. (Wang et al, 2009) Now that we entered the digital age, museums and art institutes are facing new challenges and changes. “Not only because of the new possibilities sophisticated technologies offer in day-to-day work, for instance in the registration of collections, but also, and more importantly, because these technologies provoke profound change, both within museums and in their relations with the public.” A power shift is taking place, by making use of new technologies the public is voicing their opinions about the exhibitions and activities of a museum, their role is, again, under discussion. (Deiser, De Keijzer,
15
Museums and social media 2009) But this new development can also be used for the better, to maintain a cultural dialogue with the public in real time for example. (Russo et al, 2006)
3.2 Museums and social media !
By now all museums have found their way on the Web, and even the smallest, unfunded museums are represented on the Internet. In the previous chapter we have seen that social media applications became extremely popular in the last few years and that they offer new ways of user participation and engage people to share opinions and expertise. A lot of companies, welfare agencies and governments have adapted to this changing media landscape relatively quick and they started to experiment with the use of social media. So one would assume that museums would also be keen to implement social media applications on their websites, trying to establish a more direct relationship with its public, to receive feedback from its visitors etc. But reality tells us otherwise. Of course there are some exceptions like the already mentioned Brooklyn museum in New York, Powerhouse in Sydney and the IMA in Indianapolis. They are on the forefront when it comes down to social media use in a museum context. They blog, they are on Flickr, they have YouTube channels and podcasts and are a great example of how a museum can incorporate social media. But with tens of thousands of museums worldwide, the number of museums that experiment with social media so far is rather disappointing. Let’s have a closer look at the use of social media by Dutch museums to get a better understanding of the current situation. With over 900 museums in the country 2, the highest Internet penetration of the world and 75% of museum visitors looking for museum information online3, again one would be tempted to assume that we would find numerous examples of museums incorporating social media by now in The Netherlands. But in general, most of the Dutch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2
Cbs.nl http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/vrije-tijdcultuur/publicaties/artikelen/archief/1999/1999-0307-wm.htm 3
Museum monitor 2008!
16
Museums and social media museum websites are still rather simplistic, brochure styled pages and lack any form of interactivity with the user. Of course there are some exceptions, but it’s only a hand full. The Rijksmuseum was one of the first Dutch museums to make use of the YouTube video platform and has uploaded over a 170 movies but their channel4 shows hardly any new activity over the past year. Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen from Rotterdam is very active on YouTube with over 180 movies and an often-updated channel5 and the Teylers museum from Haarlem just recently opened up a network site for the museum6. And then there are a few museums with a Flickr account like the Zuiderzee museum and De Kunsthal Rotterdam. The Van Gogh museum is active on almost all popular platforms as they have a Flickr account, a YouTube channel, use Twitter and have a Hyves profile.7 Another museum that has been experimenting with incorporating social media is the Stedelijk Museum from Amsterdam. In the following chapter we will look closely at their experiences with social media so far.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4
http://www.youtube.com/user/RijksmuseumAmsterdam
5
http://www.youtube.com/user/Museumboijmans
6
http://teylersmuseum.ning.com/
7
http://www3.vangoghmuseum.nl/vgm/index.jsp?
page=138959&lang=nl&section=sectie_museum!
17
Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam !
4 Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam 4.1 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam !
The Stedelijk museum opened up its doors for the first time in 1895, the same year of the first Venice Biënale. The collection then consisted of antiques, jewellery, paintings and sculptures, acquired from an estate. The Stedelijk was “a quiet, civilised museum for the Amsterdam bourgeoisie in a time when there was nothing as troublesome as modern art," as the former director of the museum Rudi Fuchs wrote in the Bulletin on the occasion of the Museum's 100th anniversary in 1995 (Stedelijk museum). It was curator Sandberg who played an important role in the change of the museum towards a place that focused on modern art and was more open to the public. When Sandberg became the director of the museum after the Second World War, he started to invite young, talented new artists such as the CoBrA art collective to exhibit their work and photography, applied arts, Industrial and graphic design also received an important place in the collection of the museum. This was the real turning point of the Stedelijk as a museum for modern art of world fame. The Stedelijk quickly became an example for the rest of the museum world. Today the Stedelijk holds one of the world’s main collections of modern art and design. Work by famous artists like Picasso, Warhol, Malevich,
!
18
Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam Mondriaan and Matisse are exhibited. At this moment the monumental museum building at the Museumplein is being renovated. Until September 2008 the Stedelijk had a temporary location at the old post office building in Amsterdam next to the central station, where a part of the impressive collection was shown. The museum is now organizing various exhibitions, projects and workshops, touring Amsterdam from October 2008 to the end of 2009 under the name of “Stedelijk in de stad”. Items from the museum’s collection are shown in major exhibitions elsewhere in the city. The museum is expected to open its doors again at the Museumplein at the beginning of 2010 and aims to be back in the top 5 of leading museums of modern art, side by side to the Museum Of Modern Art in New York, the Centre Pompidou in Paris and others. (Stedelijk)
4.2 Stedelijk on the Internet ! In 1996 the first website for the Stedelijk was built as part of the “Under capricorn - the world over” exhibition. In fact this was, together with the Teylers museum in Haarlem, one of the first museum websites in The Netherlands. The website, designed by the famous Dutch designer Anthon Beeke, won various prices and gained a lot of international exposure. Time went by and it took until 2003 to convince the then sitting director Rudi Fuchs to reserve finances to have an updated website built. He did not have a good understanding of the possibilities of the new medium to inform and attract visitors.
4.3 Stedelijkindestad.nl ! Stedelijkindestad.nl is the online placeholder for all activities that are part of the “Stedelijk in de stad” project. The purpose of the project is to reach out to a “new” public and to explore the boundaries of what can be done to achieve that. Another important aspect is the educational role the project wants to play. The project consists of various exhibitions, art related projects and workshops throughout the city of Amsterdam organized by the Stedelijk museum. The website focuses mainly on Dutch citizens, the English part of the website is
19
Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam relatively small. The Stedelijk made this decision, as most of these projects are targeted at the local public and the content of these projects are usually in Dutch. Only a small team of about five people within the organization of the Stedelijk is working on the project, as most of the employees of the museum work on conserving, restoring and archiving the collection. The team responsible for the website at this moment are Carolien de Bruijn, webmaster of the website and Jennifer Thompson, a marketing and communication trainee, both working parttime The website is designed and developed by Grrr, an interactive design agency from Amsterdam the museum had worked with before successfully on different print media such as flyers and posters.
4.4 Stedelijk museum Amsterdam and the use of social media ! As pointed out quickly before, one of the main ideas behind the Stedelijk in de stad project is the educational role it hopes to play and so the incorporation of social media features in the Stedelijkindestad.nl website was a big wish of the education department of the museum. They feel the website is the perfect place to experiment with the latest Web 2.0 technologies and to familiarize themselves with new ways of communication with the public, especially since it’s a temporary website. Grrr also played an important role in this process, as they were the ones to suggest various Web 2.0 technologies to incorporate in the website. The website as it is makes use of YouTube, Flickr, podcasts and vodcasts, and visitors are able to add comments to various articles on the website.
20
Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam
4.5 What can be learned from their experience with social media so far? !
Advantages and disadvantages, problems, difficulties and hindrances Looking back on their experience with social media so far, the Stedelijk has mixed emotions. The website itself received a lot of positive feedback from visitors, web designers and people in the interactive media field. The museum feels it is able to interact and communicate with its visitors more directly by making use of Web 2.0 technology. The museum also learned a lot of valuable lessons since they started the project. First of all they now realize that they probably should have chosen the social media elements they wanted to incorporate in their website more carefully. A feeling that is shared by one of the leading experts on the subject of museums and the use of social media: Shelly Bernstein of the Brooklyn museum.8 A step-by-step approach would have been more effective in the end, instead of going all in, trying to incorporate a lot of social media applications at the same time as they lacked resources and experience with social media. The commenting function on the website is the most problematic. The Stedelijk is an institute of world fame, which is being watched constantly by the public and the press so they were a bit afraid of unwanted comments. When the website was launched, commenting was only allowed for visitors that had a registered account as they believed this would prevent spam and unwanted anonymous replies. But as a result they did not receive as much comments, positive or negative, as they expected. Grrr then suggested removing the registration process to make commenting easier for visitors. Even after this step was taken, the visitors did not use the commenting function very often. The Stedelijk believes that a solution might be to try to stimulate commenting and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8
Symposiumreport “Kom je ook�
21
Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam discussion by becoming more proactive in the discussions themselves. Trying to “guide” the public in the discussions. In a participatory culture, participation is expected to come from both sides. Just sending out a message or content is no longer enough; active participation is needed to “make it work”, it’s what makes social media “social”. The public expects the sender/creator will stay involved with his or her message or content, replying to questions, stimulating debate and conversation etcetera. Something that should be kept in mind when one wants to get involved with social media, as this can be very time consuming. That leads us to another problem they ran into, that of time management and available resources. As I already shortly mentioned before, the web team only consists of two people at the moment, working part time on the website. Before the website was launched, the general idea was that all people involved with the Stedelijk in de stad project would contribute to the website, providing webmaster Caroline de Bruijn with content she could use for the website. All members of the team were asked to write about the latest developments of their projects for the blog, submit their pictures etc. They were all shown how to work with the software and the idea was met with great enthusiasm at first. But after a couple of weeks most of the people involved started to complain they could not find the time to incorporate the new tasks in their workflow and that they encountered difficulties using the software they had to work with. As a “solution” to this problem all information was emailed to the webmaster so she could take care of the posting and editing of the content, overloading her with additional work she didn’t have time for. So we see a resistance to new technology, something that should not surprise us, as it is something we see whenever new technology is introduced. Most people resist change and there are various reasons why they do so, especially in a work environment. They fear it will change work patterns (increase of workload), alter social relationships or are afraid they lack the required skills that are needed to make use of these new technologies.
22
Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam
Future website The Stedelijk is planning to launch a completely new museum website at the beginning of 2010, at the same time the museum opens up its doors again at the Museumplein in Amsterdam. A lot of thought has been put in this new website already and at the moment Sandra van Wersch, marketing director of the museum, is writing a marketing strategy plan. The experience the museum gained working on the Stedelijk in de stad website will of course be used for their new website. They are now evaluating the project and will decide what did work for them and what did not. At the same time they will also look at new applications they want to incorporate and social media platforms in particular like Facebook and Twitter, as people expect them to be present on these platforms nowadays. Trainee Jennifer Thompson is researching the different communication possibilities of these platforms for the museum and will write a report with recommendations for the museum. The web team is very aware of the fact that if they want to embrace these new platforms they should be quite active on them, it is the main reason why they kept from using these platforms so far as they do not have the resources to maintain these sites at the moment. On the new website the web team would also like to start making use of detailed user profiles, something they got enthusiastic about when the possibilities were shown to them at a Mediametic event. The user profiles will be part of an online cultural community, that museum De Paviljoens in Almere is developing at the moment with the cooperation of Mediamatic. The main idea is that one user profile can be used on various cultural websites. The YouTube videos will definitely stay on the new website. Some of the videos on the Stedelijk’s YouTube channel right now are shot, edited and uploaded by one of the museum’s sponsors, SNS Reaal fonds, while a good part of the other videos are made by the audio visual department of the museum. The museum does realize this puts them in a comfortable position when it comes down to video material, they would not have the resources to make those videos by themselves as it is very labour intensive. Another social media application that will return on the new website will be Flickr. At the
23
Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam moment the Flickr account9 of the Stedelijk holds over 650 pictures and is moderately successful. All visitors are welcome to add pictures of the museum and its projects to the page and when the photos are labelled properly they show up at the front page of Stedelijk in de stad automatically. The Flickr page is very low maintenance but has a great reach to the public, another reason to keep the application in the future. They have not decided yet if the blog section will return, as the museum director is the only one blogging at the moment. He started blogging enthusiastically and wrote twelve items so far. The articles he writes are very interesting and the museum gets positive feedback about the blogs, the problem is though that the style he is writing in might not be so suitable for use on the web, as it tends to be wordy. For the new website, the Stedelijk asked a couple of design agencies to come up with a design proposal and show them the technical possibilities available for the new website. They will have to decide quickly on who they want to work with, since they do not have a lot of time for this new website to be built. Although they had a lot a positive feedback on the design of the website like it is right now, it does have some flaws. They learned that news items that go with the biggest images are the most read items, even though these might not be the most interesting articles, or the articles the web team would like the visitors to read. The comment function might disappear altogether in the future, as there is quite some resistance from within the organization of the Stedelijk on the function and it is high maintenance and a lot of time has to be invested to stimulate a interesting discussion.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9
http://www.flickr.com/groups/stedelijkindestad
24
Case study: Stedelijk museum Amsterdam
The main target for next year when the museum opens its doors again will be to attract 600.000 visitors, they hope the website can play a role in attracting those visitors. At the moment 10.000 people have signed up for the digital newsletter and the web team feels that everybody is eagerly awaiting the reopening of the museum.
Recommendations The Stedelijk feels that social media can be a great way to open up new ways to communicate with visitors, fans and enthusiasts of the museum. But the difficulty lies in the fact that incorporating social media is very labour-intensive job. If they want social media applications to meet their full potential, the Stedelijk needs more resources. At this time there is not enough manpower to take good care of the social media platforms. In the near future the Stedelijk would like to hire somebody who can focus just on these specific applications and platforms. The attitude in the museum itself also has to change. Most people are not familiar with blogging for instance and with the software that is needed for it to maintain these applications. The Stedelijk also feels that looking back on their experience with social media so far, they should have chosen one specific social media platform to start with and then build from there. To get comfortable with the use of one platform and then slowly look for other applications that can be of use for them instead of trying to master them all at the same time. So a cultural shift has to take place in the Stedelijk museum. The personell should try to overcome their fears towards new technology and start picking up their role as “media producer�. This way they can start making use of the potential of social media as a new form of communication with the public, by creating a more direct contact with the public. They need to invest time to acquire the skills needed and start participating on the social media platforms that the Stedelijk chose to use on its website.
25
Case study: Z33 !
5 Case study: Z33 5.1 History !
Z33 is situated at the Zuivelmarkt 33 in Hasselt, Belgium in the old beguinage of the city. In 1946 the provincial library and the provincial museum found a new home in the then renovated beguinage. The provincial museum focused on local artists and changed later on into the Provincial centre for modern art in the 1994. The art centre was never a big success, there was no director at that time and freelancers ran the place, visitor numbers were low. In 2002 Z33 was founded as an initiative of the province Limburg. The new art centre did no longer function as an exhibition space for local artists but was made into a public space. Jan Boelen became the director of Z33 and from that moment on they started a continuous program and people were able to visit the art centre six days a week. Not only is Z33 a place for the public, it also has a strong networking function for artists. Z33 tries to bring the international art scene to Hasselt and at the same time support the regional art scene to help them to present their work abroad. Z33 feels this strategy is more helpful to an artist’s career than just letting them have a solo exhibition in the art centre. Although the staff doesn’t like to think in sheer numbers, the amount of visitors of the place went up from only a few thousand a year to over 35.000 a year, a consistent number for the last four years. The visitor numbers are an indication of the success of the new direction that was chosen for the art centre.
!
26
Case study: Z33
5.2 Z33.be The recent Z33 website was built years ago and although it is a visually pleasing page that provides all basic information about the art centre it is in need of a complete revision. Where the old website was only an informative channel, the new site should be all about interactivity and user participation. Users should be able to submit their own content such as comments, video’s, pictures and blogs. In line with the goals mentioned above, Z33 would like to think of the new website as a “living archive” and a meeting place. The new website is being built at the moment and should be launched in the summer of 2009 as part of the ”Work now” exhibition. In 2010 the art centre is planning to connect the website to a multi-touch table and a camera system, so people can visit Z33 virtually.
5.3 Z33 and social media !
Z33 has a large fan base and one of the frustrations of director Jan Boelen is that at the moment they are not using the energy coming from this community. The community is perceived as a very closed and dated community while Z33 in fact would like to be a transparent, open place, where the people are very welcome. Another problem they are facing is the fact that they don’t receive any visitor feedback at the moment. Social media can be of great use here as it can be a perfect instrument to receive feedback, work on community building and communicate with the visitors. Z33 experimented with blogging for the Place@space exhibition in the spring of 2008 and had a Facebook profile page account set up. But they did not incorporate other social media platforms such as Flickr or YouTube up till now, as they felt they did not have the resources yet to research the possibilities these platforms might have for them in terms of new ways of communication. From their experiment with blogging they already learned that it is indeed possible to have an online discussion going among visitors and enthusiasts. It is not always the sort of discussion Z33 was looking for but at least there was interaction with the public and the artwork and exhibitions were talked about.
27
Case study: Z33 The Z33 hopes to play an important role in leading the discussions into new, interesting directions when the new website is launched.
Museumplatform project Gregor Bierhals, Yasmin Abdol Hamid and I worked closely together with Z33 for three months in a project we undertook as part of our Master Program Media Culture at the University of Maastricht during the spring of 2009. The main goal of the project was to get hands on experience trying to implement the use of social media in a museum or art centre environment and to show Z33 the possibilities of these platforms. Z33 gave us the opportunity to work with their existing photo and video material and we were allowed to set up accounts on Flickr, Facebook and YouTube. The results of this partnership can be found at www.museumplatform.com, a website I built during that same project period.
Facebook Although Z33 already had a Facebook profile, we decided to create a fan page for the art centre as well. A fan page gives the end user more control over the output of the page and adds various functions that user profiles are lacking. Fans of the page can be sent mass email, a perfect tool to announce a new exhibition for instance. Furthermore opening times of the institution and a route description can be displayed, events have their own section and users can start discussions about the art centre or write reviews about the exhibitions or Z33. When the fan page was launched we faced the problem how to persuade Facebook users to become a fan of the new Z33 page. In the first week only a few users signed up so we concluded that we probably should be more proactive to attract people to the new page. With the help of Z33 we started a competition where people could win free tickets to an art event when they joined the page, and within days over 300 people joined the fan page. It shows how a simple promotional campaign can help tremendously to attract new visitors to a website and that one should not expect the visitors to find their way to a new page by themselves. Here most museums and art centres could learn a great deal from marketing strategies. They should see these new platforms as new
28
Case study: Z33 products or services they offer to the public, so they should be promoted likewise. There are thousands of applications available to use with the Facebook platform. They can be used to integrate YouTube videos and Flickr pictures on a Facebook page for example. Although I see myself as a semi-expert in using interactive media applications as I have years of experience in developing websites, I found Facebook and its applications sometimes very difficult to use. A lot of the applications were difficult to install as there were so many different settings to be made or they did not work at all. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for somebody who is not as experienced as I am in this field to work with this material. As mentioned before this can be a big hindrance of using social media, as a lot of people do not feel comfortable working with the necessary software.
Flickr Flickr on the other hand was relatively easy to set up and within minutes you are able to start uploading pictures to the Internet, share them with others, make a slideshow out of it etc. With the permission of Z33 we made a selection of the pictures from previous exhibitions they had in their archive and we uploaded them to the Z33 Flickr account. We also found out that the visitors of Z33 had made hundreds of good pictures of the art centre and its exhibitions already. As we learned from our experience with Facebook that a proactive approach was most likely needed to get people to participate we decided to contact these people directly and asked them to add their pictures to the Z33 Flickr account. They all replied within days and the group pool that contains all Z33 related pictures grew substantially. What is interesting to note is that everybody who we contacted was willing to add his or her photos and they were very honoured that they were invited by Z33. It is one of the reasons people make use of social media in the first place, as it gives them the opportunity to gain respect and visibility within an online community. (Waterson, 2006: p. 334) In most emails we received, the visitors also shared their feedback
29
Case study: Z33 on Z33 with us, stating how much they like the exhibitions and the place itself. A perfect example of how these social media platforms can help generating the much-desired feedback from visitors and helps building a stronger community.
YouTube An official YouTube channel was created to show the possibilities of the platform. We interviewed director Jan Boelen and created six short video clips of the raw material, which could be used as promotional videos for Z33. When creating content for YouTube a couple of things should be kept in mind. The clips should be short in duration and catchy to keep the viewers attention, due to technical restrictions the quality of most YouTube movies is still very low and users are not very likely to watch full feature films or documentaries on the website. Most YouTube videos last only a few minutes, ten to fifteen minutes seems to be the maximum for the popular items. Although we tried to film in true “YouTube fashion� (low-budget, low-tech) keeping the set up for the video interview relatively simple, still a lot of time was spent on editing and encoding the video material, something museums and art centres should be aware of when they want to incorporate video material. The whole process can be very time consuming and although YouTube is a very user-friendly platform, some experience with video editing and processing is welcome.
Future website! Before the Z33 started with the development of a new website, they held various workshops for all personnel of the art centre were suggestions could be made for the content of the website. Nobody was left out and they received an incredible amount of useful tips from the people responsible for ticket sale to the curators, they all had something to add. And although Z33 will embrace social media in their new website to open up new ways of communicating with visitors, in these meetings was also decided that not all projects will be suitable for presentation on the web or should make use of social media. The art centre will look for specific exhibitions and projects that are suitable for discussion and feedback. For instance the
30
Case study: Z33 upcoming solo exhibition of Frederic Geurts, is a very traditional project, and it will also be on the website as Z33 feels there is not much room for discussion about her work. But if artists have process orientated projects Z33 would love to show this processes on the website. Especially now since more artists are working in processes and it is part of the actual artwork. There is an added value to see what is happening. A visitor can later check on the website what has happened with the project and discuss it. There will be technical support for those people who will be asked to add content to the new website. Not only the personnel at the communication department will be responsible for adding content, but also the project managers. They will have to make their projects more transparent from now on so it can be used on the web. From their previous experiment with blogging they already learned that incorporating social media should be handled as a project within a project that needs proper resources to be implemented successfully. And lastly they will engage a webmaster that will be responsible for he new website, a function that does not exist at Z33 at the moment.
31
Conclusion
6 Conclusion Over the last few years we witnessed the strong rise of social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook, and at the same time the personal weblog became very popular. New technologies gave people the opportunity to create, publish and share content in ways that were not possible before. Because of this the role of the audience shifted drastically, from consumer to producer. A participatory culture emerged and communication on the Internet changed from a one-to-many to a many-to-many model because of it. I think it’s safe to assume that social media are here to stay as humans are social animals and they will continue to create, share and publish content online now that they have this opportunity. Throughout this paper we have seen numerous examples how social media can help museums and art centres establish a more direct contact with the public and generate useful feedback on their services, changing museum communication for the better. But until now only a few institutes started to make use of the possibilities social media can offer them. We have learned from literature, the case studies and our own experiences that there are several hindrances of using social media. First of all there is the resistance towards new technology that occurs every time new technology gets introduced, as some people fear it will change work patterns, alter social relationships or are afraid they lack the required skills that are needed to make use of these new technologies. We have also seen a fear for unwanted comments or content, submitted by the public making use of social media apllications, and what this could mean for the reputation for an art institute. Moderating these comments and content can be very labour intensive and here we see another hindrance of using social media, a simple lack of resources. Museum websites are mostly built and maintained by external partners and often the museum itself lacks people with revelant experience in
32
Conclusion the field of interactive media to research the possibilities that new media could offer them. So what about these institutes that did not embrace social media yet? Did they miss the boat already? In my opinion this is actually the perfect time to get on board. Early adopters like the Brooklyn museum and the Stedelijk paved the way and thanks to their pioneer mentality we can learn from the pitfalls they ran into and try to avoid them. At the same time more and more people are getting familiar with social media applications by using them in their personal life to keep in touch with friends for instance, overcoming they fears they might have had towards these new tecnologies. Now its time to start using this experience in the working place. For those museums that do experiment with social media already it’s a good time to look back on their experiences so far. What did work out, what did not and why? What (other) platforms are interesting for our organisation and where could we improve? To phrase social media expert Brian Kelly: “Stop thinking, start doing!” pointed towards those institutes that do not make use of social media yet and “Stop doing, start thinking!” for those institutes that have been experimenting with social media already. (Kelly, 2009)
Recommendations and observations Not all interview material and observations I made throughout this research project found its way into the final paper. In my opinion it would be a shame to let the knowledge I gained on the subject during this project go to waste, so I would like to end with a short list of recommendations and obervations. I hope it can be of help for any museum or art centre that would like to start making use of social media.
33
Conclusion ! •
There might be a lot of relevant content or discussion about your institution or the artwork you are showing already on social media platforms, make use of it
•
Start small, focus on one social media platform at a time, gain experience and build from there
•
A pro-active attitude is expected from the museum or art centre that wants to incorporate social media. Participation should always come from both sides
•
Not every social media platform is relevant for every institute or project
•
Learn from marketing principles and see social media as a new product or service you offer to the visitor and introduce it likewise, it does need proper promotion. Do not expect it will “work” by itself
•
Do research on your website visitors. Learn about who they are and what they expect to find on your website
•
Look into legal right issues if you want to make use of photo and video material of artworks. Make sure you have permission to publish the work
•
Getting involved with social media and maintaining social media platforms can be very labour intense and time consuming. Make sure you have the resources for it
•
Be aware of the different kinds of users of social media. Don’t focus too much on “creators”, as over 50% are inactive users, “spectators”
•
Not involved yet? Stop thinking, start doing! Already involved? Stop doing, start thinking!
34
Bibliography
7 Bibliography 7.1 Bibliography Bolter, Jay David. & Grusin, Richard (1999), Remediation. Understanding New Media, Cambridge, Mass. and London: The MIT Press. Jenkins, Henry (2006). Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide, New York & London: New York University Press. Jenkins, Henry (2006). Fans, bloggers and Games. New York: New York University Press Van Dijck, José (2007) ‘Television 2.0: YouTube and the Emergence of Homecasting.’ http://web.mit.edu/commforum/mit5/papers/vanDijck_Television2.0.article.MiT5. pdf. Accessed on May 15, 2009 Waterson, P (2006) Motivation and Successful Online Communities’. In S. Dasgupta (ed.) Encyclopedia of Virtual Communities. Hershey, PA Idea Group: 334-337.
Online sources Benners-Lee, T http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ShortHistory.html! Accesed on May 15. 2009 Berners-Lee, T, 1999, Weaving the Web, HarperBusiness, London. Accesed on May 19. 2009 Bradburne, J.M (2001) Going Public - Science museums, debate and democracy The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies Accesed on May 24. 2009
35
Bibliography Britannica! (2009) History of museums http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1426125/history-of-museums! Accesed on May 29. 2009 Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html Accesed on May 26. 2009 Cloud, J The Gurus of YouTube Saturday, Dec. 16, 2006 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570721,00.html Accesed on May 22, 2009 Deiser, P., and V. De Keijzer, Down To Earth: Social Media and Institutional Change. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2009: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 31, 2009. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/papers/deiser/deiser.html Accesed on May 27, 2009 Facebook Official webpage http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics Accesed on May 19. 2009 Finin, T & Joshi, A & Kolari, P & Java, A & Kale, A & Karandikar, A The information ecology of social media and online communities http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/get/a/publication/376.pdf Flickr Official webpage http://blog.flickr.net/en/2008/11/03/3-billion/ Accesed on May 18. 2009 Graham, J (2006) Flickr of idea on a gaming project led to photo website http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-02-27-flickr_x.htm Accesed on May 20 2009 Hauben, R & Hauben, M Netizens Netbook http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/book Accesed on May 29 2009
36
Bibliography
Hempel, J How Facebook is taking over our lives March 11, 2009 http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/technology/hempel_facebook.fortune/index. htm?postversion=2009021706 Accesed on May 18 2009 Hoffman, C The Battle For Facebook Jun 26, 2008 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/21129674/the_battle_for_facebook Accesed on May 18 2009 Kelly, B (2009) Time to stop doing and start thinking: A framework for exploiting web 2.0 services http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/mw-2009/kelly.doc Accesed on June 8, 2009 Knell, S & Macleod, S & Watson, S Museum revolutions: how museums and change and are changed (2007) Routledge, 2007 Kunsten online http://www.kunstonline.info/levelone/php/biblios/bibliopage.php?id=7384&chap ter=about Accesed on May 16, 2009. La Monica, P.R Google to buy YouTube for $1.65 billion http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/09/technology/googleyoutube_deal/index.htm Accessed on May 19 2009 Limburg.be Official website http://www.limburg.be/provincie_limburg15987.htm?ch=PRI Accessed on May 16, 2009. Manovich, L (2001) The Language of New Media http://www.manovich.net/LNM/Manovich.pdf Accessed on May 29, 2009 Nielsen report http://www.nielsen-online.com/pr/pr_060721_2.pdf Accessed on May 25, 2009
37
Bibliography
O’ reilly (2005) What is Web 2.0? http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web20.html Accessed on May 25. 2009 Rapportage Visitatiecommissie http://www.limburg.nl/upload/pdf/Musea_RapportageVisitatiecommissiesLimbM useumBonnefmuseumIndustrion.pdf Accessed on May 15. 2009 Russo, A., and D. Peacock, Great Expectations: Sustaining Participation in Social Media Spaces. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2009: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 31, 2009. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/papers/russo/russo.html Accessed on May 27, 2009. Saatchi gallery http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/museums/full-museumdetails/permanent_collection/ac_id/782 Accessed on May 20, 2009 Skarritt, K Web 2.0 in 5(ish) minutes - an ADD info summit August 30th, 2007 by Lani and Allen Speck, H http://www.egs.edu/faculty/speck/files/presentation2007hdm.pdf (2007) Stedelijk museum Amsterdam http://www.stedelijk.nl Official website Accessed on May, 16 Vovoid, L & Vovoid, A (producers) (30th of August, 2007) Web 2.0 in 5(ish minutes – an ADD info summit http://www.epiphaniesinc.com/blog/2007/08/30/web-20-in-5ish-minutes-anadd-info-summit Accessed on May 26, 2009 Wang, Y & A Lora & Aroyo, L & Stash, N & Sambeek, R & Schuurmans, Y & Schreiber, G & Gorgels, P (2009) Cultivating Personalized Museum Tours Online and On-site http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/papers/Wang09a.pdf Accesed on May 20, 2009
38
Bibliography
Werbach, K (2006) Losing Their Cool: The Downside of Expanding Hot Social Networking Sites Published: September 20, 2006 in Knowledge@Wharton ! Yadav, S YouTube - The Complete Profile October 2nd, 2006 http://www.rev2.org/2006/10/02/youtube-the-complete-profile/ Accessed on May 20 2009
39
Bibliography
40