Librarians emply social networking tools to remedy the dwindling physical use of libraries and materials. When patrons balk at entering our doors, we promote our virtual spaces, which, in theory, promise equal access to all. Too often, we fall into the mind-set that, to paraphrase from the movie Field of Dreams, “If we build it, they will come.” They will find us.

Which “they” is our target patron? Are we exploring every channel where “they” congregate via our electronic outreach practices? Regardless of our target audience, our efforts reach specific demographics depending solely through which social networking site, or sites, we elect to share our information.

Who knew that a library's choice of social networking sites had class consequences? As early as 2006, research indicated a compelling class divide between users of Facebook and MySpace. In a 2009 presentation at the International Communications Association Conference, danah boyd documented a migration from MySpace to Facebook as a population of students graduated from high school and moved on to college. She suggested that it's not a matter of choosing one over the other as much as an exodus fueled by the perception of MySpace as an unsafe ghetto.

The more affluent you are, the more likely you are to frequent Facebook. Twenty-three percent of Facebook users make over $100,000 a year. Facebook denizens are upscale, suburban, and highly educated. Affluence increases when you consider the users of Twitter and LinkedIn. Thirty-eight percent of those using LinkedIn report their income as over $100,000 a year. Only 16 percent of MySpace users report annual incomes over $100,000; many live in blue-collar neighborhoods.

So far, the literature is divided on the usefulness of Facebook. In her article “Rickrolling into Third Place” in Voice of Youth Advocates, Sarah Couri states that teens at the library are “staunchly loyal to MySpace.” In “Electronic Outreach and Our Internet Patrons” in Public Libraries, however, Eugene Jeffers describes MySpace as an “excellent way to build an online interactive presence that you can use for outreach purposes.”

Nonetheless, we seem to prefer Facebook, or at least feel more comfortable talking about it. A keyword search of Library Literature on Facebook returned 92 articles. MySpace followed with 74 results, then Twitter with 59, and LinkedIn rated three. We write and research what we know. The level of attention we give to Facebook in our literature indicates a predisposition to the network.

I was unaware of the class divide among social networks and chalked up my distaste for MySpace, with which I've had an account since 2006, to aesthetic and generational differences. The ability to customize MySpace results in profiles that I find visually jarring, so Facebook is my preferred social networking site for personal and professional use.

Certainly, as a university librarian, my social networking efforts are focused on our students. Given the high school/university split between MySpace and Facebook, concentrating our efforts on the latter is practical. And, yet, a majority of students at my university are the first in their families to attend and graduate from college. Many of them, for class reasons, stick with MySpace, because that is where they find their peers who are in the workforce and not enrolled at an institution of higher education.

Once librarians are aware of the class implications of social networking sites, surely they will broaden their promotional efforts and equalize their online presence. The Library Bill of Rights states that the “right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” Our commitment to serving diverse populations should extend to each library's social networking policy.

Canvassing all the social networking sites is time-consuming. Using a social network browser or aggregator streamlines the effort. Services like Flock, Gruvie, Fuser, and Minggl connect users to a range of social networking services and allow librarians to manage multiple platforms simultaneously. However, spending an hour or less gathering your library's social networking feeds into one browser cannot guarantee that you will reach every user, whether s/he is a have or a have-not.

As we are committed to providing equal access to all our patrons, we librarians should cover all our bases. It will be easier for patrons to find your online presence if you build everywhere than if you build in one place that may not register on their radar.