David and Michael (of Library 101) list "know the difference between YouTube and Blip.tv" as one of the many things I still need to learn.
Fortunately, they link directly to a short article that pretty well sums up the difference, at least the difference according to the founder of Blip.tv. My even-shorter version: Blip.tv doesn't cover your video with advertising and gives you more stats on viewership.
Basically, they're trying to reach the segment of the streaming market that wants vidoes embedded into their own site to look clean and professional.
I found the Blip.tv statement about "Total Potential Audience" fascinating.
"We believe in Total Potential Audience. Every show has one. It's impossible to gather your Total Potential Audience in any one place. That's why blip.tv distributes your show everywhere."
It starts with Ranganathan's Laws (sort of): Every show its audience. And then states what libraries have to learn: our full audience isn't going to come to us (at least, not merely for content - maybe for experiences, but that's another discussion) so we have to take our content to our audience.
I have to confess that while I'm pleased that Blip.tv provides a home for independent shows, I didn't see anything that struck my fancy. And these days, browsing for new talent doesn't fit into my schedule.
Still, it's nice to know that Blip.tv is out there. So often these days it seems like one only hears about the single market leader for any particular technology.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Hulu (FPL 23 Things)
Why would I keep buying movies in format that become obsolete more and more freqently (requirng me to buy new hardware to view them) if I can freely (or very cheaply) access them on demand?
Libraries may really be about information or entertainment and not "books" or "DVDs," but they've always been about physical objects. Until now.
Digitial content and digital access completely changes delivery models. And that's a pretty scary thing for libraries -- because people are all about convenience. And businesses are working a lot harder than libraries to make their services convenient to customers.
The best we have to offer in comparison to one-click viewing is a 75-zillion-step process to install the correct software and download the material.
Granted, I have to watch the annoying commercials on sites like Hulu, but I get the same with my legally purchased DVDS -complete with unskippable previews, FBI warnings, and disclaimers- so that's pretty much a wash.
That said, Hulu is not a repository or archive. It only has a few recent episodes of currently-running shows. It's trying to offer an on-demand alternative to television, not competition for Blockbuster or Netflix (or libraries with extensive TV Shows on DVD collections).
I do think that Hulu offers some uses for collection development in libraries. I could see browsing the trailers to see what upcoming movies will drive demand for books. I noticed several "based on books" movies coming out in the next year without even starting with that goal in mind.
At the very least is poses some interesting questions. Given a limited budget, should we steer away from purchasing movies that are freely available streamed online? Is our budget better spent on high-demand items that aren't freely streamable? Or, do a greater percentage of our customers still prefer physical copies to streamed media?
I don't know the answers. But I would not bet on physical objects (DVDS or books) reigning supreme forever. Neither do I see them disappearing completely. But I do think dealing with a continually increasing number of delivery mediums will become necessary for libraries.
And if we don't do it well enough that we're as easy, if not easier, than commerical options, we're quickly going to become irrelevant.
Libraries may really be about information or entertainment and not "books" or "DVDs," but they've always been about physical objects. Until now.
Digitial content and digital access completely changes delivery models. And that's a pretty scary thing for libraries -- because people are all about convenience. And businesses are working a lot harder than libraries to make their services convenient to customers.
The best we have to offer in comparison to one-click viewing is a 75-zillion-step process to install the correct software and download the material.
Granted, I have to watch the annoying commercials on sites like Hulu, but I get the same with my legally purchased DVDS -complete with unskippable previews, FBI warnings, and disclaimers- so that's pretty much a wash.
That said, Hulu is not a repository or archive. It only has a few recent episodes of currently-running shows. It's trying to offer an on-demand alternative to television, not competition for Blockbuster or Netflix (or libraries with extensive TV Shows on DVD collections).
I do think that Hulu offers some uses for collection development in libraries. I could see browsing the trailers to see what upcoming movies will drive demand for books. I noticed several "based on books" movies coming out in the next year without even starting with that goal in mind.
At the very least is poses some interesting questions. Given a limited budget, should we steer away from purchasing movies that are freely available streamed online? Is our budget better spent on high-demand items that aren't freely streamable? Or, do a greater percentage of our customers still prefer physical copies to streamed media?
I don't know the answers. But I would not bet on physical objects (DVDS or books) reigning supreme forever. Neither do I see them disappearing completely. But I do think dealing with a continually increasing number of delivery mediums will become necessary for libraries.
And if we don't do it well enough that we're as easy, if not easier, than commerical options, we're quickly going to become irrelevant.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Google Maps (FPL 23 Things)
I've been wanting to visit a Dewey-less library for some time. So, it makes sense to visit the library where the concept got started:
Maricopa County, AZ
Since the Maricopa County libraries didn't have Google street views to share in my maps, I tried some other searches, too. For the house I grew up in and the house in which my parents now live. I got street views of both of those - though Google had a hard time dropping me at the exact addresses, so I had to travel myself down the street.
I think it's kind of amusing that the dinky little town in upstate SC where I grew up is well photographed, but the street I live on here in "progressive" Frisco hasn't been (apparently. I can't get my little orange person icon to land on my street. Only one north or south.)
This is a really good reminder that social media tools are always works in progress. If we try to wait until we have everything completed (or even half done) we'd never get anywhere because the tool would be obsolete before it premiered. That's probably a good lesson for us to remember with some of the things we do, too!
And it wouldn't hurt for us to get into Google and provide some information about the library at our address. No reason for City Hall to have all the glory.
Maricopa County, AZ
Since the Maricopa County libraries didn't have Google street views to share in my maps, I tried some other searches, too. For the house I grew up in and the house in which my parents now live. I got street views of both of those - though Google had a hard time dropping me at the exact addresses, so I had to travel myself down the street.
I think it's kind of amusing that the dinky little town in upstate SC where I grew up is well photographed, but the street I live on here in "progressive" Frisco hasn't been (apparently. I can't get my little orange person icon to land on my street. Only one north or south.)
This is a really good reminder that social media tools are always works in progress. If we try to wait until we have everything completed (or even half done) we'd never get anywhere because the tool would be obsolete before it premiered. That's probably a good lesson for us to remember with some of the things we do, too!
And it wouldn't hurt for us to get into Google and provide some information about the library at our address. No reason for City Hall to have all the glory.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Music Streaming & Sharing (FPL 23 Things)
I know I'm behind the curve, but this was a completely new thing for me. I generally perfer silence to a soundtrack, and a story to a song, so when I do put something on to play, it's generally an audibook - if anything.
I started with last.fm and found it amusing, but not compelling. I was initially excited to discover that I could listen to Muppets-themed "stations," but quickly discovered a lack of authority control. Apparently there's a punk group named "Cookie Monster." My interest is in the blue, fuzzy, googly-eyed puppet. Last.fm doesn't seem to distinguish between the two. Makes for an odd juxtaposition of songs to go from one to the other.
On the plus side, I heard a disco version of "C is for Cookie" and came across the song "A smile connects us," sung by Kermit. New to me.
I liked Pandora better. I started a radio station based on one of my more mature musical preferences (The King's Singers) and must say that I liked something about each song that was recommended. Enough that I actually created an account. Since, from time to time, I do actually want to listen to music. And now I won't have to go all the way from my desk on the 3rd floor to the CD collection on the 1st floor and try to find something I'd like despite my complete ignorance of all things musical.
I have to say, Pandora would make a much better "listener's advisory" librarian than I would. It's probably worth having the account just in case I'm ever asked for listen-alikes on the desk.
Looking at the big picture, however, I'm faced with the inevitable question: what is the library's place in a world where people can listen to music without possessing a physical item (cassette, CD, whatever...) that houses the music? Can the library do better than an easily accessible, convenient, free account from an online source that I can search to listen to a particular song, artist, or style of music?
Do we need to stop spending money buying CDs and teach classes about all the freely available music streaming sources online instead?
I started with last.fm and found it amusing, but not compelling. I was initially excited to discover that I could listen to Muppets-themed "stations," but quickly discovered a lack of authority control. Apparently there's a punk group named "Cookie Monster." My interest is in the blue, fuzzy, googly-eyed puppet. Last.fm doesn't seem to distinguish between the two. Makes for an odd juxtaposition of songs to go from one to the other.
On the plus side, I heard a disco version of "C is for Cookie" and came across the song "A smile connects us," sung by Kermit. New to me.
I liked Pandora better. I started a radio station based on one of my more mature musical preferences (The King's Singers) and must say that I liked something about each song that was recommended. Enough that I actually created an account. Since, from time to time, I do actually want to listen to music. And now I won't have to go all the way from my desk on the 3rd floor to the CD collection on the 1st floor and try to find something I'd like despite my complete ignorance of all things musical.
I have to say, Pandora would make a much better "listener's advisory" librarian than I would. It's probably worth having the account just in case I'm ever asked for listen-alikes on the desk.
Looking at the big picture, however, I'm faced with the inevitable question: what is the library's place in a world where people can listen to music without possessing a physical item (cassette, CD, whatever...) that houses the music? Can the library do better than an easily accessible, convenient, free account from an online source that I can search to listen to a particular song, artist, or style of music?
Do we need to stop spending money buying CDs and teach classes about all the freely available music streaming sources online instead?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
