Article

Recap of the Henry Stewart Creative Ops Conference 2024

Welcome to our recap of the Henry Stewart Creative Ops Conference, which recently took place on May 16th. The conference offered a wealth of knowledge across four tracks: creative operations, photo studio operations, design operations, and creative production. Both Kara Van Malssen and Chris Lacinak attended and are here to share their insights and key takeaways.

Overview of the Conference

The conference was packed with sessions that made it tough to choose which ones to attend. Kara opted to jump between various tracks, while Chris focused primarily on creative operations. This approach allowed them to gather diverse perspectives on the evolving landscape of creative operations.

Key Takeaways

1. Creatives Doing More with Less

A recurring theme at the conference was how creatives are adapting to do more with fewer resources. With increasing demands from stakeholders and evolving audience needs, many are forced to innovate within constraints. One notable example came from JJ Pagano of Paramount Pictures, who shared how they reduced the time taken to create content significantly through automation and AI. This shift has led to astounding efficiency gains.

2. Creating More from Less Content

The second takeaway highlighted the importance of creating more with less content. This idea again ties back to efficiency. Several panels discussed the need for a master creative asset that could be repurposed into various derivative forms. Nickelodeon shared how they adapted during the pandemic by repurposing existing content into new formats, such as puppet shows.

3. The Role of AI in Creative Processes

AI was a significant focus throughout the conference. Many speakers addressed the anxiety surrounding job security in light of AI advancements. However, there was also optimism about AI’s potential to streamline mundane tasks, allowing creatives to focus on more impactful work. Dax Alexander emphasized that AI is here to stay and that embracing it is essential for future success.

4. Change Management in Creative Operations

Change management emerged as another critical theme. Dax discussed the cultural shift necessary for adopting AI technologies, stressing the importance of leadership support and clear goals. The idea that change is not permanent resonated with many attendees, reinforcing the need for adaptability in a rapidly evolving industry.

5. The Relationship Between DAM and Creative Teams

Lastly, Tony Gill shed light on the often-fractured relationship between digital asset management (DAM) systems and creative teams. He pointed out that many enterprise DAM solutions do not cater to the speed and collaboration needs of creative operations. This mismatch can leave creatives feeling unsupported, relying on outdated methods to manage their workflows.

Final Thoughts

The conference was a resounding success, with engaging discussions and valuable insights. Both Kara and Chris appreciated the opportunity to connect with industry leaders and peers. The final session, which brought all the moderators together for a recap, was particularly well-received, fostering lively discussion and engagement among attendees.

In conclusion, the Henry Stewart Creative Ops Conference provided a platform for sharing ideas and strategies to navigate the challenges in creative operations today. It highlighted the importance of efficiency, adaptability, and collaboration in a world where creatives must do more with less.

Transcript

Chris Lacinak: 00:01

Kara Van Malssen, welcome back to the DAM Right podcast. Good to have you.

Kara Van Malssen: 00:06

Thank you, thanks for having me back again.

Chris Lacinak: 00:08

And we are here today to talk about a recap

of the Henry Stewart Creative Ops Conference, which the name is a bit deceptive

because it was more than just creative ops.

It was actually four tracks,

creative operations, photo studio operations,

design operations, and creative production.

We both went, this just happened this past week.

It was Thursday, right?

May 16th.

And we both went and it was, I’m not gonna lie,

it was hard to pick which sessions to go to.

We used different tactics there.

Although I had the all access pass,

I wasted it because I spent my whole day

in the creative operations that was chaired by

our friend Thomas Stilling.

And you took a bit different of a tactic.

You jumped around a bit more, right?

Kara Van Malssen: 01:02

I did.

I divided my time between creative operations, creative production and design operations.

So I caught a couple of presentations from each one

and I did unfortunately miss the photo studio operations.

So I don’t think we have anything from that event.

Chris Lacinak: 01:23

In order to frame this conversation,

you’ve given us a big head start here. You’ve just this morning kind of posted your five,

it’s kind of five variations on a theme,

five themes on LinkedIn.

People should definitely check that out.

But I thought we might use that as a way to just walk

through some of the takeaways and share our thoughts

on the conference.

Would you mind sharing your first takeaway?

Kara Van Malssen: 01:49

Yeah, the first thing that came to mind

is sort of a framing takeaway, which was creatives are having to do more with less.

There’s more channels, there’s evolving audience needs.

There’s more demand from stakeholders,

but there’s less budget, there’s less resources.

So there was definitely a theme about getting creative

with those constraints and those demands

and trying to figure out what to do about it.

So I saw that coming up over and over and over again.

Chris Lacinak: 02:24

Yeah, one specific thing I’ll call out,

John Pagano, JJ Pagano, he said people call him, from Paramount Pictures talked about,

they have in the creation of content,

they have gone from taking upwards of 60 minutes

to create two and a half minutes of content,

to taking eight to 10 minutes

to create eight minutes of content.

I thought that was just astounding.

I mean, wild, right?

That’s bonkers, that’s like a ridiculous increase

in efficiency, largely attributed to use

of both automation and AI.

So that was interesting, but yeah,

I think that speaks to what you’re talking about there.

And I just kind of threw out AI there.

I mean, in your interpretation of what you heard,

was that really kind of the linchpin

that that whole doing more with less was,

or were there other ways that that came up?

Kara Van Malssen: 03:18

No, it actually came up in a lot of other ways.

So maybe, we’ll definitely come to AI, ’cause that’s a huge 800 pound gorilla in the room,

in all the rooms.

But no, I think where I started my day

was with the folks from Nickelodeon,

talking about how they had to adapt during the pandemic.

And this is the folks that run their YouTube channel,

and many, many channels, I should say 24 channels,

I believe, globally.

So they had to shift immediately from,

we have no way to access our library,

we have no way to shoot talent in the studio,

we’ve all got to retreat to our apartments, what do we do?

So that was where it all began.

And so they started getting creative

with repurposing content into puppet form

and things like that.

So rather than having live actors, like using puppets

and things like that.

And they did talk about later innovations

in the ability to search and find and repurpose content

from their library,

and that being another way of doing more with less.

So not needing to shoot new content,

a new original material.

And that same theme came up again,

this was also in the same track on creative production.

There was a panel of producers,

and I think the topic was doing more with less.

And so that was just the whole theme.

And there were a lot of different things that came up,

but one recurring theme there was also similarly,

making one piece of content that can be repurposed

many, many times and take many derivative forms.

So that was coming up,

use of archival content again was coming up.

And I actually saw that in the third session

in the design operations room,

which was a presentation from the company Celtra,

which helps people kind of create using atomic content,

as they say, kind of very rapidly repurposed.

Now there’s AI layered into all this a little bit,

but the theme here was,

and even another group I was thinking of it was Hilton.

And they talked about something similar,

kind of a master content model with many derivative assets

and kind of derivative content pieces

from that one kind of highest level creative asset.

So does that resonate with what you heard?

Chris Lacinak: 05:57

Yeah, well, and actually,

as you talked about the Nickelodeon session, I mean, it’s funny because it was at the same time

as JJ Pagano’s from Paramount Pictures,

a similar deal, ’cause he was talking about,

I mean, it was all focused on their YouTube channels.

They have many YouTube channels.

The use of puppets, I mean, all those things,

actually, there was a lot of similar.

We hadn’t talked about that.

So it’s funny to hear that.

But in doing more with less,

I kind of went to like efficiency,

which you gotta ask, well, what’s the outcome?

Did the quality go way down?

Did they hurt their metrics?

Like, how good is it?

And one metric that he gave was that

between March,: 2023 

they went from 1.6 billion with a B

to 2.8 billion watch time minutes.

So not only did they get more efficient,

but they also saw much, much higher response rates

to the content they were putting out there.

But yeah, I did hear that routinely in all sorts of ways

about doing more with less.

Interestingly enough, actually, as I think about it,

even in kind of the,

there was a session on sustainability

as in environmental sustainability.

And they also talked about intentionally

doing more with less as a way of

addressing environmental sustainability to some extent.

They talked about a lot of things,

but that was one aspect of it.

So yeah, well, let’s jump into your second takeaway.

What was your second?

Kara Van Malssen: 07:27

Well, I think we’ve just bridged from one to two

because the first one was doing more with less. The second one is one of the ways they’re doing that

is to creating more with less content.

But that theme is just keeps coming into my mind

and hearing that over and over.

And what you said about the performance of the content

and of scaling and increasing at the same time

makes me think of another insight

from some of the speakers, which was that kind of,

the kind of master creative content

that sort of you create all these derivatives from,

if that’s being created using insight from measurement,

from predictive analytics or from,

to performance analytics to,

so you’re actually informing the new content creation

by what’s performing best out there

and sort of getting smarter.

So it’s not just repurposing for repurposing sake,

it’s actually kind of a work smarter,

not harder type of theme as well.

So were you hearing the same thing

in the sessions you were in?

Chris Lacinak: 08:32

Yeah, absolutely.

I was looking for the term in my notes that came up in the sustainability session

and I knew there was a specific term they use

and it was micro production.

So that was just about it,

asking like, do people really need to be here

at this production or how can we do production

in a way that utilizes as few people as necessary,

only the people required and things like that.

So, and they did reiterate multiple times

that that was not just about environmental

sustainability,

that there was also a bottom line aspect to that,

that was attractive when it came to the financials

of production and operations.

So should we jump to the third?

Kara Van Malssen: 09:11

As we hinted earlier, AI was a very big theme.

I think every session touched on it. I think at this point, if you’re in this type of community,

you cannot avoid talking about it

because one of the things,

trends we’re obviously seeing with Gen AI

is creative output or something that looks like it, right?

The ChatGPT can write, you have DALL-E Midjourney

creating images, video content, et cetera.

And so there’s this, obviously an important concern

is the AI coming for our jobs as creatives.

And so that was sort of touched on by,

I think every speaker that I saw in some way, shape or form.

Chris Lacinak: 09:59

It sure was. It was a big theme for sure. 

Kara Van Malssen: 10:03

Yeah, so you saw the same thing.

Chris Lacinak: 10:05

Yeah, I mean, I think,

and we talked a little bit about this. There were kind of two competing narratives

or counter perspectives.

One was, is AI gonna take our job?

The other one was, boy, isn’t it great?

AI is saving us from having to do all of the mundane work

that is not creative, is not impactful, but has to be done.

So it was interesting, there was that sentiment that

what AI and automation, which I just wanna say quickly,

it’s kind of a pet peeve of mine,

how AI and automation are conflated so much.

They’re very different things.

So let’s be clear about that.

But they are often talked about as being synonymous.

But in this case, I do mean both.

It was talked about,

both of these things were talked about.

Isn’t it great that they can save us so much time

so that we can now do the most impactful work?

I would have loved to have heard some more details

about that, like I love the concept.

I don’t disagree with that.

But I think where the tension still lies is

how exactly will that play out and how true is that?

I think to alleviate some of the folks

that are concerned about, is AI gonna take our jobs?

But I don’t know, what do you think?

Kara Van Malssen: 11:20

Well, your two kind of views on that,

I saw kind of a through line to them, which was the answer to the question,

will, is AI coming for our jobs is no,

it’s coming for the tedious parts

that you never were good at

and never got around to in the first place

or struggled to do, which is your point about automation.

And there was some conflating there.

But I think what people were saying is,

use AI to help with automation.

Automation isn’t just AI driven, obviously.

So there are ways to insert AI tools

to help with certain automation tasks.

And so that was the theme I was picking up on there.

I think a few examples were given

of what the practical uses of those things are,

things like kind of automating delivery

of something once it’s created

and pushing it out to these various places,

things like that, just kind of a little fiddly bit stuff.

I think what Celtra again is doing

to kind of very rapidly take large volumes

of modular assets and then quickly repurposing them

into many, many, many, many different assets

that can be pushed out to lots of different channels

is another example of, I think there’s AI in there,

kind of mixed into that sauce.

So things like that,

that kind of getting more done faster type of track

was coming, that was the kind of thing

that it was being pushed.

But I thought there was one really interesting takeaway.

I can’t remember who said this now,

but they said just be aware that even using AI

for automation will still result in more assets,

more output, more content.

So it’s not like just using AI for automation

is just getting the same stuff done faster.

And if we avoid having it do creative,

then we won’t increase our output, but actually we will.

So I thought that was a really interesting takeaway too.

Chris Lacinak: 13:39

Yeah, there are two kind of quotes or moments

that come to mind for me. One is I thought that the presentation

from Dax Alexander was great.

That was called “The Real Deal,

A Practical Roadmap to Harnessing AI in-house.”

So he’s from a company called Oliver.

And he talked about a lot of things.

He started off by saying,

“The reason we’re here is because it’s a f’ing mess,”

which that’s a good kind of sobering thought

to start with.

And he did that,

he had a slide of about a thousand different products

that fall into different categories when he said that.

So you felt it, you felt it when you looked at it.

But he had a really great framework that they use

around helping guide folks through the use of AI

and all sorts of criteria, what the tools do,

how they work, what the legal agreements around them,

licensing agreements are around them.

Actually, that was one of the biggest things

that came out of it for me,

is the legal stuff is the hairiest part, probably.

And so there’s a lot of analytical frameworks

around use of AI.

And in large corporate settings in particular,

where there’s a lot of probably nail-biting going on

about are people using a dark AI

that’s not been yet vetted and approved by the company.

But the other thing that was relative to that

was Guido Derkx, I believe was his name,

talked about, I mean, he kind of started his talk by saying,

he was sitting around with friends and had the realization,

we were just talking about the AI taking away

all of the mundane tasks that he had the realization,

wait, are we the robots, right?

We’re doing all of the mundane tasks,

all this really boring, systematic, non-creative work.

So that was an interesting and funny twist.

Kara Van Malssen: 15:41

Yeah, I think, so while Dax’s presentation

kind of is the jumping off point for my fourth takeaway, which his message, another one of his messages was,

AI is here to stay, embrace it, wrestle with it,

because you’re gonna need to figure this out.

So I thought his framework that you mentioned,

here’s a very practical kind of four step process

to adoption.

And he really emphasized the culture shift,

there’s resistance, there’s certain people who are,

embracing it, running, let’s go, let’s do this,

maybe recklessly perhaps.

So he’s also got a lot of caution, I think, in his approach.

And then there’s a lot of people, maybe the majority,

who are very apprehensive, nervous,

they don’t understand it,

and rightfully scared and confused.

So he did talk a lot about the culture piece being,

the number one driver,

and that you have to kind of bring people along

in really interesting ways.

But having time, whatever you’re trying to do with it,

to strategy, being a really key piece,

and then having leadership sponsorship

was also a big part of that.

And then his framework was sort of,

I think it was, define what are the goals

we’re trying to achieve here.

I select the right tools based on your use cases,

really get into what those are, pilot, and then scale.

And he had a lot of really interesting anecdotal stories

to share about how they do scale,

if they decide through a pilot, like,

okay, let’s adopt the tool,

how they scale it out to their like 5,000,

I believe, employees.

Chris Lacinak: 17:28

Yeah.

Kara Van Malssen: 17:29

So that was really interesting to hear about.

Chris Lacinak: 17:30

Yeah.

As a side note, that just made me think of the change management conversation.

I’ll just inject a couple of thoughts here.

So there was a session called Mastering Change Management.

There’s a few great things.

One is, there was a woman who worked

for Office of General Services,

Media Services in New York, Kate Schmieding,

rhymes with meeting, I remember that’s how

she introduced herself.

And she had a meeting,

she has a meeting with her staff once a week

called I Hate It Here,

which is in which all the staff members come

and they talk about the things they hate, which I thought,

and someone asked, how do you make that productive?

And she said, it’s not, that’s not what it’s about.

It’s about people being able to vent

and talk about the things that annoy them

and things like that.

So I thought that was just,

that got the room cracking up, that was hilarious.

And she was, I appreciated that contribution.

But the other thing that came out

of that change management meeting was,

or change management session was,

I love it, someone, you know,

some kind of one of the concluding thoughts,

it was also one of the opening thoughts is,

they try to remind their employees

that change is not permanent, it’s not forever.

And I thought, that’s an oxymoron, right?

But yeah, in Dax’s session,

that definitely came to light is,

how do you roll that out through a large organization?

Kara Van Malssen: 18:54

Yeah, and it sounded like, this is not a similar thing,

but they do have sort of a recurring meeting, like an office hours type of thing,

where they, you know, people can come

and it’s somebody that’s new to the technology

that’s actually running the session

and trying to teach it to colleagues.

And they’re, you know, struggling with that as well.

So it’s like, you know, they’re barely half a step ahead

of the other people coming.

So they’re kind of helping people learn together,

but they’ve got the SMEs sort of lurking in the wings

in case they need to jump in.

But that was kind of cool, just to kind of help,

you know, they’re helping each other along

through that process.

Chris Lacinak: 19:36

– Yeah, that is a great idea. It’s a good structure.

Kara Van Malssen: 19:39

– Yeah, I like that, I hate it here meeting too. I mean, that’s a totally different thing.

Chris Lacinak: 19:45

– Courageous exercise as the leader of an organization to engage in, I give her props for that. 

Kara Van Malssen: 19:50

– Yeah.

Chris Lacinak: 19:52

– So the other person who had a framework

and it’s related to your point number five, your takeaway number five was Tony Gill.

He also showed its framework that was,

I mean, we couldn’t see the details of these,

but on its face, it kind of looks similar

to what Dax showed in the sense that it had kind of red,

green, yellow areas of risk and things like that.

But what is your fifth point?

Kara Van Malssen: 20:10

– Well, my fifth point was kind of a message

for DAM professionals, for digital asset management practitioners,

because this group of folks are the ones that are,

the creative operations people are kind of orchestrating

the creation and reuse of the assets

that the digital asset management person is stewarding.

And a lot of the use cases of the creative teams

are not necessarily met by enterprise DAM.

So Tony sort of broke that out and said,

an enterprise DAM solution,

which he also kind of lumped with a marketing DAM,

which is a lot of times where it sits,

it’s very much more of a library kind of solution.

It’s search, browse, download, share, use,

disseminate, measure,

but with rights and security mixed in.

The needs of the creative groups are a lot more,

we need speed, we need edit, we need file lock,

we need version control, collaboration.

And these are all features that are in,

all of the features combined

are in digital asset management solutions,

but they’re not always done well

for the creative production groups.

And within an organization, there’s usually,

not usually, but often one DAM

and it’s the enterprise solution.

And so we’ve seen that with our clients,

that the creative groups are sort of still left out

in the cold, like fending with themselves

on hard drives and whatnot.

And it’s not well integrated into their workflows.

So I think his point was,

there’s been a fraught relationship there

and the DAM community should be looking at this closely

to think how can we kind of enable this creative reuse,

but by meeting the folks where they are.

So yeah, that was one of my key takeaways

from Tony’s talk that I thought was very interesting.

Chris Lacinak: 22:12

One of the questions he raised,

nd apparently at DAM New York: 2023

in the stump of the consultant session

for asking the best question,

was should work in process assets be stored in the DAM?

Apparently still a hot topic

’cause lots of people had lots of thoughts about that.

And he did a hand raise in the room

about who thinks they should, who thinks they shouldn’t,

and who’s in between.

But what were your thoughts on that?

Kara Van Malssen: 22:40

Well, I thought that was funny

because I’ve been on stump of the consultant panel one time at DAM LA.

I was not at the one that he won the thing for on the panel,

but I was in the audience.

And I remember thinking,

what would my answer to this question be?

And he had said that the panel

all either gave the response of yes, or it depends.

And I was like, yep, I would have been one of those,

it depends people.

And, ’cause I think it depends on the purpose

of the DAM system, who it’s serving,

what are the main use cases that it’s helping to enable?

And if your main use cases are spread out

and varied enough that it warrants more

of that library like approach and library system,

then that may be your right solution.

Maybe you don’t have creative production in house,

maybe that’s an ad agency partner.

So therefore that’s not necessarily a need.

But if you do have, especially video production in house,

there is often a need for a two system solution.

And I think he was also pointing to that,

like embrace this, this is,

there’s a photo studio or a video production,

PAM or MAM, so production asset management

or media asset management system,

that’s more gonna have those features

that he was describing, faster edit, version control,

file lock, collaboration, et cetera,

to service them through that edit process

and then push to the final deliverables

and kind of evergreen content to the enterprise DAM.

I think he was advocating for that kind of model.

And I thought that was a really good point.

And I’ve seen that work well in a lot of cases.

And therefore you have a home for work in progress

when it’s in that kind of PAM environment.

Chris Lacinak: 24:36

– That’s exactly where my head went with,

which is over the years in our work, I think here about organizations like HBO, for instance,

like they have a PAM and there is a new,

I’ve heard PAM more recently in reference

to what someone referred to as a product asset management

in addition to a PIM product.

But PAM as in production asset management,

this is an asset management system used for production

and post-production processes

for things that are work in process.

And the final state deliverables that come out of that

is what goes into a DAM that is used for distribution

and access and things like that.

So, and I sat with a group of folks at lunch

and I kind of posed that question

because everybody had been in Tony’s session.

So, and no one else there had heard

of a production asset management system before,

which I think, it may have to do more

with just folks that are more involved

in kind of media and entertainment workflows

where video production has driven that need.

It was so much more necessary to have a PAM

that was separate from the DAM

when you’re dealing with kind of really large file sizes

and maybe more complex operations

than compared to non-video workflows.

I don’t know, I wasn’t quite sure

why I was the only one at that table

that had had that experience.

But do you have any thoughts on that?

Kara Van Malssen: 26:04

– Well, I do think it’s from,

those who are familiar with it are either gonna be from media and entertainment,

production, bigger production companies,

or large enterprises that have had in-house video production.

And I do think this is rooted in the video space.

But Tony was also talking about photo studio.

Chris Lacinak: 26:26

– Yeah, that’s true.

Kara Van Malssen: 26:28

– Kind of PAM-like system.

So, that’s interesting as well. But yeah, we’ve done work with clients in the past

where we helped with PAM implementation.

Then there was a DAM.

Sometimes they call it MAM.

PAM MAM thing gets, I think, confusing.

There’s a little bit of a identity crisis

between those things.

So, some people might be like, “What’s a PAM?

“I’ve heard of MAM.”

So, I think there’s some acronym overload going on.

But it is still larger organizations

or very media-heavy organizations.

What I also thought was interesting related to this

was I was in a panel of producers,

and I asked the question,

“Okay, you’re talking about a lot of content reuse,

“repurposing, using archival, using library content.

“So, what can digital asset managers do

“to better support you?”

And they were like,

“We don’t know what you’re talking about.

“What’s that?”

It was basically their response.

Chris Lacinak: 27:30

– What’s that as in what? What’s “that” in that sentence?

Kara Van Malssen: 27:33

– What’s digital asset management?

A lot of these are from small production companies, independent filmmakers.

And they’re just like,

“I’m over here trying to deal with the files.

“And if you can help, can you teach me something?

“I’d like to ask you a few questions.”

So, it kind of made me realize

those who even know this concept

are in a privileged position to begin with

because you’re in a big company

that has supported this technology and infrastructure

and people that can enable that.

But a lot of people out there

are just winging it on their own.

They’re working in file sharing systems,

hard drives, small RAIDs.

They’re just trying to keep the files organized.

But them as a practice is not present

in many, many, many places.

So, that was also sort of an aha moment.

Like, “Oh yeah, this is not exist everywhere.”

Chris Lacinak: 28:26

– Right, well,

DAM operations exists in all of those scenarios, but whether they’re recognized as DAM operations

and how well they’re serving their users is another question.

Any other final takeaways before we sign off here?

Kara Van Malssen: 28:39

– No, I think it was a great event.

I enjoyed it a lot. And I’d love to go back.

I think it was some very good conversations.

It was extremely active.

The participation was, you know,

kind of, everyone was very engaged.

So, I thought that was wonderful.

Chris Lacinak: 29:00

– Yeah, I agree.

I think Henry Stewart did a great job putting it together. I think that the, all four consultants,

consultants, I think all four moderators,

some of which were consultants,

did a great job.

And we got, you know,

while I said that I sat in Thomas’s

creative operations stream all day,

there was a final session at the end of the day,

which I think was fantastic.

I think Henry Stewart should do this

anytime there’s multiple panels.

They brought all four facilitators,

moderators of those streams together

to kind of summarize, recap, engage with the audience.

And so we got to hear about and see from all of them.

And I thought they were all just fantastic.

Really did a really wonderful job.

And that was a really fun session.

I thought that was a great way to end it.

So, a big shout out and props to everybody involved

in that decision and actually making it happen.

Kara Van Malssen: 29:52

– Yeah, I think, yeah,

the Henry Stewart team deserves a round of applause. All of the moderators, obviously all the speakers.

But yeah, I second that,

the end of the day session where they brought

the moderators together.

And I think the audience was just so engaged at that point.

There were so many questions, the conversation kept flowing.

I think we went right past the time

where the drinks were supposed to start

and people were fine with that.

They were just like, let’s keep talking.

So I think that was wonderful.

Chris Lacinak: 30:19

– It’s a good sign. It’s a good sign.

Kara Van Malssen: 30:21

– It is.

Chris Lacinak: 30:22

– Great.

All right. Well, thanks so much for joining me today.

Thanks so much for the great takeaways.

And as I said, that’s a LinkedIn post

that folks can go check out too.

And yeah, it was fun.

Thanks, Kara.

Kara Van Malssen: 30:34

– It was fun.

Yeah, thank you. 

(upbeat music)

The Importance of Digital Preservation in the Entertainment Industry

Introduction to Digital Preservation

In the rapidly evolving landscape of the entertainment industry, digital preservation has emerged as a critical concern. As filmmakers and studios transition from traditional film to digital formats, the need to safeguard cinematic holdings becomes increasingly paramount. This article explores the multifaceted nature of digital preservation, its challenges, and the vital role it plays in preserving our cultural heritage.

The Evolution of Digital Preservation

The concept of digital preservation has evolved significantly over the past few decades. Initially focused on traditional photochemical films, the shift to digital media has prompted archivists to rethink their strategies. With the rise of digital technology in production, postproduction, and distribution, the preservation landscape has transformed dramatically.

Digital preservation encompasses not only the safeguarding of digital assets but also the management of physical materials. As the entertainment industry embraces digital formats, the responsibility of preserving these assets falls on creators, studios, and archivists alike.

Understanding Cinematic Holdings

Cinematic holdings refer to the collection of films, videos, and other moving image materials that studios and archives manage. This term encompasses a wide range of formats, including traditional film, digital video, and even newer media forms. As the definition of cinematic holdings evolves, so too does the approach to their preservation.

The challenge lies in maintaining the integrity of these assets while ensuring they remain accessible for future generations. Understanding what constitutes cinematic holdings is crucial for developing effective preservation strategies.

The Role of Digital Asset Management (DAM)

Digital Asset Management (DAM) systems play a pivotal role in the preservation of cinematic holdings. These systems facilitate the organization, storage, and retrieval of digital assets, ensuring that they remain accessible and usable over time. The integration of DAM with preservation workflows is essential for studios aiming to maintain their assets’ longevity.

Moreover, the relationship between DAM and digital preservation is symbiotic. While DAM focuses on the management of digital files, preservation ensures that these files are protected from degradation, corruption, or obsolescence.

Challenges in Digital Preservation

Despite the advancements in technology and methodology, digital preservation presents numerous challenges. One of the primary concerns is the rapid evolution of technology and formats. As new digital standards emerge, older formats may become obsolete, rendering archived materials inaccessible.

Additionally, digital files are susceptible to corruption over time, which can lead to data loss. The sheer volume of digital content produced today also complicates preservation efforts, as it requires significant storage and management resources.

Financial constraints further exacerbate these challenges. Many organizations struggle to allocate adequate budgets for preservation efforts, often prioritizing immediate business needs over long-term archival goals.

The Business of Digital Preservation

The relationship between business and digital preservation is complex. Studios and organizations must balance the need for preservation with the reality of financial constraints. While the long-term benefits of preserving assets are evident, securing funding for these initiatives can be challenging.

Moreover, the economic landscape of the entertainment industry, characterized by mergers and acquisitions, adds another layer of complexity. Rights holders may struggle to maintain control over their assets, leading to potential gaps in preservation efforts.

The Cultural Significance of Preservation

Beyond the financial implications, digital preservation holds immense cultural significance. Films and moving images are not merely entertainment; they are artifacts of our collective history and identity. Preserving these assets ensures that future generations can access and engage with our cultural heritage.

Organizations and studios must recognize their responsibility to safeguard these cultural treasures. This commitment to preservation transcends business interests, reflecting a broader societal obligation to protect our shared history.

The Academy Digital Preservation Forum

The Academy Digital Preservation Forum serves as a vital platform for fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing among industry stakeholders. Formed under the auspices of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the forum aims to address the challenges and complexities of digital preservation.

By bringing together filmmakers, technologists, archivists, and other professionals, the forum seeks to promote best practices, raise awareness, and advocate for the importance of digital preservation within the entertainment industry.

Future Directions in Digital Preservation

Looking ahead, the future of digital preservation hinges on several key factors. First, there is a need for standardized practices across the industry. By establishing common protocols and workflows, organizations can streamline their preservation efforts and reduce confusion.

Second, collaboration among stakeholders is essential. The digital preservation landscape is vast, and no single entity can address all the challenges alone. By working together, studios, archivists, and technology providers can share insights and develop innovative solutions.

Finally, fostering a culture of awareness and advocacy is crucial. Educating decision-makers about the value of preservation and its long-term benefits can help secure funding and support for these initiatives.

Conclusion

Digital preservation is a multifaceted challenge that requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders within the entertainment industry. As we navigate the complexities of preserving our cinematic holdings, it is essential to recognize the cultural, financial, and technological dimensions of this endeavor. By embracing collaboration, advocating for best practices, and prioritizing preservation efforts, we can ensure that our rich cinematic heritage endures for generations to come.

Transcript

Chris Lacinak: 00:00

Hi, Chris Lacinak here, host of the DAM Right podcast.

Just a quick note before we get started to say that it would mean the world to me if you rated and subscribed to the podcast on your podcast platform of choice.

Thanks so much, I really appreciate it.

Welcome to the DAM Right podcast.

In AVP’s Operational Model for DAM Success, there are seven components.

Yes, one is technology, the most commonly discussed aspect of DAM.

However, I would argue that the most important component is people.

First and foremost, DAM’s value is in its ability to serve users.

Additionally, what are processes, measurement, governance, continuous improvement, and technology without skilled and talented people behind them?

The central component, and what I would argue is the second most important, is purpose.

Purpose is the fuel that keeps those skilled and talented people focused and driven to produce results and impact.

Today I’m joined by Andrea Kalas, a true pioneer in the field that brings humanity and purpose in abundance.

Andrea’s personal journey takes us from winding nitrate film in UCLA’s “dirty” Film and Television Archive, more on that later, to working on the cutting edge of digital asset management at Paramount Pictures, with stops along the way at DreamWorks, Discovery, and the British Film Institute.

Andrea’s background is not only fascinating, but offers a robust expression of digital asset management fully realized and evolved.

You’ll delight in hearing about Andrea’s personal journey.

But the reason I’ve asked Andrea to join me today is to talk about one of her latest ventures in which she’s serving as project co-chair for the Academy Digital Preservation Forum, formed under the auspices of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

The mission of the forum in part reads, “With the ascent of digital technology in the production, post-production, distribution, and exhibition of motion pictures, and the concomitant decline in photochemical cinematography and practical disappearance of film projection, we want to engage with those with the greatest stake and influence to ensure that digital preservation is successfully achieved.

Filmmakers, studio executives, Academy members, archivists, operations professionals, technologists, and other practitioners charged with implementing digital preservation.”

Join us as we grapple with questions around defining the entertainment industry today, the business side of digital preservation, and whether we should trust the entertainment industry to take on the challenge of preserving cultural heritage.

And remember, DAM Right, because it’s too important to get wrong.

Andrea Kalas, welcome to the DAM Right podcast.

Thank you so much for being here today.

I really appreciate it.

Andrea Kalas: 02:33

It’s great to talk to you, Chris.

Chris Lacinak: 02:35

I’d love to start just by having you tell us about your background and the path that you’ve taken to get to where you are today.

Andrea Kalas: 02:43

Well, I think, you know, it really all starts with the UCLA Film and TV Archive.

When I was in graduate school at UCLA, I saw a little post on a board, a job board, saying that there was work study positions at the UCLA Film and TV Archive.

And I had come to UCLA to the grad program there knowing about film restoration that was just sort of beginning and knowing that the UCLA Film and TV Archive was there.

So I was excited that it was easy to just get a part-time job there while I was going to school.

And I remember I called and Jerry Golden, who’s a wonderful person still working in the field, was the guy hiring.

And he goes, “You know, this job isn’t, it’s not on the campus.

It’s out here in Hollywood, you know, and it’s a little dirty out here.”

And I was like, “Where do I sign?”

And that time at the UCLA Film and TV Archive was just pivotal for my career because it was, you know, there weren’t programs then.

There weren’t programs in, you know, moving image archiving at that point.

So there wasn’t an option for me to go to grad school in that.

But in a way I didn’t have to because I had people like Bob Gitt, you know, who we used to nickname the Pope of Preservation.

We had Martha Yee, who was incredibly important in figuring out how library science could be applied to moving image archiving.

Literally she was dealing with like early MARC cataloging software that was made for books.

So she was constantly figuring out how to put a square peg in a round hole for moving image materials.

And Eddie Richmond, who was the curator of the archive at that point, who was really figuring out how you manage an archive, how you deal with that.

And Bob Rosen, who was the head of the archive and really a visionary in so many ways in terms of how archives could really intervene in culture in a significant way, in history and the importance of that.

So to me that was incredibly fortunate that I was there at that moment with people who were figuring it out and figuring out how moving image archiving could actually work.

So that’s, you know, that made me really, in my opinion, made me a really good archival professional out of that experience working there.

So yeah, I started off as a work study student and my job was inspecting nitrate.

Nothing that a student would do now.

But it was great.

To me, I loved it, even though it was in these dirty vaults and opening cans, it was a little risky.

But I got to look at all the cans and see like, what is that?

What are these things?

Why don’t we know more about them?

Like that curiosity and the pleasure of archives, which is being near these assets.

And I realized, yep, I’m in it for the long term.

This is what I want.

This is what I want to do.

Chris Lacinak: 05:54

It sounds like you had an all-star team of colleagues there to help you really learn the trade and understand not just the technical stuff, but it sounds like also kind of the value.

Andrea Kalas: 06:03

And they were willing to take a risk on me.

They were willing to, you know, give me sort of more.

So I got offered a full-time job eventually there, you know, preserving newsreels, which was another incredible education because, you know, it was a small thing.

It was still figuring it out.

So I had to do everything from, you know, justifying why I would preserve one newsreel over another with, you know, complex justification.

Then I had to sit at a bench and wind through each newsreel and actually inspect and repair, take it to the lab, see it preserved, then gather all the information together for somebody to catalog it.

You know, so I had to do the whole soup to nuts.

And that was a great.

And the fact that I was just given the rope to do that and figure it out, obviously with everybody’s support and help, but that they gave me that responsibility was just fantastic.

So that was another great, you know, step forward.

Chris Lacinak: 07:02

Yeah, that’s a great start.

So where did you, what did your career look like after that?

Andrea Kalas: 07:06

So after I preserved newsreels for a while, I worked within the UCLA Film and TV Archives Research and Study Center and they had just opened it up.

And it was really the first time where, and a lot of archives were like this at this point, where it was fine to just preserve them and, you know, sort of keep the doors closed, but actually opening it up and providing people to have a place to actually research and watch and, you know, use the archives was relatively new.

And we were on a university campus where these materials could obviously be of great use to students, to researchers, to for classwork.

So we opened up the Research and Study Center and there I really started, and I already had an interest in technology and computers because, you know, universities were some of the first to get computers, you know, so we’re talking about mid 80s, late 80s here, right.

So early on.

And so I was already fascinated with them.

And so, you know, the idea that we could use computers to help with providing access to materials that’s carried, you’ll see that carried through my entire career.

And so we did this project where there was a communications professor who had taped news materials off the air for years.

So he had decades of these materials.

And the only thing that was there was like CBS News on March 2nd.

You know, that’s all the information we had about what was on the recordings.

So we did a project around because we taped a lot of stuff around Tiananmen Square.

We did a project where we actually took the closed caption broadcast signal off the tapes and dumped them into a database so that people could search over terms and things like that.

And and that’s something that’s very common today.

And we see that all the time.

It’s used in all sorts of different search technologies now.

But that was early on that we were sort of.

Chris Lacinak: 09:07

That was groundbreaking.

Andrea Kalas: 09:09

It was big.

Yeah.

So I did a presentation on that at the Association of Moving Image Archivists.

And there was a woman who named Karen Weber, who had been part of AMIA for a while.

And at that point in her career was working with the company CGI that made, you know, you know, visual effects, software and hardware.

And they were working with DreamWorks and they wanted to create a digital archive for animation.

And so she said, oh, this person has a kind of idea about how technology and archives can work together.

Let’s, you know, let’s recommend her for this this job at DreamWorks.

And so that’s that’s how that happened.

I went from UCLA to DreamWorks.

And it was that was another.

Chris Lacinak: 10:08

It had to be a pretty big cultural shift.

Andrea Kalas: 10:10

That was that was like, whoa.

Yeah.

I went from, yeah, just sort of university to Hollywood.

And and it was that was fascinating.

Absolutely amazing.

I mean, I was an archivist hired before there was anything to archive.

Yeah.

Right.

That’s, you know.

And so helping create a digital archive from nothing for animation was just was fantastic.

And I just you know, I just spent my time getting to know all about animation, which was fantastic to get to know and the complexities of that and getting to know the artists and how it worked and how animation worked and how that, you know, animation it was really sort of also almost production assset management.

Right.

They needed an archive during production.

But we were also figuring out how then to have these kind of off ramps from that into a more, you know, sort of long term repository.

And also I was looking at collecting up actual physical materials like all the backgrounds were painted, you know, so and they’re unbelievably beautiful.

But, you know, works of art, making sure that we, you know, handle those well and archive those well as well.

And also in those early days of DreamWorks and was DreamWorks was going to be this huge studio, right?

It was going to have it was a music area.

There was television.

There was so starting to actually become go outside of animation and build an archive for all of those things.

So so that was fantastic to be able to do that from scratch, from nothing.

Right.

Build it out of nothing when things can be ready when the materials actually came into our.

Yeah.

So and and and be around just amazing technologists, too, because animation’s always been on the forefront, certainly of entertainment technology.

You know, they’ve always been the ones who have been out there first figuring out file based workflows, figuring out, you know, I mean, you know, great stuff.

Like I remember, you know, we were going from physical ink and paint to digital ink and paint.

So that was being that was a transition that was happening while we were making a movie, which was amazing.

But one thing I remember so clearly was like when the you know, with physical ink and paint, you had to keep a cap on the number of colors you would use because you needed to have a set number of colors that everyone would consistently use.

You had to keep those paints the same color.

Right.

You couldn’t you know, and all of a sudden with digital ink and paint.

You could have this whole all sorts of different palettes that came out.

I remember the animators heads kind of exploding a little bit like, oh, wow, this is so different.

When technology was cool.

Right.

It’s like when technology was our friend, you know, it was really that era of, you know, the sort of expansiveness of how it could support, you know, creativity.

So that was so fun to be around.

Chris Lacinak: 13:23

Was there any production that you recall specifically while you were there that was in that transition point into this?

Andrea Kalas: 13:31

Yeah, it was the Prince of Egypt was the first big movie that we were working on.

Chris Lacinak: 13:36

Okay.

Andrea Kalas: 13:37

And it’s a beautiful, beautiful film if you ever get a chance to watch it.

You know, it’s basically it’s the Moses story.

It’s a Ten Commandments story, but in animation.

And you know, just I think that was what I, you know, remember so fondly about it is just the beauty of it and how how much artistry there was in watching that happen.

It didn’t turn out to be the most, you know, the most popular of the early DreamWorks animated films.

You know, Shrek came along closely thereafter.

That was a huge, huge moment.

Interesting.

Yeah.

But but Prince of Egypt was really a rallying point for everyone that worked there in the beginning and how, you know, because we were figuring out the entire pipeline, the workflow, everything as the movie was being made.

So and, you know, it really bonded that group of people, we’re still friends with a lot of those people to this day.

Yeah, it was such a unique, you know, environment.

And what was great for me was, and I think for everyone there was, you could talk to anyone.

You could walk into anybody’s office, any artist, any animator, any executive anywhere, any time.

And anybody would and everyone was really sort of collaborative.

In fact, there were no titles.

That was a big thing.

Interesting.

Early DreamWorks.

Yeah.

And so that was just great for somebody who was trying to just absorb as much information as possible.

Right.

Yeah.

It was a wonderful atmosphere for that.

Chris Lacinak: 15:09

It’s kind of it’s kind of mind blowing to think about, like, at that point in time, the difference in tools, infrastructure, like capabilities, like it’s pretty wild to think about that you were tackling, beginning to tackle those challenges at that point in time.

Different world, different world from today.

Andrea Kalas: 15:28

It wasn’t, it wasn’t.

I mean, I still deal with some of the same issues today.

You know, just sort of, I think, you know, what, what archives and animation have in common is that they have to have a lot of structure.

Right.

And that was where I, you know, sort of find a common core.

Right.

So when you build a pipeline for animation, you have to have a pretty strict file naming convention or, you know, for every sequence scene shot, you know, it because everyone shares and collaborates, goes through a number of departments.

So that tight structure is absolutely necessary for animation to work.

Right.

And so that’s very good for archives.

Yeah.

We like that.

Chris Lacinak: 16:15

And digital asset management.

Andrea Kalas: 16:16

We like structure because then we know what we’re, knowing what we have.

Yeah.

So that was, that was interesting, you know, meeting of the minds.

Chris Lacinak: 16:24

I see that.

And so where, from DreamWorks, what was the next step in your career there?

Andrea Kalas: 16:31

So one of the things I did at DreamWorks was we figured out that, you know, even though the movie takes three years, people need access to materials during that, like marketing and consumer products and things like that.

So these off ramps we created from production into archives also had different approval steps and things like that.

So that, and we actually built out an access portal for people that needed materials into the production.

Okay.

And then I gave another presentation at another Association of Moving Image Archivists conference about this concept of sort of in production archiving and Discovery saw that and they were interested in trying to expand on that because they had the same issue was more around making both a domestic and an international version of some of their big, big programs that that wasn’t enough time for them to do that.

So then I worked for Discovery for a little while and we did that.

We had actual video loggers on set, the logging, some of the videotapes that were being directly after they were shot, put them into a system so that the international people could have access to those materials and create their show.

And we were going to ramp that up a little further and then the bubble burst, right?

And so that program was sort of seen as a luxury rather than a necessity.

And so Discovery, so I sort of moved away from that a little bit and I worked sort of with their stock footage group and things like that.

But it wasn’t the sort of cool program I was hoping to do.

But we did some really great things.

Like we actually had a really early digital dailies system where people could, from their shoot, put this like postage stamp sized little video on the world wide web so that executives could take a look at it.

We had all sorts of bandwidth constraints and problems with that, you know, but we did some really great stuff just sort of experimenting with technology.

Chris Lacinak: 18:42

the dot com bust of the early: 2000

Andrea Kalas: 18:46

Yeah, the dot com.

Chris Lacinak: 18:48

So yeah, that was nascent stages of digital asset management as we know it today, right?

That was the early, I remember coming out to Hollywood and doing the early digital asset management conferences that now I think it’s a Lowes.

It was something else back then.

But anyway, yeah, that was a very exciting time.

Everybody was all psyched up about the possibilities.

Andrea Kalas: 19:06

Yeah.

And right.

And some of the tools for digital asset management were starting to come out.

The video logger we used was out there.

There were other tools that were just starting at that point.

So yeah, trying to understand where they were, you know, and they were really early and they just had some functionality, but trying to work with them.

It was an interesting time.

Chris Lacinak: 19:30

Wow.

Okay.

So UCLA, DreamWorks, Discovery, or Discover.

And then, not Discover, Discovery.

Discover is a credit card.

What next?

Andrea Kalas: 19:42

Then the British Film Institute.

So then I was just, you know, I found out that, you know, that was the position, head of preservation was coming open and that I might have a shot at it.

And that was fascinating to me, right?

To be able to work in such a huge archive, work in a European archive, work with an enormous collection.

So that was an opportunity I didn’t want to miss.

So after, you know, a long time of applying because I was American and it was a British job, I finally, I got that position.

And that was, that was an incredible, you know, that was like a, so here I was with all this high tech stuff, you know, and I go over to the BFI and it’s like, oh, okay, I’m going to go back a couple decades here.

You know, there’s a film lab, very analog.

There’s not much digital anything going on.

And so that was really my job was to transform from analog to digital an entire conservation center.

And that was great too.

It was wonderful.

It was, there were so many great colleagues to work with and try to figure out how to manage things and even retraining people and, you know, because people weren’t even, they weren’t even scanning film yet, right?

They had to get a film scanner.

It was all photochemical.

But it also brought, got me back to my experience from UCLA because I had to deal with photochemical film and photochemical preservation so that it was a great way of, and also I really loved getting back with, with film too.

I have a, you know, connection to movies, I think a little bit more than I do to TV.

But even though I love TV, I work with TV all the time.

I love TV, don’t get me wrong.

TV is great.

But I think it was just more, you know, it’s more interesting to me.

Yeah.

Chris lacinak: 21:45

So you were, you must have been the perfect candidate at that time to bring that mix of skills you had that in-depth hands-on film experience and all of the most modern digital technologies and stuff.

So yeah, I can imagine they looked at you and said, this is the perfect person to come and transform this operation.

That must have been fun.

Andrea Kalas: 22:03

It was a lot of fun.

And it was just incredibly, and not only working with amazing colleagues at the BFI, who I’m also still very close to and still call for, you know, like my colleague, Charles Farrell, who was much more in the, he was a television engineer.

And we used to have these debates all the time, you know, it was sort of film versus television, you know, because they used to be very separate technologically.

Now they’re not, right.

And so just sort of arguing over approaches of preservation, things like that.

They were great.

They were, they were good arguments.

And I still will call them up and argue with them.

Chris Lacinak: 22:44

Hopefully there’s some hellos before the argument starts.

Andrea Kalas: 22:48

Oh yeah, no, no, no.

We’re great, great, great, great friends.

Wonderful friends, you know, I respect him enormously.

So they’re always very, you know, fruitful, fruitful arguments.

That’s great.

So you know, and also just being in Europe was great too, because there were lots of, because that was before Brexit.

So the UK was still involved with, yeah, so with European initiatives.

And so for example, I got involved with, there was a European metadata standard for cinematographic works.

And so, you know, and so I got to be involved with that and worked with people from Germany, France, the Netherlands, you know, on putting together a metadata standard for film, which then got implemented and required by any EU funding and still stands today.

So that was great too, to be involved with those kinds of things and learn a lot from really, really smart people across Europe as well.

So it was not, it was both learning from colleagues in the UK and being involved with, you know, a sort of different approach to, or a rigorous approach, I would say.

Because European archives are really, their client is their government, right?

Because European films and television programs are often funded by the government, that, you know, there’s just, there’s sort of, there’s a closeness to the archives and their funding agencies from the government.

That means, in a way, additional rigor, right?

You have to prove that what you’re doing is really good.

They take it seriously.

So that was a great education as well, in being in that environment and how to really be rigorous about justifying what you’re doing with an archive, transparency about what you’re doing, you know, how to make sure that what you’re doing really makes sense and is both, you know, obviously costs are an issue, but also, you know, what you’re doing is absolutely the best or the right thing to do.

You know, people would research that intensely.

You know, we built a whole new vault while I was there.

And you know, and that was a 25 million pound, you know, investment.

To build a cold vault meant we went into, you know, intense, it was like a five year project of getting- 

Chris Lacinak: 25:28

Yeah, it’s a big deal.

Andrea Kalas: 25:29

Experts from around the world to say, “Why is this temperature and humidity the right one?”

Lots of different, so, but getting that, that’s what I really appreciated that exercise, because it gave me more expertise and it taught me how to be rigorous and do it well.

Chris Lacinak: 25:54

If we fast forward to today, can you talk a little bit about what you’re doing today?

Andrea Kalas: 25:58

So I came back and when I was, heard about the job at Paramount Pictures and I was always interested in working in a Hollywood studio.

I thought that would be, you know, and be the archivist for a Hollywood studio was always interesting to me.

And so when that job came up, I was definitely interested and came back to that.

And so, and I’ve been there for 15 years, which seems amazing to me.

And it’s just been an incredible experience because we had the support of an incredible executive team that also took it seriously.

So, you know, we, you know, we did a, launched a preservation program.

We built out a digital preservation infrastructure.

We’re now working really hard on how, you know, AI and ML can provide discovery to our assets.

So, you know, it just gave me the opportunity to do a really good job and have great colleagues too that are, have made the archive great.

The other great thing about Paramount Pictures archive is that everything’s under one roof.

Different studios will have an archive here, an archive there, but we have stills, props, costumes, music, all the film and tape all under one place.

And more recently, now that we are Paramount Global, I’ve also started taking on CBS archives and the Viacom brand archive.

So expanding that a little bit more.

So that’s why I’m hoarse.

It’s a lot of work.

But it’s all good.

It’s all great.

It’s all, you know, finding ways to preserve and make accessible all these incredible films and television programs.

Chris Lacinak: 27:52

You have digital asset management is in your title.

From this conversation, I would think that you probably like we do for this podcast and the work that we do use a pretty broad interpretation or definition of digital asset management to encompass digital asset, what people traditionally think of as digital asset management, but also digital preservation and digital collections management and those sorts of activities as well.

Is that right?

Andrea Kalas: 28:16

Yeah, I think digital asset management is in my title.

You know, and actually, you know, I sort of go back and forth between asset management and archives because it is sort of, you know, that’s the way to describe.

But I think within that phrase, digital asset management, I think what I interpret that is and I think that means is that you take seriously the fact that you have digital assets, whether it’s a moving image, an image, you know, a document, whatever it is, and you have thought very seriously about how you’re going to make sure that those are around and accessible to your clients.

You know, and your clients can be anybody, right, depending on what kind of organization you are.

An archive is never its own thing.

It always has a client.

My client now is the corporation, right?

The people that work for Paramount Global and all the business units, whether it’s Home Media or Marketing or Theatrical.

Those are my clients.

Right.

When I was in the BFI, my clients would have been the British public.

Right.

So, but every but you need to make sure that your digital asset management system is serving your clients.

So it’s so it’s digital preservation is part of that in in Paramount Pictures because we continue to distribute our films over and over and over and over again.

Right.

So we will hopefully be distributing Godfather for another hundred years.

Chris Lacinak: 29:53

Right.

So Paramount Pictures wants to leverage those assets for as long as possible.

Andrea Kalas: 29:57

We will.

Yeah.

So making sure that preservation is part of it is serving my clients as well as providing access.

So that’s you know, so yes, the the software, the hardware, the functionality, everything that goes into digital asset management is is driven by what what that archives role is within their organization.

Chris Lacinak: 30:18

I want to talk a little bit about you’ve got a theory.

I’ll call it a theory.

I don’t know if you would call it a theory around the relationship between library science and rocket science that I think would be interesting to interject here before we jump in.

Would you mind talking about that a little bit?

Andrea Kalas: 30:32

Yeah, because as we talked about earlier, my experience at UCLA Film and TV Archive and seeing the brilliant minds of Martha Yee and and her team to actually figure out how to create an inventory system for moving image archives and how to really categorize different types of materials.

I mean, this was, you know, this was before any of the protocols that are out there now that people can follow, right, that people do follow for making sure that they’re using the right metadata schema or thinking about what things are considered preservation assets versus reference assets.

None of that was there was no there was no blueprint for that.

And so being around that and knowing that that came from intense research into library science, you know, Martha Yee had a Ph.D. in library science and other things like that, that that that background of the people that first figured out that card catalogs were going to go away if we needed a computer based system and how to classify things and how to work things at this such an important part of the history of technology when it comes to digital asset management.

That you know, and I just think it gets doesn’t get as much love as it should.

So that’s why I talk about library science and rocket science must work together, because I think we we think about sort of the cool stuff, the latest, you know, video format or other sort of cool technology advances which are there, not not short shrifting them, but, you know, to just, you know, pay homage to incredibly hard work of lots of library scientists that have gone before us to to figure out how to build good digital asset management systems.

That’s what I that’s what I mean by that.

Chris Lacinak: 32:32

Thanks for that.

I want to maybe we can touch on terminology real quick.

You have used the term moving image.

We will talk about there’s there’s terminology used in the forums website around cinematic holdings.

We’ve talked about film, we’ve talked about video.

I’d like to parse those a little bit or maybe put some definition around them so that folks listening understand what we’re talking about.

So we talked about moving image, we’re talking about anything with a moving image, video or film.

Tell me tell me if you disagree with any of this.

Andrea Kalas: 33:05

Yeah, no, that’s right.

It’s a catch all for for anything that moves right 

Chris Lacinak: 33:09

So Association of Moving Image Archivists is a catch all for all of those things.

Andrea Kalas: 33:13

Right.

Chris Lacinak: 33:14

The one that I wanted to ask you about was cinematic holdings.

Should we think about that as all film?

Should we think about that as film only produced with the intention of being going through like cinema, commercial cinema sort of thing?

Or how do you think when you talk about cinematic holdings?

How do you think about that?

Andrea Kalas: 33:30

Good question.

I mean, I think, yeah, it is is your question is basically, does it mean that film is only it’s something that actually gets released in the theater?

And I think that’s increasingly not true anymore.

Right.

Because of streaming.

But also, for example.

One of the things that when I got to the BFI, that was amazing.

They had discovered was these early portrait photographers had gone to factory gates and other places where people would come in and set up a camera and then held up a sign said, come and see yourself on the screen later.

And then they would go to a church or a hall of some sort and show these back.

Now, that’s not a proper theater, but I would argue that cinema, you know, so it’s you know, yes, I do think that there is a you know, it’s getting closer and closer.

Like what is a what is the difference between a movie and a TV show now?

Very hard to differentiate.

So but I think that, you know, cinematic holdings still have relevance.

You know, there’s the obvious ones, feature films or films that were distributed in theaters.

And then there’s other things like documentaries or other things that were one piece that are filmic.

I mean, I think the you know, the work that I’ve done with the Academy is based on the fact that Academy is is about film.

It’s about cinema.

It doesn’t, you know, deal with television.

And so even though those those things are melding and becoming closer and closer together, I think there’s still there’s a difference.

Chris Lacinak: 35:13

Is it fair to say that to the extent that there is a distinction between film and cinematic holdings that the work of the Digital Preservation Forum is, you know, if not 100% than 99% relevant to anybody with film and other moving image holdings?

Or is that an inaccurate statement?

Andrea Kalas: 35:35

Yeah, I mean, we’re highly aware that, you know, especially when we’re dealing with digital preservation and the technology associated with it, that, you know, the kinds of things that we’re talking about could absolutely apply to things that were in episodes as well as a long form, right?

So nobody’s tried to fool themselves that it’s only about things that call themselves cinema.

But that’s what, you know, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is mostly focused on, right?

Right.

So that and that’s who’s sponsoring that.

But you know, there is, you know, there is, we’ve had several conversations with the Television Academy, right?

They have a similar group, a Science and Technology Council.

And so, you know, I could see, you know, one day where there’s a much more high collaboration between the two around digital preservation.

Because yeah, the concepts definitely overlap.

Chris Lacinak: 36:29

Are you liking this episode?

It would mean a lot if you let us know by rating and subscribing on your podcast platform of choice.

Looking for amazing and free resources to help you on your DAM journey?

Let the best DAM consultants in the business help you out.

Visit weareavp.com/free-resources.

And stay up to date with the latest and greatest from me and the DAM Right Podcast by following me on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/clacinak.

Chris Lacinak: 36:58

I’ve kind of jumped the gun a bit because I’ve started to talk about the forum already.

Would you, I guess, let’s just say that you are the Project Co-Chair of the Academy Digital Preservation Forum.

Given the background we just heard, that makes all the sense in the world.

But maybe you could tell us a little bit about how you came to be the Co-Chair and tell us a bit about the work of the forum.

Andrea Kalas: 37:22

Yeah.

So I was on this when I got to be a member of the Academy, I was accepted as a member of the Science and Technology Council.

And one of the reasons I wanted to be part of that council was I wanted to advance the concept of digital preservation, have it taken more seriously.

lemma back in, I think it was: 2007

And it was the first step, but it also said that it was really expensive to do digital preservation and we weren’t ready yet.

And I thought we needed a better message.

So that was really my mission was to say, you know, actually, lots of people are working on digital preservation and it is possible and we need to make sure that we’re talking about it well.

And so that was really my mission by joining the Sci-Tech Council.

And so the committee, which I think was like Digital Preservation Committee or something like that, came up with the idea.

We were going to do a big event and then follow that up with a website, but then COVID happened and then we focused on the website first.

And so the website really is, it is a forum.

It is a place for people to go.

There is an area on the website where anyone can post anything, have discussions and things like that.

That is the purpose of it, to understand that there are real complexities when it comes to digital preservation, to have a place where people can watch some videos about different topics around digital preservation, to comment, to add new articles, to however they are, to have a place where whoever you are, even though it’s very much, you know, from sort of an Academy standpoint, so entertainment industry based, cinema based, still, I think it’s open enough for anybody that’s interested in digital preservation, especially moving images and digital preservation in general, to have a place to go and learn more and hopefully, you know, sort of talk amongst themselves, train each other on what the best practices are so that we can continue, you know, to have good digital preservation of so many movies that are created digitally, that are really great works of art that need that kind of attention.

Chris Lacinak: 39:55

that came out, I think it was: 2007

And I wonder if you could just give us a background around that.

So maybe tell us, you know, for folks that aren’t acquainted with film, maybe just explain a little bit more when you say photochemical, what you mean.

And then could you give us a brief history of like how that’s evolved and where we are today with the film versus digital on the preservation front?

Andrea Kalas: 40:53

You know, it’s interesting.

It takes me back to, you know, when I first worked at UCLA and we had this rallying cry, “Nitrate won’t wait,” right?

o deteriorate before the year: 2000

And so dutifully, many archives did put it on to acetate film, which then we discovered also deteriorates really quickly.

But you know, it’s interesting, like that time was film wasn’t really a trustworthy source in a way, you know, that could deteriorate, that was scary.

Fast forward to now where film is like, that’s the answer, right?

It’s still, people are now suspicious, very suspicious of digital.

And so I hear this all the time, like, why?

Just preserve it on film?

What’s your problem?

You know, that’s work, that’s the archival standard, that’s what we should do.

And you know, I just don’t think it’s that simple.

You know, there’s, for example, you know, audio, there’s not really that well, great of a way to preserve audio that’s digital onto some sort of photochemical format anymore, right?

That technology is starting to, it’s sunsetting.

Mag isn’t made anymore, it’s not there anymore.

There are things that are really inherently digital, like effects that need to be treated digitally.

And so I think that that feeling, it’s something that I always encounter and a lot of people will push back on that.

You know, I remember sitting in the room with the then president of the Academy, John Bailey, who said out loud, you know, isn’t digital preservation an oxymoron?

So there’s always been this very big concern that digital is not trustworthy for the long term, that, you know, it’s going to go into the ether and things like that.

And that’s the biggest, one of the biggest challenges for digital preservation.

How can you be a trustworthy guardian of assets in your asset management system?

And I know it’s something that all of us have to manage on an ongoing basis because it’s not, you know, I think there’s a perception that you put a piece of film on a shelf and everything’s fine.

Well, actually, that’s not necessarily true.

You still have to have a really good vault.

You have to maintain that vault.

You have to make sure that you re-can that film, possibly occasionally.

You have to have archivists to make sure your inventory is okay.

It’s not without its own maintenance.

Same with, and with digital, it is more complicated.

There’s a lot more, but it’s, I think it’s, it’s the unknown and not knowing and not enough people knowing how to really dig in and insist with their technology partners to put this functionality in, et cetera.

When we did our digital preservation infrastructure at Paramount, I had a lot of, again, good battles and arguments with the infrastructure team, the people that oversaw network and storage, because I wanted to know where within that storage system that asset lived within my digital asset management system.

And I wanted to set up annual health checks automatically.

And that involved people that dealt with infrastructure systems that were really opaque and asking them to make them more transparent inside a digital asset management system was something new to them.

So I think that’s part of it as well, is that it’s that understanding of what you need for digital asset management system to make it trustworthy, to make it robust.

I think the more people become educated by that, and frankly, the younger the colleagues are in this space, I think that will become more of a, and it already has, there’s already plenty of really smart people doing this in our field.

So I think that’s the, that may be the tension about photochemical versus digital, but it still exists.

It hasn’t, it’s still a concern and it still is there.

And you know, and this binary approach of either or is the other silly part of it, right?

I love film.

I built two great film vaults that are the best they can be so that I can preserve that original film.

I love seeing beautiful print made in ideal conditions.

You know, my passion and my affection for film is alive.

Just because I like digital preservation and also appreciate films that were made digitally doesn’t mean I started hating film.

And you know, so I think that’s the other thing is sometimes people, that either or thing is…

Chris Lacinak: 46:17

You have to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time.

Andrea Kalas: 46:20

Yeah, like, yeah, we can do that, you know?

And so I think it’s interesting.

And so it’s something that it’s just an ongoing, it’s awareness, it’s understanding, and I think it’s trust too.

Trust in archivists and institutions to handle digital objects well.

And maybe we need to do a better job at showing that it’s possible and it’s done every day across tons of industries.

You know, maybe that’s our job in this space to show we are trustworthy repository advocates.

Chris Lacinak: 47:02

So is Paramount Pictures an aberration in the entertainment industry as far as the embracing of digital preservation?

Or is that the norm these days?

Andrea Kalas: 47:11

Not at all, no.

And that’s one of the wonderful things about building up the site, the Academy Digital Preservation Forum, was I decided to, you know, as…

Wanted to build a site that was going to have content and who was going to be my sort of editorial board for that content, right?

And so I assembled people from Warner Brothers, Sony, Fox, now Disney, to be that group of people.

We called it the Curatorial Working Group.

And they’re all listed on the site.

So I would bring these topics to that group.

It was one of my…

The best parts of the pandemic, it was like every Friday we had these discussions about, you know, and it was this chance for us to really discuss these issues between ourselves and show that across that group, the sort of studio group, that there were a lot of really best practices.

There were a lot of things that people really take seriously about digital preservation.

So, you know, and that was…

So that’s what the site also represents, is that collective thinking and considered approach to digital preservation.

Chris Lacinak: 48:27

I can see that being useful for sure.

Let’s sidebar on another kind of terminological thing here.

I think I use the term entertainment industry.

How do you think about who the entertainment industry is today?

When I think about it from my perspective, yours obviously in it, as I’ll call myself an outsider, the blurring of lines between both the, you know, entertainment industry versus big tech, as well as just like the blooming of the entertainment industry across the globe, right?

We used to think of entertainment industry really being Hollywood centric.

Now there’s major cinematic industries throughout the world.

How do you think about who the entertainment industry is today?

Andrea Kalas: 49:14

I mean, first and foremost, I think that, you know, the sort of the traditional studios, the big studios have definitely been challenged by the streaming services, right?

By Netflix and Amazon and now Apple.

And so that’s the biggest challenge to that model, right?

And that’s, they are definitely part of the entertainment industry now.

So that is where that it’s definitely, that’s where our entertainment is funded and made and those, you know, that’s, that is, you know, sort of the biggest industry just in terms of sheer output, right?

That those streaming services have met the studios at that level.

You know, so that’s, that’s one part, but yes, there’s, there’s every country has, you know, some sort of entertainment industry of their own, right?

So that’s the other wider part is that, you know, we know more and more about, you know, international output than we ever had before, which is exciting, right?

We’re not, we’re not in a world where American entertainment industry is the only industry anymore.

So that’s, that’s the other part of the global.

And then beyond that, of course, there’s people that are creating entertainment every day with their cell phones, right?

You could say, you could argue that that sort of, you know, web 2.0, , 2.5, 3.0, whatever entertainment industry, right?

Of TikTok and Instagram and everything like that.

That’s arguably an industry in and of itself.

So so it’s, you know, yeah, it’s, it’s certainly not the big five studios making movies and everybody else has to bow down anymore at all.

You know, it’s changed massively.

Chris Lacinak: 50:59

Let me ask another question that kind of dives into maybe more of the traditional big five or, you know, traditional entertainment industry.

In my experience, what I’ve seen, and this is, I’m thinking here about kind of the distinction between rights holders and ownership versus who holds the physical materials or digital materials on their servers.

What I’ve seen is that through mergers and acquisitions, transfer and ownership of collections, that oftentimes the physical materials may have never actually gotten inventoried and moved.

So something that’s owned by one entity, A over here, who is leveraging their ownership, they’re licensing it out.

The physical materials or the digital files may live still at the previous entity who held it.

And it seems like in a lot of ways, those business, there’s just been a collegiality.

Hey, oh, we have this thing, you know, do you have it?

Can you send it to us?

That has made that okay.

It hasn’t been, you know, in the short term for the purpose of doing business, that seems to be okay.

But when you think about digital, well, preservation period, whether it be digital or physical, that seems problematic.

And I don’t know, you know, is that, is that problem so small as to be negligible or is that a larger problem that exists out there that has to be grappled with?

Andrea Kalas: 52:17

It’s really interesting because sometimes I think, okay, when the all world’s archives are digitized, right?

And perhaps they’re, you know, sort of available in the cloud or on some sort of on-prem server storage that, you know, you could really just hand the keys over, right?

You don’t have to move the assets anymore.

Right?

And yet we do, we do move, we do, you know, Paramount had Marvel for a while, you know, when Disney purchased Marvel, we went through an enormous project of, you know, identifying all inventory and moving all inventory digital and physical over to Disney, you know, I have a binder like this thick of everything we, you know, went through to do that.

So it does, it still does matter that where your holdings are, but to your point too of, you know, other material, different libraries owned by different companies.

It doesn’t make sense.

Paramount movies made between: 1929 

Paramount owns the Republic Library, you know, Warner Brothers has RKO, early MGM.

So there’s, you know, different library acquisitions make it a little more complicated too.

But yeah, I still, I think, you know, I’ve not worked with people.

I’ve always known that we get the materials when we need to distribute them.

I’ve not had that experience that you’re talking about.

Chris Lacinak: 53:45

I don’t want to start spreading rumors here.

Maybe I’m…

Andrea Kalas: 53:48

No, no, no, it’s fine.

I’m sure it happens.

It’s just not been my experience.

Chris Lacinak: 53:52

I guess that just made me think about like the, that this term about entities that have cinematic holdings may have cinematic holdings that, you know, in partial or in whole may or may not have rights to actually leverage, which brings in like the business angle.

Right.

And I guess I wonder, you’ve given us some great insights into the complexities around some of the technical things around digital preservation, but what the forum makes clear.

And I think what those digital dilemma made clear, and at the same time there was the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Digital Preservation, Digital Preservation, Sustainability and Access, something like that.

They all focused on the business side as being like, I think maybe the main driver.

And I wonder what’s your assessment of what the business complexity looks like with regard to digital preservation.

You’ve touched on it a bit, but can you give us in the same way you’ve given us some insights into the technical complexities, like what is the business side look like of digital preservation?

Andrea Kalas: 54:52

Well, so, you know, again, I look at what’s my role, right?

So my role as an archive for Paramount is to make sure that I’m preserving the materials for which we have what I call substantial rights.

That’s my phrase.

I made it up.

And so that means if there, we have rights worldwide in perpetuity, all media, then that’s a movie I’m going to preserve.

If we have rights in the US only, but it’s also forever, yeah, that’s worth it.

Because my company, you know, can benefit from that long-term holding of that physical, of that materials, right?

So we might acquire something for two years and distribute it, and then it goes back to a rights holder.

I’m not going to preserve that.

That’s somebody else’s property, right?

So it really is based on ownership.

And I do think, you know, and that’s where my focus is.

And I feel that’s an obligation of rights holders too, to look after the materials they preserve and restore, which doesn’t always happen.

You know, and there are, of course, not-for-profit archives that hold materials for which they don’t own the rights.

And that collaboration between rights owner and, you know, a non-profit archive is, you know, usually good, can be fraught, you know, that’s another part of this project as well.

I mean, we’re, Paramount gave the Library of Congress silent films back in the ’60s and ’70s because there was no concept of an archive, right?

And so, you know, that history plays into that, right?

When did we start actually caring about archives?

Maybe a little too late, right?

So those are complexities of the business too, where there wasn’t the funding, there wasn’t the interest in taking care of archives because the business wouldn’t take care of it.

That’s part of the equation as well.

Chris Lacinak: 56:55

From your perspective, what’s the bigger challenge, technology or finance or business?

Andrea Kalas: 57:02

I mean, I think no matter where you are, whether you’re in a studio or you’re in a not-for-profit archive, and I’ve worked in both, right?

You know, the phrase, “Everyone loves an archive until they have to pay for it,” applies, right?

So, you know, if you need the technology and you need to pay for the technology.

You need the vaults and you need to pay for the vaults.

You need the staff and you need to pay for the staff.

So figuring out how to make sure you’re making the best case for the archive is probably always the biggest challenge.

And when I talk to people in university classes, I say, “If you don’t like advocacy, you may want to pick another field.”

Right?

Because if you don’t feel like you’re, if you want to just sit somewhere and catalog something and everybody’s going to leave you alone, you know, that may be your perception of archiving.

But the reality is you constantly have to think, “Okay, let me, while I’m talking to this person, I’m going to collect this use case so that when I’m up against my finance person I can say, ‘This is why I’m doing this because this makes money or this helps our marketing or this does this.'”

You know, so you have to constantly be looking at, “All right, can we do it this way?

Can we do it this way?

Is this cheaper?

If we save some money here, can we spend it there?”

That always, always, always, that’s a big part of the archival project is making sure you’re speaking well about the importance of what you’re doing.

You know, I’m sure that my finance people are tired of hearing me saying, “Well, if we don’t have that asset, the revenue would be zero.”

Chris Lacinak: 58:51

Good argument.

Andrea Kalas: 58:52

I’m sure they’re sick of hearing me say that, right?

But that’s the, you know, no matter how you’re going to implement your archive strategy with technology or physical vaults or whatever it is, it’s about advocating for why you should do it.

Chris Lacinak: 59:09

That’s a perfect segue to the next question I have for you, which is kind of about the why.

You pointed out, you know, Paramount Pictures has an interest in preserving the Godfather because they want to monetize it 100 years from now too, right?

This is an asset that they want to continue to monetize, and that makes perfect sense.

But could you give us a fuller picture of the why?

Why is it important?

You know, and let’s just focus on the cinematic holdings of the organizations that are in the Digital Preservation Forum, as an example, and not that you speak on behalf of all of them.

But just in general, why is it important?

Other than the long-term monetization argument to preserve these holdings?

Andrea Kalas: 59:45

Look, I think anybody in any entertainment organization would recognize that there’s a cultural aspect to it too, that you do have within your holdings.

You know, I do think that movies are the greatest art form ever created.

You know, they have it all.

They have music, they have art, they have cinematography.

There’s, you know, I do think that there is an understanding that there’s a cultural responsibility even within a business, right?

That may be easier for a not-for-profit to talk about as part of their advocacy thing.

Within a business, that could be a little trickier, right?

Because they’re always just about the bottom line.

But I do think that there’s that part of it.

And I think that, you know, and one of the things I always sort of get called, you know, in on is historical aspects of the studio, right?

So that becomes relevant for marketing or for our corporate branding concepts or just generally talking about where Paramount Pictures comes from, where does it fit in the history of the entertainment industry?

You know, how these things happen.

And I think that part of it, and that’s something similar that you see across corporate archives generally, right?

Whether you work for Coca-Cola or Ford or, you know, there’s other, you know, big corporate archives that realize that that legacy of how they’ve built their business and the products or the things that they’ve created have enormous, you know, sort of relevance to their corporate brand and their corporate identity, but also are really interesting things to preserve among themselves, you know?

I remember seeing, you know, my colleague at Ford, you know, some of the incredible designs for cars that have been done by these amazing designers over the years.

And you know, fantastic.

Why would you throw that out?

It’s so important.

Yeah.

And I think people feel that way too within businesses to see that contribution that company made, that intervention in culture, that intervention in innovation is remembered.

So that’s another part of it.

Chris Lacinak: 62:02

Should we trust the entertainment industry to bear that burden or, you know, take that on to be the stewards of preserving these culturally important materials?

Andrea Kalas: 62:13

Yeah, no, I think it’s a good question.

You know, I think, you know, when I first started working at UCLA Film and TV Archive, you know, the studios were the baddies.

You know, they were the ones that let things not be taken care of.

I mean, UCLA Film and TV Archive was started because Paramount was getting rid of a lot of nitrate film because it was going to be illegal to keep it on the lot.

You know?

Chris Lacinak: 62:36

For those who don’t know, maybe we should tell people why that was.

You mentioned nitrate earlier.

Andrea Kalas: 62:41

k made, used very much before: 1950

Chris Lacinak: 63:02

That’s why it was not allowed on the lot.

Andrea Kalas: 63:05

It was a fire risk.

Right.

It was a fire risk.

So, and UCLA went and like literally picked up all the nitrate and took care of it.

So that’s how, you know, so that history of studios not caring is going to be with us forever.

Right.

I think, you know, we’ve definitely turned the tide on that and made it, you know, obviously there’s great restorations coming out of all the studios right now.

Every studio built has built vaults.

Every studio is now really engaged with digital preservation.

So I think there has definitely been a switch, major switch through those, from those days.

But you know, it’s a legacy that’s hard to beat.

Right.

It’s a legacy that is not proud.

As a result, you know, there’s a lot of silent films that are stored in the Santa Monica Bay, you know.

So that’s hard to get over.

Yeah.

And I think that’s the other reason for that.

Another sort of impetus of the Academy Digital Preservation Forum is let’s turn that on its head a little bit.

Chris Lacinak: 64:06

Yeah.

So the Academy clearly has taken on some responsibility by giving a home to the Digital Preservation Forum.

So is there a larger role for the Academy to play in the digital preservation or supporting or leading thought leadership of any sort?

Is the Forum the manifestation of that or is there something bigger, do you think?

Andrea Kalas: 64:27

I mean, the Academy is not a standards body, right?

So they’re not going to insist that the entertainment industry follow a particular model for digital preservation.

That’s just not their role.

They don’t see it as their role, you know.

And I can’t speak completely for the Academy, you know, I’m an Academy member that’s on the SciTech Council doing something I think is, you know, is important for film archives, right?

So and that’s great that the Academy lets its members do that, right?

They’re letting the members have a voice in some of the important issues of the day, whether it’s, you know, talking about diversity and inclusion.

Members are very important, you know, including that.

They’re giving them a voice that way.

Or whether it’s, you know, they had a big conference on AI and ML recently that crosses all the branches, giving them a voice.

So that’s what the Academy really does well, I think, is not insist on do it the Academy way, but say, we’ve got all these smart members.

They have a clue.

Let’s allow them to help by, you know, giving them that ability.

So that’s the role I think the Academy plays really well.

Chris Lacinak: 65:43

Who makes up the folks that are on the, I mean, the Forum itself, I think is open to, is it open to the public as far as who can engage on the Forum?

But there’s a working group or a group of contributors that are listed on the site under our team.

Who is the makeup of that group?

How did they, how did the group come to be formed?

And I guess just, I’m just trying to wonder, like, what are the skills, the expertise, the breadth of experience that is, that’s on the team there?

Andrea Kalas: 66:10

So mostly it’s what I talked about earlier, right?

When I decided that, you know, out of, so there’s a small working group that are SciTech Council members and others that are interested.

But you know, for that, that Curatorial Working Group I mentioned earlier, which are people from the different studios that are in roles similar to myself that meet regularly and talk about the issues of digital preservation and decide where we’re going and what things we want to tackle.

So that’s really what it is, is trying to collect up, you know, the people that are dealing, are on the front lines of this.

And have them be the people that are vetting ideas that would go to the Forum to what’s important to talk about, what should we do?

What video should we shoot next to put up there?

What’s critical about what we’re thinking about?

Chris Lacinak: 67:04

If you fast forwarded, you’re at a dinner with your colleagues on the Forum and you’re toasting to the successes of the Forum.

I guess, what’s your hopes, your dreams?

What have you accomplished at the point at which you say, yes, we’ve done it, you know, cheers.

What do you think the Forum can accomplish?

Andrea Kalas: 67:19

You know, I think, I still feel like we have a lot to do.

I feel like we’ve just started.

I feel like there’s, you know, there’s still a lot of, you know, I still, you know, I think people are still scratching their heads like, what is digital preservation?

I don’t get it.

You know, I don’t know if we’ve really answered this.

I feel like we still have loads of work to do.

I think there’s great stuff on the Forum for people to learn from, you know, but it’s complicated.

There’s not this one answer for digital preservation.

You just have to put this switch and you’re done.

Right.

And I think that’s, so a complex message is always a difficult one to get across.

Yeah.

Right.

And so, how we, you know, success for me would mean that digital asset management systems would have digital preservation baked into them no matter where they were.

They don’t right now.

Right.

That’d be great.

If you bought a digital asset management system off the shelf, you would always know you would have a protocol that would make sure your assets were preserved.

That would be success.

That would be one version of success for me.

Right.

Or that, you know, or everybody that’s ever making a moving image has a plan for how they’re going to make sure that those assets are replicated, that they are validated annually, that you can find them easily.

You know, that if everybody had a plan to do that, that would look like success.

I think we still have a long way to go.

Chris Lacinak: 68:44

Yeah.

And digital preservation, I think, is deceitful in the sense that it is so simple in many ways and so complicated in others.

Right.

I mean, the basics, the fundamentals on the technological side are pretty straightforward.

I think there’s some strong basic business arguments for why it makes sense.

You laid out many of those today.

There’s cultural reasons, but it does get really complex really quickly when you dive into the details.

So, yeah.

How important is it that the major players in, let’s say, the studios, the holders of cinematic collections, do essentially the same thing with regard to their outputs?

Obviously, they’re going to have different workflows.

There’s going to be different little nitty gritty details that are going to be different.

That doesn’t matter much.

But file format choices, maybe digitization technology.

How important is it that that’s similar or not?

Andrea Kalas: 69:42

I think the way that if people can do things in a more similar way, what’s helpful about that is it’s not as confusing.

For example, one of the things we’re working on right now is this concept of what’s called the picture preservation package.

Right?

So, at the end of a film, when you’re working with a post house, they output what would be called a digital intermediate.

Well, now there’s all sorts of different names for these different versions of digital intermediates.

NAMS, GAMS, consolidated archives, all these different kinds of things.

And so, both post production people who are finishing the film as well as the facilities where they’re being done, it’s like, “Oh, God.

Why can’t they decide on one thing?

There are all these different versions, and I have to make this for this studio and that for this studio and that.”

So, that’s confusing, and it could mean more mistakes are made or it’s not done well.

So, if there’s a similar process, I think that helps everybody.

Everybody can just point to it and go, “That’s what I want.

Please do that.”

And if we can also make that easy to be created by working with some of the software vendors that create the DIs, then it’s allowing people to make preservation assets a little easier and there’s more potential for them to be made.

So, I think that it’s not a standard.

It’s not insisting anything.

It’s just like, “Here’s something.

If we could all agree on this, make it up.”

Chris Lacinak: 71:19

You’ve just touched on something there that I think is interesting.

From my perspective, I work with lots of media and entertainment folks, but it’s not what I do all day, every day.

I work with a lot of different verticals.

So, what I see is that, I mean, you talked about vendors and that just made me think.

My observation has been that there is a closer collaboration between archives, digital assets, holders of content and digital assets and vendors in the media and entertainment world than there is other places.

I don’t know if you can comment on whether that’s true or not.

You’ve been in a variety of verticals too, but I guess I wonder, how do you see that relationship fostering the ultimate goal of digital preservation?

Chris Lacinak: 72:04

It’s like anything else within a business.

Sometimes you want to do it internally.

Sometimes you want to outsource it.

People outsource all sorts of different things.

Some people outsource their entire media supply chain to a company.

When they’re finished with it, they hand it over to somebody to make sure it gets out to all the different final clients that it needs to get out to.

Conform all the languages, they do all that work.

Other people don’t.

Other people do it in-house.

Certainly within feature film and television production, the post house is almost always an outside vendor.

They might have colorists that the director prefers.

It’s very important to maintain that relationship.

That integration between different vendors.

There’s certain things that it would be difficult for us to insource too.

People that do localization, they have linguists all over the world and things like that.

There’s some work that’s impossible for everybody to take in-house.

That’s constantly being looked at and revised.

Technology is a big part of that.

If you can do it simpler and there’s technology that makes things not as complicated as it used to be, it’s constantly going back and forth.

There’s also outsourcing of archives too.

People will have a vendor that will do digital preservation for them.

That’s another possibility.

Yeah, it’s part of the landscape generally, I would say.

Chris Lacinak: 73:57

They are an important stakeholder at the table in the conversation, it seems.

Andrea Kalas: 74:02

They are.

Yeah.

Chris Lacinak: 74:04

When I look at the list of folks that are on the Curatorial Working Group and you have folks listed as additional contributors, it seems like you’ve got …

We’ve touched on finance.

It seems like you’ve got people that are executives.

You’ve got people that are technology-centric.

I think it’s fair to say some vendors, I don’t know if that’s an accurate assessment or not, is that folks that are- 

Andrea Kalas: 74:23

Yeah, there’s not as many vendors as there could be.

That’s a discussion too.

It’s kind of tricky with the Academy because they don’t want to be shown as supporting one business over another.

That’s a tricky part.

If we had an event, which we’re talking about doing right now, and that would be definitely one topic that I would love to have is more people from post houses really having …

Because there’s really smart, great people with all sorts of great innovations going on all the time.

Yeah.

They’re part of the conversation, absolutely.

Chris Lacinak: 75:01

Switching a little bit, I guess I wonder, should people think about this being a US-centric thing or is this a global endeavor, the Forum that is?

Andrea Kalas: 75:10

I think because it’s the academy, it’s Los Angeles, because it’s traditionally tied to the studios, it’s definitely been US in its concept now.

Although we did have …

There are other members of the Academy that are now coming in.

On the group right now is somebody from India, somebody from the Netherlands.

That’s a bias, but it’s not exclusive.

Trying to get a wider perspective on it is absolutely essential.

Yeah, I would love to see …

That’s our biggest challenge right now is how do we get more involvement.

Right?

How do we …

We can’t invite everybody into a curatorial working group.

Right.

We want to focus them on the Forum, but how do we get people interested and engaged and active in that?

That’s what we set it up for, right?

So it could be wider.

It could be a broader group.

That’s partly why I’m doing this podcast, is to get the word out about it, because that’s why we want people.

We want everybody’s input.

We want to hear what we’re doing right, what we’re doing wrong.

What can we do better?

How can we …

What other issues are we not thinking about?

So we want that feedback.

Chris Lacinak: 76:32

Who should pay attention to the Forum?

It sounds like it’s not just folks with cinematic holdings, not just people in the US.

Who do you think that the content and the subject matter is relevant for?

Andrea Kalas: 76:44

I would love to see ultimately more people that own the purse strings for archives be much more aware of archives.

I would love to have the forum reach even up to that level.

That would be my ideal.

But I think, obviously, filmmakers, archivists are an obvious one.

We mentioned vendors like post-production houses.

I’d love to see them much more engaged with it.

Technologists, people who are building things, right?

It would be great if a cloud company came to us and said, “Hey, we’re thinking about how to do digital preservation in the cloud.

What do you think?”

That hasn’t happened yet.

I’d love to see that happen.

That’s where I think as broad a possible audience of stakeholders would be amazing.

Chris Lacinak: 77:40

Well it’s come to the time where I ask the final question that I ask all the guests on the DAM Right Podcast, which is, what’s the last song that you added to your favorites playlist?

Andrea Kalas: 77:54

Probably something from ’70s funk.

That’s really where I go all the time, or disco.

Chris Lacinak: 78:02

Give us one of your favorites.

We’ve got a podcast playlist that is assembles as all of these.

Just give us one of your favorites.

Andrea Kalas: 78:08

All right.

Let’s see.

Gloria Gaynor, “I Will Survive.”

Chris Lacinak: 78:14

All right.

Love it.

That’s a very suitable song.

Love that.

That should be the theme song.

Andrea Kalas: 78:19

In the realm of preservation, right?

Chris Lacinak: 78:21

I love that.

Well, Andrea, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us today.

It’s been fascinating.

I could talk for two more hours.

I want to just dive into just your career path.

That’s fascinating.

That’s so cool.

I love it that you joined me today.

I really appreciate all the insights and just everything you brought to the table.

Thank you.

Andrea Kalas: 78:42

It was a pleasure talking to you, Chris.

Thanks for your time.

Chris Lacinak: 78:44

Do you have feedback or requests for the DAM Right Podcast?

Hit me up and let me know at [email protected].

Looking for amazing and free resources to help you on your DAM journey?

Let the best DAM consultants in the business help you out.

Visit weareavp.com/free-resources.

Stay up to date with the latest and greatest from me and the DAM Right Podcast by following me on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/clacinak.

The Digital Transformation of Holocaust Testimony Archives

Preserving and accessing Holocaust testimonies is crucial in today’s world. As misinformation and historical revisionism continue to increase, archives play an even more essential role. Therefore, Yale’s Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies serves as a beacon, reshaping how we engage with survivors’ stories. This blog covers the archive’s evolution, challenges, and significance, highlighting the vital efforts made to safeguard these memories for future generations.

The Origins of the Fortunoff Video Archive

The Fortunoff Video Archive began in New Haven in 1979 as a grassroots initiative. Survivors and their families founded it to record and preserve Holocaust oral histories. This effort aimed to ensure that survivors’ voices would never be forgotten.

Initially, the archive operated as a nonprofit, using analog video equipment to record testimonies. Survivors often participated as both interviewers and interviewees, thereby creating an intimate setting. As the project gained support and funding, it eventually became affiliated with Yale University in 1981.

Transitioning to the Digital Age

Digital technology sparked a major transformation for the archive. Between 2010 and 2015, it transitioned from analog to digital formats, digitizing over 10,000 hours of testimony. This process required meticulous planning and skilled technicians to maintain the recordings’ original quality.

Notably, Frank Clifford, a dedicated video engineer, played a pivotal role in this transition. His expertise ensured that the digitization maintained the authenticity of the archive’s materials, allowing the archive to move seamlessly into the digital age.

Enhancing Accessibility Through Technology

Moreover, the Fortunoff Archive embraced technology to improve accessibility. The development of the Aviary platform marked a key milestone, enabling users to search and access testimonies online. This platform uses advanced indexing systems, which help users navigate the extensive collection efficiently.

In addition to video testimonies, the archive has also developed transcripts and indexes for research purposes. Although these indexes were originally handwritten, they have since been digitized, synchronizing with the video content and aiding researchers in locating specific topics within testimonies.

Ethical Considerations in Archival Practices

Importantly, the archive operates with strong ethical guidelines, always prioritizing survivors’ well-being. Each testimony includes a release form, giving survivors control over their narratives. This ethical focus extends to how access is managed, ensuring the archive remains sensitive to the subject matter.

Furthermore, over 200 affiliated institutions worldwide now offer access, enabling researchers to engage with testimonies while maintaining survivor confidentiality. This approach reflects the archive’s deep respect for the individuals whose stories are being preserved.

Engaging the Public: Outreach and Education

In addition to preservation, the Fortunoff Archive actively engages the public through various initiatives. For instance, the podcast “Those Who Were There” shares testimonies in an engaging audio format, making survivor stories more accessible to a broader audience.

The archive also offers educational programs, film series, and fellowships. As a result, these initiatives promote a deeper understanding of the Holocaust, encouraging empathy and awareness among future generations.

Challenges in the Digital Landscape

While the digital transformation has increased accessibility, it has also brought challenges. Misinformation and Holocaust denial, for example, threaten historical narratives. Consequently, as digital manipulation becomes more prevalent, verifying sources has become more important than ever.

The archive also faces challenges related to copyright and ownership, ensuring survivor rights are protected. Therefore, balancing accessibility with ethical responsibility remains a central concern.

The Future of Holocaust Testimony Archives

Looking ahead, the future of the Fortunoff Archive lies in collaboration and innovation. As technology continues to advance, integrating Holocaust testimony collections across platforms becomes possible. Consequently, efforts to create a centralized platform will enhance research and collaboration among institutions.

Furthermore, as fewer witnesses remain, preserving these testimonies becomes even more urgent. The Fortunoff Archive remains dedicated to ensuring survivors’ voices are heard in our collective memory.

Conclusion: The Importance of Remembering

In conclusion, the Fortunoff Video Archive’s work is vital in preserving survivors’ stories from one of history’s darkest times. By combining technology, ethical practices, and public engagement, the archive honors these memories. As we look ahead, it is our responsibility to carry these stories with us, ensuring the past’s lessons continue to guide our present and future actions.

Transcript

Chris Lacinak: 00:00

Hello, thanks so much for joining me on the DAM Right Podcast.

To set up our guest today, I want to first set the stage with two important items.

I founded AVP back in: 2006

Actually April 21st was our 18th year anniversary, so happy birthday to AVP.

Anyhow over the past 18 years, I’ve had the privilege of working across a number of verticals.

Anyone who has worked in a number of places within their career will know that one of the big and important parts of onboarding and becoming a productive part of a new company is learning and using the terminology.

Each organization has its unique terms and the distinct way that they use those terms.

So you’ll understand when I say that the thing that has differed the most in working across verticals has been the terminology.

Our corporate clients talk about DAM, our libraries and archives clients talk about digital preservation, our government clients talk about digital collection management, and so on.

In truth, there is a great deal of overlap in the skills and expertise necessary to effectively tackle any of these domains.

Of course, there is nuance that is important and distinct, which is mostly about understanding purpose, mission, context, and history.

This is akin to learning the terminology of a given workplace and coming to understand the things that make each workplace unique.

Like anywhere, the use of a terminology is a signal to people about which tribe you are part of.

Just as words have meaning, how you use those words has meaning.

For years, this reality has caused a great deal of consternation for us at AVP.

Why?

Because we have always worked with an array of customers, we have always had to make sure to be careful and precise in our use of terminology.

With an individual customer, this is easy.

With a website, this is very difficult.

On a website, you have to choose the terms that will resonate with your target audience and have them know that when they land on their page, they are with their people.

We didn’t want people who talk about DAM to see us talking about collection management and vice versa, thinking that they were not with their people.

But in wanting to avoid offending anyone, we failed to talk effectively to everyone.

In: 2021

Since then, I’ve been relieved to find that 1) we have offended very few of them, and 2) these verticals have also started to embrace the term digital asset management themselves.

Even more, these verticals have started to embrace technologies that use the DAM label.

And conversely, technologies that use the DAM label have started to represent the interests and needs of people who consider themselves to practice digital collection management and digital preservation.

I say all this as a backdrop because the focus of today’s episode is on an archive of video Holocaust testimonies.

It almost feels wrong to refer to these testimonies as “digital assets.”

But even though my guest does not use any technology that refers to itself as a DAM, the practices and skills that are used are digital asset management practices and skills.

A common refrain for digital assets is that they are not digital assets until you have the rights and the metadata to be able to find them, use them, and derive value from them.

Historically, in the distinctions that have existed between the use of the terms digital asset management and digital collection management, one of them is the definition of value.

In DAM conferences 20 years ago, if you talked about digital assets and value, you could be certain that 90% or more of the people in the room were thinking dollar signs.

And if you were at an archive conference and you talked about digital collection management and value, you could be certain that 90% or more of the people in the room were thinking of cultural and historical value.

And while I think this is becoming less true over time, it feels important to say that in this podcast episode, and in the podcast in general, when we talk about digital assets and their value, that we mean any and all of the above.

It is very true to say that a file without rights and metadata has no value of any sort financially, culturally, historically, or otherwise.

If you cannot find it, if you cannot use it, it has no value.

So in this episode, I want to ensure our listeners that there was a great deal of meaning and relevancy in calling these Holocaust testimonies digital assets.

They are truly assets that have a great deal of value in the most holistic and meaningful of ways.

Having said that, and with the Holocaust Remembrance Day coming up on May 6th, I am privileged to have the Director of Yale’s Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimony, Stephen Naron with me today.

Prior to becoming the Director, Stephen was an employee at the Fortunoff Archive where he worked extensively on this collection of materials and helped guide it into the digital age.

Since becoming the Director of the Fortunoff Archive, Stephen has been prolific and innovative in his work to make these testimonies available to the public and to proactively use the materials in the archive to create compelling experiences for people to discover and engage with these testimonies.

This has included collaborating on the development of a software platform, launching a podcast, releasing an album, running a fellowship program, and running both a speaker and a film series.

And that’s not even all of it.

I’m so thrilled to have Stephen Naron on the DAM Right Podcast with me today and to introduce him to the DAM Right audience.

Remember, DAM Right, because it’s too important to get wrong.

Stephen Naron, welcome to the DAM Right Podcast.

I’m super excited to have you today.

Very glad to be talking with you about all kinds of topics around DAM and this amazing collection and archive that you’re the Director of.

Thank you for joining me.

Stephen Naron: 05:40

Oh, it’s a pleasure to be here, Chris.

Thanks.

Chris Lacinak: 05:42

I wonder if we could start with you just giving us a background about your background, your history and kind of how you came to be where you are today.

Stephen Naron: 05:51

imonies, on and off now since: 2003

So it really was my first professional job as a librarian and archivist.

But obviously, I’ve always had a deep interest in Jewish history and Jewish culture and Jewish languages.

And I studied abroad, learned Hebrew and Yiddish and German.

And while I was in Germany as a graduate student, I was lucky enough to get a position in an archive at the Centrum Judaicum as a student worker.

And it was the [speaking in foreign language] and this is a sort of general archive for all of the Jewish communities in Germany.

And I worked with that collection for over a year as a student worker.

And that’s when I really was bitten with this sort of bug, this interest in archives in general.

And so that’s when I decided to sort of turn towards the field of archives and libraries.

And when I got my degree, I focused on archives in UT and Austin, which was a great program.

I learned a lot.

And then right out of library school, I found the position at the Fortunoff Video Archive.

And so it really was the first professional experience I had.

And I just loved working with this collection.

It’s a collection that’s exclusively audio visual testimonies of Holocaust survivors and witnesses of the Holocaust.

And yeah, so that’s a little bit about my academic background and how I became interested in working in particular with audio visual collections.

Chris Lacinak: 07:45

Wow.

So you’ve been at the archive for quite a while now.

When was that that you started there?

Stephen Naron: 07:51

In: 2003

And then I moved to Europe with my wife and we were in Sweden.

f years and then came back in: 2015 

Fortunoff Video Archive from: 1984

And so I had a wonderful opportunity to mentor, to have her as a mentor and learn really from the individuals who helped build the collection over the last 45 years.

Chris Lacinak: 08:46

And has the archive always been under the auspices of Yale University or did it start independent from Yale?

Stephen Naron: 08:53

Well, that’s one of the most interesting things about this collection is that it actually started in New Haven as a grassroots effort of volunteers and children of survivors, survivors, fellow travelers who formed a nonprofit organization in New Haven to record testimonies of Holocaust survivors and witnesses.

o it didn’t come, that was in: 1979

first tapings were in May of: 1979

And it really was very much an effort from the ground up.

Survivors were in the leadership of the organization, the nonprofit, president of the nonprofit was a man named William Rosenberg, who was a survivor from Częstochowa, Poland.

Survivors would hold meetings in their homes to organize the tapings.

They’d fund the rental of what was at the time quite expensive video equipment to do this professional broadcast, professional standard recordings.

And of course, survivors served as interviewers and as interviewees.

So they were on both sides of the camera.

And so that’s in the early days, ’79 starts.

survivors who was recorded in: 1979 

And Renee happened to be married to a professor at Yale, Geoffrey Hartman, who was a professor of comparative literature.

And so Geoffrey became involved in this sort of local project, community project, very early on.

And he, as an academic, knew how to write grants.

And so he wrote a number of successful grants to help increase the funding of the project.

And he was then really responsible for bringing the collection and giving it a permanent home at Yale.

o it was deposited at Yale in: 1981

And at that time, there were about 183 testimonies that had been recorded by the Video Archive’s predecessor organization.

This organization was called the Holocaust Survivors Film Project.

So this project then became the Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies.

And there were about 182 testimonies at the time, and it’s now grown to over 4,300 testimonies.

It’s 10,000, more than 10,000 hours of recorded material.

It was recorded in North America, South America, across Europe, in Israel, in over 20 different languages, in over a dozen different countries, with the help of what we call affiliated projects, which are independent projects that form a collaborative agreement with the Fortunoff Video Archive.

And so it has just grown exponentially.

And ever since ’82, we’ve been serving the research community.

They come to Yale, use the collection there, hundreds of researchers every year.

And then in about: 2016

And so these access sites are all over the world.

There are over 200 of them.

And usually institutions of higher learning or research institutes.

So the collection has been, not only has it, did it grow from a small grassroots effort into a sort of a global documentation project, but it’s now readily accessible all over the world.

Chris Lacinak: 12:49

You’ve hinted at several things that I just want to kind of put on the table so listeners understand, but the Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies is all video recordings.

Is that right?

Stephen Naron: 13:01

Yeah, right.

It’s exclusively video recordings.

And in fact, it was this HSFP, the Holocaust Survivors Film Project, was the first project of its kind to begin recording video interviews with survivors on any sort of extended basis.

So we really are the first sustained project of its kind.

And by sustained, I mean really sustained.

our most recent interview in: 2023

So we’re talking about over 40, almost 45 years of documentation.

And so that provides quite a unique longitudinal perspective of this whole genre of Holocaust testimony.

There’ve been lots of many, there’ve been many other projects that followed in our wake.

But most of them rise and fall fairly quickly.

This is a project that’s really withstood the sort of test of time.

rs, who were recording in the: 1980

So when we get a call from a survivor who wants to give testimony and who hasn’t given testimony before, we pull in some of the most experienced interviewers there are who have done this type of work.

Chris Lacinak: 14:29

You mentioned that these were originally recorded, many of them, you’re still recording them, so you’re not recording them on analog videotape today.

But originally they were recorded on what was considered broadcast quality analog videotape.

You talked about there being a digitization process of everything in your collection, I believe at some point along the way.

Could you just tell us about like, what are some of the other, I assume there’s transcripts and other aspects.

Can you tell us a little bit about just what does the collection look like and kind of what are some of the salient steps that you’ve taken to make it usable, preservable, accessible?

Stephen Naron: 15:07

There is a story there.

Because this archive has had such a long history, it’s gone through, and it’s from the very beginning been an archive that is, let’s say, I don’t want to say groundbreaking, but certainly forward thinking in its use of technology from the very beginning.

Just the embrace of broadcast video alone was sort of at the time a revolutionary step.

But beyond that, the Fortunoff Video Archive has always been sort of a step ahead, at least in the larger library system at Yale, in thinking about how to make the collection accessible, embracing digital tools, cataloging through Arlen and other sort of central online searchable databases.

We were one of the first collections on campus, if not the first collection on campus, to have its own website.

So we’ve always embraced technology, at least for the benefits that it can bring in terms of making this collection more accessible and more available to the research community.

But as far as what other content or what other layers of information that we’ve had to sort of transform from an analog to a digital world, yeah, we’ve had the videos themselves.

And that took over five years, where we had an incredible video engineer named Frank Clifford, who used to work at Yale Broadcast, who then came over to the Fortunoff Video Archive and by hand, using SAMMA Solos and a fleet of U-Matic and Betacam decks, digitized all 10,000+ hours of video in real time, day after day after day for years.

Sadly, he passed away.

But really, he did just an incredible work.

And as you know, as someone who’s worked hands-on with analog legacy video, he kept those machines running by all means necessary.

h shedding tape that was from: 1979 

And so, that’s just one step, right?

But then we have all these analog indexes that were handwritten, handwritten notes that describe the content of each interview that then became typed indexes.

And those indexes were in WordPerfect and various versions of Word and OpenOffice.

And so, we have this whole other effort of standardizing and migrating the indexes from one format to another.

We eventually moved everything into OHMS.

So now, all those indexes have been OHMSed, and we’ve connected, of course, the OHMS indexes with the video.

And so, that was a huge effort.

Chris Lacinak: 18:21

Let me stop you just for a second, because I think there’s probably many people that don’t know what indexes are, or at least how you define them, and OHMS.

So maybe let’s just drill down a little bit on that.

What’s an index?

What’s it look like?

How does it work?

And what is OHMS?

Stephen Naron: 18:36

Okay.

So, the indexes are a little idiosyncratic for us, right?

So, we call them indexes.

We used to call them finding aids, which is a lot more in tune with the kind of archival world.

But they weren’t really finding aids per se, either, although they did allow us to find things.

What they were are detailed notes in the first person in English, regardless of what the language of the testimony is.

So, first person notes written by students who had the native language of the testimony they were watching, and they’re very, very summarized.

So, they read kind of like transcripts, but they aren’t transcripts.

They’re not word for word.

The goal was to capture the most salient details of the testimony in as terse a form as possible.

And every five minutes, the student would put a time code from the video, a visible time code, so that researchers could then use these indexes or notes or finding aids to find specific speech events in the testimony.

This was long before you had SRT and WebVTT kind of transcripts, right?

You’d use this paper.

So, they’d get this paper indexed.

They’d take it with them.

They’d have the video, VHS use copy, sitting in manuscripts and archives in Sterling Memorial Library, and they’d be looking through the notes and trying to find the section of the testimony that was most relevant for their research.

And so, those notes exist, those indexes, those notes, those finding aids, they exist in a number of different forms.

And even more confounding, the notes, the indexes were created from the use copies, and the use copies had visible time code, and that visible time code did not refer, was not the same time code as the original master tapes, because the VHS use copies, of course, don’t start and stop at the same time as the master tapes.

So, there was this discrepancy between the time code on the notes and the time code on the master tapes, so we couldn’t use the indexes properly with the digital master videos.

So, that’s why we sort of came up, and there was no like programmatic way to just mathematically transform the index timing to the master tape timing.

So, that’s when we found OHMS, and we saw that OHMS was just a sort of ideal system where you could synchronize, and OHMS stands for Oral History Metadata Synchronizer, and you could use OHMS, it was a free tool, it is a free tool that you can use to synchronize text-based data, so indexes, finding aids, transcripts with the digital audio or video.

And so, we did that with the entire collection, which also took us years, but now we have all the indexes are searchable and full-text searches in Aviary, which allows researchers enormous amount of flexibility in terms of locating specific topics and events within a testimony or across all the testimonies.

Chris Lacinak: 21:40

And you created indexes which were not transcripts, was that because of the amount of time it took, was that because that’s what current best practice was?

Why did you take that route instead of transcripts at the time?

Stephen Naron: 21:53

That’s also a really good question.

Well, actually, there is a practical side, it simply was too time-consuming and expensive to create full transcripts, and this is a collection that really grew very slowly and has had limited resources its entire existence, so we had to be cautious about where we sort of put our resources.

And so, these indexes seemed like the quickest, most cost-effective way to gain intellectual access to the collection.

And the archivists used these indexes then to create catalog records, regular old MARC catalog records, almost like every testimony was cataloged, almost like a book.

And you could then search across those catalog records.

But beyond the practical side, there was also an ethical and I think intellectual reason not to go the path of transcripts.

One was that no transcript, no textual transcript can truly capture the richness of an audio-visual document.

You cannot capture gestures, you cannot capture tone, you cannot capture pauses that are very meaningful in a recording like a video testimony of a survivor, the look in the eyes.

I mean, these are things that cannot adequately be captured in a transcript.

And so, the thought was if you can’t make an accurate transcript, we have to really push the viewer to watch the recording.

And again, that’s also part of the ethos of the archive is that we want you to watch.

We want you to witness the witness, right?

We want you to be present, entirely present.

And if you provide transcripts to researchers, as we all know, the researchers will go straight to the transcripts and use the transcripts and might not even watch the video.

And that’s big, you know, some researchers are lazy like that.

But we felt that that was an ethically unsound use of video testimony.

And so, we really want to, we sort of pressure, let’s say, or coerce the researcher to watch the video and to watch the video in its entirety.

And I think that’s an obligation.

There’s an ethical obligation there that needs to be followed.

Chris Lacinak: 24:28

Yeah, that’s really interesting.

So, you didn’t want to mediate, it sounds like, you didn’t want there to be a mediation between the person that was watching or using these materials and the original testimony.

That’s super interesting.

It makes a lot of sense.

Stephen Naron: 24:40

Well, I mean, it also, it does make sense because, I mean, think about it.

If you read a transcript and it’s read by the, and it’s spoken by the survivor with an ironic tone of voice, how are you supposed to understand that there’s irony or sarcasm in a transcript?

You have to listen and watch in order to truly grasp what’s happening.

Otherwise, researchers will quite simply make mistakes.

They will misquote and misinterpret.

Chris Lacinak: 25:09

So I sidetracked you there.

You were kind of on a path talking about the various elements that you have in the archive.

You were talking about indexes and ohms when I stopped you.

And were there other things that you wanted to talk about there?

Stephen Naron: 25:22

Well, there are a couple of other things that are interesting and we’re still trying to figure out how to integrate them.

One is we conducted something called a pre-interview.

All of the testimony, so the process that we follow when we record testimonies is that there’s contact with the survivor several weeks or a week before the interview and the interviewers who are going to be at the session call, one of them at least, calls the witness and informs them about how it’s going to work, that it’s a very open-ended interview process, that they’re going to introduce themselves at the beginning and they’re going to tell us their, you know, start from their earliest childhood memories all the way up to the present, there aren’t set questions.

But they then also ask them a series of questions, mostly biographical questions.

Where were you born?

When were you born?

What did your parents do?

Did you have any siblings?

And so they gather all this information prior to the actual interview so that they can then go back to the library and do research about this person’s life.

So the town they’re from, learning about the town they’re from, learning about the camps and the ghettos that they might have been in, you know, really diving into this person’s life so that when they show up in the actual recording, the interviewers are already well informed about this person’s life.

They know the names of the siblings and the parents and what they did and they don’t have to ask these questions because they know it.

And then they can just serve as sort of guides or assist the witness as they really tell their life story in as open a manner as possible.

So those pre-interview forms are really interesting.

Also because the interview, once they get into the recording studio, there’s a lot of unknowns.

So sometimes the information that’s on the pre-interview doesn’t make it into the interview because the interview has a kind of life of its own.

But we need to find a way to make the data in those pre-interview forms more accessible to the researchers because there’s some interesting information there.

And then the other piece is we’re creating transcripts now.

So as I mentioned, those indexes, those finding aids, they’re always in English no matter what the original language is, which can be really frustrating for researchers who know these languages and then have to search in English, let’s say, to find information in a Slovak testimony or a Hebrew testimony or a Yiddish testimony.

So we’re now in the process of transcribing the entire collection in the original languages so that native speakers and researchers can search across testimonies in their language, which is in a way a compromise and a move away from what I said earlier about, you know, we want to, if we provide transcripts, then the risk is that people will just use the transcripts and not to watch the video.

But we felt this was a necessary step in this day and age to provide further intellectual access.

Chris Lacinak: 28:39

Well, it also seems that there’s been a major technological leap, whereas today I know the way that you provide access to transcripts is synchronized with the testimony.

So I mean, that’s a very different experience than maybe 15 years ago where someone would have just gotten that transcript and may have never watched the testimony, right?

That seems like that’s a very different experience and stays true to what you said about why it was important not to do that at the time.

Stephen Naron: 29:05

Yeah, absolutely.

And also think about, we’ve also been approaching transcription with another, you know, another motivation.

And that is that obviously people who are hearing impaired can’t take advantage of an audio visual testimony in the same way that a hearing person is.

So to be able to provide the transcript and subtitles for testimonies is also really valuable.

The other thing is even many of these testimonies can be extremely difficult to understand because of the survivors often are speaking in a language that isn’t their native tongue.

And so there’s a lot of heavily accented testimonies.

And so having transcripts and subtitles, transcripts as subtitles can be really valuable for everyone.

Chris Lacinak: 29:56

Speaking of the technological leap, some of the things you were talking about, right?

Writing indexes down on paper, pre-digitization was videotaped.

When did you do the digitization work again?

What year or years?

Stephen Naron: 30:07

So I would say: 2010 

And we still, you know, even when we launched Aviary, the vast majority of the digital, the digitization work had been done by the time we were able to launch Aviary and make the testimonies accessible at access sites.

Chris Lacinak: 30:28

Two points about that.

One is it sounds so archaic this day and age, right?

Writing indexes down on paper.

And I believe there’s probably many modern practitioners that think that that sounds absurd.

But two points, one, that wasn’t that long ago and that was not unstandard.

That was pretty typical of what you’d find in a lot of people that were managing collections, especially of analog materials.

Two, just as an insight into, you know, your one archive out of many archives in the world and just to think about how many people haven’t done what you’ve done, which is the digitization work, the transcription work, the, you know, you’ve, as you said, you’ve embraced technology and that’s not to put anybody down that hasn’t.

It’s just to kind of get a moment, a glimpse into how many things that are out in the world that were created not that long ago and for decades prior that still may be not accessible in some way.

Stephen Naron: 31:33

Yeah.

And I mean, also like if you think about a traditional, you know, many traditional oral history, oral history projects, they would often record on tape or video and then create the transcript and then hand the transcript to the interviewee who would then, you know, sign that this transcript is an accurate depiction of my statement, right?

And then they’d actually get rid of the original tapes because the transcript then becomes kind of the document.

So yeah, that’s, we’re very different.

We’ve approached this very differently than a lot of oral history projects.

And yeah, absolutely, we’re really lucky that this collection, as I said, it, you know, it’s still a very small in terms of human resources who work with this collection, but, you know, we’ve been lucky to have the longevity that we have and to have the support from Yale University Library that really allows us to focus just exclusively on this collection, right?

So from the beginning, there has been this laser focus on making this as intellectually accessible and usable and standard, right?

So we’ve used, you know, standard library and archival practice to make this collection accessible using, you know, terminologies and taxonomies like Library of Congress subject headings and things like that, that make it very easy to share our metadata with others to search across collections.

And so yeah, I think we’ve been very lucky to be a part of a research library from the very beginning, which helped us to go down that path of description and description upon description upon description.

Chris Lacinak: 33:22

Thanks for listening to the DAM Right podcast.

If you have ideas on topics you want to hear about, people you’d like to hear interviewed or events that you’d like to see covered, drop us a line at [email protected] and let us know.

We would love your feedback.

Speaking of feedback, please give us a rating on your platform of choice.

And while you’re at it, make sure that you don’t miss an episode by following or subscribing.

You can also stay up to date with me and the DAM Right podcast by following me on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/clacinak.

And finally, go and find some really amazing and free resources from the best DAM consultants in the business at weareavp.com/free-resources.

You’ll find things like our DAM Strategy Canvas, DAM Health Scorecard, and the Get Your DAM Budget slide deck template.

Each resource has a free accompanying guide to help you put it to use.

So go and get them now.

And I guess you also have the benefit, although the archive is large in absolute terms and relative terms, it’s fairly small.

So that gives you an advantage to be able to really dive deep and do a lot of great work around, you know, compared to an archive that might have hundreds of thousands of recordings or millions of recordings.

Stephen Naron: 34:35

Yes, for sure.

Chris Lacinak: 34:37

The Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies is not the only archive of Holocaust testimonies in the country or in the world.

And each of those have had to make decisions about where, when, how to give access.

And my understanding is that different decisions have been made about how to provide access to testimonies.

I wonder if you could just give us a sense of the, what’s the landscape?

You know, are there a few or are there dozens of archives of Holocaust testimonies?

And help us understand what some of the, and I’m not trying to, you know, I’m not trying to say that anybody’s right or wrong or anything like that, but just understand some of the considerations about that these archives have had to navigate in thinking about how to provide access to Holocaust testimonies.

Stephen Naron: 35:29

There are many, many collections all over the world.

after us, after we started in: 1979

And they do have indeed very different approaches to making the collections accessible.

, we have to remember that in: 1979 

sn’t really established until: 1993

And prior to that, there weren’t a lot of other organizations doing this work in the United States or in North America.

But the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is a national institution.

It’s a government-funded institution.

And so the materials that they create, the testimonies that they’ve created and collected over the years, they have been given a very broad, sort of broad permission to make those as accessible as possible.

And I think that’s in part because they see their mission as a sort of general, you know, educational effort, right?

The general public to educate the American people about the history of the Holocaust.

In order to do that best, they have to make their sources as accessible as possible.

That includes testimony.

So their testimonies, of which they have thousands, are all digitized and accessible in their collection search online.

So there really are no barriers at all to the average citizen researcher who wants to go in and watch as much unedited testimony as he or she desires.

So that’s a very open model.

And I think it has a lot of, there’s a lot of benefits to that.

I do sometimes wonder how much of the general public is really interested in watching an unedited 10-hour testimony of a Holocaust survivor, how much of that they really, how many really do that.

But for the average, for the research community, certainly it’s an enormous advantage.

There are other institutions that on a national level, like Yad Vashem in Israel, Yad Vashem has an enormous collection of testimonies, both that they’ve created themselves and that they’ve collected over the years.

Some of those, many of those are available online, but many, I would say the vast majority, are only available to researchers who are then on site.

So they have a slightly more restrictive approach.

But their aim has been to collect as much of the source material as possible, either in original form or as digital copies.

So they’re a little bit more restrictive in a sense.

And then you have another major collection, the USC Shoah Foundation, which was started by Steven Spielberg after the release of Schindler’s List in ’94.

And he and his organization, the organization that grew out of this initial impulse, collected something like 50,000 testimonies of survivors, but in a very short period of time, so I think about less than 10 years.

And they’re now at USC, but they weren’t at USC originally.

They were on the Universal Studios backlot, I think.

And so they had a very different approach to this work, almost outside of the traditional world of academia and libraries.

And for a long time, their collection was only accessible through, and it still is for the most part, only accessible through subscription, a subscription model.

And so they became, they have this enormous, incredible collection, but it’s only accessible to at universities and research centers that have the resources to pay for that subscription fee.

And so that’s another model that is a little bit more restrictive.

At the same time, they have free tools for high schools and for educational use, something called Eyewitness that has something like 3,000 unedited testimonies that are openly available.

So, they still provide thousands of complete unedited testimonies, but the vast majority of the collection is behind a paywall.

And then you see the other Fortunoff Video Archive, which has digitized its entire collection now.

But for decades, its collection was only accessible at Sterling Memorial Library in the Manuscripts and Archives Department in the reading room at Yale University.

So you’d have to make the pilgrimage to New Haven to work with this material.

And so that’s also in a sense, very restrictive.

Not everyone can afford, not all researchers can afford to make the trip to New Haven to do that type of work.

But there’s no costs involved with using the collection.

So in a sense, it’s open to everyone.

And that’s how it worked at Yale.

And so that was a bit restrictive.

But now we’ve also opened up now, now that the collection is digital, and making it available at these access sites, I already said more than 200 of them, but still, it’s not like we’ve thrown it all up online like US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

It’s still kind of like a closed fist that’s kind of slowly opening, right?

And it’s only accessible at these access sites.

It’s free, so the access sites don’t have to pay a subscription fee, but they still have to sign a memorandum of agreement with us.

It’s only accessible on IP ranges that are associated with those institutions, so at various universities and research centers.

So there’s still a certain amount of restriction on who can see it when and where.

And we just have a very different model.

And that model of how to use a collection like this comes from, I think, the fact that we were started by survivors themselves and children of survivors.

This organization from the very beginning was very concerned about the well-being of the survivors before, during, and after the interview has been given.

All of the witnesses sign release forms, and in these release forms, it clearly states that Yale University owns copyright to the recording.

We can do, theoretically, legally, whatever we’d like, but that doesn’t mean we should.

And there was always a sense that the survivors, although they quite clearly wanted to share their story with us and in a very public manner by giving testimony, they still deserve some modicum of privacy and anonymity.

And so we’ve been fairly restrictive in terms of not making it widely accessible online.

etera, but could survivors in: 1981 

That’s what the internet is.

And that feels like a step too far without any kind of mediation for us.

Chris Lacinak: 43:53

You also talked about 200 access sites.

Could you tell us what are those?

Who are they?

How do they work?

What does that look like?

Stephen Naron: 44:01

Yeah.

I mean, I did want to say actually something else about some of the ways in which we, the collective places certain restrictions on access that might seem a little strange or idiosyncratic.

Another example that I forgot to mention was, yeah, so things are slightly locked down in a sense they’re only available at access site.

But another thing that’s really unusual about this collection is we also truncate the last names of the survivors.

So if you were to search the metadata, if you were to go to Aviary and search, you would see very quickly that the testimonies are, the titles of the testimonies are, you know, Stephen N.

Holocaust Testimony, Chris L.

Holocaust Testimony.

The last names are hidden from view.

And obviously once you’re at an access site and you’re watching the testimony and the person introduces themselves, you hear their name, you hear their last name.

And in the transcript, if they say their last name, it’s transcribed there, but you don’t see the transcript unless you’re at an access site either.

And the reason behind this was in the early days, one of the survivors full name appeared in a documentary film that was screened on television.

And the survivor received threatening phone calls after the film was screened.

And after that, they decided that this was a risk that they were unwilling to take and push to truncate the last names in order to protect the survivor’s anonymity.

Of course, if you do research, it’s not foolproof.

If you make the effort to come and do the research, you can find out all this information, personal information.

But the idea was to provide some basic hurdle that would provide some protection.

And as you can imagine, that’s served its purpose well, but it also complicates the research process for the research community.

If you’re a researcher and you’re looking for a very specific person who you know gave testimony, it’s much harder to locate them.

Can’t just search for their last name and find them.

So that’s an example of things that might seem sort of counterintuitive.

We did this, though, to protect the survivors.

And what we saw was our first ethical obligation.

And then we have the obligation to the research community, which comes second.

And that’s also a little bit unusual for an organization such as ours.

But you had a question about beyond this sort of access, what the access sites were or how they worked.

So the access sites are mostly universities and research institutions.

So Holocaust museums all over the world, South America, North America, Israel, Europe.

We even have an open access site in Japan.

And the access sites sign a memorandum of agreement that clearly states what they will and what they can and cannot do with the collection.

They provide us with their IP ranges.

So we restrict the collection to an IP whitelist of all of the IP ranges at these institutions.

So you either have to be on campus to watch the testimonies or you have to use a VPN that you only students and faculty will have.

Everyone has to register in Aviary, our access and discovery system.

And that was one of the, when we helped develop this Aviary, that was one of our major requirements was that we would have some ability to control who sees what, when, where, and how.

And so we force everyone to register in our collection and ask for permission to view testimonies before they’re given sort of free access to everything.

And so it’s a very protective model.

In some ways it seems to, I would guess, be in tension with the way a lot of other libraries and archives work where you want to have the anonymity of the user is just as important as the materials that they’re using.

But because we have this, such sensitive materials in this collection, we felt we needed some extra level of control and protection.

Chris Lacinak: 48:41

Relative to what you described earlier, folks had to come to New Haven.

I mean, it’s hugely opened things up.

That’s been a major transformation in that regard, it sounds like.

Among the users, you have proactively been a big user.

You’ve been extraordinarily prolific.

I mean, you’ve talked about not just in the creation of co-creating of Aviary, but you’ve also created a podcast, I believe, from the collections.

You’ve done an album, which you pressed on vinyl, which was not from the testimonies, but was related to the testimonies.

You have these fellowship programs, you do speaker series, you do film series, you do all sorts of stuff.

Can you talk a little bit about, maybe, you know, there’s a lot to talk about there.

You don’t have to go through each one, but maybe tell us about the podcast and the album that you did.

I’d love to hear a little bit more about that, or if there’s any other of those that you’d really like to highlight.

Stephen Naron: 49:35

In interest in various historical topics, there’s always a kind of ebb and flow, right?

And so, I think, to a certain extent, there can be a sort of complacency about, well, this is an amazing collection, without a doubt.

Researchers will come to us.

But I think that times have changed, and that the research community now expects you to sort of come to them.

And that’s a real fundamental shift in the way we think.

And yeah, as you mentioned, we have the fellowship program.

We have a film grant project where we provide a grant to a filmmaker in residence who then creates a short edited program based on testimonies from the collection.

We have a lot of events and conferences that we support that are designed to sort of lift up the collection in both the public eye, but also among the research community.

We’ve done our own productions based on the testimony.

So the podcast series is already in its third season.

We’re planning to do a fourth season.

And this podcast series is really just, again, like I said, we’ve always sort of embraced new methods and new technologies.

And this really just seemed like the ideal way to bring audiovisual material to a new listenership, to the non-research listenership.

I’m obviously a big fan of podcasts, and I’ve been listening to a number of podcasts that were based on oral history collections.

And there’s one in particular that I stumbled upon called Making Gay History, which is based on the oral histories that Eric Marcus recorded with leading figures in the LGBTQ community.

And I don’t know a lot about this topic.

This is not an area that I know a lot about.

And I found it one of the most compelling podcasts I’ve ever heard based on these archival recordings.

And I said, “Okay, well, we should do something like this.”

And so I asked Eric Marcus if he’d be willing to help produce a series for us.

And he also just happens to be a nice Jewish boy from New York.

And so he agreed and found a team to support him, another co-producer, Nahanni Rous.

And they’ve been producing edited versions of the testimonies in podcast form now for three seasons with quite a bit of success.

You know, over 100,000 downloads and streams on Spotify.

And so these are listeners that would probably never stumble into Aviary at an access site and use the collection that way.

They might find some of our edited programs on our website or on YouTube, but this is just another way to push these voices out into the public.

Chris Lacinak: 52:59

And that podcast for listeners is “Those Who Were There” is the name of that podcast, right?

Stephen Naron: 53:03

Yeah, “Those Who Were There.”

The latest…

And if you go to our website or Google “Those Who Were There,” you’ll find it.

You can listen to it on the website as well as on all your podcast apps.

But the website has a lot of other additional information, including episode notes for each episode that are written by a renowned scholar, Professor Sam Kassow, who provides additional context about each episode, which is really valuable, and further readings.

This that we’ve gotten from the family’s scanned images from family archives.

So it’s a really…

I think it’s, you know, on the one hand, it’s a little strange because you’re taking a video testimony and removing the video and making it into audio in order to do this.

So it feels like you’re losing something, obviously, in this transformation.

But you also gain something because as you know, if you listen to podcasts, you know, when it’s just you and a pair of headphones and you’re walking down the street listening to a podcast, you just sort of disappear into your head and it’s very intimate as well.

So I think it’s appropriate, although there is something lost and something gained.

And then you said the songs project.

So that’s called “Songs from Testimonies.”

It’s also available on our website.

And that’s really a…

It really started as a kind of traditional research project.

So one of our fellows, Sarah Garibova, discovered some really unusual songs that were sung in a testimony that we’d never heard before when she was creating her critical edition.

And we found the song so compelling that we asked a local ethnomusicologist in New York and a musician himself to come and perform the songs at a conference as a sort of act of commemoration.

And we were just blown away by the results and thought that we need to do more of this.

And so it became both an ethnomusicological research project, but also a performative project.

So Zisl Slepovitch is our musician in residence, and he’s moved through the collection, locating testimonies with song, sometimes fragmentary songs that were interwar songs, religious songs, songs that were written in ghettos and camps that may be very well-known, but may also be completely unknown.

And he’s done the research, and then he’s performed these songs.

He’s created his own notation or his own composition for each of the songs and performed them.

And we’ve recorded them with an ensemble, and they’re now available for listening.

And there’s been concerts.

We’ve performed the songs several times in concert with the context, showing excerpts from the testimonies.

Where does the song come from?

Explaining how the song emerges and the meaning of the lyrics.

And yeah, so it’s a research project.

It’s a performance project.

It’s a commemorative project.

It’s also a really valuable learning tool.

It’s a way for the general public to enter into a difficult topic and learn a lot about testimony.

So it’s been a pretty rewarding project.

Chris Lacinak: 56:30

Such a beautiful story.

I love that.

And I also know that you pressed it on vinyl as well, didn’t you?

Stephen Naron: 56:39

Yeah, well, because I’m a music nerd.

So this was…

Well, and I mean, also, I’m an archivist, and vinyl lasts a really long time.

So my thought was that if we press it on vinyl, it will last longer if we do it on CD.

We also do it on CD, and it’s available in all the streaming services as well.

But it is a work of art.

We had a local letterpress artist, Jeff Mueller, who runs Dexterity Press.

He printed each of the sleeves by hand.

And they were designed by this incredible Belarusian artist, Yulia Ruditskaya.

And she did all the design work.

She actually created an animated film around one of the songs as well.

There’s more information.

She was one of our Vlock fellows.

It’s on our website as well, the Filmmaker in Residence Fellowship.

So yeah, it’s a really interesting project.

And I’ve learned a lot about the value of music as a historical source through this effort.

But also the music itself is just quite beautiful.

These are world-class musicians performing these pieces.

It’s really something to listen to.

Chris Lacinak: 58:01

So I’d like to circle back to the discussion around the other Holocaust testimony archives and collections that exist out in the world.

To someone that’s an outsider to the nitty-gritty details of all that, and you gave us some good insights into what some of the variances and variables are there.

But it would seem that as a naive user who is interested in researching Holocaust testimonies, that I might be able to go to a single place and search across all of these various collections, or at least a number of them.

Does that exist?

Is that in the works?

Is there discussions amongst the various entities that hold and manage collections?

Stephen Naron: 58:48

Well, what I would say to that naive researcher is, there absolutely should be something like that.

And it is a shanda that there isn’t.

And yeah, there are discussions about how to make that possible.

And there have been some small attempts.

But at this point, I think my description as well of the different organizations and their different sort of policies around access also point to the underlying problem here, which is that all of these organizations are unique individual organizations with policies and procedures and politics that can prevent them from playing nicely with one another.

And I certainly include the Fortunoff Video Archive.

We’re not any– I’m not excluding us from this, right?

So it’s not about the technology.

The technology is very much there to make it possible for a sort of single search across testimony collections that would reveal results for the research community.

And I think it absolutely has to be the next step.

And not just for the research community, but for the families.

One of the most infuriating things, I think, for children and grandchildren of survivors is they don’t know where their grandparents’ testimony is.

Which archive is it in?

They have no simple way to find it.

And that seems to me to be a major disservice to the families of the survivors who, at great emotional risk, gave us their testimony.

So we really need to find a way to do that.

And we need to work together across organizations to make that happen.

US Holocaust Memorial Museum has also made some really important inroads in this regard.

They have something called Collection Search, where they’ve added metadata from the USC Shoah Foundation, their metadata, and the Fortunoff Video Archives metadata, since they have access to our collection on site at USHMM, into their collection search.

So that’s the first search engine I’ve seen where you can actually search across USHMM, USC, and Fortunoff and find testimonies that are related.

And we’re also doing it in Aviary to a certain extent.

So in Aviary, we’ve got a couple of different organizations with testimonies that have joined together to create what’s called in Aviary a Flock.

And so it’s a way to search across.

It’s like a portal that can search across different collections in Aviary.

ings of survivors recorded in: 1946

And a number of other organizations that have audio and video testimonies in Aviary, and you can search across those as a collective.

And so there are plenty of examples of this working.

We’ve also got a, we formed a digital humanities project that brought together transcripts over a three, I think 3,000 testimony transcripts of survivor testimony from Fortunoff, USHMM, and USC Shoah Foundation, and a project called Let Them Speak.

And you can search across the transcripts of all those collections.

And that’s pretty, that’s also a step, again, another example of what would be possible.

Imagine a world in which everybody just finally shared their testimonies.

So we have a lot of examples of how this works and the benefits of it, but we don’t have like a, we don’t have, it’s almost like we need an umbrella organization that would pull all of these disparate groups together and make them agree on how to share metadata in a way that everyone can have access to it.

Chris Lacinak: 62:51

Right.

Stephen Naron: 62:52

We’re not there yet.

Chris Lacinak: 62:53

Yeah.

Okay.

So some glimmers of hope, but not quite there yet.

Stephen Naron: 62:56

Yeah.

Chris Lacinak: 62:57

Switching gears, I want to ask a question.

I recently had Bert Lyons on the show and we talked about content authenticity.

And I guess I wonder, I mean, this is an issue for every archive, but given the focused efforts around Holocaust denial and things like that, I wonder how you’re thinking about the prospect of fakes and forgeries in the age of AI when, you know, it’s not a new issue.

Fakes and forgeries have been issues for archives for as long as archives have been around, but just the ability and capability of people to create content now to support false narratives and cause issues for archives like yourself.

I wonder, is that something that’s getting talked about within Holocaust testimony circles or is that still on the horizon?

Stephen Naron: 63:54

As technology improves or changes and is more sophisticated and these AI tools become more sophisticated, yes, certainly that’s a new risk, but there are also new technologies and tools to identify things that are fake.

So the technology brings with it new types of artifacts and ways to see whether or not this is testing the authenticity of a digital object.

I’m sure that’s way beyond my, I can’t really talk about that because that’s beyond my field of expertise.

But in my area, I mean, really the more dangerous thing instead of like outright denial, which has always existed but is really limited to the margins, is something that you’ve seen more and more of, which is not outright denial, but a kind of half-truth or willful manipulation of the facts to sort of, it’s like denial light.

It’s bad history being sort of marketed as authentic history in order to pursue a particular ideological or political end, right?

So you see this a lot in, not to pick on anyone in particular, but in certain regimes in Europe that have been considered more, have taken a sort of more populist, authoritarian turn, there have been quite obvious attempts to replace traditional independent scholarship with scholars who are being sort of controlled, funded, supported by the state and the government in a way and sort of asked to willfully, willingly misrepresent the truth, right?

So they still cite historical sources, but they cite them in a way that would not be sort of attempted objective historical writing, right?

In order to tell a story that is inaccurate, let’s say that Polish citizens were not complicit in the Holocaust and every Polish village was filled with individuals who were willing to hide and save Jews from extinction.

These types of sort of exaggerations and misrepresentations of sources, that’s becoming a much greater threat than outright denial.

Also because it’s difficult, because the way it’s shaped, it looks like scholarship, looks like research, it’s presented from official organizations that just happen to be corrupted.

And so that becomes much more of a difficult thing to push back on, but you can and scholars do that and that’s exactly what good scholars do is they push back on this stuff.

But yeah, the AI, considering this is an audiovisual collection exclusively at the Fortunoffe archive, it seems pretty frightening what would be possible.

Chris Lacinak: 67:45

Right.

Well, first point well taken.

I mean, it sounds like let’s not focus too much on the nitty gritty of AI at the sacrifice of recognizing the larger issues, which are much broader than that.

So I really hear what you say there and appreciate those comments.

Here’s one of the things I think about, I mean, the kind of quick scenario you threw out was like someone creates something fake and their tools to identify things as fake.

And that’s true.

I think what’s almost more worrisome for me, and I think that every archive will need to kind of arm themselves with, and there are technologies to do this, at least if not today, then on the near horizon, but is to be able to combat claims of things that are authentic, that are held within an archive, which people claim are fake, and they have to prove that they’re authentic.

Right?

Like that is when people start to cast doubt about authentic things being fake, that’s almost more worrisome to me than someone creating something fake and having to prove that it’s fake or saying that it’s authentic.

Stephen Naron: 68:58

Yeah, absolutely.

And that sort of reminds me of the same kind of bad history that I was trying to describe, like these sort of willful manipulation of the sources that exist and claiming they’re either inauthentic or sort of misrepresenting, misquoting them or quoting them selectively in order to make an argument that’s unsound.

I mean, that’s absolutely true.

That seems like a tactic that could be used.

I mean, at the Fortunoff Video Archive, we can at least point to a chain of, you know, a provenance chain that takes us all the way back to the original master recordings, which are still in cold storage at, you know, in New Haven, right?

So actually I think they’re in Hamden at our storage facility there.

Chris Lacinak: 69:55

For those New Haven geography buffs.

Stephen Naron: 69:59

Yeah, I didn’t want anyone to, it’s not fair.

It’s in Hamden.

But yeah, so I mean, we have a chain that we can then show the sort of authentic steps that were taken.

And even in the digitization process, there was great care given to the sort of SAMMA systems document the whole digitization process.

And so what’s happening as the signal sort of changes over time.

And so you also have a pretty, you have like a record of the actual transfer and can show if there’s been interruptions or not, lack of interruptions and things like that.

So that’s a pretty detailed level of authenticity control.

Chris Lacinak: 70:43

So Stephen, one of the things that I want to do with this podcast is to back up out of the weeds and reflect on why the work that we do is important to remind ourselves to rejuvenate on purpose and meaning of this work.

And with that in mind, I wonder if you could reflect on the importance and the why behind the Fortunoff Video Archives work.

Why is it important?

Stephen Naron: 71:10

Well I think that it’s important for a couple of reasons.

I’ll just give you three.

Well first of all, the Holocaust is quite possibly the greatest crime committed in the 20th century and one of the greatest crimes in history.

And as such, the brutality of the Holocaust has really impacted our society on so many levels.

So from a kind of universal perspective, we’re still very much living in a world that was shaped by the impact of the Holocaust and the Second World War.

Our belief in these ideas of universal human rights, etc., and of course our inability to always adequately support the regime of human rights internationally, this is directly related to the events of the Holocaust.

And so if you really want to understand the world in which we’re living today, you cannot do so without approaching the history of the Holocaust.

And the history of the Holocaust needs to be approached by every generation in a new way.

And having an archive such as this is one of the best ways, working and engaging with an archive such as this is really one of the best ways to approach this topic.

It’s also important, and the work we do is important, because I think the archive is something of a living memorial to those who did not survive, right?

So the survivors themselves are really the anomalies.

They’re the lucky ones.

And the vast majority of European Jewry was murdered, 6 million men, women, and children.

And so I really see this archive as a sort of living memorial to both the survivors and those who did not survive, their families who did not make it.

And so the archive can serve as a bridge between the living, us, and the dead.

And in fact, as time progresses, and we’re beginning to reach an era where there will no longer be any living witnesses of the Holocaust, due to just simply demographic change, the archives, and archives like this one of testimonies of Holocaust survivors will only become that much more important.

It will be the only way in which we can really engage with personal stories of the witnesses.

Only diaries and memoirs and testimonies like this can give us access to what it felt like to be there in the war, in the camps, in the ghettos, and to have survived.

And then I think the work we do is important as, first of all, as an act of solidarity with the survivors and witnesses themselves.

And as an act of solidarity, it really has served as a model for what I would call an ethical and empathic approach to documenting the history of mass violence from the perspective of those who were there, the witnesses, right?

So a bottom-up perspective.

And it has served as a model, and it continues to serve as a model for lots of organizations who do the type of important work of documenting human rights and civil rights abuses.

So yeah, so those are just three ways I think that the collection really is a, continues to have an impact and is really an important organization.

Chris Lacinak: 75:04

Steven, thanks so much for joining me today.

It’s been extraordinarily enlightening.

I want to thank you for your work that you do, and it’s just been an amazing, it’s been amazing to hear about the journey of this incredible collection and archive.

So thank you for sharing with us today.

In closing, I want to ask you a question that I ask all of my guests on the DAM Right podcast, which is totally separate from anything we’ve talked about so far today, which is, what’s the last song you added to your favorites playlist or liked?

Stephen Naron: 75:39

The last song I added to my playlist.

Well, I guess I have to stay true to the archives and maybe not be entirely honest and say that one of the last songs I put on my playlist was from the volume three of our Songs from Testimonies project, which is called “Shotns or Shadows.”

And it would be the title track, “Shotns,” which is a Yiddish song.

That’s in my playlist.

And I hope you all listen to it too.

Chris Lacinak: 76:17

Okay, we’ll share the links to that in the show notes.

Can you tell us what the actual last song you put in your playlist was?

Stephen Naron: 76:24

It’s actually, you know, usually it’s whole albums.

I put whole albums in my playlist.

Is a Greek avant-garde musician named Savina Yannatou, who I stumbled upon.

Yeah, the song is called something in Greek, which I will not mispronounce for your audience.

Chris Lacinak: 76:48

I’ll get the link from you so we can share it with everybody.

Wonderful.

All right, well, Stephen, thank you so much.

You’ve been extremely generous with your time and all your insights.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate you taking the time.

Stephen Naron: 76:59

No problem.

Thank you, Chris.

Chris Lacinak: 77:00

Thanks for listening to the DAM Right podcast.

If you have ideas on topics you want to hear about, people you’d like to hear interviewed, or events that you’d like to see covered, drop us a line at [email protected] and let us know.

We would love your feedback.

Speaking of feedback, please give us a rating on your platform of choice.

And while you’re at it, make sure that you don’t miss an episode by following or subscribing.

You can also stay up to date with me and the DAM Right podcast by following me on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/clacinak.

And finally, go and find some really amazing and free resources from the best DAM consultants in the business at weareavp.com/free-resources.

You’ll find things like our DAM Strategy Canvas, DAM Health Scorecard, and the Get Your DAM Budget slide deck template.

Each resource has a free accompanying guide to help you put it to use.

So go and get them now.

DAM system struggles? Don’t rush to blame the platform.

No one could find anything. People were squirreling away photos and graphics on their personal Dropbox. Videos were on dozens of hard drives. People were misusing assets, violating license terms and brand guidelines. It was time to invest in a DAM system.

You tackled the tough implementation tasks, migrated assets, tagged them, configured the system with your DAM vendor’s help, and trained the users.

(Congratulations for getting this far, I know that was a lot of work).

Despite these effots, people still can’t find anything. They are still squirreling away graphics and video. They are still misusing assets.

Some people are blaming the DAM tool. But don’t give up on your technology investment just yet.

Here are 5 reasons why you aren’t getting the most from your DAM solution, and what to do about them.

1. People can’t find anything.

If users are having trouble finding assets in the DAM system (and coming to you to help them find stuff they should be able to get on their own), this may point to an underlying information architecture and/or metadata problem.

Consider the different ways people navigate a digital asset management system: keyword search, filters, curated collections, folder hierarchy. Examine each.

Start by talking to your users about how they search and browse (check out our 3-part series on designing a great search experience to learn more). Ask for real-life examples.

Next, take a look at the underlying data structures that enable search and discovery. Are there issues with metadata quality? Do people want to see different filters than the ones available? Are the curated collections meaningful and relevant? Does the folder structure make sense to them? Are you managing versions correctly?

Find what’s not working and prioritize improvements. Minor adjustments can sometimes significantly enhance users’ ability to find what they need.

2. People are misusing assets.

If people persistently misuse brand assets or licensed images despite your DAM system’s permissions being configured, consider these possibilities:

• Test the system permissions – are people able to access and download things they shouldn’t? If they can, update the user groups and/or system permissions.

• Clarify asset usage rights within the metadata if not already doing so. Lack of clear information may lead users to incorrect assumptions about permissible actions with the content.

• Are all assets stored in the DAM? It may be that people are getting access to content from file sharing tools (that could be outdated and/or lack metadata about usage rights). Sometimes enforcing compliance requires leadership intervention, including support with policies and/or sunsetting legacy systems.

3. People complain the DAM system is not easy to use.

DAM admins have likely configured the system as a great tool for themselves, but not for end users.

Look more closely at users’ needs and available system capabilities.

If the system was implemented without engaging users early in the process to understand their needs, configured to meet those needs, and/or it was not tested with users prior to launch, there may have been some missed opportunities. 

It’s not too late to engage with your users to understand their complete workflows, identify their ideal processes, and see how the DAM can integrate into these.

At minimum, you can hopefully modify permissions and layouts to create a more streamlined user experience. It may be possible using the features of your digital asset management system to create tailored storefronts or portals for different user groups that greatly simplify their experience and only provide them the assets they need. 

Addressing these findings might start with simple configuration adjustments, then proceed to leveraging existing out of the box integrations, then move to consideration of custom integrations.

4. The DAM system is a mess.

If your DAM has become a repository for indiscriminate file dumping, it’s time to establish governance. 

Allowing digital asset creators to upload content without adherence to standards or quality checks can quickly lead to disorder. Each contributor ends up with their own little silo within the system, organizing, labeling, and describing things differently.

Start by collaborating with key stakeholders to define clear DAM roles and responsibilities. Designate a product owner to establish asset organization and description guidelines. Educate contributors on DAM best practices, highlighting the benefits to their work.

Enforce quality control through guidelines for metadata entry and use of controlled vocabularies, complemented by automated and manual reviews.

5. No one uses it.

If you build a DAM, will they come?

Not necessarily.

It’s often too easy for people to stick with old habits, even after the new system has been launched. If you have checked all of the items listed above and the new system is still not getting traction, look closely at how you are managing the transformation.

Successful adoption hinges on change management, requiring both top-down communication from leadership and bottom-up user enablement.

It is critical that leadership communicates the purpose behind the DAM system—what problem it solves, what benefits it will bring to the organization.

But understanding the broader impact isn’t enough. You need to bring users into the conversation so they can understand not just the benefits to the company, but to them personally. They will need to clearly understand the process changes asked of them and the reasons behind these changes. And they will require support as they adjust to new practices.

Still stuck?

It may be time to elevate your DAM solution. At AVP we offer a rapid diagnostic service to pinpoint actionable interventions for DAM success.

Or maybe it really is time to evaluate whether you need a new DAM system.

Either way, we can help. Schedule a call.

Crafting a Winning DAM Strategy

In today’s digital landscape, managing digital assets effectively is crucial for organizations of all sizes. A well-defined Digital Asset Management (DAM) strategy not only ensures that assets are organized and accessible but also aligns with broader organizational goals. This blog will explore the essence of DAM strategy, its components, and how to create a winning strategy that maximizes the value of your digital assets.

Understanding DAM Strategy

DAM strategy is often misunderstood. It is more than just a collection of goals or a response to problems. A successful DAM strategy is actionable, providing a clear roadmap for how to manage digital assets in a way that supports organizational objectives.

Many organizations fall into the trap of stating ambitions without a concrete plan. For instance, saying “we want to maximize the value of our digital assets” is not a strategy. It’s essential to differentiate between aspirations and actionable strategies.

The Importance of a Clear Strategy

A clear DAM strategy helps organizations avoid common pitfalls such as resource misallocation and misalignment with business objectives. Without a focused strategy, organizations may struggle to harness the full potential of their digital assets.

One of the key tools in developing a DAM strategy is the DAM Strategy Canvas, which helps organizations articulate and execute their strategies effectively. This tool guides users in identifying challenges, defining use cases, and outlining action steps to achieve their goals.

Components of a Successful DAM Strategy

To create a winning DAM strategy, organizations should focus on several key components:

• Identify the Challenge: Understand the specific problems that need to be addressed. This could range from issues with asset accessibility to challenges in user satisfaction.
• Define Use Cases: High-level use cases should be identified to understand who will use the digital assets and for what purpose. This is crucial to ensure that the strategy aligns with actual user needs.
• Prioritize Use Cases: Not all use cases can be addressed at once. Prioritize them based on the organization’s goals and the resources available.
• Outline Action Steps: Determine the actions needed to enable the prioritized use cases. This may include technology investments, process improvements, or governance enhancements.
• Define Success Metrics: Clearly articulate what success looks like for each use case. This will help track progress and adjust strategies as needed.

The Role of Stakeholders

Engaging stakeholders throughout the DAM strategy development process is vital. This includes senior leadership, technology partners, and end-users who will benefit from the DAM system. Their insights and feedback can provide valuable perspectives that shape the strategy and ensure buy-in.

For instance, senior leadership can provide guidance on organizational goals, while technology partners can offer insights on feasible solutions. Involving end-users helps ensure the strategy addresses their actual needs, increasing the likelihood of successful adoption.

Implementing the DAM Strategy

Once the strategy is defined, the next step is implementation. This involves translating the strategy into actionable plans, setting timelines, and assigning responsibilities. Regular communication with stakeholders is essential to keep everyone informed and engaged throughout the implementation process.

It’s also crucial to monitor progress and make adjustments as needed. This could involve conducting regular check-ins, gathering feedback from users, and analyzing performance metrics to ensure the DAM strategy remains aligned with organizational goals.

Evaluating Success and Continuous Improvement

After implementing the DAM strategy, organizations should continuously evaluate its effectiveness. This involves measuring success against the defined metrics and gathering feedback from users to identify areas for improvement.

Continuous improvement is key to maintaining an effective DAM strategy. Organizations should be agile, adapting their strategies as the digital landscape evolves and new challenges arise.

Conclusion

Crafting a winning DAM strategy is essential for organizations looking to maximize the value of their digital assets. By focusing on actionable plans, engaging stakeholders, and committing to continuous improvement, organizations can create a robust framework that supports their broader objectives and drives success.

For those interested in diving deeper into DAM strategy, consider leveraging the DAM Strategy Canvas as a practical tool to guide your planning and execution.

Transcript

Hello, welcome to “DAM Right, Winning at Digital Asset Management.” I’m your host, Chris Lacinak, CEO of digital asset management consulting firm, AVP. The topic of focus in today’s episode is DAM strategy. It’s almost easier to talk about what strategy is not than to talk about what it is. Strategy is not hopes and ambitions. For instance, it is not a strategy to say that we want to maximize the value of our digital assets. Strategy is not simply the opposite of a problem statement. For instance, it is not a strategy to diagnose the problem as no one being able to find the assets they need, and then to simply say that your strategy is to ensure that people will be able to find the digital assets they need. Strategy is not an observation or a statement, such as our organization will be the premier example of what effective digital asset management looks like. Strategy is not a priority. It’s not a strategy to say that user satisfaction is your main focus over the next 12 months. And strategy is not a goal or result. It’s not a strategy to say that we will have 10,000 users or 1 million assets in the DAM by such and such a date. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with any of these statements, of course. They all have a place in the process and messaging. It’s just that none of them are strategies. But statements just like these get used as strategic language all the time. And the outcome of having a bad strategy, or even no strategy, is that it leaves the organization unable to harness its power in a focused and cohesive way in order to achieve goals, dreams, and overcome challenges so that it can thrive and succeed. So what is a strategy, you might be asking? And more specifically, what is a digital asset management strategy? I’m so glad to have Kara Van Malsen with me here today to help answer that question. Kara is someone that thinks deeply about digital asset management and the organization that surrounds the practice. Kara is a thought leader, an expert practitioner, and an amazing communicator. She’s the creator of the DAM Operational Model, which we use in our work at AVP routinely, and which is available for free to anyone who wants to put it to use for themselves. And most recently, Kara has created the DAM Strategy Canvas, along with a guide on how to put it to use. This most recent piece is why I’ve invited Kara to join us today, so that we can better understand why a DAM strategy is important, what a DAM strategy is, and to help you create your own. Kara has been working in digital asset management since 2006, and is one of the leading thinkers and practitioners in this space. Of course, I’m biased, because Kara is also a partner and managing director at AVP, but that doesn’t make it any less true. You’ll hear it for yourself in this episode. Kara is driven by a passion for helping organizations build impactful DAM programs with deep expertise in systems thinking, user experience design, library science, and business analysis with extensive DAM experience. Her portfolio ranges from Fortune 500 powerhouses to esteemed cultural heritage institutions and transformative nonprofits. Beyond her consulting role, Kara frequently shares her insights at conferences and workshops around the globe. She has taught at NYU and Pratt, and has been involved as a trainer in a number of amazing global initiatives, including ICROM. Also, she’s just simply an awesome person, and I’m thrilled to have her launch the inaugural episode of DAM Right with me. Let’s jump in, and remember, DAM right, because it’s too important to get wrong. (upbeat music) Kara Van Malsen, welcome to the DAM Right podcast. I’m so excited to have you here today to talk about a topic that is near and dear to your heart, digital asset management strategy. You’ve just written a piece on this that we’re gonna dive into in depth, but one of the reasons that I’m so excited to talk to you about this today is because I think in the conference circuit, surprisingly, strategy is a topic that doesn’t get talked about much. So I think it’s really important, and I’m glad that we have someone like yourself who is a thought leader in this realm and is an expert practitioner to talk to us today. So thanks for joining me, I appreciate it.

Chris Lacinak: 04:03

Yeah, thanks, Chris. I’m excited to be here, and looking forward to talking about DAM strategy.

Kara Van Malssen: 04:07

Before we dive in, I’d love for you to just tell me a bit about yourself. What’s your background? What’s your history? How did you get into digital asset management? And to give us some insight into what your approach is today.

Chris Lacinak: 04:19

So my background is in archives and specifically moving image archives. So I have a master’s degree in Moving Image Archiving and Preservation from NYU. And so my intention was to go into film and television preservation archiving. This was in the early 2000s, so this was really pre-YouTube, pre-internet video, but kind of started in the digital space early on. And so I was working in that kind of around 2005, 2006. And, you know, it’s fast forward some years that we were kind of working on, how do we get all these things into digital form? What’s gonna happen when everything’s shot digitally and file-based media? Few years later that happened. So everything was digital. And it was, you know, kind of, it was no longer the case that there was such an enormous difference between the needs of video content versus other kinds of content. It was just going into big pools and buckets of content in general. And so that all needed to be cared for in a way so that it could be leveraged by organizations to help them kind of fulfill their mission or whatever they needed to do with it. And so it just evolved from there. It was just like, well, it’s all digital now, let’s figure out what to do with this stuff. So that’s kind of how I got into it and I’m still into it today.

Kara Van Malssen: 05:42

Do you think that that background gives you a different perspective than maybe folks that have come at it from a different angle? Do you think that that gives you any particular, you know, unique insights?

Chris Lacinak: 05:54

I think there are several places that people come from that are in this field. So it could be that they have an archive or library science background like me. Some people come to it from the production side, the creative operations side, and they sort of realize, you know, this could all be done so much better if we just had a better handle on these assets. I do think those two perspectives are very different. Those of us who have library science type backgrounds are kind of standards driven. We’re very much about, you know, just making sure that the librarian side of things is all right. Whereas the other people coming from a creative background are gonna see it from the perspective of the creative team and the kind of the operations and sort of the end product of the marketing collateral that you can produce from these assets or kind of other product related collateral. So I think we come at it from different perspectives. And as you evolve into the career, you start to broaden your understanding of, you know, the perspective. So at a certain point, I don’t know, it all blends together. I think I have other interests that I bring to this space. But things like user experience design is something I’m very interested in and passionate about kind of just in strategic thinking in general, which is I think how I ended up landing on let’s do something about DAM strategy. So.

Kara Van Malssen: 07:20

Yeah, it’s interesting. Anybody that knows you knows that you are always creating and thinking and trying to improve on things that are done. And interestingly, things like operational models and user experience design and strategy are almost certainly not in film studies or archival programs or digital asset management programs. So you’ve shown that you’re bringing your interests to the table outside of your background and kind of formal studies, which is great. So let’s talk about the digital asset management strategy canvas. You’ve created this piece. It’s a kind of one page piece and it’s got an accompanying guide that explains like how to use it. So, you know, I’d like to focus on it as a way to talk about strategy at large, like what strategy looks like and how people should approach it. So could you tell us to start, could you just give us an overview of what the canvas is all about and kind of how it came to be?

Chris Lacinak: 08:24

Yeah, so the canvas is kind of, it’s a nod to those great canvas creators out there, like the folks that created the business model, the Business Model Canvas, the folks at Strategizer and things like that. So I sort of love those types of simple visual kind of thinking and idea generation tools. So I’m really drawn to that sort of thing. So that’s, first of all, where some of the inspiration came from. But in general, the idea behind the canvas is just to have a tool that’s going to guide you in thinking about your DAM strategy and kind of give you a place to jot down and kind of generate ideas about what should be in your strategy. So it’s not like the strategy is the canvas, it’s more of a thinking tool to help you plan, ideate and kind of have conversation around the creation of a strategy for digital asset management. So it’s just a way of organizing your thoughts and ideas and kind of being able to work with those in a way that’s sort of flexible and fluid in a visual sort of form. You can use it in person, if you were to kind of be in a meeting, you might have it in a larger form printout or people could have their own copies, but it’s also nice, something you can throw in a virtual whiteboard in a Zoom session and throw sticky notes on it and things like that. So that’s kind of what it is at its heart. It’s a planning tool and a thinking tool.

Kara Van Malssen: 09:55

Thinking about using it as a tool, should someone who’s putting it to use think about the steps that you lay out on the canvas as a way to arrive at a strategy itself is these individual components are not the strategy, they’re helping you arrive at your strategy. Is that the right way to think about it?

Chris Lacinak: 10:15

Yeah, I think that’s fair to say. I think what you’ll ultimately come up with and document in that canvas will amount to a strategy, but a strategy and the success of a strategy comes down to how it’s articulated, how it’s communicated, how it’s shared, how you’re kind of managing conversation around it. So I don’t think you can just say, we made a canvas, we’re done, we have a strategy, let’s go. So ultimately you’ll have to synthesize what you have there, get it in a form that’s meaningful to your stakeholders in order to generate buy-in and support and trust and things like that. So just to help everybody align, but it’s a great conversation starter. So if you’re working with stakeholders as you’re generating a strategy, it’s a way to kind of help guide that conversation. It’s really what it’s for. But the totality of the things you’ll capture in the canvas should make up the DAM strategy. These are the things you really need to think about and be concerned with making decisions on as you’re creating a DAM strategy.

Kara Van Malssen: 11:16

For people who don’t have the DAM strategy canvas in front of them, haven’t seen it yet, could you walk us through kind of what, and this might be too big of an ask, but kind of what some of the salient steps are, how someone would work their way through it, like what are the components of the canvas?

Chris Lacinak: 11:33

Yeah, I’ll try to do that kind of succinctly since yeah, I could go on and on, but it starts with the question of what is the challenge that we’re addressing here? So if you think about strategy in general and kind of go back to like this strategy, kind of big thinkers, strategy comes out of military originally, and then in the late 20th century, mid to late 20th century is kind of adapted to corporate strategy and business strategy. And both of those cases, the question is how do we win? So if we’re in a military context, we’re thinking like how do we win this battle, this war? In a corporate strategy, it’s like how do we win this category or how do we differentiate in this market? And so people now apply strategy kind of at different layers of an organization, but the ultimate thing is it comes down to identification of a problem that you need to overcome or a challenge or an opportunity that you’re presented with, how you’re gonna go about overcoming that, and then what are the action steps you’re gonna take? And so that is how, that is kind of the root of the Digital Asset Management Strategy C anvas is kind of thinking about it that way. So if the first thing you need to think about is what is the challenge or problem we wanna overcome? That’s the first question you would work through on the canvas and try to get alignment around what really is that problem. The next set of things that we recommend that you work on, and this is all laid out in the guide that accompanies the canvas, but I would say the next step in my suggestion would be to think about the use cases. So that’s kind of the heart of this DAM Strategy Canvas. If you think about a strategy being a response to it, a particular challenge, diagnosis of a challenge, a guiding policy, and then a set of actions, what we’re arguing with this DAM Strategy Canvas and this approach is that the guiding policy piece is the use cases you’re going to be addressing. So that’s a really critical part of it, which use cases, and this is, in this case, we’re talking about high level use cases. And that’s important. It’s like not who needs to do what with digital asset management technology. That’s not the question you should be asking. It’s more about the assets and what they need to do with them. And then the accompanying piece of that is which assets and which metadata allow them to answer the questions they need to use those assets effectively. So that’s kind of the second step is thinking about those use cases. And then we get into the prioritization of those use cases. And then finally, the next question is, is to enable those use cases, what are the actions we’re going to need to take? And so the canvas has a bunch of prompts to get you thinking about the different things you’re going to have to be thinking about in order to deliver on those use cases. So that’s like, do we need technology? Do we need in process improvement? Do we need data quality improvement? Do we need governance? See things like that. So it’s kind of guiding your thinking around which actions are going to be important to deliver on those use cases. And then the final step is what does success look like? And I think that you could do that early, but I like to think about that kind of coming at the end once you’ve gone full circle from this challenge you’re addressing to, okay, what does success look like? What does it look like if we win, if we achieve our goal? So that’s the overview of the strategy canvas in the nutshell.

Kara Van Malssen: 15:07

That’s fantastic, thank you. That’s a great description. And it strikes me as you’re talking, I wonder if you would agree with this statement or not. It seems to me that that success, what does success look like, might for many people be the only thing that their strategy is, right? We want to be able to have assets in the hands of the right people at the right time, whenever they need it with the right information, right? That’s kind of what success looks like maybe, or we want to leverage our digital assets to increase revenue, something like that. But I love that you, before you get there, you’re actually kind of laying out this process that says, how are we gonna get there, those actions and broken into categories. Does that sound right? Am I thinking about that right?

Chris Lacinak: 15:57

Absolutely, and actually, my thinking on strategy in general derives a lot from Richard Rumelt and his book, “Good Strategy, Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters.” And he criticizes a lot of what he calls a social contagion of the way strategy has been deployed in our society today, which really is just a set of ambitions. Like exactly like you said, it’s just those success things. It’s just, we want to do X. And so he, that idea of the strategy is a diagnosis of the problem, a guiding policy and a set of actions to get you to that goal. It’s a lot more concrete and tangible. It’s not just, we want to reach this goal. We have this set of ambitions. And also what can tend to happen is people get very lofty about those ambitions and the action steps to get there are lost. And they’re not part of, if they’re not part of that conversation, it becomes really hard to see what it’s gonna take to achieve those. And so forcing yourself to think through this in a more kind of diligent step-by-step way to some extent will kind of help, I think drive the success of actually reaching some of those ambitions, rather than just being kind of out there as lofty goals that we keep trying for and not somehow not hitting. I think that’s the risk.

Kara Van Malssen: 17:21

I love that it’s rooted in action. That’s fantastic. So I wonder if you could tell us why now, why did you create the DAM Strategy Canvas now? What was the need that you saw or the impetus for making it happen?

Chris Lacinak: 17:35

It comes from our experience with our clients. So on the one hand, we have certain clients who will come to us and say, “Can you help us with the digital asset management strategy?” And so that’s kind of forced my thinking around this topic. But then we also have some organizations we work with that come to us that just say, “Can you help us implement this tool?” And there’s not a lot of strategic thinking around it, a lot of prioritization that’s going into it. And so in those cases, we almost have to force the conversation around strategy. So if we, and again, we kind of come back to the core of what strategy is and what it does, it helps you scope, it helps you figure out how to use limited resources, and it kind of helps you figure out how to set priorities so that you can achieve goals. So we have to do some of that thinking with our clients, even if they’re not thinking about it. And so that just is a recurring theme in the work that we’ve been doing over the years. And so I wanted to kind of create a succinct and repeatable method that we could use in our work with our clients to help kind of guide these conversations, as well as provide that as a tool for anyone else who’d like to use it. So that’s the sort of why now is like building over time as we just continue to run into the same issues over and over again. Again, lofty set of ambitions, very short timeframes to reach them, which were quite unrealistic in many cases with some of those implementation projects that we were doing. And so we would need to start and say, well, what use cases are we solving for? And what is this end state we’re trying to reach now? And see if we can set some priorities within those parameters to help make it more tangible and achievable.

Kara Van Malssen: 19:30

Yeah, that makes sense. So again, it’s rooted in kind of your own work, very pragmatic and practical. So you’ve been putting these concepts to use for a while before creating the canvas.

Chris Lacinak: 19:42

Yeah, absolutely. I think we’ve been using some version of this for a while. So this was the codified edition of the work that we’ve been doing.

Kara Van Malssen: 19:51

When I look out at the landscape of organizations that are procuring and implementing digital asset management systems, for many of them, the implementation of that digital asset management system, they may think of as the end point, that that is the achievement of a strategy or their goal, as opposed to wrapping a strategy around the actual utilization and operation of that digital asset management program. In your work with organizations, how many do you think come to the table with a digital asset management strategy versus not having a strategy at all?

Chris Lacinak: 20:30

I mean, if we take the idea of strategy as, there’s formal strategy, like big S strategy and little S strategy. So if I’m looking at it from either perspective, I’d say a very small percentage have really thought about it in either a big way or a small way. And so what will tend to happen is, there is some problem. That’s why they decided to invest in digital asset management. And maybe it’s a problem with an existing DAM solution that needs to scale, or that needs to be expanded to, beyond one team to a larger group or to the enterprise, or we need to consolidate multiple siloed asset management system. Whenever there’s a major initiative around digital asset management, I think that’s when strategy for that work tends to become important. So it’s not like the day-to-day work needs its own strategy, it’s kind of the major initiative. So at that point, you’re investing resources, time, money, everything. You’re going to make an investment in some kind of initiative. It’s a response to a problem, but it’s not DAM for DAM sake. There’s some other kind of end state or goal you’re trying to reach. So it depends on where you are, I think in a hierarchy of DAM outcomes. So the very first level is, let’s just create a single source of truth. We need all this stuff to be in one place. It’s all over the place, it’s scattered around different file sharing systems and siloed systems and people’s personal Dropbox, and it’s on people’s desktops or videos all over hard drives. And so that’s usually the first kind of goal is let’s just get a single source of truth. So just even acknowledging like, that’s what we’re trying to do here is kind of an initial step in that strategic thinking. So it’s not just implement the DAM by X date, ’cause that doesn’t connect to the outcome. So I think making that connection is really important. And then I also want to draw the distinction between a strategy and a roadmap or a kind of a detailed implementation plan. So if your strategy is kind of guiding the decisions that are gonna drive the implementation plan, the implementation plan is like you said, it’s just get the thing launched. That is part of the plan. That’s a milestone that you need to hit in order to kind of work toward that bigger goal of single source of truth or whatever it is. But yeah, I think you need to kind of approach this as in a way that again, sequences, how you’re gonna focus on that and try not to do too much at once. I think organizations that are especially new to DAM don’t realize how much investment is gonna be, how much it’s gonna take to get to success. And I think they kind of end up getting stuck sometimes if they just go, let’s get to launch by this date, then we’ll have succeeded.

Kara Van Malssen: 23:34

Let me recap a little bit. And I’m wondering if you can expand on it a bit more, but for someone who’s listening who thinks, why do I need a DAM strategy? Some of the things I’ve heard you say so far are, it sounds like it solves a problem. That’s kind of the, it sounds like that’s where you start, right? What’s the problem we’re solving for? So it’s gonna solve some pain points. It’s gonna help you overcome some challenges. It also sounds like a part of the why would be to enable action as you’ve outlined it. It gives you some concrete steps that you can take and by you, an individual, a team, folks within an operation, DAM operation, folks outside of. What are, are there other whys that you can answer about like why should an organization implement a DAM strategy that I haven’t touched on or does that summarize it?

Chris Lacinak: 24:30

Those are, I think those are the main, those are the key points. So I think we could flip that question on its head and say what could happen if you don’t have some form of a strategy. If you’re undertaking a major initiative with regard to digital asset management, there can be a lot of, a lot can go wrong if you are not aligned with, the stakeholders aren’t aligned on what it’s supposed to solve for. And this is also change management theory 101. It’s like what problem is the change trying to solve? So that’s kind of the same core question. And then, so if you’re not kind of aligned on that, it’s easy to take on way too much. It’s easy to kind of lose time, lose money, go way off track and start to lose the buy-in and support of the stakeholders. So it’s kind of why should you do it? Well, why shouldn’t you is because there’s a lot of risk involved in this type of investment and you wanna get it right. So you’ve got to kind of get that buy-in. And the other, the end result of this is often some form of organizational change. You’re gonna ask people to change their behavior at the end of the day. Once you have this thing kind of implemented, launched or evolved to whatever state it’s gonna be. And those people need to be brought along in that process. And so that strategy is also really important for thinking about how are we gonna communicate what this is for, what’s the benefit to the organization, what’s the benefit to the individual and what should they expect when? Because that’s another thing is if you don’t have a strategy that’s guiding the prioritization and the sequencing of the work, ’cause that’s really what it comes down to, people are gonna have lofty expectations about what it means to them, when they’re gonna get some benefit from it. And if you can’t deliver on those assumptions, they’re gonna start to lose their support for it. And so this is when the tides start to turn and people kind of, they’re not gonna support the thing once it does come around, ’cause I’ve been expecting this or that and you’re not delivering that. It can generate a lot of frustration. So it helps you be clear with the organization and the stakeholders too.

Kara Van Malssen: 26:58

So it sounds like it gets people to work cohesively in alignment to overcome problems, to get return on investment, that return being probably different for each organization depending on what the value is. Thinking here about, obviously in most, if not all organizations, digital asset management is one department, one operation, one thing out of many within a larger organization, right? You might have marketing, you’ve got sales, you’ve got production or operations, other operations, you’ve got executive, an overarching company strategy. How have you seen or how do you think about a DAM strategy kind of working with, integrating with other strategies throughout a company?

Chris Lacinak: 27:48

Yeah, it’s a really good question. I think a DAM strategy has to align with the broader strategy that it sits within. So that could be that the DAM strategy aligns with just the departmental or business unit or org strategy that you’re in. So if it’s marketing, kind of the DAM strategy is aligning with the marketing strategy. But if it’s, let’s say it’s an enterprise DAM, then you are looking at the full business strategy. And what is this organization kind of trying to achieve? What’s its goals and what is it that this particular initiative around digital asset management is going to do to enable or support those goals? So there’s a strong connection between those things. So there’s some, like I said before, there’s some ambition or dream outcome for this DAM, that is what’s gonna have that connection to this broader strategy. So if it’s, so let’s take like an apparel company that is shifting to digital product creation. So they’re gonna use 3D modeling in order to kind of create, have faster time to market, reduce their carbon footprint by moving away from physical samples that are typically the way that products in that space are done, shipping them all over the world between providers in Asia, US or wherever, to kind of this 3D model. And there’s a, so that is maybe a kind of more corporate level strategy. We’re gonna shift to digital product creation in order to improve our time to market, reduce our carbon footprint, and create tailored experiences for our customers. So if you think about that bigger picture strategy, and then you step back and say, well, where does DAM fit into that? It has a huge role to play because it’s, all the files that are gonna go into that process of creating the apparel now are gonna be digital. They’re gonna need to be organized. They’re gonna need to be put into a data pipeline that allows for that information to kind of flow through the production process down to marketing and sales and kind of ultimately e-commerce and end user experience. So it’s incredibly closely connected. And I think you can take a similar type of example. Let’s take a museum. So a museum wants to, you know, their broader strategic goal is we wanna reach new audiences, engage with them in new ways, both in-person and online. So that’s like a, you know, a kind of the big picture ambition. So how does digital asset management fit into that? Again, it has a huge role to play because the museum’s digital assets are its collections, you know, images of those collections, and it’s how are we going to reach our audiences, connect with our audiences. We’re gonna need those assets in order to achieve that bigger picture goal and the data that accompanies them. And again, it’s getting these digital assets, they’re just a form of data into a data pipeline that kind of allows this bigger picture strategic vision that the broader organization has. So, and you can kind of take that down levels as well if you’re, you know, you’re the marketing department, it’s the marketing DAM, and the marketing’s overall strategy is to, you know, increase the, you know, targeting of campaigns. We need to measure the impact of our campaign and kind of hype, we need high performing, and we need more kind of feedback loops and insights and measurement as we go. So the DAM is again, a piece of data in that pipeline. It’s gonna help you with kind of getting that content out in an efficient manner. It’s gonna help with capturing data and insights about performance kind of on the other side and allow for more insightful and kind of smarter production moving forward. So there’s just a lot of ways it all connects, I think.

Kara Van Malssen: 31:42

Thanks for painting such a great picture in different contexts there. It’s interesting as you’re talking, you know, you’re talking about kind of problems of, I mean, goals and problems of an enterprise, of different departments. And thinking about the person who sits down with the canvas and we’ve said, you know, start with the problem. What’s the problem you’re trying to solve? And from what you’ve just said, it makes me wonder, you know, the person who sits down, and you kind of pointed to this earlier ’cause you said, you know, it’s about not what can you do with the DAM, it’s what can you do with the digital assets? The DAM is like a means to an end. And the problem, I guess it makes, this is a question, I’m just thinking out loud here. The problem that the person who sits down with the strategy canvas might aim at is not the problem of the DAM operation, but rather the problem of the company vision or strategy that they can help overcome. Is that the right way to think about that? Or have I got that wrong?

Chris Lacinak: 32:48

No, I think you’re right. The problem in this case, it does relate to the digital assets. So digital asset management is a solution. It’s not the problem. I mean, maybe you’d say, oh, this DAM sucks and it’s a problem. Okay, maybe that’s true. And we can kind of go down that path. But the problem you’re trying to focus in on and identify is the one of the digital assets themselves and their use in kind of delivering on some bigger goal or success criteria. So that’s generally the starting point. And so, again, that’s why I said earlier as well, like when you’re thinking about use cases, it’s not use cases for a DAM system, it’s use cases for digital assets. Who needs them and what do they need to do with them? That’s where the thinking should kind of live because you can get stuck in thinking about, again, it’s sort of like looking inward at DAM as the problem or as the solution or as the thing. And it’s all kind of inwardly focused. But if you’re not connecting the digital asset management solution to the business needs, I don’t think you’re doing it right. And so that’s why this canvas is trying to guide the thinking around that. What problem are we really talking about here? Which use cases are we really talking about here? So that you can, again, prioritize and make sure that you’re kind of solving the right thing.

Kara Van Malssen: 34:20

Again, just thinking pragmatically about the person who goes and downloads those DAM strategy canvas to create their own strategy. What do you think they need? Let’s say it’s the DAM Manager or the Director of Creative Operations or something that goes and does this. They sit down. Who else do they need at the table for this? What other information do they want to be sure to have in order to be able to create something that’s going to be useful and meaningful? What should folks be thinking about kind of as the prerequisites or preparedness that they need to come to the table with? You might be listening to this episode and thinking this sounds awesome, but how can I do this for myself? Lucky for you, you can download AVP’s DAM Strategy Canvas for free at weareavp.com/free-resources. That’s weareavp.com/free-resources. The DAM Strategy Canvas is your roadmap to creating the perfect DAM strategy all on one page. If you’re enjoying the DAM Right podcast, please rate, like, follow, subscribe on your podcast platform of choice. And stay up to date with me and the DAM Right podcast on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/clacinak. That’s linkedin.com/in/clacinak. Again, just thinking pragmatically about the person who goes and downloads this DAM Strategy Canvas to create their own strategy. What do you think they need? Let’s say it’s the DAM Manager or the Director of Creative Operations or something that goes and does this. They sit down. Who else do they need at the table for this? What other information do they wanna be sure to have in order to be able to create something that’s gonna be useful and meaningful? What should folks be thinking about kind of as the prerequisites or preparedness that they need to come to the table with?

Chris Lacinak: 36:20

Yeah, so I think if you’re a lone DAM strategist, more power to you, but you’re gonna wanna talk to other stakeholders. At minimum, if not fully engage them in the process. But sometimes you don’t wanna go overboard with the formalities of this. Like we’re doing a DAM strategy and you’re all invited and come to my workshop. That could be great, but it may just be, you’re gonna need to talk to people, interview them, learn about them, ask the right questions to understand how they’re thinking about it. If you’re tasked with, and let’s assume that the person we’re talking about here is tasked with some kind of digital asset management initiative. They’re leading it, they’re supposed to kind of see it through. There’s some other people that are aware of that or that kind of made a decision to invest in that. So those people you need to talk to or bring them to the table. Those are kind of critical thinkers in this space. So that’s probably the sponsors of this, whoever kind of made that decision or gave the green light to do something about it. Maybe you don’t have a green light yet, but they’re the ones that are concerned with it. So somebody in the kind of more senior leadership picture at whatever level that makes sense, that’s critical ’cause you need to get their alignment and buy-in. And then also, because we’re talking about data, we’re talking about assets at large volumes, usually that have to be stored and use technology to manage them. You’re probably gonna need your technology partners in the room too. So somebody in IT, whoever your business liaison is there to your group is gonna be important. They also don’t like it when you make major investments in technology without their input. So they’re the ones that are gonna have to deal with the technical debt down the road. So please involve your technology partners. And then I think the other group to make sure you include is the stakeholders who are the beneficiaries or those impacted by the DAM initiative. So those are probably the users or the people who are gonna be creating or contributing the assets or the ones that are gonna be downstream using it. So representatives of those who this is for, they need to have a voice in kind of setting priorities, making sure we’re clearly aligned on the challenge we’re trying to solve for and what a success looks like. So I’d say those are the three main groups, senior leadership, technology, and your major kind of stakeholder partners that are gonna be affected by it.

Kara Van Malssen: 39:01

The picture you painted for us earlier makes clear that digital asset management exists in all types of forms and fashions within organizations. It can be multiple DAMs and multiple departments. It could be an enterprise DAM. It could be no DAM Manager or kind of centralized operations around the DAM. It’s a distributed team that shares ownership or it could be a DAM operations that serves as like a centralized service to the rest of the organization. Are there models that you have seen which tend to lend themselves to being more successful at creating and executing on strategy rather than less?

Chris Lacinak: 39:42

Yes, this is a fun topic that I enjoy very much. What does the DAM literal operational optimal model look like? I think that the best model has some element of a clear sponsor or sponsors or like tightly aligned if it’s more than one person, some knowledgeable experienced kind of product owner of this system. And ideally in some, maybe it’s the same person but somebody who’s creating the rules, the guidelines, the standards and all that stuff. So at some level, a central set of thinking and kind of guideline and guardrail creation for the system. That works best when it’s like a small team, at least like a minimum. And then again, it depends on the scale. But so I think hub and spoke models can work really well. So you’ve got that central DAM team who are kind of like making the major decisions around the system and its evolution and how people should use it and what’s available to them and taking input from users around feature requests. And they’re the ones that interface with the vendor, et cetera, et cetera. And then maybe there’s for, if this is a large enterprise kind of model, let’s say, there’s individual teams or business units who are sort of tenants of that system or users of it. And they probably have a point of contact that’s kind of the lead on their side. And that person is the liaison with the central team. I really liked that model for a very large organization. So at a very small level, if you’re just kind of in a working group and like the DAM is just for like a very small, creative team, I think you can get away with a shared kind of contributor model where, everyone who’s gonna be adding assets sort of collectively manages it, but that falls apart really fast. If nobody’s sort of mining the store and kind of, so if you took your like grocery store and you just let all the vendors and suppliers just put whatever they want on the shelves, however they want, and maybe they forgot to put the price tag on some stuff and like hook it up to the register, it would be chaos pretty quickly. So I don’t love it. I know it’s the reality in a lot of cases where you just need to have, nobody has the time to sort of be the oversight person and it’s just a small DAM and you’re not a very big team. I think you can get away with that for a little while. But as it grows, as it scales, and these things tend to do as we’re kind of more in the space where audio, video, image, is the predominant form of content over text, and that’s kind of what our organizations are producing as well, then we’re only gonna need to kind of increase the kind of operation around these assets. And so some kind of smart expert thinking to guide people in how to use the system I think is always gonna be critical.

Kara Van Malssen: 43:06

For folks that are in that less than ideal scenario that you painted, it sounds like mitigation of the risk that comes along with that could be in the form of thorough documentation. I mean, it points right at the heart, really your whole response points right at governance, it sounds like. Does that sound right?

Chris Lacinak: 43:25

Yeah, that’s true.

Kara Van Malssen: 43:26

For folks that are in that situation and they can’t change tomorrow, like what would be the words of wisdom that you would give to them about how to help ensure that it doesn’t lead to disastrous outcomes?

Chris Lacinak: 43:39

If they’re in that situation of sort of a shared contributor model and they’re thinking about it, that means congratulations, like you’re the one that’s gonna get stuck with the DAM problem, but that’s okay ’cause you care. So you’ve identified this isn’t gonna work. I’m talking to you like this person that you just talked about, ’cause you had that insight and you realize it’s not working and you’re kind of gonna push for some change now. Doesn’t mean you’re gonna get stuck with it forever, but you’re the one who as a user, as a beneficiary of the tool are saying, raising the flag of, hey, this isn’t working, this is not right, we need to do something different. We really need somebody who’s in charge of this thing because it’s a big mess, no one can find anything. It’s not working, it’s not fulfilling the goals we set out for this. People are still misusing assets or whatever it is. So as that kind of whistleblower, you’re gonna be the person that’s gonna have to advocate for something different, but I think you also know best what the problems are and what’s happening as a result of that not working. And it’s probably just, what’s happening is you’re ending up in the same place you were before you had the tool. People are still squirreling away their assets on their personal DropBox and then on hard drives and whatever, they’re not contributing to the DAM and they are misusing them and they’re not complying with brand guidelines and they’re not using licensed assets appropriately and they are reshooting things that you already have footage of. So yeah, I think, raise that alarm, beat the drum and try to paint the bigger picture of what’s at stake, what’s the impact. Again, if you put on that strategist hat, think about what is it we’re trying to achieve as an organization, what does success look like and how we’re not gonna get there if we leave this as a status quo. We need to do something different. So hopefully you can kind of inspire your kind of leadership, connect with what’s their concern, what are they thinking about, what’s keeping them up at night, what are their, again, that bigger picture strategy they’re trying to work toward. That’s the best way. I think if you try to, if you just kind of whine and complain, I say this to my son all the time, stop whining and complaining. It’s not effective in getting me to give you what you want, but I guess sometimes it is ’cause he does it a lot. Anyway, don’t just do, kind of complain about what’s not working, try to figure out what does, provide the kind of constructive ideas and input and what could success look like. So yeah, if you’re that person, it sounds like you’re, you got stuck with that job and you’ve got to be the one to be the loud voice for change.

Kara Van Malssen: 46:37

So whining and complaining is one tool in the toolbox, but not the most effective.

Chris Lacinak: 46:42

I don’t think so.

Kara Van Malssen: 46:43

The other thing that the focus in on governance makes me think about is you have another creation, the DAM Operational Model. And I wonder, there will be people who look at the canvas and the model, could you tell us how to think about those things as, how would you plug those together? How do they work together?

Chris Lacinak: 47:03

So the DAM Operational Model is kind of what we came up with that it’s all the things that you need to have a successful DAM operation. So it covers technology, of course, but also you have people, which people, stakeholders do you need, which are important, which processes or governance, of course, around things like decision-making, standard setting, policy creation, processes, I think I said, measurement, and of course, like goal setting and tracking in general. So, and then there’s the centerpiece, which is like the why of all this, that’s where the strategy lives. So the DAM strategy kind of sits in the, in our model it’s a circle with these seven competencies and like there’s one right in the middle. And that’s the strategy, ’cause it’s, the operational model can be used at any kind of stage of development or maturity. So you can use it one way, if you’re just starting out, you can use it another way, if you’re kind of on a business as usual path, you can use it another way if you’re on a scaling path. So, but the center part of that is always going to orient where your focus is, where your prioritization is, and sort of in that goal setting category, which guides everything, it all leads it from the strategy. So once we’ve decided our strategy, we can then create a roadmap, we can track toward it, we can measure against it, we can report on it, and we can enable and optimize all the other things around, you know, the people, the processes, the governance, the technology to deliver on that strategy. So they fit together, I guess I would say that. Strategy is the center of the entire thing that guides all of the rest.

Kara Van Malssen: 48:56

So I imagine that some people might take the DAM Operational Model, and there’s like a self-assessment or a DAM health score sheet that we have, and they might score their health on it and say, “Okay, I’m not doing so great on governance “and technology and processes.” I could imagine that someone might take that then and say, “Well, where do I need to improve in those areas? “How do I need to improve?” And think that that is my strategy. That’s, you know, if I can answer those questions, how do I do better at governance? How do I do better at technology and the areas that I’m not strong in in the DAM Operational Model? That that would be my action items towards achieving my outcomes. Is that, what would you say to that? Does, what would you say to that being, you know, how does that play off those action items in the DAM Operational Model to improve your health play off of the action items in the strategy?

Chris Lacinak: 49:51

Yeah, I mean, it’s not wrong, and there’s action items and then there’s action items. I think when I think of the strategy, it’s not action items like this task, this task, this task. I think that’s the, again, the implementation roadmap. And if you’re identifying problems with, you know, the process or the governance, and you want to fine tune them, that goes in the roadmap. And, but the initiative or in the investment in those areas is what’s going to show up in the strategy. So in the canvas, we call them key initiatives and actions. So it’s not necessarily an action item list, but it’s a set of key actions that like, or initiatives that are going to be, they’re going to enable the strategy to work. So again, it’s at a different level of granularity. So if you want to, if you’re fine tuning, what’s already there, I think that’s, again, it’s important. You want to optimize, you want to continue to, you know, continuously do that. And that’s why in the operational model, we kind of call one of those areas continuous improvement. And that’s sort of our ongoing optimization. That should be in your roadmap, but you probably have a bigger picture thing in your strategy that’s all of those fine tuning actions are working towards. So it’s just kind of, again, like it’s a different level of granularity and thinking. So the strategy itself doesn’t have, you know, individual dates necessarily for each action. It’s more like we want to achieve X and we’re going to invest in Y to do that. And so that’s really what that looks like.

Kara Van Malssen: 51:33

The analogy that comes to mind for me as you’re talking about the DAM Operational Model versus the canvas is if we think about like a car, your car running and how well it runs, who’s like, it might be the DAM Operational Model, you know, is the engine running well? Has the oil been changed? Is your windshield wiper is good? And the strategy is more about, do you know where you’re going? Can you get to your destination? Does the, you know, are you steering the vehicle in the right direction? Is that a way to think about it that works?

Chris Lacinak: 52:05

Yeah, I think so. I mean, yeah, I think I had not thought of that analogy, but yeah, totally makes sense. Yeah, the car and it’s kind of inner workings is one thing. It’s trying to get you somewhere, but yeah, the strategy is more like, where are you trying to go? And what are the steps you’re going to need to take to get there? Like, we’re going to have to get on the interstate and we’re going to have to, you know, take a left here and this and that kind of thing. So I think that works. Yeah, I like that analogy actually.

Kara Van Malssen: 52:32

I wanted to touch on one thing that’s in the, what I’ll call the guide that accompanies the strategy canvas. You use a statistic in there that comes from brand folder and demand metric that says, “77% of study participants were satisfied with their digital asset management solution when deployment was completed quickly.” And there’s other stats in there that say about how many people were basically dissatisfied when it took longer than six months. I’m wondering, why do you think that is? What’s going on there? Why do you think deployment time is such a strong determining factor of success and user satisfaction?

Chris Lacinak: 53:13

Well, I think it kind of goes back to something we were saying earlier around managing expectations and kind of getting that goodwill and support and buy-in. And when it takes too long, there’s probably multiple things at play. One is, well, you probably didn’t have really a well thought out strategy, the scope wasn’t clear, the action items weren’t clear, and most likely you took on too much. So the time to value is way too long. And I think that’s the key with something like this is when the success hinges on adoption, time to value is absolutely critical because you need those people to adopt it, to buy into it, and have to kind of be in sync with what it’s for, what’s expected of them, and by when. And if you keep kind of pushing that can down the road and kind of muddling that communication and expectation, I think people just start to get fed up and lose trust in the whole initiative. I think that’s my guess as to what’s going on. So you’re kind of poorly communicating, the execution’s kind of getting all over the place, you’re trying to do too much, you’re not having any, the short-term wins aren’t there, like the transformation that was proposed is not coming through. I think people just kind of get fed up and they just lose their faith in the entire thing and its ability to deliver on what it was supposed to. And I think that can have pretty severe long-term implications to the success. It’s hard to right that ship once you’ve gone in that direction.

Kara Van Malssen: 55:10

So time is important as a factor, but I’m also reading into what you just said that the duration when it lags or it takes an exceptionally long time could also be a symptom of a larger problem, it sounds like.

Chris Lacinak: 55:25

– Yeah, I think it is a symptom of a larger problem. The problem is you didn’t have a strategy.

Kara Van Malssen: 55:30

Right.

Chris Lacinak: 55:31

So you didn’t have kind of a clear point of focus, clear use cases you’re prioritizing, ’cause that’s the key point is, what use cases are you gonna solve for in what order? It doesn’t mean solve for all of them at once. If we have five main use cases, and these are pretty high level, they can be pretty big, doesn’t mean do them all at once. It means they’re sequenced in a way. So you start to deliver benefits and value to those use cases in a sequence, in an order, and they should be sequenced in such a way that each one lays a foundation for the next. So each subsequent one you solve for isn’t like starting from zero. You’ve already got with the first use case, you’ve created a layer. And by the time you get to the end of all those use cases, you’ve solved for 80% of the needs that that particular strategy is solving for. What tends to happen in cases where it takes way too long, some cases, they just really don’t know what goes into setting up, implementing, and making decisions around the DAM. And so that can just stall things. But even if you are more aware and you kind of do understand what’s gonna go into that, that’s the case where I just see people taking on way too much.

Kara Van Malssen: 56:49

Well, Kara, I wanna thank you so much for joining me today. I think I’m really excited about people hearing this and putting the canvas to use. I wanna end with one final question that I ask all of the guests on the DAM Right podcast. And it’s totally different than having to do with the strategy conversation. And that is, what is the last song that you added to your favorites playlist or liked?

Chris Lacinak: 57:17

Well, I’m gonna have to say that there is a difference between my like songs and my favorites because my son who’s eight years old rules the like songs playlist. That is his playlist. So I won’t tell you what the last song that was added to that. My personal playlist of favorites, well, it’s been a little while since I added a song, but kind of maybe earlier, a little mid to last year was the last time I put a song onto it, sadly. But it was “Kandy” by Fever Ray. And they’re a Swedish pop electro artist that used to be part of the duo, The Knife, in the earlier 2000s. And this is their solo act as Fever Ray. And the song “Kandy”, that was like the last song that really kind of got under my skin and I couldn’t stop listening to. So that’s the last one on the playlist.

Kara Van Malssen: 58:14

All right, so listeners go find it and pump it up while you start working on your DAM Strategy Canvas. It’ll be a good soundtrack to it.

Chris Lacinak: 58:23

No, don’t think that’s the right sound.

Kara Van Malssen: 58:25

Okay, well, what, all right.

Chris Lacinak: 58:27

If it works for you, don’t worry.

Kara Van Malssen: 58:28

Here’s a question. Give us a soundtrack, a song that would be good for filling out the DAM Strategy Canvas.

Chris Lacinak: 58:35

All right, good question. When I was making it, I was listening to a lot of The Isley Brothers and things like that. So maybe give you some good energy, good vibes.

Kara Van Malssen: 58:48

All right, interesting. Sounds good. Awesome, well, thank you so much for joining me today, Kara. It’s been super fun and I’m really excited about folks being able to hear this. Thank you so much, really appreciate it.

Chris Lacinak: 58:59

Yeah, thanks for having me. And if folks have any questions or feedback about the DAM Strategy Canvas, then reach out, let us know.

Kara Van Malssen: 59:06

Great, I’ll put that contact info in the show notes. All right, talk to you soon, bye-bye.

Chris Lacinak: 59:12

Okay.

Kara Van Malssen: 59:15

You might be listening to this episode and thinking this sounds awesome, but how can I do this for myself? Lucky for you, you can download AVP’s DAM Strategy Canvas for free at weareavp.com/free-resources. That’s weareavp.com/free-resources. The DAM Strategy Canvas is your roadmap to creating the perfect DAM strategy all on one page. If you’re enjoying the DAM Right podcast, please rate, like, follow, subscribe on your podcast platform of choice. And stay up to date with me and the DAM Right podcast on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/clacinak. That’s linkedin.com/in/clacinak. (upbeat music) [ Silence ]

Your DAM use cases are only as good as the humans involved

Building a digital asset management (DAM) program involves many decisions—from selecting a system and configuring interfaces, to architecting workflows. To set your DAM up for success, it is critical to involve your users from the beginning so you can develop and crystalize DAM use cases that will guide decision-making and ease change management.

A common mistake is to neglect taking the time to truly learn about the users, what they need from a system, and what motivates them. Without involving users, you may arrive at a seemingly logical and technically correct solution, but users may not see its relevance.

This risks the DAM program’s future viability. Users are likely to abandon a system that introduces stumbling blocks. Without involving users, you also risk focusing on the wrong problem or building solutions that don’t address their needs.

Invite your users to help you determine the right problem to solve and what adds value to their work. Put humans at the center of your DAM use cases.

From Trail System to Information System

On a recent sunny Saturday, I stood at a fork on a hiking trail staring at a map mounted on a prominent bulletin board. What stood out first to me were the broad lines in purple and green. But they were not the footpaths I was looking for. On a closer look, I saw the trails were marked in skinny, black dotted lines in a much smaller section of the map. The highlighted lines were in fact official borders of the wilderness area.

It occurred to me that this map was made from the perspective of the Forest Service. Standing at this juncture under the hot sun, where I had the dirt paths, tree groves, and running creek in front of me, I did not care where the watershed boundary ended or where the research area began. I was looking only for where the trail splits on the map so I could know whether to go left or right.

Now, I am not fit to argue how the National Forest Service should display its trail maps—I am no cartographer (maybe in an alternative life I dream about!)—but I am a user of trails. This gives me a perspective on what information is useful to communicate to an average trail user. When it comes to the design of the system’s interactions with users, this perspective becomes relevant.

Just as hikers are not the Forest Service, your users are not you: while you have a view of a whole system, users interact with a specific slice of it. And they have a keen awareness of what makes it work well for them.

An information system, such as a digital asset management system, is like a trail system.

If you are managing an enterprise-wide information system, you have a design problem to solve. At the center of a design problem are humans—groups of users and stakeholders.

Their work, their needs, and their minds are inconsistent, ever-changing, hardly linear, and sometimes contradictory. The system is meant to help various teams to do their work, in a way that not only helps the individuals but the collective as a whole. Involve them in the process of developing DAM use cases; learn their perspectives and programmatically incorporate their feedback. Don’t rely on your own assumptions. Don’t create your system implementation in a vacuum. 

What is human-centered design?

In the day-to-day work of managing a complex program and suite of technology, some problems grow amorphous. Things can feel messy. You are simultaneously supporting the teams who create content, those who contribute digital assets to the system, and those who need to quickly search and find items and the right information about them. There are stakeholders who want the system to save time, grow programs, provide accurate data, and apply governance and security policies.

Facing the enormity of these problems in a DAM program, human-centered design (HCD) provides a helpful framework. It is a concept increasingly applied in the design of intangible aspects of our world—digital spaces, services, interactions, and organizations.

Yet for systems like DAM—often used by staff internal to an organization—the practice is less commonly adopted. “Human-centered design” might sound like just a catchphrase, but it is defined by an ISO standard (ISO 9241-210:2019)! Officially, HCD is an “approach to systems design and development that aims to make interactive systems more usable by focusing on the use of the system and applying human factors/ergonomics and usability knowledge and techniques.” 

In simple terms, it is about involving humans in both the process and the outcomes of the designing of solutions, using their specific needs relevant to the defined problem to guide the solution-seeking.

Let’s look at how the concept of human-centered design can be applied in a digital asset management program. (Or, really, any program managing an information system.)

But first, why does human-centered design matter? 

Why engage users?

1. To validate the solution design

User feedback allows you to validate whether the enterprise technology meets the actual needs of its intended users.

2. To identify usability issues

User testing helps surface usability issues, bottlenecks, and pain points that might not be apparent during internal development and testing.

3. To reduce risk

Testing with actual users and gathering user feedback along the way allows for iterative improvement. This helps reduce the likelihood of costly setbacks after implementation and lack of trust among users.

4. To enable change management and improve user adoption

When users feel their feedback is valued and incorporated into the technology, they are more likely to adopt it enthusiastically and become advocates for its widespread use within the organization.

5. To facilitate continuous improvement and scalability

Regularly seeking user input allows the enterprise technology to stay relevant to evolving user needs and changing business requirements.

Applying human-centered design to solve common digital asset management problems

Here are some common problems organizations encounter with their digital asset management strategies, and how developing DAM use cases with human-centered design can help solve them: 

No central repository

Collection items, files, or content are in disparate places, organized in a way that makes sense to only a select few, and are artifacts of an evolving team.

To start, learn about the user’s scope of content and their mental model for organizing and searching digital assets. Determine whether a DAM or central repository is needed and viable for the organization. Further define what constitutes digital assets and who the users are in this context. Define the requirements of such a system in the form of user stories from the human’s perspective prior to shopping for technology products and making a selection decision.

“Where is that photo I’ve seen before?”

Users frequently cannot find the digital assets (or do so quickly) or have trouble navigating the site. 

To start, investigate what the root problem might be and what problem you want to solve. Learn from the users—through interviews, observations, and testing—what they are struggling with. Is this an issue with the layout of the interface? Or is this an issue with the metadata of the digital assets? 

Misuse or confusion on sharable content

The collection needs guardrails and governance to help users avoid mistakenly sharing or misusing content.

To start, define the problem to tackle. Gather information on current constraints such as workflow schedules. If the problem is preventative, programmatically plan out the appropriate access and labeling of content. Configure business logics that conform to user needs and DAM use cases. If the problem has to do with users’ understanding of the content, conduct user research to learn characteristics of the metadata attributes important to the users whose problem you aim to address.

Onboard more teams

The DAM system was originally launched with one team based on how they organize digital assets and campaigns; now it is time to onboard yet another team that creates a new type of assets. Each team has its unique ways of accessing and organizing assets and its own metadata requirements that govern its workflows.

To start, learn about the differences between various teams, how they organize their content, and the workflows they have for creation, ingest, and/or publishing. Extract user stories and generalize representative functional requirements. Use the requirements as benchmarks, not a checklist, for satisfying various user needs. 

Tips on considering users in DAM use cases

There are different ways to think about users in a DAM program. When you sit alongside users to learn about their day-to-day workflows and their stumbling blocks, you are zoomed in. You are borrowing your users’ lenses and viewing the problem through their perspectives. When you return to your desk and consider how a need can be met by the system’s capabilities, you take on a broad perspective. It is then important to make design decisions that are relevant to multiple groups, consistent across the system, and maintainable over time. 

Tip #1 You are not your users and stakeholders

Without building DAM use cases and user stories based on real humans, you run the risk of imagining solutions based on your and your team’s own assumptions and preferences. You end up designing a solution that makes sense according to your own (and let’s be honest, biased) perspective. What flows logically to you might become an obstacle to a different group. And you are left scratching your head wondering why users get so confused by a certain step.

Tip #2 Zoom out, and bring the alignment

Your solutions should be programmatically applied and create consistency. The idea is not to make a one-to-one replication of what one user or one group may say they want. Rather, focus on what they need to accomplish. If they want a button because they need to quickly press it every time to complete a repeating task, why not design a solution that batches the step and eliminates the repeating step?

A lot of times, users are too close to the system. For user testing and research to be effective, it is important to ask the right questions. Then, it is up to the researcher and the manager of a DAM program to bring the elements together in the full picture.

Tip #3 Investigate the problem

It is important to begin learning about the problem space by asking questions. Investigate the original problem that initiated this project. Almost always, you would need to investigate and redefine the problem.

Talking to users, you might learn that users are frustrated with the workflow, that the content team thinks of their work in categories contradictory to how they are arranged in the DAM, or that there is a technical flaw that causes access barriers. The first is a finding on someone’s attitude, the second a functional requirement, and the third a system oversight or bug. All of these factors contribute to the problem you are trying to solve.

Some of these ideas require further user research; some may not be true solutions but rather bandaids; some may take a much longer timeline or a bigger budget. There are constraints that every design must work within.

Carefully defined DAM use cases and user needs help determine which solution to pursue. Without taking the time to learn about the content team, how they interact with the digital asset management system, and how other teams search for the content they contributed, it won’t be clear what solution gets to the root of the problem.

Summary

A human-centered approach to managing your digital asset management program helps you ensure you are focusing on the right problem. It helps you build the DAM use cases, distilling the needs you aim to satisfy.

It helps reduce risks by involving users in an iterative process, gathering information, and creating a feedback loop. Involving users in your process also helps to build trust with stakeholders. Prepare users for the transition in DAM as the program grows, introduces new technologies, or onboard new teams. Finally, be sensitive to the human context. Exercise humility, and check your biases and assumptions.

Human-centered design at AVP

At AVP, we apply human-centered design to help solve a variety of information problems. Some examples:

• To guide how collections of massive textual data may implement AI-powered metadata enrichment processes in ways that are useful and ethical, AVP provided a prototype for structuring annotation crowdsourcing and involving various types of users in the process.
• To help program managers determine how technologies should be supported and prioritized, AVP conducted user research and delivered quantitative and qualitative data showing how successfully team members were using the myriad tools.
• An organization needed evidence to support a decision on the future development of a software application. AVP combined technical analysis with qualitative user research that considered human factors—such as technical proficiency and individual motivations—to bolster the recommended decision.

Creating a successful Digital Asset Management RFP

In the world of digital asset management (DAM) system selection, requests for proposals (RFP) are ubiquitous. This is for good reason. A strong RFP includes a user-centered approach outlining priorities, usage scenarios, and requirements. It also provides vendors with an explanation of and context for technology needs, and clear instructions for their proposals. The RFP brings all of the details together in a way for organizations to perform apples-to-apples comparisons of vendor proposals. 

In this post, we provide everything you need to get started on your RFP journey. You’ll learn what is unique about DAM RFPs, how to structure your RFP, and questions to ask vendors. Follow along on our downloadable DAM RFP checklist.

What is an RFP?

A Request for Proposal (RFP) is a business document, sometimes managed by a procurement or purchasing office (and sometimes not). RFPs announce an organization’s need for a new technology, detail the requirements for that technology, define its purpose, and solicit bids for the financial commitment for purchase.

RFPs allow qualified vendors to showcase their technology solutions and demonstrate how they align with those requirements. They act as a gateway for vendors to promote their expertise, capabilities, and innovative technologies to meet the needs of the organization. 

It is important to note that RFPs are not mandatory in all contexts. However, they are commonly used in government settings to counteract favoritism, prejudice, and nepotism. RFPs level the playing field. They ensure that vendors are evaluated solely based on the quality of their proposals and the cost of investment. This approach promotes fairness and impartiality, allowing all vendors to compete on an equal footing. By eliminating biases and providing a transparent evaluation process, RFPs enable organizations to make informed decisions that prioritize the best interests of their stakeholders.

How do I create an RFP?

The good news is there are lots of examples of RFPs on the web. And, if you have a procurement office, you can always reach out to get examples of how your organization creates them.

That said, the examples you’ll find online are often generic, not specific to DAM selection. While generic RFP templates can be helpful starting points, they do not always provide insights into how to gather the information to complete the RFP, including business objectives, functional, technical, and format requirements, usage scenarios, and user profiles. All of these are necessary to provide vendors with a comprehensive understanding of your organization’s needs for new DAM technology. 

What is unique about DAM RFPs?

Before we jump into the checklists, let’s take a moment to review what makes a DAM RFP unique. First, DAM selection projects will have many internal and external stakeholders. From marketing to creatives and archivists and their constituents, there are many perspectives to represent. It is key, then, that time is spent understanding their broad set of needs, through interviews, surveys, and focus groups.

The digital asset management market offers a multitude of options, with numerous systems available at varying price points and complexities. For organizations unfamiliar with the wide range of choices, sifting through these options can be a challenging endeavor, especially given the intricate nature of DAM systems. These systems often share common functionalities but also possess distinctive features that set them apart.

An RFP can provide your organization with a side-by-side comparison of the vendor proposals. This includes a qualitative comparison, but if done correctly, can offer a quantitative assessment, as well.

Factors to consider in DAM procurement

• Content-centric approach: DAMs focus on the challenges of organizing, managing, and distributing digital assets. By focusing on the content itself, DAM systems enhance the accessibility, searchability, and utilization of digital assets. DAMs make it easier for users to find and work with the specific content they need.
• Emphasis on metadata and taxonomy: A successful DAM will enable effective search, discovery, and retrieval of digital assets. It will categorize and describe assets with rich metadata and a structured taxonomy. This ensures users can quickly locate and make sense of their content. 
• Integration: DAMs are rarely standalone systems. They often integrate with content management systems (CMS), creative software (think Adobe products), e-commerce platforms, rights management systems, or workflow applications.
• UX and collaboration: Digital Asset Management systems (DAMs) play a pivotal role in facilitating the collaborative efforts of diverse teams and stakeholders both within and outside an organization. This includes enterprise-level DAMs, which may extend across international borders, necessitating support for multiple languages. As such, these systems should offer user-friendly interfaces and accessibility to accommodate the varied needs of their users.
• Permissions and security: Digital assets often have distinct rights that require strict security measures to regulate access and downloads. A robust DAM system safeguards digital content, ensuring that user permissions are securely managed to maintain data integrity and privacy. 
• Scalability and performance: When dealing with quickly growing digital collections, the efficiency of your DAM system becomes crucial. It needs to handle growth in the volume of files and accommodate the evolving needs of users without compromising speed and responsiveness. The choice of storage providers and methodologies significantly influences the system’s scalability, ensuring it can seamlessly adapt to increasing demands.
• Vendor expertise and support: Considering a vendor’s track record is an important component of the decision-making process. Hearing from current clients, and investigating reputation, customer support options (often defined in a Service Level Agreement, or SLA), training offerings, and ongoing product development are critical in identifying if their DAM solution is the right one for your organization.

Preparation

Before diving into RFP drafting, first take a step back and think about the complete RFP process. Start by gathering comprehensive requirements to clarify and document your organization’s needs. Establish a clear timeline, complete with milestones and deadlines that include the drafting phase. Finally, begin identifying and researching potential vendors — you might want to adjust your RFP based on what you find.

Administrative Tasks

To simplify your RFP process, begin by checking if your organization already has an appropriate digital asset management system in place or conduct a discovery process (as detailed in the section below). Secure written approval, establish a budget, put together a timeline, and consult with your procurement department to review RFPs and purchasing regulations. 

The timeline should cover all essential phases, including RFP creation, distribution, vendor demonstrations, evaluation, and the often-lengthy procurement phase. Practical considerations such as staff vacations and holidays should also be accounted for to mitigate potential disruptions. By addressing these elements, the timeline becomes a comprehensive and practical plan for the entire RFP and DAM selection process, reducing the risk of unforeseen delays.

Finally, consider hiring an experienced DAM sourcing consultant who can leverage their expertise and knowledge of the marketplace to match your organization with the most suitable system for your users.

Discovery

In the process of DAM selection, the discovery phase involves a comprehensive investigation of the organization’s digital asset management needs. This typically starts with in-depth discussions with stakeholders and decision-makers. These conversations help identify specific requirements, challenges, and objectives to manage digital assets.

The discovery process often includes a thorough examination of the organization’s current workflows, analysis of the volume and types of digital assets, and an evaluation of the existing systems and technology infrastructure. Data collection methods such as surveys and data analysis may also gather information on user expectations, content lifecycle, access requirements, metadata needs, user permissions, integration considerations, and long-term preservation strategies.

The active engagement of key stakeholders and thorough review of pertinent in-house documentation are pivotal aspects of the discovery process.

Following the completion of the discovery phase, you should be able to fine-tune the problem statement, establish measurable objectives, and rank your functional and non-functional requirements. At this stage, broaden your vendor research efforts by attending industry events such as Henry Stewart DAM, and by exploring resources like online vendor directories and seeking recommendations from peers and professional networks. 

Once you have a feel for vendors, try to narrow down your vendor list to just a handful for the most effective evaluation. A shorter list makes managing internal resources easier, allowing for a meaningful comparison of proposals and identification of strengths and weaknesses. With well-structured discovery and vendor selection processes, your DAM journey is off to a promising start!

RFP Structure

If you have a procurement department, it is likely they have an RFP format you must follow. In that case, consider how you can fit the following information into the existing structure. For those organizations that do not have an internal RFP format, use the following structure:

Overview

This is the initial point of contact and sets the tone for the entire RFP. Start with a concise introduction to your organization, capturing its essence in just a few sentences. Next, provide a brief background on the DAM selection project, highlighting the driving factors and context behind the need for a DAM solution.

A well-crafted problem statement is vital to ensure that vendors understand the challenges you face and the specific pain points you aim to address. Clearly articulate your business objectives, outlining the goals and outcomes you hope to achieve through the implementation of the DAM. 

The overview document should include key details such as the current number of digital assets, their size in terabytes (or gigabytes or petabytes), and the primary formats you work with. If possible, provide a growth estimate in percentages, e.g., year-by-year growth of 10%. These specifics will help vendors tailor their solutions to meet your unique needs.

The overview also serves as a guide to vendors on how to navigate the RFP process. Include a timeline with key dates such as the RFP issue date, the deadline for vendor questions, when your organization will respond to questions, when vendors are required to confirm their intent to submit proposals, and the proposal submission deadline. Also, mention the subsequent steps, such as the notification of selected offerors for potential demonstrations and presentations, and the final selection process.

Make sure to specify the preferred delivery format and method for proposals and the required deliverables. Additionally, provide an overview of the evaluation criteria and scoring process that will be used to assess the proposals.

Include relevant contact information for any inquiries, and consider including a glossary of terms specific to DAM and the RFP. Clarify aspects like incurred costs to vendors, retention of submitted documentation, external partnerships, market references, and the importance of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements (NDA).

Requirements Spreadsheet

In the process of crafting your DAM RFP, it is essential to establish a well-organized structure for your requirements. To begin, let’s define some key terms. 

Functional requirements refer to specific capabilities or features that the digital asset management system must possess to meet your organization’s needs. These requirements can be structured as user stories, framing them in the context of “As an X, I need to Y, so that Z,” to clearly define who needs the functionality, what they need, and why. These functional requirements are essentially the building blocks that shape how the DAM system will operate, focusing on the user experience and the desired outcomes.

On the other hand, nonfunctional or technical requirements relate to the broader technical aspects that the DAM system should meet. These may include performance, security, scalability, and other technical considerations that are essential for the system’s effective operation. Additionally, format requirements specify the primary file formats and expectations for managing digital assets within the DAM. These include image formats (.jpg), videos (.mp4), documents (.pdf), and other file formats (e.g., Adobe and Microsoft file formats). They outline how the digital asset management system should handle and support these formats.

For further clarity, identify stakeholders and categorize them into three main types: DAM Administrators, Content Creators, and End Users. Defining their roles and capabilities, and noting the number of each, is particularly valuable for vendors, especially those who charge based on the number of user seats. 

This structured approach not only helps DAM vendors understand your needs, it enables them to provide comprehensive and customized responses to your RFP. A helpful tool for organizing this content is a simple spreadsheet with distinct tabs for each requirement category. This provides a clear distinction between functional, nonfunctional/technical, and format requirements. 

Usage Scenarios

Usage scenarios are your secret weapon! They prioritize the user and bring your requirements to life.

A usage scenario, sometimes referred to as a “use case,” is a detailed narrative describing how a system or product is used in a specific real-world context. These scenarios provide a human-readable representation of functional requirements, offering a comprehensive view of how the system behaves and responds within different situations. Use cases help stakeholders and vendors, including both technical and non-technical individuals, to grasp how the system’s features and functionalities align with practical user needs and operational processes.

We highly recommend including three to seven usage scenarios in your RFP. If you have more, consider combining and prioritizing them. Each usage scenario should have a brief title, an objective that explains its purpose, and actors identified from your User Descriptions in the Requirements Spreadsheet. Provide background context and describe the main steps or interactions that actors will perform in the future system. Remember to allow flexibility for different solutions to the same problem. Usage scenarios are the heart of your RFP, so craft them to effectively convey your requirements.

Vendor Questionnaire

As you delve deeper into crafting your RFP, don’t overlook the significance of your vendor questionnaire. The vendor questionnaire is a comprehensive list of questions that go beyond requirements and use cases, focusing on higher-level aspects of the DAM vendor company, their implementation and support procedures, and proposal costs, providing valuable insights into their capabilities and suitability for the project. 

The questionnaire serves as a vital component of your DAM RFP. It gathers in-depth information essential for the side-by-side evaluation of different systems. Number the questionnaire so that vendors can easily refer directly to the questions in their proposal.

A vendor questionnaire should cover general company information, product details, technical support, and references from comparable organizations. It should also include specific questions about the costs associated with the system, including license fees, implementation costs, and support expenses.

Conclusion

The Request for Proposal is a key component of the DAMS procurement process. RFPs provide structured and transparent frameworks for evaluating and selecting a new DAM system. They enable a fair and consistent evaluation process by clearly defining requirements and usage scenarios, evaluation criteria, and submission guidelines. This allows organizations to compare proposals from multiple DAM vendors objectively, ensuring that the selected vendor best aligns with their needs and objectives. RFPs help mitigate risks by providing a systematic approach to DAM vendor selection, fostering accountability, and minimizing subjective decision-making.

Are you ready to embark on your own DAM RFP process? We’ve got you covered! [Click here] to download our comprehensive DAM RFP checklists. 

These valuable resources will guide you through planning, development, and distribution of your RFP, ensuring you achieve the best possible outcome. Don’t miss out on this essential tool to streamline your RFP journey.

Next Article:

Managing DAM Software Demos and POCs

Go to next article

Getting Started with AI for Digital Asset Management & Digital Collections

Talk of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and large language models (LLMs) is everywhere these days. With the increasing availability and decreasing cost of high-performance AI technologies, you may be wondering how you could apply AI to your digital assets or digital collections to help enhance their discoverability and utility.

Maybe you work in a library and wonder whether AI could help catalog collections. Or you manage a large marketing DAM and wonder how AI could help tag your stock images for better discovery. Maybe you have started to dabble with AI tools, but aren’t sure how to evaluate their performance.

Or maybe you have no idea where to even begin.

In this post, we discuss what artificial intelligence can do for libraries, museums, archives, company DAMs, or any other organization with digital assets to manage, and how to assess and select tools that will meet your needs.

Examples of AI in Libraries and Digital Asset Management

Wherever you are in the process of learning about AI tools, you’re not alone. We’ve seen many organizations beginning to experiment with AI and machine learning to enrich their digital asset collections. We helped the Library of Congress explore ways of combining AI with crowdsourcing to extract structured data from the content of digitized historical documents. We also worked with Indiana University to develop an extensible platform for applying AI tools, like speech-to-text transcription, to audiovisual materials in order to improve discoverability. 

What kinds of tasks can AI do with my digital assets?

Which AI methods work for digital assets or collections depends largely on the type of asset. Text-based, still image, audio, and video assets all have different techniques available to them. This section highlights the most popular machine learning-based methods for working with different types of digital material. This will help you determine which artificial intelligence tasks are relevant to your collections before diving deep into specific tools.

AI for processing text – Natural Language Processing

Most AI tools that work with text fall under the umbrella of Natural Language Processing (NLP). NLP encompasses many different tasks, including:

• Named-Entity Recognition (NER) – NER is the process of identifying significant categories of things (“entities”) named in text. Usually these categories include people, places, organizations, and dates, but might also include nationalities, monetary values, times, or other concepts. Libraries or digital asset management systems can use named-entity recognition to aid cataloging and search.
• Sentiment analysis – Sentiment analysis is the automatic determination of the emotional valence (“sentiment”) of text. For example, determining whether a product review is positive, negative, or neutral.
• Topic modeling – Topic modeling is a way of determining what general topic(s) the text is discussing. The primary topics are determined by clustering words related to the same subjects and observing their relative frequencies. Topic modeling can be used in DAM systems to determine tags for assets. It could also be used in library catalogs to determine subject headings.
• Machine translation – Machine translation is the automated translation of text from one language to another–think Google Translate!
• Language detection – Language detection is about determining what language or languages are present in a text. 

AI for processing images and video – Computer Vision

Using AI for images and videos involves a subfield of artificial intelligence called Computer Vision. Many more tools are available for working with still images than with video. However, the methods used for images can often be adapted to work with video as well. AI tasks that are most useful for managing collections of digital image and video assets include:

• Image classification – Image classification applies labels to images based on their contents. For example, image classification tools will label a picture of a dog with “dog.”
• Object detection – Object detection goes one step further than image classification. It both locates and labels particular objects in an image. For example, a model trained to detect dogs could locate a dog in a photo full of other animals. Object detection is also sometimes referred to as image recognition.
• Face detection/face recognition – Face detection models can tell whether a human face is present in an image or not. Face recognition goes a step further and identifies whether the face is someone it knows.
• Optical Character Recognition (OCR) – OCR is the process of extracting machine-readable text from an image. Imagine the difference between having a Word document and a picture of a printed document–in the latter, you can’t copy/paste or edit the text. OCR turns pictures of text into digital text.

AI for processing audio – Machine Listening

AI tools for working with audio are much fewer and farther between. The time-based nature of audio, as opposed to more static images and text, makes working with audio a bit more difficult. But there are still methods available!

• Speech-to-text (STT) – Speech-to-text, also called automatic speech recognition, transcribes speech into text. STT is used in applications like automatic caption generation and dictation. Transcripts created with speech-to-text can be sent through text-based processing workflows (like sentiment analysis) for further enrichment.
• Music/speech detection – Speech, music, silence, applause, and other kinds of content detection can tell you which sounds occur at which timestamps in an audio clip. 
• Speaker identification / diarization – Speaker identification or diarization is the process of identifying the unique speakers in a piece of audio. For example, in a clip of an interview, speaker diarization tools would identify the interviewer and the interviewee as speakers. It would also tell you where in the audio each speaks.

What is AI training, and do I need to do it?

Training is the process of “teaching” an algorithm how to perform its task. 

Creating a trained machine learning model involves developing a set of training data, putting that data through a learning algorithm, and tweaking parameters until it produces desirable results.

You can think of training data as the “answer key” to a test you want the computer to take. 

For example, if the task you want to perform is image classification–dividing images into different categories based on their contents–the training data will consist of images labeled with their appropriate category. During the training process, the computer examines that training data to determine what features are likely to be found in which categories, and subsequently uses that information to make guesses about the appropriate label for images it’s never seen before.

In addition to the labeled data given to the algorithm for learning, some data has to be held back to evaluate the performance of the model. This is sometimes called “ground truth” testing, which we’ll discuss more below.

Developing training and testing data is often the most time-consuming and labor-intensive part of working with machine learning tools. Getting accurate results often requires thousands of sample inputs, which may (depending on the starting state of your data) need to be manually processed by humans before they can be used for training. 

Training AI tools sounds costly, is it always necessary?

Custom training may not be required in all cases. Many tools come with “pre-trained” models you can use. Before investing loads of resources into custom training, determine whether these out-of-the-box options meet your quality standards. 

Keep in mind that all machine learning models are trained on some particular set of data. 

The data used for training will impact which types of data the model is well-suited for—for example, a speech-to-text model trained on American English may struggle to accurately transcribe British English, and will be completely useless at transcribing French. 

Researching the data used to train out-of-the-box models, and determining its similarity to your data can help set your expectations for the tool’s performance.

Choose the right AI tool for your use case

Before you embark on any AI project, it’s important to articulate the problem you want to solve and consider the users that this AI solution will serve. Clearly defining your purpose will help you assess the risks involved with the AI, help you measure the success of the tools you use, and help you determine the best way to present or make use of the results for your users in your access system. 

All AI tools are trained on a limited set of content for a specific use case, which may or may not match your own. Even “general purpose” AI tools may not produce results at the right level of specificity for your purpose. Be cautious of accuracy benchmarks provided by AI services, especially if there is little information on the testing process.

The best way to determine if an AI tool will be a good fit for your use case is to test it yourself on your own digital collections.

How to evaluate AI tools

Ground truth testing is a standard method for testing AI tools. In ground truth testing, you create examples of the ideal AI output (ground truth) for samples of your content and check them against the actual output of the AI to measure the tool’s accuracy. 

For instance, comparing the results of an object recognition tool against the list of objects you expect the tool to recognize in a sample of images in your digital asset management system can show you the strengths of the AI in correctly identifying objects in your assets (true positives) and its weaknesses in either not detecting objects it should have (false negatives) or misidentifying objects (false positives). 

Common quantitative measures for ground truth testing include precision and recall, which can help you better calculate these risks of omission and misidentification. You can also examine these errors qualitatively to better understand the nature of the mistakes an AI tool might make with your content, so you can make informed decisions about what kind of quality control you may need to apply or if you want to use the tool at all.

Ground truth testing, however, can be costly to implement.

Creating ground truth samples is time-consuming, and the process of calculating comparison metrics requires specialized knowledge. It’s also important to keep in mind that ground truth can be subjective, depending on the type of tool—the results you’d expect to see may differ in granularity or terminology from the outputs the AI was trained to produce. 

In the absence of ground truth, you can visually scan results for false positives and false negatives to get a sense of what kinds of errors an AI might make on your content and how they might impact your users. 

Is it important that the AI finds all of the correct results? How dangerous are false positives to the user experience?

Seeing how AI results align with your answers to questions like these can help to quickly decide whether an AI tool is worth pursuing more seriously. 

In addition to the quality of results, it is also important to consider other criteria when evaluating AI tools. What are the costs of the tool, both paid services and staff time needed to implement the tool and review or correct results? Will you need to train or fine-tune the AI to meet the needs of your use case? How will the AI integrate with your existing technical infrastructure? 

To learn more about how you can evaluate AI tools for your digital assets with users in mind, check out AVP’s Human-Centered Evaluation Framework webinar, which includes a quick reference guide to these and many other questions to ask vendors or your implementation team.

When not to use artificial intelligence

With all of the potential for error, how can you decide if AI is really worth it? Articulating your goals and expectations for AI at the start of your explorations can help you assess the value of the AI tools you test. 

Do you want AI to replace the work of humans or to enhance it by adding value that humans cannot or do not have the time to do? What is your threshold for error? Will a hybrid human and AI process be more efficient or help relieve the tedium for human workers? What are the costs of integrating AI into your existing workflows and are they outweighed by the benefits the AI will bring?

If your ground truth tests show that commercial AI tools are not quite accurate enough to be worth the trouble, consider testing again with the same data in 6 months or a year to see if the tools have improved. It’s also important to consider that tools may change in a way that erodes accuracy for your use case. For that reason, it’s a good idea to regularly test commercial AI tools against your baseline ground truth test scores to ensure that AI outputs continue to meet your standards. 

Now what?

The topics we’ve covered in this post are only the beginning! Now that you’ve upped your AI literacy and have a basic handle on how AI might be useful for enhancing your digital assets or collections, start putting these ideas into action. 

Learn how AVP can help with your AI selection or evaluation project

Preserving Digital Assets: A Gap in the DAM Marketplace

Cultural heritage organizations increasingly seek out a digital asset management system (DAM) that integrates robust digital preservation capabilities for preserving digital assets. They often recognize the importance of investing in digital preservation but struggle with the challenge of maintaining separate DAM and digital preservation systems due to limited resources.

While DAM systems typically prioritize security, permissions, and utilize cloud storage—all found in digital preservation systems as well—they still lack the comprehensive functionality that cultural heritage organizations and others consistently seek to help with preserving digital assets.

Despite the maturity of the DAM market, there remains a persistent gap between the preservation functionality that cultural heritage organizations desire and the systems currently available. 

At AVP, we have witnessed this shift in what organizations are seeking first-hand through our work assisting organizations in finding the perfect technology solutions to meet their unique requirements, from digital asset management and media asset management (MAM) to digital preservation systems and records management systems. 

In light of this issue, I would like to delve into the reasons behind this disparity and share AVP’s recommendations on how organizations can navigate the technical landscape for preserving digital assets effectively. Let’s explore the evolving needs of organizations and uncover strategies for achieving their goals within the realm of digital asset management and digital preservation.

Why can’t Digital Asset Management just “do Digital Preservation”?

It is crucial to grasp the fundamental differences between these two types of systems and their respective functionalities.

According to IBM, a DAM is “a comprehensive solution that streamlines the storage, organization, management, retrieval, and distribution of an organization’s digital assets.”

The lending library

To paint a visual picture, envision a DAM as a lending library.

Just like books neatly arranged on shelves, digital assets are meticulously organized, described, and managed within the DAM. Library users can navigate the catalog using various criteria such as subject, author, or date to locate specific assets, just as they can in the DAM. And, similar to needing a library card to borrow books, access to the DAM requires registered users to have appropriate permissions to access and utilize the digital assets.

Essentially, a well-managed DAM ensures that your digital assets are securely stored, easily searchable, and readily accessible. It functions as a virtual library, providing efficient organization and control over your organization’s valuable digital resources. 

The offsite storage

Building upon the library analogy, let’s delve into the unique characteristics of a digital preservation system.

Imagine the library books that are not frequently accessed. Instead of occupying valuable space on the main shelves, they are often relocated to a secure, climate-controlled warehouse. These books are packed in containers on tall shelving units, accessible to only a select few individuals. Browsing becomes nearly impossible, searching becomes challenging, and obtaining one of these books typically requires assistance from a librarian.

In the digital realm, a digital preservation system serves as the digital counterpart to this offsite storage. It replaces physical locked warehouses with secure user permissions, ensures file verification and fixity testing to maintain data integrity, employs packaging mechanisms called “bags,” and utilizes cold data storage for long-term preservation.

While a digital preservation system focuses primarily on safeguarding and preserving digital assets, it also prioritizes security and protection over immediate accessibility.

Same-same but different?

From these descriptions, it is evident that the fundamental purposes of DAM and digital preservation systems are significantly different, although there are areas of overlap. For instance, both the library and warehouse prioritize secure storage of their respective materials. (Ever walked out of a library without checking out your book only to set the alarm off?) 

Likewise, both DAM and digital preservation systems maintain strong user permissions to ensure security. Similarly, while libraries may employ climate control measures — albeit less stringent than those governing the warehouse’s temperature and humidity levels — some DAMs may also implement “lightweight” functionality for preserving digital assets, such as fixity testing upon upload.

This distinction emphasizes the intrinsically divergent purposes of DAM and digital preservation system. 

DAMs primarily excel in efficient asset management and user accessibility, allowing organizations to easily organize, retrieve, and distribute their digital assets. On the other hand, digital preservation system places paramount importance on long-term preservation and data integrity, safeguarding valuable assets for future generations. 

How can I use a DAM system for preserving digital assets today?

Increasingly, DAM vendors are adding digital preservation functionality to their systems. At a minimum, most DAM systems perform:

• Checksum hash values (e.g., MD5) creation on ingest
• Event logging (whenever an action is taken on a file)

Some DAM systems can also do the following:

• Virus checking on ingest
• Hybrid (tiered) storage (a combination of hot and cold storage or online, nearline, and offline storage)

Only a very small number of DAM systems may also:

• Make checksum values visible to users
• Test existing checksum values on ingest
• Enable manual and/or regular fixity testing
• Run reports on or export event logs

And at the time of writing, no DAM performs automated obsolescence monitoring of file formats (to our knowledge).

With this in mind, the question to consider is: what’s good enough when it comes to digital preservation functionality in DAMS?

“Good enough” digital preservation

The concept of “Good enough” digital preservation has been circulating since at least 2014, thanks to groups like Digital POWRR. Essentially, it recognizes that not everyone can achieve or maintain the highest levels of digital preservation, such those defined by level four of the NDSA Levels of Digital Preservation or full conformance with ISO 16363 (Audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories), for all digital assets (for all eternity).

For many, these guidelines can feel overwhelming and unattainable. When organizations search for a DAM solution, they often have an expectation that it will solve all digital preservation planning challenges and result in a perfect A+ in digital preservation. However, as we have come to realize, this expectation is not in line with reality.

So, what should you do?

Let’s dive into some ideas on how we can tackle these issues.

Understand the difference between DAM system and Digital Preservation system functionality

First and foremost, organizations should focus on developing a clear understanding of the distinctions between a DAM and a digital preservation system. This knowledge forms the foundation for informed decision-making and empowers organizations to choose the right path.

Clarify your appetite for risk

Next, organizations need to assess their risk comfort levels. What functionalities are essential for their peace of mind? Are there specific data management or digital preservation regulations they must comply with? Can a DAM system meet these requirements effectively? If not, organizations must determine the functionalities that take precedence and decide whether a DAM or digital preservation system is more suitable for their needs.

DAM vendors play a crucial role in this process. It is essential for them to familiarize themselves with basic digital preservation software functionality. This understanding enables them to respond effectively to client requirements and deliver solutions that align with their specific needs.

Request standards compliance

DAM vendors should actively consider aligning with some guidelines from the NDSA Levels of Digital Preservation, for example. By doing so, vendors not only benefit clients with a need for digital preservation but also contribute to the long-term accessibility of assets within the DAM for all users. This alignment has the potential to promote industry-wide best practices and ensures the preservation and availability of digital assets beyond individual client needs.

However, it is essential to recognize that not all DAM systems need to encompass complete digital preservation functionality.

 The reality is, some organizations heavily invested in digital preservation may have a particularly low risk tolerance for loss and, despite DAM’s other capabilities, may choose not to depend on it alone to achieve their preservation objectives.

Choosing a solution for preserving digital assets

In light of these considerations, it is crucial for organizations to engage in internal discussions to determine their specific needs and priorities. These conversations should address risk levels and the functionalities that are essential for their peace of mind and compliance with their data management requirements. 

By having these dialogues, organizations can collectively define an acceptable level of preservation within the realm of DAM. Although reaching a consensus may present challenges, the goal is to find a comfortable middle ground that satisfies the needs of everyone in the organization. This process not only addresses their requirements effectively but also has the potential to drive innovation within the DAM industry as a whole.

If you are considering acquiring a DAM in the near future and have digital preservation requirements, we are excited to discuss the possibilities with you. AVP is here to assist you in exploring your options and finding the ideal system for your organization. We eagerly await the opportunity to assist you on this journey.

The Importance of Choosing the Right Digital Asset Management System 

As organizations grow and their workflows evolve, so does their need for the right technology. But identifying which tools will meet your needs now — and as your business scales — can be a major undertaking. 

Investing in a digital asset management (DAM) solution is no different. While DAM systems are designed to simplify how digital content is organized and managed, selecting the right solution can actually be really complicated. After all, there are dozens of vendors to choose from, all with a unique combination of functionality, features, and services. On the flip side, being able to identify and prioritize your business requirements requires a lot of due diligence.

And unfortunately, if you select a solution that doesn’t meet your needs there are a range of significant consequences. Let’s take a look at the risks entailed in making the wrong- DAM software investment — and how to avoid them.

The Risks of Getting it Wrong

Unwanted Expenses

By the time you realize that you’ve selected a a digital asset management solution or system that won’t support your use cases as expected, you will likely be deep into software implementation. This includes configuration, content migration, piloting, and possibly even the beginning of system launch. Many stakeholders will have committed significant time to this initiative.

At this point, it is pretty hard to cut your losses and change course. Not only will there be the hard costs of ending the current contract — but there will be further hefty staffing expenses. Scrapping plan A means starting from scratch with another procurement process and then spending months configuring, migrating, and preparing for roll out — a second time. We all know that time means money, and this redundant work will be costly.

It is not easy to let go of those sunk costs, so most likely, you will continue to persevere. You may not be able to tell the difference between poor implementation, and the wrong system. Either way the challenges will continue to grow in significance and complexity.

Broken Trust

While the technical part of a software launch can be complicated, with numerous timelines and milestones, getting people to embrace the new system can be even more challenging. After all, change is hard — even when it’s for the better. And when the solution doesn’t meet expectations, you risk damaging the trust between you and your stakeholders. 

And once this trust is broken, it is difficult to repair. Stakeholders that feel burned or frustrated may not be interested in engaging in the process again, which can have a chilling effect on system adoption and even create a self-fulfilling prophecy that the project is doomed to failure. 

Lost Opportunity

In addition to unwanted staffing expenses and damaged trust, investing in the wrong digital asset management system will delay your time to value. In other words, it extends the time needed to realize all of the gains that you were hoping for when you invested in a digital asset management system.

While delays and pivots play out, all of the original challenges that were drivers for making this technology investment continue to grow, such as workflow efficiencies, poor user experience, brand inconsistencies, and general content chaos. For organizations that manage archival assets, every month can bring the permanent loss of materials due to decay or obsolescence.

Not choosing the right DAM system means that these challenges continue to balloon — greatly prolonging the time until you realize DAM ROI.

Project Viability

A final risk inherent in choosing the wrong digital asset management system is the possibility that it sinks the project entirely. The decision to implement a new DAM system is often part of a larger technology strategy endorsed by executive leadership. And if the initial selection is a failure, it can create waves that cast doubt on the value of the investment. 

This loss of confidence can threaten the existence of the entire DAM project — putting careers at risk and leaving a legacy that is difficult to overcome.

How to Choose the Right Digital Asset Management System, the First Time

Clearly, with any major technology investment the stakes are high. And righting the ship after a wrong decision entails considerable work and expense.

That’s why many organizations wondering how to choose a digital asset management system turn to a DAM consultant to guide their selection process. Including a consultant on your team can add clarity and efficiency at every stage of the process and sets the project up for success: from identifying specification requirements and drafting a request for proposal (RFP) all the way through vendor evaluation. 

In addition to avoiding the risks outlined above, the benefits of working with a top digital asset management systems consultant include:

• Confidence that you’ve uncovered, defined, and prioritized all of your content workflow and business needs
• The ability to articulate these needs to avoid disconnects or miscommunications with your vendor, down the road
• Access to a data-driven, systematic approach that allows for informed and clear decisions, based on the right criteria

In many ways, working with a digital asset management consultant is like an insurance policy against going down the wrong path — allowing you to minimize your risk and maximize your reward. 

AVP’s Approach to DAM Selection

At AVP, we offer DAM selection services that can be tailored to the needs of every organization. DAM is anything but a one-size-fits all investment, and our people-first approach allows us to provide the right level of support, every time. 

AVP Select services are organized into two options:

• Full Service Technology Consulting (aka Managed Select): We offer three bundles of consulting services that all begin with a stakeholder alignment workshop. From there, you can decide how long you’d like us to lead the process.
• Technology Selection Training (aka Self Select): Our training option often appeals to customers who have the right team assembled but could benefit from step-by-step guidance on how to choose a digital asset management system.

All of our DAM consulting services are rooted in a proven technology selection process that has helped our customers make the correct DAM investment, with confidence. 

Make the Best DAM Decision, with AVP

With support from AVP’s digital asset management consultants, you can begin your DAM journey on the path to success.

We’d love to learn about your unique content workflows and technology needs. Contact us to learn more about AVP Select — and how we can work together to achieve your DAM goals, faster.

« Previous Page — Next Page »