Monique and I actually talked about this a bit while at National Media Market.  
(Hint:  If you don’t go, YOU SHOULD!!)

While I’m one of those who feels the need to mention our school’s small size 
(925) because it helps to explain both a small budget and very modest potential 
usage, I get what Monique is saying about large school frustration.  And while 
I would continue to “argue” that large universities can more readily manage to 
build collections and provide access than can small schools, it is because of 
the size of the acquisition budget more than because of FTE.  (I mean, let’s 
face it, if we each preview and desire the same 95 films from Market, a budget 
in excess of $100K is going to be able to manage that much better than a budget 
of $20K!)  But I have begun to see the benefit of what Monique suggests in  
basing any tiered pricing on BUDGET, rather than on FTE, since FTE isn’t 
*necessarily* directly proportional to budget.

Also, many community colleges and public libraries have budgets much larger 
than mine, and yet they are often grouped together and given a substantial 
discount compared to the college/university group which contains such vastly 
differently-sized populations and budgets.  Another argument, imo, for a 
budget-based setup.

Okay, that ends my campaign for tiered pricing based upon FTE or budget, rather 
than on classification. :)

To more directly answer the original question:  our first foray into streamed 
video services were Swank’s Digital Campus and several Media Education 
Foundation titles through Kanopy.  We have since begun a (modest) step into the 
Kanopy PDA model and are anxious to see how well it is received on our campus, 
and we have a subscription to Criterion on Demand’s collection.  Beyond this, 
we simply can’t commit to streaming service, as any commitment to that format 
means a direct reduction in physical format acquisition.

Susan Albrecht
Library Media Acquisitions Manager
Graduate Fellowship Advisor
Wabash College Lilly Library
765-361-6216 (acquisitions)
765-361-6297 (fellowships)
765-361-6295 fax<><>

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." --Neil Peart

[] On Behalf Of Threatt, Monique 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Videolib] preferred streaming service


I too agree with Deg, and Nancy’s comments.

My university subscribes to numerous platforms, many of which are mentioned 

My preference is to purchase the DVD w/ perpetual streaming rights which can 
then be hosted on a local server. Otherwise, for commercial platforms, using 
either the PDA or EBA model is my first choice.

I would also like to see more independent, and studio filmmakers participate in 
future conferences to address economic ways to provide Rights to their films.

I really liked what Ana said during her presentation at Market.  To paraphrase, 
just because we are a large university does not mean that we have unlimited 
budgets to purchase streaming titles.

The idea of “tiered-pricing” really needs to be restructured.  Large 
universities continue to ‘take one for the team’ when it comes to purchasing 
documentary DVDs. We still pay the $200-400 price tag w/PPR, because we believe 
in the content, and we believe in supporting the filmmaker, and distributor.

However, it’s not a sustainable model to purchase the $300 DVD, and then be 
charged an additional annual fee of $150 to have access to its streaming 
counterpart.  There is also the concern (well, there are several) of vendors 
losing their right to distribute heavily-used documentaries.

In closing, just because a school may have nearly 50,000 students, I assure you 
that less than 10% of the student population are actually accessing the films.  
A hike in stats usually is the result of a required film course assignment.

There needs to be a better solution to lowering the cost of streaming so that 
it is affordable for all schools.  Perhaps, vendors should market their 
streaming platforms based on budget, and not FTE.

I know I’m not alone in my comments.

Monique Threatt
Indiana University Bloomington
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 

Reply via email to