ProducersProducersMotives and InterestsMotives and Interests

ProducersProducersMotives and InterestsMotives and Interests

Engaging Users and Producers Engaging Users and Producers The Danish ModelThe Danish Model

Jens Viggo Moesmand• B.Sc, B.Com, • systems engineer, instructor• Keywords:

– Acoustics, Environment– Publishing, Technical training, Reading ability

• BFU, Danish Educational Suppliers Association

The Danish Model• The stakeholders

– Publishers– The database owner, i.e. government– Other (e.g. librarians)– Teachers

• The control– Publishers and Government

Historically• Long, long ago: public• After an effort to save public money

– Private, paper based catalogues– Financed by the publishers

• Recent initiative from Government– All data handed over– Public funding– Mutual control

The Foundation• A repository for (mainly) paper based

products with approximately 10.000 titles

• A legal contract between – “All” publishers (i.e. association members)– Regional information services

• Physical presence of most books and materials at service centers– Later: also other educational objects

The Database Owner• Engaging users on

– Learning materials– Museums– Other topics by natural growth

• Advertising• Fairs

Fairs• Fairs in Denmark

– 2 Regional, for teachers in general– 1 IT-focused conference

• Hard to reach– Colleges and University Colleges

• Prizes as quality mark – New stars

Quality for users• Perceived quality• Metadata• Number of objects

– Critical mass– Obtained initially from publishers

• Searching facilities

The Aarhus findings• Assistance for production of

metadata• Involvement of

– Editors and Publishers– Trusted users and Ordinary users

• Automatic generation• Screening for metadata

The Food Chain• Involvement on behalf of the publisher

– Author (-s)– Editor (-s)– Evaluator (-s)– User (-s)

• Producers– Professional = Publishers– Non-professional

Concerns• IPR for non-professional products

– Violations of IPR– The Repository Owner Assuming

responsibility– Screening for IPR

• Non-pro separate part of the repository– Anyone can be labeled professional, i.e.– Anyone may join the professional section

Repository quality criteria

• Origin of objects• Number of objects

– Critical mass• Facilitate choice

– What kind of metadata– Access to samples– Pricing

Sustainability• Maintenance of descriptions• Effort

– Costs– Availability

• Purpose– Sufficiency– Backlog

Publishers motivation• Commercial and Altruistic• Promote sales

– Marketing strategies• Internet, general as in Google• Internet, specific as in Repository• Competition, as in Homepage

• Bottom line– Income is a precondition

Publishers approach• Different positions

– Large and small players– New and old players– Product characteristics

• Paper• It

Once Upon a Time • Difficult market access

– High entrance threshold• Market Communication

– Slow growth

• Production scale– Law of the Large Numbers

The IT Revolution • Immediate market access

– Low thresholds– Limited costs for small productions

• E-books• Print-on-demand• On-line

• Quality assurance ?

Larger Players • A Danish duopoly ?• Have spent a lot but sell too little• Are open to diversified strategies

– All channels are used– Remain present in official catalogues

• Active support for the repository ?

Smaller players • Niche and Upcoming • Want a low cost solution• Common solution advantageous

– piggy backing

• May not be aware of– Existence of solutions– Conditions for using the solutions

Organizational Approach

• Publishers– BFU and F

• Regional information centers– Contract

• Inform new producers about the repository

• Government– UNI-C

Approval - Certification• Curricular products – “Fælles Mål”

– Systems– New ideas– Niche products

• Extracurricular products– New ideas– Niche products

The Smiley Syndrome

• ”Proactive” • Retrospective• Professionals ?• Social networking

– Evaluator’s qualification– Evaluator’s horizon

Smiley, part two • Review, “professional”

– Quality assurance !– Lack of time– Limited practical experience with

product– Insufficient theoretical knowledge

• Bias

Smiley, part three – Retrospective

• Bias• Insufficient theoretical knowledge• Appeal possibilities

– Real value• Practical value in different educational

situations

Smiley, part four • Publishers information

– Praise– Bias– Knowledge

• Long term credibility

Perceived Quality• Product quality for end-users

– Access to links or samples

• Marketing quality for producers– Underestimation of possibilities– Updating

• Product• Availability• Price

Conclusions

Motivation• Market communication• Market intelligence

– as in “market information”

• Higher market share• Better sales

Bottom Line

• Promotion of sales• Better results on the market

• Competitive advantage