Friday Top Five - old skool slang
Comments off
Comments off
Funniest thing heard at the conference:
“Is web 2.0 just a way to leverage peoples’ narcissism to generate ad revenue?”
AWESOME!!!
…so what does Library 2.0 mean?
An interesting comment was posted to the About page and I thought I would give my two cents… (and the lateness of my post was due to Holiday stuff…)
What do you make of Endeavor being acquired by Francisco Partners? Does the marketplace become SirsiDynix vs. ExLibrisEndeavor? Which one will acquire Innovative? Then which will acquire the other?
Clearly consolidation in a dying market — make money by reducing marketing, sales, accounting, and leadership teams, etc. When Francisco acquired Ex Libris, they specifically said they weren’t investing new money in that product. I wonder if they have any plans to invest in Endeavor. Doubt it.
…also I am basing a lot of my response on the article Reshuffling the Deck by Marshal Breeding so please follow the link and read the article at your pleasure…
The whole consolidation of ILS vendors is an interesting development. I feel like this is history repeating itself. In the late 80’s there were something of the order of 25 or so ILS vendors. It was the approach of many of those companies to aim and try to reach niche markets and provide lots of options, but most libraries went with the larger vendors, rather than the smaller niche guys. Through merger, acquisition, and failure the market was narrowed to what we have today, and after the Endeavor Ex Lib merger there are about 13 or so ILS vendors depending on whether you include LibLime as a vendor, which I am more and more starting to see them as. The first big merger was Sirsi and Dynix, now it is Endeavor and Ex Libris being bought by a third party. Some see this as consolidation in a dying market, I am inclined to see it otherwise for one main reason. Why would a large investment firm buy into the ILS market if it wasn’t a money making opportunity? Obviously, I cannot predict the future of the industry (though I do try from time to time), but it would seem to me that fresh capital and a new player is actually a good thing for the ILS world both in terms of the customers and the vendors themselves. Sure I feel for any one who loses their job due to this change, but in the long run new ideas can only further improve the ILSs as a whole and thus bring better products to the market for the customers. Further, the ILS market grew by 6% over the predicted return. That doesn’t sound too bad to me.
Lippenstiff also mentioned in the comment that he wondered who would be buying Innovative. To answer this I look deeper into Mr. Breeding’s established the pecking order based upon installed sites which now is SirsiDynix, The Ex Libris Group and Innovative a distant third. However, reading the sales figures in 2005 the total sales actually places the pecking order SirsiDynix number 1, Innovative number 2, followed by The Ex Libris group. Another reason I doubt Innovative will be purchased is it is the only privately held ILS company. Every other company is held by a large corporation, while Innovative is owned and run by Jerry Kline. This is just a guess, but when one person has built and run a company for over 25 years I doubt they will just give up and sell in order to make a quick buck. But again, as I said who can really predict where the market will go.
The one trend I have been watching that seems a bit odd, and makes me wonder is the mad purchase binge OCLC has been on lately. For a non-profit organization, OCLC sure has been buying up lots of automated library companies, and one should ask for what reason? It seems to me that OCLC may be the REAL player to watch in the coming years.
Overall, I think the ILS industry does have its issues, and I think as it continues to evolve you will see better products, better service, more mergers, maybe a few new companies, and even a few extinctions. By and large, mergers aren’t a bad thing, nor do they signal the death of a market, especially when the merger is through acquisition by a new player in the game. The new Ex Libris Group will be an interesting company to watch, and I think perhaps these changes in the ILS market signal good things to come.
This conundrum has sprung up over and over when any one discusses OPACs. It is a valid question/issue. However, it is something that really must be examined within the context in which this problem evolved. So since we are comparing Amazon, Google, and the OPAC together a little history (for the sake of brevity I am only going to use the top two ILS vendors in this little rant):
You could pretty much say that the Online Public Access Catalog began about the same time as Amazon, right around the time this crazy internet thing started to make sense in an applied model to:
Amazon and Google are chasing the consumers dollars. It behooves both giants to make sure you find what you are looking for. Really, Google and Amazon want you to find something or anything remotely close to what you are looking for, because that increases the likely hood that you will buy something or follow an ad to buy something. For the OPAC it is trying to find you what you want, and exactly what you want.
This “exactly” part falls squarely in the purview of librarians. The behavior of the OPAC search has been dictated to vendors by their customers. It seems to me that in the beginning Librarians purchased ILS that made the most sense for THEM, not the users. No librarian, especially a catalog librarian, would have purchased a system that allowed you to misspell an author and still return that authors works! The notion of user centered design had not really come to practical fruition yet.
Even in the beginning Amazon and Google were not the seamless smooth purveyors of quality user interaction goodness that they are now. It has been a long and winding road to get where we are today. Indeed, to get where we are has taken lots, and lots of money! The ILS vendors also spend lots and lots of money improving their software, their search, their interfaces, really every aspect of their product. The big difference between the ILS guys and the Amazon-Google guys: product versus service. In general, the Amazon-Google guys’ software is a service, they are never selling their software to people, people go to their web site and use it. The ILS is selling a software product. Which means their software has to be made in such a way the the customer likes what it does enough to spend lots of money on it. While the OPAC is an important part, it is not the ONLY part of the ILS.
The OPAC is the face that the patrons see however, and this is where the convergence of web giants and small libraries occurs and the “OPAC doesn’t do like Amazon/Google” problem arises. Now that more people use the web, and Amazon and Google have become fixtures on the web and cornerstones in the everyday life of web users, when someone goes to a library site they expect it to perform just like Amazon or Google. Well sorry chief, it ain’t gonna work that way! I truly wish it did, and quite frankly, many of the better companies in the ILS world are fast at work making products that do.But again wihsihng that the OPAC and Googlezon worked the same just doesn’t mesh with the contextual development of the OPAC and the librarians who would ultimately purchase the ILS/OPAC software. The librarians and libraries thought of their own use cases, ideas, and preferences rather than of users needs. Now by the successes of similar web applications such as Amazon and Google the focus is being placed back where it should have been from the beginning, on user experience. Librarians are starting to complain about their OPACs to their vendors, and thus the whole “my OPAC sucks” meme was born (and there could be a whole other discussion of the OPAC sucks stuff in regards to how it looks versus this posts topic of how it works).
But here is the kicker, and really the great hypocrisy that was by and large the biggest impetus for my little blog here, the complaining librarians often forget that the way the OPAC works is the way THEY asked for it to work! So the vendors are hard at work developing new products to satisfy the librarians new focus on the user. The funny thing is that all of the ILS vendors could indeed produce something as good as Amazon and Google, but no library would buy them…
Everyone at one time or another has probably played that game where you try to pick what music you would want to have with you on a deserted island. Wait, I’m the only one? Fine… whatever… here are the five cds I would NEED to have with me for my sanity. Oh, by the way I would prefer a Spalding to a Wilson, just me I guess.
TOP FIVE - Desert Island CDs:
1. Mezzanine - Massive Attack
2. Magical Mystery Tour - The Beatles
3. Throwing Copper - Live
4. Vivaldi’s The Four Seasons
5. Magic Dragon - Caia
Hello all!
I trust you had an excellent Halloween… As you probably noticed I did not make a Top Five list last week, this was due to my severe jet lag going from the west to the east coast on a “red-eye” flight.
Ah, yeah I don’t recommend that…
So in order to catch back up as it were, this Friday we will have a TOP TEN!
TOP TEN - Comic Series :
1. Fables
2. Invincible
3. ps238
4. 100 Bullets
5. Ex Machina
6. Conan
7. Walking Dead
8. Y The Last Man
9. Godland
10. Boneyard
Honorable Mention: DMZ
Well all I can say is that it is a good thing Monterey is such a nice vacation spot, because the IL2006 was an utter waste of time. The sessions I was anxiously anticipating turned out to be incredibly lame. I went to IL2006 hoping to learn something, anything. I expected a group called “Internet Librarians” would have been innovating and creating, however that is not the case and I left feeling VERY let down. It is disappointing when you feel like you know more about the topic that the presenter of said topic. You know you are in trouble when a presentation entitled “RSS and Javascript Cookbook” starts out with the presenters telling you they know nothing about Javascript and call themselves the supposedly cute term “light coders” and proceed to show you online tools that give you crappy cut and paste code to put in your web pages. Seriously???
Sad, sad, sad. It was so bad that as I was at the conference I thought I couldn’t be the only person with such a un-positive response, and so I checked many of the bloggers who I knew would be in attendance, and after reading their rave reviews I have decided to stop subscribing to their blogs. Seriously??? What a waste of my time… I could have learned just as much doing a search on Blinklist for Library 2.0, or really any topic that was given at the conference. Again, truly, sad…
Have you ever seen the movie High Fidelity? If you have, you may remember the characters sitting around coming up with various Top Five lists. Since I think this is fun to do I thought I would make it an every Friday type of thing here at Opacula. So, to kick it off I present to you the top five movies any “MAN” should have on his movie shelf. I give you the
TOP FIVE - Man Movies :
| High Fidelity | Grosse Pointe Blank |