Development and use ofproduct metadata Preliminary Assessment and Recommendations Making Information Pay May 3, 2012
Overview of the projectIn-depth interviews with 30 supply-chain participantsSupplemented by an industry surveyToday: assessment and recommendationsNext month: a full reportAfter that: ongoing discussions
Metadata backgroundBISG has already developed best-practice guides For Data Senders (2005) For Data Recipients (2010)Other organizations have also studied the topic “Streamlining book metadata workflow”, NISO/OCLC 2009 “The link between metadata and sales”, Nielsen 2012This project identifies opportunities to use “bestpractice”
Medium-sizeLarger publishers Smaller publishers publishers Metadata management services (e.g., Firebrand) Distributors and Content converters aggregators Online social reading sites Online book marketing programs Retailers of digital content Retailers of physical content Publisher feed Digital-only feed Modified feed
High-level findings (interview data) Publisher concerns with modified, added data; risk of bad data Recipients report continued weakness in supplied metadata Separate feeds for physical and digital products As a standard, ONIX is significantly forked Metadata is added to improve discovery and purchase In the U.S., ONIX 3.0 is off to a slow start
Overlapping formats (suppliers) Among publishers, transmission formats vary 56% send multiple versions of a single product feed; another 23% “not sure” 85% maintain separate digital feeds
Metadata quality (suppliers)43% use a metadata management system to validate36% “check manually”; 21% don’t check/not sureA third either don’t track metadata quality/not sure85% get feedback; 63% “follow up on every issue”A third of publishers see a need for other “critical”fields
Downstream metadata handlingA quarter of publishers seek “substantialimprovement” in recipient practices for processingand updating data60% of publishers want “substantial improvement” inreporting on data taken from other sourcesOnly 5% of publishers said their data is “never”altered47% said they “don’t know” where it is altered
Process opportunitiesMove the “book in hand” check upstreamConfirm a shared vocabulary (e.g., page count,rights)Create feedback loops (improve the data supplied)Clearly articulate when updates occur, what getsupdated and what doesn’t get updatedImprove discussion about what is changed, added,deleted
“Future-proofing” metadataAutomate data workflows and compress cycle timesPrepare for more frequent updates (especially price)Harmonize supply-chain uses (and for digital content,non-use) of ONIX; move to 3.0Separate structure and content from displayEvaluate the implications of lighter-weight metadatasolutions (e.g., OPDS)
Potential supply-chain benefits Nielsen: good metadata helps sell books “Good metadata falls out of good business practices” “Write once, read many” saves internal rework Reducing manual intervention takes out costs More frequent changes are likely Much more dynamic testing on price Systems are set up for weekly cycles Greater quality supports automation, which allows speed New entrants are also likely; we’ll compete in part on the relevance and richness of metadata
Next stepsFinal report (June) Deeper dive More from the surveys More on the Canadian marketOngoing discussions Dates to be announced
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.