scaflee makaylah jarmara
Fatima Teem
Streaming video makes library materials available on any device, at any time, and in any location. For academic libraries, a wide array of streaming video content, platform, hosting, and licensing options is available. What are the choices?
Just as with ebooks, there are many ways to choose and pay for streaming films. Libraries can select topical or producer packages or pick specific films that users request. Once selected, a film or package can be leased for a specific amount of time or purchased outright for permanent access with an annual hosting fee.
On the other hand, title-by-title selection is often appropriate for course reserves, where you know exactly what the students need, or for feature films requested by faculty. Unfortunately, not all documentaries or feature films are available individually, either outside of packages or on streaming platforms.
Whether to lease or purchase a film or package is a library-specific decision. Leasing requires less money and creates more flexibility, but purchasing a collection allows a library to have permanent access to the films and to establish a preservation policy. When a lease expires, the film may not be available to lease again because producers can choose to remove a film from a platform.
PDA and DDA models really engage users in the selection process, increasing the likelihood that leased or purchased films will be viewed. PDA models allow users to decide what the library adds to its collection, and DDA adds an extra library-mediated step. A major benefit of money dedicated to a PDA is its flexibility for library budgets, whereas DDA requires a larger commitment. Before making these decisions, each library should consider its long-term goals in adding streaming videos to media collections.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has announced 85 awards totaling $22.5 million to support libraries and archival services across the country. The grants were made through National Leadership Grants for Libraries, which funds projects that address and advance pressing needs in the library and archives fields, and the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program, which supports development of a diverse workforce of information professionals. IMLS is now accepting FY2025 proposals for both programs through September 20.
Some public libraries are already offering streaming TV and movies with services from OverDrive, Hoopla, IndieFlix, and PBS. I will save an in-depth review of these services for another time, and focus on an option offered by the Ephrata (Pennsylvania) Public Library: Roku.
Roku is a small device that streams video content through your TV and internet. Users must have a newer TV with HDMI connections and most Rokus require wireless internet (although the newest version offers an ethernet connection as well). Users subscribe to channels, some free, and can watch the movies or television shows anytime. With channels such as NetFlix, Amazon Instant Video, Disney, and Hulu, you have access to the latest TV shows and movies on demand.
The Ephrata Public Library purchased a few Rokus, and they are so popular with patrons that they are considering buying more.1 When a patron checks out a Roku, they receive the Roku box, an HDMI cable, a remote control, and a power cord. Staff also provide instructions and created a short video tutorial. The library subscribes to a variety of entertainment including NetFlix and Hulu Plus as well as PBS and other educational channels. The boxes check out for one week.
This idea sparked a great discussion at my library. Like many libraries, DVDs are in high demand with long waiting lists, shelving space is becoming more limited, and the budget does not allow us to purchase many expensive TV series. Offering Roku as a complement to our DVD collection could help alleviate these issues in a small way. While we all agreed Rokus would be popular with our patrons, we were concerned about patrons having the right technology at home and if we would have the budget to buy the Rokus and subscriptions (the boxes cost $50-$100 each and subscriptions each have additional costs). We also discussed providing a service like Hoopla vs. Roku and what the advantages and disadvantages may be. While we concluded that the timing is not right for our library to launch streaming content, we are open to the idea and look forward to learning more about Roku or Hoopla or the next big thing.
Netflix had typically shot down the idea of introducing an ad-supported plan. But the company said on Tuesday that it would explore the creation of an ad-supported tier "over the next year or two."
Here's Reelgood's price breakdown of the major streamers:
However, Prime Video has lost thousands of movies over the last two years, according to Reelgood. In its 2020 analysis, the service offered nearly 13,000 movies, eclipsing the second largest movie library, Netflix, which had more than 3,700 at the time.
Prime Video is one of the least expensive services (on its own and not accounting for the cost of full Amazon Prime). With more movies than any other service, it also gets users the most bang for their buck, with more than 700 movies per dollar that subscribers pay each month.
Amazon Prime Video: Netflix still trails Prime Video in total movies, though Prime's library has decreased significantly in recent years. And it's not just in movies; the service has lost hundreds of TV shows over the last two years. In 2020, it had the biggest TV library. Now, it has fewer shows than several other services.
Disney+: Disney+ has smaller movie and TV libraries than even Peacock and Paramount+. But at $7.99 per month, it's among the cheapest offerings. It has relied on the popularity of its franchises to this point, but may have to built up its content catalog to stay competitive.
HBO Max: Max is the No. 2 most expensive service behind Netflix, but it has a sizable movie library that includes the most "high-quality" movies of any of the services included in the report. It has a less impressive TV library in size, but movie fans would find a lot to like with Max.
Hulu: The Disney-operated service is in a precarious position. It's lacking in movies compared to other services but has a large TV library. However, it remains to be seen what Disney's plans for the service are. Comcast still owns a stake in the platform, which it's set to sell back to Disney within the next two years. Ahead of that, Comcast plans to remove its new NBC programming from Hulu, which would decrease its TV library even more.
Netflix: It's now the most expensive service, but it has the biggest TV library. The streamer releases the most original content by far, which will continue to expand its TV catalog ahead of its rivals in the years to come.
Peacock and Paramount+: The services, from NBCUniversal and Paramount (formerly ViacomCBS) respectively, are similar in that they both have decent-sized catalogs, but are lacking in "high-quality" movies and shows relative to the size of the libraries.
Netflix was founded in 1997 by Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph as a DVD-by-mail service. The idea came after Hastings was charged a late fee for a movie rental. Customers could subscribe to receive DVDs by mail. The company later expanded to streaming and now has millions of subscribers.
The company at the time struggled with two fundamental problems in their business model. One was that because the DVD was sent via mail, it would take anything between one day to 4 days for the shipment to reach the subscriber. Even though people were likely to try Netflix, conversion to repeat rentals was low. Secondly, people would far more inclined to rent out the latest releases. For the company to break even on the cost of purchasing a DVD to rent-out, they would have to generate 15-20 rentals for each DVD.
Secondly, to enable maximum utilisation of their DVD content catalogue, the company created their movie recommendation system. Through Cinematch, Netflix would recommend shows for their subscribers to watch. The point for this was to alleviate pressure for DVD rentals away from new releases, to a more uniform renting out of their content library. This solution has over the years become considerably sophisticated, and drives how customers experience Netflix and how the company makes decisions when acquiring new content.
Netflix put further pressure on competition when they announced the launch of their streaming service in January 2007, as Watch Now. At the time the streaming service was expected to be of use only for power users with broadband internet connections, which were not all that common at the time. Users were required to have a 1 mbps internet connection to be able to stream movies, with a 3mbps connection required for streaming DVD-quality films. Subscribers under the $17.99 plan had access to 18 hours of streaming content. Video delivery was through a special browser applet that subscribers would have to install. By 2008 however Netflix had given access to unlimited video streaming for subscribers to its biggest plan .
Prioritising building a robust technical infrastructure has helped Netflix keep their first-mover advantage. Oftentimes the first-mover advantage is squandered by technology companies who have to make way for businesses that solve the problem more efficiently. Netflix, however, by relying on a solid content and technical team, has managed to keep its competitive advantage since the launch of its streaming video service.
As the company started working towards building a streaming video solution, they also started to develop solutions for streaming video through hardware platforms. In 2004/05 the company was considering working with contract manufacturers on DVD disc drives with a video processor, which could download video content over the internet, and then stream it on TV. This model was similar to TiVo, which enabled TV owners to record TV shows on a disc. This was however shelved as competition with Blockbuster intensified and Netflix had to put resources into engaging in a pricing war with the market leader.
90f70e40cf