Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona all have Films on Demand and we together own the Filmakers Library collection from Alexander Street. (We each also have additional video collections from ASP, but to the best of my knowledge none of us has VAST)
Full disclosure: I personally have vested interests in both products: I developed the subscription model with FMG after a PDA model proved too successful, and I advise ASP on video products. But I can separate my interests from observation and statement on the two products. There is some overlap between the two, largely in newsreel collections, and some PBS content. But overall both over a wide array of unique content. Both offer similar features and functionalities, that vary by degree. FoD titles are already segmented into discrete sections with individual persistent URLs; ASP provides tools for users to develop their own segments. FoD also offers the ability to combine segments into playlists. Both offer scrolling transcripts and closed captioning. I think in that in general ASP offers more long-form content and a greater degree of the quality documentary content media librarians have traditionally acquired from independent distributors such as Filmakers, California Newsreel, and the like. Tho FoD provides some of this too. I think ASP provides a superior search interface, and their catalog records are far superior to those provided by FMG. ASP is fully indexed by all the major discovery tools (Summon, EBSCO Discovery, etc). Our FoD is discoverable in Summon from our catalog records. For the record, our use of FoD is subscription and our ASP products have been purchased in perpetuity, so use data does not exactly compare. Suffice to say that FoD use for Arizona Libraries is less than $.20 per use. I cannot provide comparable data for ASP as the pricing and data reporting do not correlate. I have personally observed that some library administrations assume that having one means you do not need the other. But both products are quite complementary, and in my opinion both are necessary in a comprehensive university. This is not significantly different than how libraries approach indexes and journal packages. Aggregators such as EBSCO's Academic Search products and Lexis-Nexis overlap yet libraries carry both, and also independently subscribe to some of journals that are included in these resources. Similarly there is overlap between EBSCO index/databases both general and subject, and ProQuest products. But all provide significantly unique content that makes this overlap a non-issue. Happy to discuss either product in greater detail offline. -deg deg farrelly, Media Librarian Arizona State University Libraries Hayden Library C1H1 P.O. Box 871006 Tempe, Arizona 85287-1006 Phone: 602.332.3103 > >We currently subscribe to Films on Demand from Films Media Group, and are >considering a subscription to Alexander Street Press' VAST. Both >resources contain films from some of the same producers/distributors; >we're unable to run an overlap analysis of the products using >SerialsSolutions' overlap analysis tool, and are wondering if there is >much overlap in coverage between the two products. Have any libraries >that subscribe to both done any kind of overlap analysis - or just >anecdotally, have you noticed much duplication of films between the two >resources? > >Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. > >Best, >Michelle 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 distributors.
