DOCUMENT Magazine - June 2008 - (Page 23) Mid-Market Challengers DAM and MAM tools fulfill many different needs, and some of the most common scenarios for DAM are workgroup or departmental, whereby a marketing team needs to manage all the assets related to a brand. In these situations, it’s rare that those assets are used outside of a core marketing or creative team (until the final product, such as a brochure, is created). There’s heavy need for integration with desktop applications, such as QuarkXPress or Adobe InDesign, and also collaborative commenting as marketing collateral is created. Occasionally, these scenarios will need to scale up to agency models, whereby assets need distribution well beyond a single creative team to extend to partners and customers. At some point, these departmental DAM systems may need to integrate with larger enterprise platforms. These vendors thrive in these workgroup or agency scenarios, but in some cases, they are challenging the larger enterprise vendors as they take on larger and more demanding DAM and MAM scenarios within existing client bases. They tend to offer solutions at lower price points (in some cases, starting as low as US $5k) but aren’t as proven with large (100k+) collections of assets as the enterprise DAM vendors. The notable vendors in this tier are WAVE Corporation: MediaBank; ADAM Software: ADAM; Canto, Inc.: Cumulus; and Widen: Media Collective. Widen, a Software-as-a-Service vendor, is by far the largest vendor of the four, in terms of staff and revenues, and challenges ClearStory for SaaS business. Canto is known for their strong workgroup thick client (but not enterprise implementations), while ADAM and WAVE take a platform approach, allowing for extensive customization of their tools. >> >> >> >> the concept of the DAM system as the “single source of truth” as a bit antiquated since the repository needs to serve multiple platforms. More focus on web clients vs. the traditional desktop client. As with WCM and enterprise search tools, vendors are trying to design more dashboard-like experiences for their web client, and so far, few have achieved the same functionality from web clients as they have with the desktop thick clients. Divergent product builds. DAM vendors historically have spent a lot of time doing implementation, and as a result, there are a lot of aggregate end solutions out there that aren’t necessarily part of the core product. As a buyer, be cautious, and make sure what you see is what you’re going to get. Workgroup solutions hitting the ceiling. Some of the vendors we evaluated in the “enterprise challengers” category face challenges as their customer asset bases grow, requiring them to integrate with more complex enterprise systems. Increase in SaaS-based DAM. Widen, a pure-play SaaS vendor, has seen quite a bit of growth since early 2007, and ClearStory experienced an uptick in the SaaS area during quarter one of 2008, despite other corporate turmoil in late 2007. Other vendors may jump on the SaaS bandwagon. Vendor Selection Checklist Niche Solutions Xinet: WebNative Suite; MediaBeacon: R3volution Enterprise DAM Suite; and Chuckwalla: Chuckwalla 5.8 are vendors who focus on a particular aspect of DAM or MAM and have a very small market share. Xnet is targeted for scenarios with complex pre-press workflow needs, while MediaBeacon is a pioneer in various forms of XMP support. Chuckwalla, meanwhile, is a workgroup-level DAM vendor focused on pre-press and e-learning but has been particularly quiet in recent years. Ç Maintenance & Support Ç Integration & Partnerships Ç Strategy & Roadmap Ç Viability & Stability DAM Trends for 2008 As we spoke with DAM industry veterans, system users and vendors, several trends emerged: >> Larger adoption of XMP for managing metadata around assets. While most vendors boast support for Adobe’s standard that allows metadata to “travel” with an asset, not all support of XMP is created equally. >> Renewed focus on digital rights management (DRM). Though maintaining digital rights is vital in many DAM and MAM scenarios, few vendors have a solid solution for this need and are looking to create one. >> Lack of real asset workflow solutions. Compared to other technologies, DAM systems have comparably weak workflow capabilities. Many DAM processes are complex, and many asset managers require third-party tools in order to create truly automated workflows. >> Increased need for enterprise system integration, DAM to web CMS in particular. Many asset managers wish to distribute end products via the web and, thus, have a business need to merge these two technologies, making this an easier bridge to cross. As such, many asset managers and industry veterans see >> Generally weak video support leading to third-party investments. While many vendors support video, it hasn’t quite worked out as the uber-video-production-and-management supertool early DAM proponents envisioned. Part of the problem is the bandwidth required. Many customers of existing DAM products look to buy an Avid server or an Apple Final Cut Pro server to manage and serve video assets. As such, DAM vendors continue to miss the mark on video. Despite the continued “on the cusp” feel to the DAM market, DAM’s big moment never seems to arrive: always the bridesmaid, but never the bride. As such, many DAM “leaders” were recently on the brink of extinction: some were saved by their now-ECM parents, while other vendors chug along as 20-person shops with a core platform on which they build custom solutions for long-term clients. DAM never enjoyed the huge explosion that the WCM market did, and we question if it ever will. DAM’s path is more a winding road than a trajectory, with descents and ascents, with all the passengers wondering if they’ll ever reach the top and curious if the view will be worth all the ups and downs. Only time will tell. Theresa Regli is principal at CMS Watch, a buyer-focused and vendorindependent analyst firm covering content management, enterprise search and digital asset management. For more information on the Digital Asset Management Report 2008, visit www.cmswatch.com. ■ www.DOCUMENTmedia.com june.08 document 23 http://www.cmswatch.com http://www.DOCUMENTmedia.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.