Media management: one size does not fit all.
By Russell Grute, Director of Marketing, Pharos. First published in TVB Europe March 2008 Issue
Media management has become a subject where many often 'switch off'. But many of us know instinctively that a new strategy is needed to process content efficiently.
Many broadcasters undertaking first generation file-based or tapeless projects have concluded that 'media management' was often 'more trouble than it was worth'. Veterans of early projects often report that they did not achieve the efficiencies they expected. Media management has become a subject where many 'switch off'. But many of us know instinctively that a new strategy is needed to process content more efficiently. Russell Grute of Pharos tries to narrow the field.
Convergence of broadcast and IT technology, combined with 'divergence' away from linear broadcasting toward 360 degree publishing, challenges us all when considering an optimal media management strategy. Furthermore, any solution is often required to manage new file based technologies, standards and processes. It also has to be more efficient at the same time; a tough business case indeed.
In addition to new technology many of us heading off to trade shows now have to concentrate on processes and workflow. So where to start?
Narrowing the field
Perhaps we should ask from a user point of view, what is media management really for? Who is using it, and why, in real daily processes. Here lies the real challenge as there are many different ways to present, change and move content on its way to the viewer and listener.
Looking at the bigger picture, broadcasters are seeking more efficient processes to exploit the increasingly wide market for their output: the 360 degree publishing model including nonlinear platforms such as mobile and IPTV.
In other markets a new breed of business has evolved in the form of the transmission service provider. Service providers aim to manage larger numbers of channels and require agile media management solutions for a wide range of content, channel types and outputs across all platforms. Combining their proximity to connectivity and delivery systems with in-house creative talent and technological economies of scale, service providers endeavour to offer their clients end to end support. Their aim is to manage content libraries, quality control, compliance, promotions, channel graphics and access services, making broadcasting more like publishing. Channel management with acquisition, channel design and scheduling all in-house is an ambitious undertaking. The optimum content strategy should help scale up operations and increase efficiency for the many repetitive tasks that are often required.
Specific programming types such as news, sport, and general entertainment have their own media logistics and diverse workflows. The growing number of ?thematic? channels are interesting too from a media management perspective as these often require a step change increase in efficiency to be commercially viable.
Technology is important, of course, and broadcast engineering has a great tradition in evaluating and developing new systems to meet its needs. This often leads to a technology-first approach when planning new projects, almost working from first principles. Evaluating IT building blocks such as databases, storage or networks, however sophisticated, can be misleading when it comes to designing systems to manage content more efficiently and to streamline multiple workflows.
Perhaps, the intrusion of large IT vendors has, until very recently, been the most unhelpful factor of all. Their momentum and marketing muscle have wasted a lot of time, tempting us with yet more technology when perhaps we should be experimenting with better processes, programming and new channel ideas to attract new customers.
Mounting confusion about the useful attributes of endless new technologies diverts our attention, with operational and creative processes often considered too late. For SD and HD, IT technology is now fast enough, big enough and cheap enough for a whole new approach. We are now at a stage in price and performance where, when correctly integrated, IT is finally ?working for us? in broadcast, media and entertainment. From HD to YouTube, the building blocks are in place and many pure technology challenges are now surmounted; a lot more is now possible on the desktop.
When devising the future media management strategy for broadcasters and service providers, instead of working from the bottom up with technology, perhaps it?s time to change our approach and look from the top down.
So where is 'the top'?
Media management is now middleware; a platform to unify apparently disparate activities with workflows and to allow batch processing where possible. Many processes, however complex, should be almost invisible in a well designed workflow. Digitisation and transfer management can often now be managed without direct user interaction.
The same system should manage the underlying technology and hardware. Flexicarts and VTRs, ingest servers, quality control apparatus, online storage, archive, post production and transmission can all now be managed by the same database and transfer management platform.
First and foremost, media management should now be informed by any traffic, scheduling or channel management decisions and processes. Tasks such as ingest, compliance, promos and trailers can be prioritised more efficiently based on knowledge of acquisitions and scheduling. Add differing compliance regulations depending on territory, international language voiceovers and subtitles and you can see why this higher planning position is now required.
Acquisition, production, post production, transmission and beyond, have overlapping needs when considering video, audio and the other traditional paraphernalia like aspect ratios, Dolby 5.1 and subtitles. However, the complexity of real creative 'work in progress' during production and post production doesn?t always need to passed along the chain to service provider processes such QC, compliance, promos, approval and transmission. This is often a cause of confusion among engineers and operators, centred on the correct use and quantity of metadata. A better strategy with metadata is to keep it all, and only show each user what he or she needs for the task at hand; too much metadata creates process confusion. It is now possible to track multiple states of programme versions in progress at component level (e.g., international audio and subtitles) by employing the latest enterprise database techniques. Standard web-browser based user interfaces offer practical and cost effective operations alongside high quality browse content throughout the enterprise. This can be accessed as many times as is required for the tasks at hand. Search and logging tools are used to enhance creative data processes such as archival and research if more information needs to be added or retrieved.
Metadata may often begin as just a placeholder somewhere in the workflow. Prior to the acquisition, scheduling or production of new material it may be necessary to plan ahead for the workload in compliance, promos and approvals. Reports of workflow progress should be available to channel managers and customers.
Some operators work in the middle too, not using production or creative systems but in areas like compliance and approvals which can be cost-effectively executed using desktop browse allied with a secure workflow. Browse should be everywhere in a well specified system allowing maximum collaboration and cooperation between departments. Extending the enterprise away from the local system further enables content owners themselves to experiment with their content and schedule. This allows service providers to extend their capacity. Third party subtitling and post production talent can be hired, particularly when content is internationalised, local language subtitles, graphics and voice-over are often better managed locally by using local language talent. This requires more intelligent accelerated file delivery subsystems to be added to the media management transfer system. Outside agencies need to be dealt with securely and will need certification to receive and return the processed content.
Channel planners should be able to see a schedule or commercial break pattern; graphics staff need to see their designs in action; subtitles should be seen with the pictures. Production of promos can now be handled by the media management system integrating editing and graphics systems from the usual suspects with the online and archive storage systems. Prioritising the production of promos based on the schedule, incorporating international audio and voice overs at the same time.
In conclusion, veterans of first generation projects conclude that the broadcast infrastructure needs to be more closely integrated with IT. Others comment that, when planning media management, the automation (and beyond) needs to be taken into account more fully. Other veterans of early projects have determined that the media management platform should have a closer relationship with the scheduling, traffic and channel management.
These concerns reveal the way forward. Media management is not an end in itself. We should consider which processes we are trying to make more efficient before selecting the right media management strategy and workflows. Perhaps this year we can progress from working out how-to-do-it, step by step, process by process, towards how to do it more efficiently.
Keep your perspective at NAB this year
Russell Grute is Director of Marketing at Pharos
phpr-179
Pharos Mediator provides a more efficient workflow using standard web interfaces
Pharos Mediator provides browse to 3rd party systems and manages metadata exchange
Published on 1 Mar 2008