Digital Object Identifiers the future of digital archiving?

PART 2

Fifth is it serves as copyright protection online. Digital Object Identifier is now the emerging standard for proper identification of materials published online. Since the number is unique to the product or published material, copyright in the internet is now protected. Creators and owners of sites are now protected and can be compensated properly for their property. Thus DOI’s content identification is gaining increased usage, particularly for the reliable sites.

In 1994 the Association of American Publishers (AAP) wanted to solve the many problems against intellectual property in the internet. Taken collectively, unprotected copyrighted materials can pose a threat to the publishing trade in the Internet. The Association of American Publishers are well aware of how easy it is to make as many reproductions of books or articles online and at the same time they are also well aware of the power of the Internet in terms of retail, aggregate, repackage and redistribution online (Rosenbatt, 1997).

To turn its back on this profitable environment would be unwise for the publishers and so the only remaining option is to tackle the problem head on. Online purchase, whether for a book or other product, is convenient for the consumers and yet publishers needed to establish some degree of interoperability (Rosenblatt, 1997) among other publishers in the Internet.

The problem is how not to compromise intellectual property since the more interoperability exists among publishing formats and system the easier it is to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials. The first solution that came about in the “protect vs. enable trade off” is end to end content protection technologies. Here contents are stored in an encrypted stated and buyers will only be able to access the content in a “pay per view” model.

These technologies originated in the CD-ROM market and many companies have used this model. However, since materials are encrypted or enclosed in protected state, the user has to go through a complex series of applications, such as the plug in they will use, the forms of payment, etc. Publishers now run the risk of alienating the customers. Aside from this dilemma, publishers have to compete with publishers who gain profit thru advertising. This is similar to school books given to schools by consumer product companies.

The only seemingly solution for the AAP is to have one vendor but this is not possible because should that be the case, it would create a monopoly which will open anticompetitive lawsuits against the AAP. Moreover, notwithstanding the lawsuit, the vendor would not have anymore incentive and would not find any reason to improve its service.

An interoperable standard was then set to serve as guideline of operation, from publisher to vendor to buyer and keeping within the intellectual property right protection. To do this the guidelines includes: a content identification on each item to identify it uniquely over time; a content description for customer searching and browsing; an access rights or access conditions (e.g. printing, browsing, copy); a display format; a content protection scheme (e.g. encryption); and a financial transaction information (e.g. price, accepted payments, etc.). The problem was standardizing the guidelines. For instance, simply standardizing the format would be limiting.

Access right is particularly problematic. In a survey done at that time, it was found that publishing companies felt that they have no problem with the area, while some admitted that they are knowledgeable about the problem but found it expensive and difficult to solve. None admitted that they need to have their rights management houses in order. None also claimed working on a solution (Rosenblatt, 1997). 

Content description was another big problem for the publishers. They needed to adapt a metadata model which can describe the contents, let’s say a book, and yet will guarantee easy accessibility for the browser. For content identification, the problem was standardizing it over a long period of time.

To create a flexible and standardized online publishing, publishers needed a “universal rights model” that can adapt to different types of transaction and application. AAP then designed an identification scheme, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), that is flexible and work with the other systems in electronic publishing. It has also provision for the changes in the future. To do that, the DOI were given the following requirements: no intrinsic meaning; it must be exclusive to the content item; there must limitless identifiers; must be meta-scheme for ISBN, BICI, ISSN etc. even URLs; it can be used for any type of content for print, services, software, audio, etc.; can be applied for objects of granularity for multi volumes, chapters, paragraphs, etc; and, it must consistently refer to the content regardless of its ownership, location, etc (Rosenblatt, 1997).

The DOI for publishing was launched by the AAP at Frankfurt Book Fair in 1997 and was re-demonstrated in the 1998 Fair. At present several publishers have made use of efficient DOI finders, such as the Academic Press finder’s which allows for searching by publisher and journal name, issue, date and the starting page (Davidson & Douglas, 1998). DOI allows for publishers to have a system which protects them from serious financial damage and yet at the same time allows them to operate policies such as fair use or inter-library loan.

Lastly, DOI offers improve profitability, particularly for publishers. On implementing the DOI vendors, publishers and companies can enjoy a return on investment of 12% the cost of implementing DOI (Sidman, 2003). The benefits are due to direct sales and marketing capability delivered primarily by their own sites. These were measured based on three key areas: discoverability, user experience and operational efficiency.

On discoverability, visibility is the key to the success of any online store. This will spell out the visits and sales generated from the sites. Everyday around 400 million queries are done on the web in search of products, services, information, entertainment, etc. For retail e-commerce businesses, improvement in search ranking is imperative to sales growth. This is why there are several techniques, called Search Engine Optimizations (SEO), implemented by e-commerce businesses. These search engine optimizations increased the rankings for sites. One of the leading SEO providers charges as much as $480,000 annually for a search engine marketing campaign (Sidman, 2003).

DOI’s Multi Links, on the other hand, connects related objects which automatically places it higher on the search engine results. Based on a “before” study it was found that 43% of the books tested were not within the first 100 results. Moreover, those on the higher ranking frequently have broken links or bad URL. After DOI it was found that 22% got the number 1 ranking in non sponsored results, 74% were found within the top 5, and 90% within the first two pages (Sidman, 2003).

When it comes to improving search engine discoverability, without DOI hiring for Search Engine Optimization agency is imperative. The entry level campaign is around $13,000 (Sidman, 2003). Now to achieve a 4 to 1 return on investment, a low traffic site has to quintuple its number of visitors. With DOI, the ROI on investment is comparative with SEO and the implementation is faster to market. It also includes other benefits which generally contribute to the ROI.

The idea of improving discoverability is to increase traffic. In the study, it was found that for the four months after the implementation of DOI, traffic increased to a more than three times the previous volume. Moreover, once the user visits the site, generally he will continue to navigate to learn more about the product.

This is where user experience comes in. It was found that the site redesigned for usability earned 100% increase in sales/conversion rate, 150% in traffic and 161% in user performance and productivity and 202% in use of specific features(Sidman, 2003). DOI allows for faster navigation. Its Multi Link enables faster browsing and faster buying and less user error.

On improving usability, without the DOI, site re-design can be costly and time consuming. Studies by Nielsen Norman Group and IBM have estimated that the cost of usability is around 10% of total web site development cost. Based on that study, the average cost of launching or re-launching of a product or brand is at least $1 million and the cost of usability of $100,000. On the other hand implementing DOI will provide a substantial return on investment, making ROI almost immediate.

The study also found that DOI referred clicks are twice as likely to end in purchase. Under the eight months of using DOI, book revenue from an online publishing, increased from zero sales to about $3,500 in a month.

When it comes to sales, without DOI, CRM implementations can cost around $600,000 for a typical entry level (Sidman, 2003). This is for the additional investment on other capabilities so that the shopper will find additional relevant items to buy. With DOI, content directions’ applications are already an integral part of the system. This will help the buyer to simply move the mouse over the link in order to gain contextual access to the product. The personalized product suggestion might result in an average of 20% additional value of the sale (Sidman, 2003).

On operational efficiency DOI is more advantageous and simpler to manage than the traditional web site. Web content maintenance can also be costly. This is not a problem for DOI since one of its attributes is persistence. Publishers can manage each link via central registration agency. This will reduce the burden of finding and repairing a broken link. Removing obsolete and broken links also broadens its distribution, which results in more sales and more cross selling opportunities.

On the cost of site maintenance, without DOI there are about an average of 5 additional web pages associated with each of the 3,000 book titles (Sidman, 2003). This needs to be managed along with the publisher’s online catalog. There area also associated legacy sites which use different content management tools and links to the publisher catalog which must also be managed. All these must link to the publisher’s web site which in turn can point directly to another third party site, such as author’s site, reviews, retailers, etc. These other sites give additional problems since they are beyond the control of the publisher. Thus, fixing the broken links or simply rewriting the publisher’s site can be time consuming and required additional staff time.

Moreover, ongoing maintenance is vital. Thus for a mid size publisher, it must hire 3 to 5 staff for quality assurance of the site. Additional cost would be the tools needed in detecting a moved or updated link. The costs of these tools are around $10,000 without maintenance.

With DOI the publisher, once it has assigned and registered DOI with each book in its catalog, the URL can now be made centrally at the registration agency. The links to the book will be updated automatically. Moreover for added quality assurance, the DOI registration agency can detect and point the broken links. This is equals to reduction of 1FTE or around $100,000 annually. Additional savings would also be from the time saved by the business or the opportunity loss.

In conclusion, for the economic benefits of DOI, particularly in publishing or online book selling, DOI is a good investment.  The Digital Object Identifiers can definitely increase the revenue through enabling greater discoverability, conversion rates and cross selling and through the reduction of the cost of improving and managing sites (Sidman, 2003). The study calculated an estimate to an assured 12:1 ratio of return on investment for a medium size publisher’s e-publishing operation. Aside from this direct ROI, DOI also provides additional business benefits as discussed above.

In summary, the improved content discoverability is $225,000, the improved site usability is 150,000, the more effective cross selling is 165,000, the reduced content maintenance cost is 116,000; the total return on investment is 656,000; the DOI implementation investment is 50,000; the net return on investment is 606,000; and the return on investment ratio is 12:1 (Sidman, 2003).

These analyses, with some adjustments and variations, are also applicable for other sites and retail e-commerce operation. The increase in traffic on site is definitely applicable to other sites and not just for publishing.

Although quite substantial when it comes to the initial investment, the practicality DOI provides is worth the investment. When it comes to security, this could be the answer to protecting intellectual property rights on the web. Although some consider that everything on the Web is free for all, in the long run, like any business, the creator of an art piece or owner of the company must be compensated properly for the business to thrive. Otherwise, we shall see a decline of quality and reliable materials on the web, not to mention a decrease in the trade and commerce exercised or done in the web. Simply put, DOI establishes a trust in conducting business in the web.

Digital Object Identifiers, as seen in its vast range of application, such as in manufacturing or in tagging for a single product, is also very promising for all digital archiving. Its ability to connect and interconnect to relevant information about the product can be seen as the way the future shall be. Its use in health records alone is a breakthrough. This simplifies the way hospitals and clinics operate. One of the causes of death in the hospital is medical errors, now using DOI medical errors can be reduced, if not totally eliminated in the future.

With these kinds of breakthroughs and application I personally agree that DOI shall be the future of digital archiving. Moreover I think we are just beginning to see its potential. With the coming year, the full application of DOI can be realized in the different aspects of human lives using technology, not just in the internet but in day to day practical matters. Thus in conclusion, I acknowledge the advantages of DOI and at the same time agree with its proponents.  With the kind of advantages it provides, it is quite impractical to set this aside due to some drawbacks.

Works Cited

Davidson, Lloyd and Douglas, Kimberly. 1998. Promise and Problems for Scholarly Publishing

The Journal of Electronic Publishing. University of Michigan.

Retrieved 25 September 2007 from

http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-02/davidson.html

Rosenblatt, Bill. 1997. Solving the Dilemma of Copyright Protection Online

The Journal of Electronic Publishing. University of Michigan.

Retrieved 25 September 2007 from

http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-02/doi.html

Sidman, David. 2002. Digital Object Identifiers: Not Just for Publishers.

Retrieved 25 September 2007 from

http://www.cmswatch.com/Feature/66-DOI

Sidman, David. 2003. Economic Benefits of Digital Object Identifier Applications in Content

Marketing. Retrieved 25 September 2007 from

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=economic+benefits+of+DOI&fr=slv8-msgr&u=www.bsg.co.uk/solutions/pdfs/applications/eps_doi_wp.pdf&w=economic+benefits+benefit+doi&d=V3q1ludmPbhC&icp=1&.intl=us

Stevens Institute of Technology’s Online School Signs DOI Pact with Content Directories. 2002.

Stevens Institute of Technology. Retrieved 25 September 2007 from

http://www.contentdirections.com/materials/PressReleases/PRESSRELEASE-StevensInst.htm