The Henry Stewart digital asset management (DAM) webinar on February 12, Finding a DAM to Love for the Long Term, may be history, but ICYMI, there’s lots of love to go around in this recap. Watch a recording of the webinar here:
We kicked things off with one of the biggest issues enterprises face when evaluating a DAM solution: aligning expectations. The C-suite typically sees the content supply chain from 35,000 feet, flying over the frustrations that plague teams deep in the trenches. What looks straightforward from high above is pie in the sky for the actual users who have to compensate for system inflexibilities.
So how do you make sure your content supply chain works as flawlessly on the ground as it looks from above? By building the content supply chain as a series of steps enabled by your DAM software. With DAM as the integrated foundation of the chain, you’ll be able to respond to changes dynamically.
We’ve helped our customers navigate this trip from expectation to reality, identifying the danger signs of DAM maturity and the clearest routes forward. Here are some of the pitfalls we’ve steered many enterprises away from:
- If you’re managing content-centric processes with spreadsheets and email chains, you’ve definitely got a problem. Next stop? Slow approvals, missed deadlines, and fact-finding missions that waste everyone’s time.
- If you’ve heard this delightful throwback from the turn of the century, “The hard drive is in the mail,” a breakup with your DAM software is long overdue. Your teams shouldn’t feel like they’re first responders on the content front, performing acts of everyday heroism.
Why would any enterprise actively choose to sacrifice flexibility, efficiency, and effectiveness with a antiquated DAM solution that can’t keep up? The short answer is they shouldn’t have to. A modern Digital Asset Management system should perform faithfully from whatever angle you’re viewing it.
Addressing issues by connecting adjacent steps is one method that many folks use to smooth out inefficiencies. They often try:
- Point to point integrations, where two adjacent systems are integrated, like a campaign management system that connects planning to production schedules, or a DAM solution to a web content management platform.
- Using teams as integration points – the unlucky souls tasked with the drudgery of translating one step to the next.
- Cross-functional meetings, or as they were called at a previous company where I worked, “interlocks.” The word was unintentionally accurate. Think of two male bulls, locking horns to be the alpha. These “collaborative” meetings get heavy on cross and light on function. Aren’t we all tired with meetings that offer nothing but coffee and a mini-muffin – if we’re lucky?