 So, we're Beth Harris and Steven Zucker of Smart History. And so, Smart History has a utopian vision, one we believe everyone here shares. What if people around the world better appreciated the meaning and beauty of each other's visual heritage? What would it mean if every museum visitor was visually literate? How can we use the web to leverage our collective knowledge and expertise to reach new, enormous global audiences? Millions are waiting. And so what are the internal impediments that are in our way? So if you Google the words art history, and our work at Khan Academy comes up first, two art historians have more YouTube subscribers than every art museum in the United States. Except MoMA. This shouldn't be. Here are some of our observations that we think limit museums reach and impact libraries as well as the rest of GLAM. These come from our experience, but are generalizable to other organizations that are trying to work with these institutions. So the British Museum recognized that their content could reach a vast new global audience through Smart History at Khan Academy. And the British Museum invited us to basically republish any content we wanted from their website. But this was very unusual. Nearly every page on Smart History links to the museum that the object is from. But those museums almost never link back to us. Linking helps learners. I think maybe never. Never. It generates traffic to the museum's own website and to each other. And yet this rarely happens. A major museum we worked with recently commissioned a white paper about our very successful partnership. Yet the authors never reached out to us. Institutions fail when they think they have all the answers. Our style of conversational videos has had a significant impact on museum content. But museums have only been willing to tell us this off the record. There are lots of people doing exceptional work outside of your staffs. Are the museums talking to them? Are you talking to them? In several cases, curators, believing in our mission, have volunteered to contribute. But have been thwarted by the politics at their institutions. Curators and others who have a more generous vision need to be persistent in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Despite the fact that we describe our shoestring method of making videos, museums still often assume that they need a costly video crew. Silicon Valley understands that the web is iterative and that it never lets perfection get in the way of creation. Recently, we mentioned to a museum that they owned a significant number of works in the new AP art history curriculum. Completely new information for them. Museums need to think about how their collection relates the needs of learners beyond K-12. It took a year or more and many meetings for a major museum recently to sign a partnership agreement with us. Despite the fact that there was no money changing hands and that there was a clear benefit for all parties, the world shouldn't have to wait. We've noticed that museums have a wealth of already approved content that can easily be put online. When museums don't step up, search results list commercial sites with unreliable information. That so many institutions still seek to control high-resolution images of public domain works of art is simply an abuse of their missions and the beneficial stacks that we, the public, grant them. The Rijks Museum recognized that withholding an image of Vermeer's yellow milkmaid resulted, actually, the milkmaid, resulted in the proliferation of poor reproductions in lower postcard sales. When museums don't step up, others fill the vacuum. Can't afford to put high-resolution images of your public domain collections online? Why not ask the public to do it for you? Smart History has 5,000 commonly taught images on Flickr. These images have been viewed more than 5 million times. These are just images we take in the galleries. Visit any museum YouTube channel, and you'll find videos that have high production values, and were obviously costly, but have a very low view count. We wonder, is anyone keeping track of the return on investment? Were quantifiable goals ever set? There's some really great online content for teachers that could be serving a much larger audience, especially if certain words were taken out. Segmenting audiences online doesn't always make sense except when you're dealing with younger age groups. So millions of people around the world are coming online in the next decade, as we all know. Hungry for the expertise that resides in your institutions. Why don't we work together to set ambitious goals to meet their needs? Google the words, art history, or nearly any commonly taught content, and smart history comes very high to the top, often above leading museums, libraries, universities. Again, we're only two people. This shouldn't be happening.