ADT's Bizarre #1 Reason For Video Surveillance
yet they will still kill it when it comes to selling video surveillance due to their brand recognition and marketing power.
Its hardly expected for marketing to be held to the same standards as journalism, but, I have to agree, using content marketing pieces from competitors as your source for statistics is not something Ive heard of even the least capable marketing teams doing. This is one of the purposes of the infographic to begin with, take difficult to understand data from a bigger scope of sources and present it in a way that is palatable, entertaining, pretty, etc. Without the source, it kind of loses the whole "info" part of the purpose.
So their facts research mimics today's political debates...?
Maybe these facts are so yuge they will make your head spin?
Strangely, though, none of the sources, included the one specifically referenced even mention the 60% burglar claim.
Apparently an uncredited reference to Study Of Why Burglars Steal And What Impacts Them.
That's actually a good real source, but does it talk about cameras or alarms?
From the study you reference, here are the relevant 60% claims:
About 60% of the burglars indicated that the presence of an alarm would cause them to seek an alternative target altogether.
About 60% of the burglars indicated that an alarm would cause them to seek an alternative target.
But the ADT facts say:
60% burglars chose a different target when they detected the presence of surveillance cameras.
Yes/no?
You're right, 60% are deterred by an alarm, not by cameras.
Maybe why the reference isn't listed. But if it helps at all, I do still think that this is what they are distorting at least, since they are certainly familiar with it.
Also, you can get pretty close to 60% on a admittedly different, but similar sounding question:
The real number though would be maybe 43%:
Note here that 'Alarm' is roughly the same as 'Camera', yet in a followup question about Alarms specifically the number rose to 60%. No such seperate question was asked about video, perhaps someone was assuming a similar jump to 60% if they had.
Don't confuse any of this as a justification of ADT actions, just perhaps an reasonable explanation of them. I'm sure if they had a clean reference they would have cited it.
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.