If I Was CEO Of A Large Manufacturing Company, I Would Instruct All My Employees To Never Speak To IPVM

Keep it real, Sean! I made this its own post because it's an interesting topic.

Essentially every large manufacturer talks to us. It varies which people, but usually, key management people, sometimes off the record, sometimes on.

As for Hikvision, they have made it clear to us why they won't speak to us. It is because of our reporting on the Chinese government (aka Hikvision's owner), not anything about testing nor products. As you know by reading IPVM, criticize the Chinese government on social media, you risk getting kidnapped, so it's understandably a sensitive subject for Hikvision. On the other hand, we are not going to censor ourselves to bow down to the Chinese government.

Now, generally, the reason we reach out to manufacturers, is that even if we disagree on issues, we strive to get their point of view and include it in our coverage. It is a matter of fairness to them and completeness to our readers.

On the minority of occasions when manufacturers refuse to talk, that's their issue. We will continue to report.

Overall, though, manufacturers recognize our intentions to be fair and thorough, and that's why they continue to provide us input.

fair and thorough

I have found its not really worth my time explaining to you how you are so unbalanced towards your negative reporting to Hikvision. Your so delusional that you are too far gone. Too exhausting. You win!

So, speaking as the person doing the testing, I think that this statement is false:

As far as Hikvisions example, their is absolutely 0 benefit for them to speak to IPVM.

There is only benefit to speaking to us about these tests. Speaking to us gives them the opportunity to:

• Prior to the test: Give recommendations for how their product should be configured and why. This very much helps contextualize the entire test.
• During the test: Respond to performance issues we find with suggestions on how they might be improved. This isn't going to turn bad results good, but allows the opportunity for feedback, at least.
• After the test: At the very least provide a company PR line on the results, discuss plans for improvement, etc.

What is the drawback to speaking to us? Legitimizing our existence? I hate to tell them, but it's a little late for that.

We are going to test. Why you would not want your official company positions on the record is beyond me.

Sean did you just coin a new term? Hik Hater? Has a nice ring to it.

I have to say though, IPVM is hard (rightfully so) on all of our budget camera manufacturers and surprisingly also on the higher end manufacturers when they screw up too. Does that mean the Hik/Dahua/Axis/etc should just cut them off and ignore them because IPVM disclosed some flaw or vulnerability or dirty secret?

I don’t think so... but then again I am a big believer in extreme ownership and taking accountability. You seem to have no problem with taking accountability for your actions and statements as you regularly go rounds with John and others here, and I respect you for that. So why can’t the giant megacorp that is Hik put someone up to the task of either going a few rounds with the IPVM team or at least have some accountability and giving informed statements to genuine questions?

I know the other manufacturer’s do it, even though some of them feel like IPVM is picking on them... as if  these multi-billion dollar companies could really be bullied and pushed around by a small group of subject matter experts/bloggers/journalists? 

I think it would be more reasonable to say "if I was CEO of a manufacturer, I would instruct all my employees to be extremely cautious when speaking to IPVM." 

IPVM has demonstrated a willingness to criticize anyone for anything, as they see fit, including attacking companies for misstatements, exaggerated claims, and the sort of loose talk that most salespeople engage in from time to time. 

Which is vital for the health of our industry, of course. I remember what the video surveillance industry was like before IPVM, and I know what the intrusion industry is like now. You cannot get away with bogus claims in the surveillance industry anymore, but you may be able to get away with them in the intrusion industry, making video marketing material easier to believe overall than intrusion marketing material. 

Treat IPVM with a healthy dose of caution, don't say anything untrue or stupid, and you'll be fine. 

Oh, and you better hope you actually have a decent product, because IPVM isn't shy about pointing out any flaws they can find. 

Isn't it pretty standard for almost any large company to not allowed their employees to speak to the media? When I worked for Chubb Edwards I must have received at least six emails from corporate in my three years reminding me about the policy that any requests from media should be directed to the VP of Marketing or what ever.

If I was the CEO, I would send my products to IPVM for testing, and get feedback to improve the products. ( and have bragging rights when they came out on top!)

I would encourage my staff to join, so they can better understand and pick up industry information.

I would however have a policy in place so that official communications would be coordinated so corporate information would be provided in the correct context, without disparaging any competitors and to accurately and honestly reflect product performance, and details. 

How much to put a [ IPVM#1 ] sticker on a hikvision 4mp dome?

I would take the opposite approach, honestly. If I were in charge of a large manufacturing company I'd look to IPVM and other community driven resources that could give me the best possible pulse on the industry and maintain a line of communication where I can learn and pivot based on how the industry views my company and reacts to my product releases. Knowing IPVM doesn't take freebees, I'd at least offer them first-look engineering samples that could give me insights of potential product failings from reviews and their reactions.

In fact, I'd combine the market research and PR budgets and have the product development and testing department bleed over into these departments to increase responsiveness to feedback.

Criticism is not something to reel from, it is something to embrace as an opportunity to adapt and grow further.

Probably true, but speaking just for myself, I don't come here to read manufacturer's comments (which are probably 95% BS anyway) but to read the IPVM reviews and integrator comments, both of which are much more likely to reflect real-world scenarios and experiences.

Hopefully Beff Jezos will pop in here every now and then to talk about his doorbell cams.

Sometimes the reports are very direct and not in line with the American political correct way and are not the "music that those manufacturers" wanted to hear, I find it very good. Blatant to the face is the way to go.

if a manufacturer has something to hide, yes he will state 

"I Instruct All My Employees To Never Speak To IPVM"

IPVM bought at MSRP price (no freebies!!!) from us our PdbU, tested it better than we did (!!!), the high valuable feedbacks from users gave us ideas for more new products.

To me, this is the great value. If our product was crap and IPVM would not test properly and it was recommended, then it would be a bad service to me and users.

The bottom line, if you have a good product and you want to share and willing to face any type of feedback for good and bad, IPVM is the right place.

The politic parts are as important as the tech parts.

Thanks, 

If I were a manufacturer whose business model was based on low-cost, high volume, junk I agree with Sean,

If I were a manufacturer whose business model was making high-quality stuff and trying to get that into professionals hands to be the go-to solution then I agree with #5.

As an integrator who tries to offer my customers high-quality, simple solutions that don't need constant support I look for products that allow me to offer that.  I come here to help me get information to make those decisions, and appreciate the value I get from it.

I feel compelled to reply to this argument here. I head up a small commercial integration firm. We have a group license to IPVM. I have never instructed my team not talk to IPVM. I am not here to judge, but in my opinion it is a shame to deter employees from participation in these forums or any other industry related forum. I and my team find there is much to gain in conversing with our industry colleagues. That being said, it is critical that our I and our employees think about the consequences of their words and opinions on IPVM, just as any other forum or social media platform.

I too, get tired of the Hikvision articles and banners, and agree from all the headlines in IPVM, that there may be a bias against them. But... we don't use Hik, so I don't read them. Since I don't read it, my opinion is only perceived. You get to choose what to read and what not to. Tune what you don't need out, and enjoy and utilize the rest. 

Example: Dynamic vs Static IP Addresses

At the risk of Sean getting me fired, I would like to once again state that, based on my experience working for three manufacturers, the people at IPVM make assertions that they are confident they can substantiate. Sometimes the truth hurts. However, my experience has been that the people at IPVM always operate from: 1. They are open to be shown how they are wrong (in fact, they invite that), and 2. They give equal recognition when a problem is acknowledged and addressed by the manufacturer. Name calling does not fit this modus operandi. However, love it or hate it, if someone escalates (descends?) an argument to calling John names, he is up to that exchange, too. 

There are many people who matter to our business who read IPVM and use its unique tools. So, hmm, something about babies and bathwater...

If you don't appreciate IPVM, don't read it. Just continue to pay your annual membership fee (LOL).

is this facebook, I'm getting the two confused...?

In large companies, most of the employees are instructed not to speak to ANY journalist on an official basis; communication only comes from authorized folks who (theoretically) know what they're doing.

The authorized communicators can do one of three things, if consulted:

1. Speak to the journalist and hope the journalist records their point of view.

2. Refuse to speak to the journalist, thus reducing the chance that the company's point of view is incorporated in the article (and, at a minimum, guaranteeing a "We contacted Company X, but they refused to comment").

3. Refuse to speak to the journalist, then go on another forum and attack the journalist.

Perhaps I'm naïve, but option 3 doesn't seem like the wisest strategy.

I totaly agree with the headline! The same would obviously go for all other media as well. It is the only way to maintain some control of what information that's beeing shared.

Just as obvious is the exceptons.. Appointed spokespersons whos job is to handle inquiries from media.

I don't understand the criticism of ipvm pointing out that Hikvision, or any other, refuses to respond. Where I'm from (Norway) it would be concidered bad journalism to criticize someone, without giving them a chance to respond to your critics. When you invite that someone to give their response, and maybe even a good chancecto deffend themself against what they maight feel as unjust accusations, it again seems obvious that this needs to be reported in the article.

From my point of view, IPVM seems to be fair in their testing and critics of all testet products and companies. I've read several tests here where Hik products have done well on the technical parts, such as image quality, low light performance and "simpler" edge analytics. I'm also glad they focus on potential issues, and I hope they will continue to do so regardless of brand.

I think they could care less about winning IPVM over. I'm not sure why you even report that they don't respond to your inquiries, because everyone be like "Duh". The sky is also blue, but no need to report on that.

Hikvision is now speaking with us.