Ads or lack thereof do not define the organization; their members and what they actually provide to the industry and do and/or in some cases do not provide is what is important to focus on. The competency of each member also needs to be taken into consideration.
NOTICE: This comment was moved from an existing discussion: Security Sales And Integration (SSI) Runs A Very Professional Organization, And That Counts
Jeff, I made this its own discussion topic to address.
The choice of business model (e.g., ads) structurally defines what the organization can do to make money / stay in business.
The problem for the physical security industry is its small size. Small size means low reads (e.g., 1,000 per article). Low reads means low advertising payments (e.g., $100 per article). Low advertising payment means limited money to pay people to produce these article and limited time to do so.
It is no accident that we publish more reports and much more in-depth ones while requiring membership payments. It's the only way to fund such an effort in a small market.
Here are some details to help you understand.
SSI reports 110,000 page views for their entire site per month. IPVM does 500,000 to 600,000. While SSI is on the low end and we are on the high, it's very small relative to the mainstream (e.g., the NYTimes get 700 million or so page views per month).
Given the small total page views for security sites, individual articles are only to going to get hundreds to a few thousand page views typically. Let's say you get 1,000 page views and you charge $100 per CPM, that would be $100 in revenue for the article.
What can you produce with $100 in revenue? Not much.
For example, SSI's top videos of the week series. It uses other people's content and can be assembled quickly by an inexperienced 'editor'. Related, notice how they use a slideshow that forces to click for each video. That's done to increase page views and charge more for advertising. But even with that, page views are still tiny. This, unfortunately, is the world of niche publications funded by advertising in the modern world.
Net/net, ads effectively define organizations because they set the capacity of an organization to earn funds to pay their members and to afford competent ones.
John:
You surely make some very good points. However, a broad stroke of a brush approach by choosing to single out an editor and say that he is inexperienced does not further your position. The salient issue here is that there is excellent content that SSI provides and regardless of how you want them to measure up, or duplicate your efforts does not reconcile what readers of their magazine and their on-line audience comes back to read consistently. It's not about how many ads are in place, or how many hits they get, or that they do not get, or even if you believe that their editors are inexperienced since all of this is a moot point. Consider same, I am confident that you editorial experience pales in comparison to Scott Goldfine's, but who cares.
To this end, an example of a gross lack of competency by IPVM is when they literally had the audacity to state that the Simpi-Safe control panel which can be connected to wireless smoke and CO detectors, and is being monitored by a remote station, did not have to be listed by an NRTL.
Glaringly, this is not just a rookie mistake, it turns the entire NEC requirement on its head, and what each of the professional alarm industry manufacturers comply with. By way of example, Honeywell does not have a control panel set that is not listed by an NRTL.
As the foregoing illustrates, there is no room for this type of egregious reporting.
At the same time, is it IPVM's position that all Video Surveillance Cameras are not required to be listed by an NRTL as well?
In other words, you cannot purchase a professional household burglar and fire control panel set that is not listed by an NRTL, and as you are probably aware, almost all, if not every professional video surveillance manufacturer lists their cameras and their recorders by an NRTL. Is everyone wrong and IPVM is right? Of course not.
IPVM does a very good job doing what it does most of the time, but when I see how IPVM utterly missed very basic and fundamental requirements in their analysis and reporting, it needs to be corrected by IPVM forthwith, and IPVM needs to retract their erroneous reporting. Otherwise, the good work that you do becomes less credible and so does IPVM.
Please do not respond with anything more than retracting the inaccurate reporting and we can move on. There are more inaccuracies in the IPVM "analysis" and since "IPVM" never gave me an opportunity to address what IPVM "found" and/or did not "find" I once again ask that you put my article back on your site, but before you do this, you should assign someone with expertise in alarm systems and let them interview me first.
Jeffrey D. Zwirn, President- ZWIRN CORPORATION
Hello Jeff:
First, thanks for the comment. Here's the post you're referring to: No One Should Ever Use Simplisafe.
when I see how IPVM utterly missed very basic and fundamental requirements in their analysis and reporting, it needs to be corrected by IPVM forthwith, and IPVM needs to retract their erroneous reporting. Otherwise, the good work that you do becomes less credible and so does IPVM.
In general, your indictments of IPVM not puppeting your hardline stance on certifications is not an error in our judgement. IPVM articulates the market, and given the widespread unencumbered use of Simplisafe in the consumer space without obstacle shows that many/most Simplisafe customers in the consumer market do not value many 'NRTL' alarm certifications. I'd go as far as to say many DIYers have no idea these metrics exist or understand why they exist.
So if your argument is that NRTLs are failing to reach all the systems within their purview, I'd agree. But to restate, IPVM is simply reflecting elements of the consumer market do not value those certifications, and whatever guidelines or mandates are in place to follow them are not enforced due to weakness, disinterest, or ignorance by the codes or standards authorities.
The DIY market segment is largely insulated from the permitting and inspection process offered by AHJs, and so holding homeowners installing their own systems academically responsible to work standards of professionals who sell and resell for profit is incorrect.
Moreover, the NRTL-rated monitoring facility that Simplisafe uses apparently does not have difficulty accepting these 'unwashed' systems for monitoring, just as they would an otherwise labeled system.
Please do not respond with anything more than retracting the inaccurate reporting and we can move on. There are more inaccuracies in the IPVM "analysis" and since "IPVM" never gave me an opportunity to address what IPVM "found" and/or did not "find" I once again ask that you put my article back on your site, but before you do this, you should assign someone with expertise in alarm systems and let them interview me first.
Your continued edification of your own skills and certifications is noted. IPVM has posted on a subject you disagree with, and we welcome and respect your objections, as evidenced by your repeated critical comments that we have not abridged.
I personally cannot wait until SS&I, SDM and Security Manager arrive.
They all have a special place in my heart.
Lets have a meaningful conversation. This is not helpful.
Jeff, I assume you mean this to #1's image. You can still respond to my detailed comment. Will you?
Here’s a story that IPVM apparently passed on:
Is it just me or does this article have a different tone than most SSI articles?
Simplisafe must not have an ad on SSI yet. That’s some hard hitting content.
That’s some hard hitting content.
It’s actually a sublimely subliminal allegory.
As in, SimpliSafe is the engorged bedbug feeding parasitically off of the backs of real integrators and installers everywhere.
To that, I would say I've learned far more from members of IPVM than I have ever learned from any publication in the security space. That does not take into account the reports and tests published by IPVM directly which are often quite valuable, and far more critical than any traditional publication I've seen.
I am sure that you have.
I would agree with your statement Jeff. However, though the ads or lack thereof may not define an organization, they do indicate what content you may or may note see or hear about from that organization. Almost all the audio trade magazines that I have ever glanced at are filled with articles that read more like sales pitches on the great installed system from the key manufacturers used in those system. All you need is the client to be happy and then show all the great photos and flashy features that will entice readers. No one ever mentions if the system sounds horrible and the room acoustics are terrible.
If audio company "X" advertises in a trade magazine, no one from that trade magazine is going to write an article about "X's" failure rate of amplifiers increasing drastically due to moving manufacturing outside of the US if that happened to be true but widely unknown outside company "X".
I know my example isn't related to surveillance, but I came into surveillance from the audio industry. When I want audio training, I look to other experts in the field and try to engage in the forums they actively participate in. These forums usually are found within companies similar to IPVM but are in a different industry. IPVM does have, in my opinion, one of the best formats for discussion/forum. The speed of the website makes it easy to reply to a comment received via email.
Plus, I typically don't have time to read a print magazine. Print media is largely dead to me. I do a lot of reading, but it's almost all from a screen.
Kyle:
In my experience the advertising department and editorial persons are separate and apart. The issue is not just about print media, as we can agree that print media is being rapidly taken over by the web; it is about the content of same, and companies like SDM and SSI have done a fantastic job at focusing on relevant issues facing the alarm and security industry. Security Management magazine is also an excellent resource.
None of these entities are like IPVM, but to use the taking of advertisements as a defect or a defacto judgement that this business model is flawed, is close minded and erroneous.
Flatly refusing to acknowledge the obvious conflict of interest in being paid by the very subjects of an editorial is juvenile and erodes at your credibility. To argue that the advertising and editorial arms aren't connected to, and influenced by the same body is disingenuous.
Are all forms of journalism following that model or those employed therein without value? Of course not. But if you can't acknowledge the conflict of interest then I have to assume you are motivated to feign ignorance.
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.
