Did you really need to sugar-coat it that much?
When I tell companies this, the typical response is: "Well can you look into our product in detail and do a test?"
Try to understand: If no one is really asking or recommending you and we cannot find any real differentiators, what is the point of us spending a lot of time and money to examine your company? The probability that we will find something of interest to the general membership is very low.
My recommendation: Try to find something that really differentiates your company and emphasize that to us. "Hey but we have the world's only X or the lowest costing Y or a breakthrough in Z" If you don't have that, go back internally and improve your strategy so you have that - not for us, but for to strengthen your market position.
Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of crap and/or boring and/or outdated solutions in the physical security marketplace. So the ipvm.com attitude seems perfectly logical to me. P.s. this is not that different from the dialog that goes on in other environments (i.e. Network World) as far as the "why didn't you cover our product?" question.
ipvm.com definitely does have it's share of weirdo niche products so it's not like I think they're all vanilla mainstream about things.
Btw, here's an example of how to get one's company covered. In the recent 10 Reasons NOT To Buy Costco Surveillance Kits discussion, we linked to a blog post from 'Rugged Cams'. They have gotten 250+ click throughs from it and a fair bit of attention - some of it critical but I am sure many who agree with the sentiment.
This is a good example about how taking a stand about a controversial issue (buying from Costco, et al.) and saying something specific can help get you coverage.
A manufacturer who read this just send their test results of their camera, illuminating a very common problem.
I see these regularly and they rarely, if ever, disclose the model of the competitor camera being tested against. While I can understand why they do not want to be seen publicly criticizing a rival. However, we need to know what model so we can a sense of how relevant the test results are and how significant the claims are. In other words, if a manufacturers does a shootout against a known poor camera, we can immediately discount it.
Bonus points to manufacturers who actually read our test results, match their own against top performers in our test and then claim they can beat those products.
[Update: This manufacturer responded by naming the manufacturer but not the model. This does me very little good. It's like saying your computer is better than a Dell. Ok, but which one?]
John, TechnoAware is going to be within 2 years the Leader of the market of video analytics worldwide!
Do you think I may compete to raise your attention by this, according to your Point 5 "Say something really stupid"?....;)))
IPVMU Certified | 02/04/14 11:56pm
I spent 30 years with a manufacturer, so “I feel their pain”, but now I am a consultant I really appreciate the no punches pulled product evaluations from IPVM and the commenters. Since I am not in the trenches installing equipment, I am somewhat insulated from the good, bad, and the ugly in the market place, I used to only hear about product problems after an integrator on one of my projects ran into a problem or shortcoming. Now that I subscribe to IPVM I can read about the good and the bad before my design hits the street. If I want the sugar coated version of the facts, I can go to the manufacturer’s website.
IPVMU Certified | 02/14/14 10:09pm
All I ask of IPVM is that it be obsessively objective, detailed and directly relevant to the technology and equipment selection, deployment and performance upon which our reputation often rests. We don't have time to waste sorting fact from marketing excrement on our own for every project or selection. Keep doing it as you are/have been and we all stand to gain.
Bumping this because this question has come up more recently, e.g., Everfocus Declares IPVM Anti-Everfocus