Now that most camera companies have multi sensor products, how would you sell against them if you worked for a camera manufacturer that does not offer one?
thanks for your feedback!
Now that most camera companies have multi sensor products, how would you sell against them if you worked for a camera manufacturer that does not offer one?
thanks for your feedback!
Related: Multi-Imager Camera Guide.
Objections I might raise:
That being said there are clear benefits that are often discussed - reduced installation costs, reduced VMS costs being 2 quite big ones.
In my world,
Selling against something is a waste of time and credibility.
Selling your solution you have to offer to meet the customers needs is time better spent, even if you don’t win that time around.
Every manufacturer has a “gap” and I choose to help direct the customer to an alternate solution I feel confortable with when that happens.
In my very humble opinion, my experience has been it garners trust and respect more than telling them they don’t need what they want.
Every manufacturer has a “gap” and I choose to help direct the customer to an alternate solution I feel confortable with when that happens.
Good strategy, but to me that is the same as "selling against" something. Customer has shown interest in some product architecture or feature set that you can not match directly, but you feel you can offer a just-as-good alternative.
Brian, you are good and I have seen you in action. Here is the difference as I see it.
Customer: The other guy said I could use a 360 degree multi-image camera to cover this whole area and it would cost less for labor but a little more for the camera. I like the fact that it's only one device. Can you do that too?
Option 1: You don't need a multi-image camera, you won't get more than a single point of view where different angles could better suit you. I can put in 3 different devices to cover the same area, with better angles and some redundancy if one camera fails or if they try to disable the 360 camera.
Option 2: We don't have one in our brand to offer. I have one I can recommend from another brand, but I'd prefer to use more than one camera in your case because I can cover more angles, providing what we could consider more beneficial and still be at the same price. Was there some other value you were presented with that appealed to you?
Which can be taken more as defensive and argumentative instead of consultative?
In my very humble opinion, my experience has been it garners trust and respect more than telling them they don’t need what they want.
One thing I do when buying things is ask sellers what the problems of their competitors or alternative solutions are. I know to be skeptical of the answers provided and research / qualify on my own but it does help to understand what the objections might be as sometimes they turn out to be legitimate issues that are relevant to my purchasing decision.
John,
A quick DISC analysis while meeting you as an opportunity would present an interesting challenge. There isn't "selling" you, there is providing information and providing probing questions to allow you to find your own solution.
DISC in Sales This isn't an endorsement of this site or program, just an application of personality types and how to work within a sales channel.
My opinion is that single lens cameras (ie, wide angle & 5+MP) can do most of what most of people need, so multi-imager cameras aren't needed as often as some might think.
I guess that could be a selling strategy. Changing employers is another.
My opinion is that single lens cameras (ie, wide angle & 5+MP) can do most of what most of people need
That's a good point. One of the things I find weird is low resolution multi-imagers. There are even some recent ones that have a total output resolution of 3.6MP - 8MP (after stitching, etc.). It boggles my mind why I would want that over a single imager wide-angle 6MP or 8MP.
Those low-rez multi-imager cameras (and fish-eye panoramics) are good for area "situational awareness" and they are most useful when used with single imager cameras (including PTZ's with a handover feature).
Sometimes I look at an installed 180 degree camera and think someone was too lazy in the planning stage.
There are some advantages to multi-sensors, but there are some pretty distinct disadvantages with many of them. One model I use frequently has fairly strong capabilities for repositioning individual imagers but is hampered by lack of smart codecs, older imagers, and massive bandwidth consumption with WDR on. Some models have nice imagers and smart codecs but severely lack the ability to be repositioned or force the tilt all the imagers simultaneously. The tilting of all imagers on some models results in a lot of ceiling/sky wasted pixels.
Stitching is a luxury I have not been able to use with our preferred brands.
Overall I view multi-imagers as a compromised product. They serve a need with those customers who are sensitive to having too many cameras in a location. One customer prefers them as they are less "bumps" on an otherwise pristine ceiling. They may be larger than a conventional single imager but 4 single imager cameras can be a concern for certain customers due to aesthetics. It is the form over function debate that occurs with everything.
Just got some weird spam in response to this 3 year old discussion:
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.