Reminder: Promotions Using IPVM Are Never Allowed
Anyone who uses IPVM to promote a manufacturer or product is absolutely unauthorized. We never, and will never, allow anyone to use IPVM for promotion in any form.
If you see someone doing so, please report them immediately to john@ipvm.com or use our contact form.
Why No Promotion
(1) Promotions are rightfully associated with payoffs -- That the promoter does not actually believe what they say but are doing do because they are being paid to do so.
(2) Promotions typically distort the position being made, with incomplete information, omitting negative details, using out of date information, etc.
(3) It causes rivals of the company doing the promotion to fear / worry that the source is biased / on the take from the promoter.
This is modeled after Consumer Report's No Commercial Use Policy.
Can't Force Someone To Be In Your Promotion
Over the years, we have heard from a few bizarre manufacturers who opine "Well, if you say something positive about me, I have the right to do whatever I want with it." WRONG.
It's called personality rights / right of publicity, which allows companies and individuals to control how their identity is used commercially.
Again, we have never, and will never, allow anyone to use IPVM for promotion in any form. If you see someone doing so, please report them immediately to john@ipvm.com
Curious, what if a manufacturer wanted to respond to something negative that you openly published? Is that O.K.?
Thanks. Someone just alerted me to yet another Samsung distributor promotion - unbelievable. I have already notified the company to take it down.
Please keep reports coming - john@ipvm.com or use our contact form.
What about an integrator siting something from your site in a presentation for a client. Such as "in a recent survey of over 80 integrators, it was found that the most common retention rate was 30 days".
John, is your position that as long as IPVM is not directly mentioned you are okay with your research being used in promotions? I wonder if this puts you on a slippery slope with regard to your automatic copyright rights. I can see the desirability of someone saying, "The leading industry independent testing authority says...". Having established your organization as a recognized source of independent information people are interested in quoting you as an impartial source., Are you forbidding the mentioning specific brand names like Samsung if you will allow the more generic "leading independent testing authority"?
A secondary question would be your stance on self promotion citing my IPVM Camera Certification.
I was looking up information on a camera or a dvr/nvr online the other day and I do recall your company popping up along side their information, unbidden. I will, if you like, try to backtrack to the specific site.
This is one of the most dumfounding promotional uses I have ever seen, posted on an Australian distributor's website:
They really could not figure this out? Or they couldn't imagine that maybe a publicly available webpage would be found?
I've taken immediate steps to rectify this.
So just this past week I bid some Axis Lightfinder cameras for a poorly lit parking lot. When I called to check the status of my bid the customer informed me I was "way too high". After some prodding he told me they were about to accept a Hikvision camera that did terribly in your low light test. Of course, the Hikvision spec sheet said "0.01" lux, vs Axis's "0.02" lux. I tried explaining that those numbers were meaningless, but the other bidder was arguing his cameras were "great in low light" and he had those spec sheets to "prove it".
Then he dropped the real bomb - he was "saving almost $200 per camera" with the other guy... My recommendation sells for $650 more at ADI... Not only were the being sold an inferior product, but being gouged for the privilege.
I shared a link to the low light test with them along with links to online pricing. They are reconsidering. Did I run afoul of the usage policy? I did not share the content of the test - just a link.
Just to put a dull edge on the line between promotional and not, dish on whether you believe the following purely hypothetical situation is ok or not:
1. IPVM reviews 10 manufacturers of X device, manufacturer A clearly dominates.
2. Right after that, manufacturer A's news letter contains a notice like so:
IPVM Members are reminded that independent additional information regarding X may be found on that site.
Members are reminded to utilize their subscription to go look, and non-members can only assume it's good news or why would it even be mentioned...
Win/Win/Win?
is the manufacturer a certified grad or not, with the right to mention ipvm on their website?
Btw, we had an issue this week with Uniview who illicitly ran a PR campaign featuring our test results and using an image from our test report.
We immediately demanded and they have been removing any reference to IPVM from their PR / posts / marketing. I have also banned them from accessing IPVM for the time being.
If you see any from them or anyone else, please let me know immediately because we treat removing this with great urgency. Email me john@ipvm.com
This one's too close to call:
So, I think I'm on the right side of the law, but I want to be sure.
Customer: How good is your camera?
Me: Flippin' awesome. Check out this review on IPVM.
Customer: Sweet.
Kosher?
Newest Discussions
| Discussion | Posts | Latest |
|---|---|---|
|
Video Surveillance Show Armed Suspect Trying To Enter Club, Security Intervenes, Fight Breaks Out
(3)
Started by
Jermaine Wilson
|
3
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed #1 |
|
Started by
John Honovich
|
33
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed Integrator #13 |
|
Started by
David Little
|
6
|
2 minutes by Undisclosed Manufacturer #2 |
|
Started by
Undisclosed Integrator #1
|
22
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed Integrator #1 |
|
Started by
John Honovich
|
14
|
less than a minute by John Honovich |
