John, I have to disagree. You know full well that when the public sees this, they will say, I want a $50 ip camera too, why cant you give me a $50 IP camera? Thereby propagating the race to the bottom. You posted something publicly knowing full well it was not standard for it to be public and it was not a new product, but very likely to be a closeout sold to dealers and integrators and trunkslammers with a license. You cannot propagate "fact" with missing information that can be easily misconstrued by the end-users and claim to be an advocate for transparency and improvement of our industry.
If the info is publicly available on ADI's site, then ADI needs to be admonished, but ing that as justification is like my 5 year old saying that coloring on the furniture is ok because my 4 year old did it first.
Continuing to do this will end up with a community that doesnt share information on your forums as readily as they should due to fear of information being made public for no reason other than to get clicks. You are shooting yourself in the foot, because you tout the community as one of the biggest advantages to being a member.
I am a fan of yours, but in my opinion, this was a misguided self-serving decision that goes against this sites stated purpose. https://ipvm.com/about does not say anything about end-users but mentions "security professionals" in one way or another a couple of times.
Thank you for putting it behind the paywall, but I disagree with your assessment here.
So Ill tone down the rhetoric a little, but you and I both know each post counts, each post increases clicks, each post adds value and increases the chances of more subscribers.
You know the industry and manufacturers better than pretty much any of us on this side of the keyboard. You saw this as significant so you posted it, but you made it public. What percentage of your news is public? I'll buy you a beer at ISC next year if its more than 10%. This post was the exception and the only reason to make it public is to drive up relevance with search engines and drive up subscription. This is where my beef with this post lies. It was made public for no reason other than to benefit IPVM regardless of implications for your target audience. Anyone on the front page could see that honeywell cameras are $42, without the benefit of getting the rest of the history or even implication that these are out date, quite the opposite.
Amazon is there to sell stuff. They sell stuff. They dont report things.
As for end-users, I have no problems with end-users being on this site, if they are here they have a vested interest in the industry and improving their own results in using our wares and services, but I do have a problem with midleading information being made public.
As I said, I am a fan of yours and I pay for multiple people to be on this site because I value what you do. Choosing to make this post public was perceived as a slap in the face and I dont use Honeywell or ADI. You may find it reduces inclination to share information.
This post was the exception and the only reason to make it public is to drive up relevance with search engines and drive up subscription.
If you are really a fan, why not simply ask me why I made it public? Why assume the worst motivation?
I'll tell you why, because it only took me 15 minutes to do in between checking emails and I felt it was so small / short that it was not even worth 'charging for'. That literally was my thought process.
To the extent I care about search engines (and it is very little overall), it is about getting links from mainstream sites about mainstream issues (and the only topic we have seen that is for cybersecurity). I could write 100 cheap IP camera posts and I have little hope that it would do anything for search engine ranking.
I made it member's only and member's only is quite frankly better for business for us.
I don't think ADI has any publicly available pricing information. According to their website you must have an account to access pricing.
How to view prices and availability?
To view product information, pricing, and availability you need to be an existing customer with an active online account. If you are a customer, but do not currenty have an online account with us, simply fill out this Website Registration form to request one - submitting your information only takes a few moments.
- Once you have an account, you will be able to:
View detailed product information and compare products
Quickly find similar products and sort product results by items in stock or on special order
Access hot deals, exclusive offers, etc.
Retain items in your lists
While ADI certainly are responsible for protecting their adverts better I'm fairly sure this wasn't meant for John Q Public and shouldn't be posted on a site that doesn't have an approval process beyond payment for viewing content.
As much as I enjoy IPVM and the knowledge available here I don't think this is even close to debatable. Unless you can provide proof that this was a public email blast the assumption has to be that it was obtained from a dealer and then distributed against ADIs normal process.
As far as censorship goes, if this isn't publicly available information, it isn't censorship it's respect to the industry and those who work within it. As a small business owner I work very hard to provide great service and pricing but if my customers know my COG then I won't be in business very long to do so.
If you can't provide the analysis you want to without subverting dealer agreements than you should verify the site users and only allow those with dealer accounts to view dealer restricted content.
Honestly, I'm not sure what the right answer is to that question. Those situations seem more like news not specifically covered under DAs.
The second part of my comment is an option though. Make users prove that they are in the industry with current invoices or whatever and keep pricing info limited to those who have gone through the channels to gain access to it. All you need is Free, Paid, and Pro tiers.
Otherwise it's just the wild west, post whatever you want because you can, and that doesn't seem to be ideal for a site like this.
At the end of the day if it isn't illegal the editors and owners can do what they want. I'm good with that, I just posted my opinion on the matter.
I don't think ADI has any publicly available pricing information
That is not correct.
ADI emailed this flyer to non-dealers. The email was titled "Your ADI December Monthly Sales Flyer is Here!" and its the same email they send every month and it absolutely includes non-dealers.
ADI provided a public, no log in required, link to the flyer, i.e. here.
Please take it up with ADI.
if this isn't publicly available information
It was publicly available information.
Finally, we are still going to report on pricing, publicly available or not, because it is critical to analyzing trends. We are not going to share price lists unless the vendor makes them public, as ADI has.
In that case, when vendors make price lists public, you all need to take it up with the vendor. ADI has the power, in a second, to make that link require a login. Will they?
I stated and agree that ADI should take care of their advertising better but the highlighted statement from their website would seem to contradict the idea that they would want to send out pricing to the general public. Maybe, but it just doesn't pass the smell test.
I've worked hard to become a small business owner privy to wholesale pricing that helps me to make a living. I guess I just don't like it being given to those who haven't.
Either way, I think we'll agree to disagree on this matter but thanks for taking the time to respond.
Definitely never said that. Just that their statements apparently contradict reality which happens from time to time.
I don't even use ADI often, my comments are more in principle than anything specific to them.
I think I've made my opinion pretty clear and like I said before ADI should be more proactive in protecting what is supposed to be dealer information and I'd prefer that information from any distributor not be available in a relatively public forum.
So has this just gone out to subscribers but is actually public so anyone can see it if they stumble across it on the website i.e. how does the public know this article exists or is there a public distribution as well. If there is a public distribution list then that is poor form if not simply make the article subscriber only and hopefully not too many of the public saw it.
I did say "as far as I can tell", but even after you provided the link, I still cannot search and stumble upon it. I'm sure my internet searching skills don't compare to yours, but if I can't find it, chances are most of my customers cannot either. Do you have to be a subscriber to their newsletter to see it?
And if so, can anyone subscribe? Or does ADI try to filter out end users?
This now becomes a bone to pick with ADI...
Don't get me wrong, I think you are arguably brilliant for what you do and have done with IPVM, but again, IMHO, just because something is fact doesn't necessarily mean it's proper to speak it or publish it in mixed company.
I know this is getting off topic but maybe posting pricing other than MSRP on IPVM would be a good topic for one of your polls?
As long as its public info that any normal "logged out" person off of the proverbial street can see, I dont see any issue with this at all. Its ADI's fault for publically displaying something if they didnt want it to be seen.
If one doesn't have to be an ADI customer to subscribe to their newsletter, I would hope ADI would still at least try to filter out end users on behalf of their integrators. If not, another bone to pick...
I've sent an email to an ADI Manager asking for clarification.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone, so I hope that was a joke as it did initially make me laugh. By mixed, in this case, I was referring to end users and distribution competitors, those who would not normally have easy access to that pricing. I do concede that if you dig hard enough, you can usually find what you want to know online, but I don't think that it is right to make it any easier for them. If you're referring to race, my wife and I and our children are more a mixed mutt than most, so I have no issues with mixed race.
By mixed, in this case, I was referring to end users and distribution competitors, those who would not normally have easy access to that pricing.
But, that's not really what you mean, is it? For instance remove any of the 'distribution competitors' from the conversation and you are still not happy with John publishing the ADI information, right?
This site was not designed for those sellingproduct to maximize profit.
This site was designed for those seekinginformation about the industry and its products in order to be maximally successful.
If distributors don't want to speak about their dealer pricing that's fine and understandable, e.g. mixed company.
Question, do you have a problem as a dealer if John were to publish something about your distributor's internal policy regarding going direct?
Certainly the distributor would rather that information not be in your hands.
At that point in the conversation where I mentioned mixed company, it was more of a general response to John's point that because it was fact, it was OK to publish it.
If it was an integrator only conversation, I might feel differently about it. It really depends on ADI's intent. I'm still waiting to hear who they intended to see that flyer. But as you probably know, typically, ADI, like most security distributors, has a policy of not selling to end users. I also know that doesn't mean it is adhered to all of the time by many distributors.
To answer your question, as far as I know, most distributors will say publicly and internally that they "do not sell direct to the end user". Some will qualify that statement with "unless they are a qualified end user," meaning that they have their own qualified technicians, and typically, don't use integrators. But I know for fact that many, if not most, have employees that violate it in the name of sales numbers.
I've worked on each side of the counter, many years as an integrator, a distributor, and a manufacturer. And before all of that, I was an end user.
I understand that no matter which side of the counter or which level I work, at the end of the day, it is the end user who pays the bill. But I still try to be respectful of every level on all sides of the counter.
I was taught at an early age that all businesses should be more about service, integrity, and respect, and that will lead to profit. People with integrity will do business with companies that have integrity, and IMHO, those are the best customers as they are the most loyal.
I also do think I understand John's passion for journalism and marketing. Look at what he's done with IPVM, it's amazing. IMHO, it would only elevate IPVM's integrity even more to show only MSRP. I think that article could have made it's point without showing the flyer, just referencing it, although I admit it may not have had the same impact.
My Mother was an Italian from Brooklyn, so I tend to tell it like it is as I see it, and I'm often misunderstood, but at the end of the day, I'm not out to give anyone a black eye, nor was it my intention to offend anyone. I can have a spirited conversation with someone, respectfully disagree with them, and still enjoy a beer with them! And I'm sure ready for one now!
IMHO, it would only elevate IPVM's integrity even more to show only MSRP.
Well, I still have to disagree. If the distributor wants to keep a list private, then its up to the distributor to keep it private.
Its not John's job or moral duty to keep secrets for middlemen. If someone comes across something, that ultimately means that the disty didn't do it right, thru sloppiness or trusting the wrong person etc. When that happens, the price can escape, and that's the cost of business.
Keep better control of your dealer costs than your competitor and you profit, and vice versa. That's the way it works.
You say you answered my question, but I'm not sure you did. It wasn't "do you know that disties deal direct?", but rather "should John tell you if he finds something out about your disty cutting out dealers. Say an internal memo forwarded erroneously.
Yes/no or "That's not the same thing at all, because..."
I agree it's not John's moral duty, but I do think it would behoove him to not reveal any distributors pricing IF he knows that they do not intend for it to be made public. I know he has several distributors as IPVM customers that wouldn't want it to happen to them either.
And I am still curious about ADI's intentions.
Every journalist has to make a choice about what they report. He could just as easily choose not to show it and still make his point about the race to the bottom. I think showing the flyer even detracted from his point about the race to the bottom so much so that it created two other separate discussions. Can you find that flyer just by searching for it without his link? I couldn't. So I doubt the customers of integrators buying at ADI could. But if they're customer is a member here, now they have it. And the integrator is not happy.
For me, it is not the end of the world if my customer sees it. But IMHO I think it would be more in the name of "community spirit" and would further elevate IPVM's integrity to not show anything but MSRP, and in this case, it would have kept the focus on the intended point, the race to the bottom.
And yes, ADI could do a better job of protecting their core customers (integrators) interests. But again, I also understand John's passion for journalism and marketing.
Regarding "Keep better control of your dealer costs than your competitor and you profit, and vice versa. That's the way it works."
Maybe that's the way it works for some people, but not me.
In my 18 years as an integrator, I've possibly never been the lowest priced option, that isn't how I've won business. I'm a solution provider. I don't just sell a box. I'm more about relieving my customers anxiety. There were times that I told my customer my price and my markup, That's not the issue for me. So if my customer did see this flyer, it's not that big of a deal to me. But as a general rule, most integrators would not be happy about end users seeing their distributors pricing.
As a distributor, I would understand if integrators were angry about their customers seeing their pricing.
Fortunately, it is not necessarily the way it works with all customers.
Price typically wasn't the issue for me as a manufacturer or distributor either. I provided a good solution and/or service that brought value.
And I'm not sure I want the customers who base their decision on price anyway. It's been my experience that they generally aren't as loyal in the long run. They often don't appreciate the value I bring to the table. I also understand not everyone needs the value that I bring and I'm good with that.
But for many, if not most, I find a way to bring value to the table, and it usually is worth paying more for. I have extensive knowledge, experience, and more importantly, integrity, and to top all that, I deliver a higher than expected level of service. The old under commit, over deliver mentality. I've been more successful at making sure there are compelling differences, whether it be products or service or both, so all things are not equal.
No, I would not have a problem as a dealer if John discovered that my distributor was deceiving me about selling to end users, or some other policy, and went public with it. I would be grateful. I have had issues with distributors and integrity in the past. and they lost my business.
You get the impression you are upset about this. Are you saying you are an end user and were deceived by an integrator about pricing? And so you feel that John is fighting the good fight by revealing to end users the integrators price? Sorry, sometimes I'm a little slow... If that is the case, I can understand why you feel as you do, and it's a shame that happened. But in the view from 30,000 feet, I'll stick with my point:
at the end of the day, the end users pay all our bills, whether you are an integrator, a distributor, or a manufacturer. But IMHO, I still feel that it is in the "best interest of the community overall" and would elevate IPVM's integrity even more to show only MSRP in this forum.
I agree to respectfully disagree, and acknowledge that John has an amazing journalistic and marketing passion and team that many of us benefit from, whatever the policies may be.
I've been in the security industry for, well, a long, long time. It's been my experience that relationships go a long, long way in this business.
OK, enough said already. I don't usually post much. Time for me to get off my soap box. The altitude is making me dizzy!
Even though I've been in the industry for eons, I've only been on IPVM for a couple of months. That's part of the reason I rarely comment. I can say that I have a pretty good score, 30 comments, and 39 votes 18 agree, 21 informative. I try to add value to the community with my comments.
If dealers and integrators want to discuss their pricing and margins on IPVM, I think they do so knowing end users are going to see it, yes? so I feel that is their prerogative, but I feel IPVM posting a distributor flyer with pricing pretty much without the distributor knowing it or their permission is a different story. But as I've said, I'm not a journalist or a marketing genius either.
So being relatively new, I had not seen that done before by IPVM, so I was a little taken aback by it, kind of caught me off guard. I debated not saying anything at all and looking back, probably shouldn't have. but I have many colleagues/friends/competitors that are integrators, distributors, and manufacturers that I know would not be happy if that was their flyer. I should have waited until I had more coffee this morning and was more awake...
I don't know if you or John have ever been a distributor, but that might give you a different perspective. Or maybe not.
And again, I understand and respect that John felt it was already public info, and it was his journalistic right. And I won't deny that he is a marketing genius. And that ADI is as much, if not more to blame. But having been a distributor, I still can't help but respectfully disagree with his decision to do so.
And I do understand and respect your point(s) as well.
I think this is kind of passionate discussion is a big part of what makes IPVM so successful. And I really do enjoy it.
And to think I almost chose accounting as a profession back in the day...
Anyway, I'm still working (consulting) on a proposal for a friend who is an integrator who needs it by tomorrow, so back to it...
It's a small 7 camera job for a motel in Florida...
The concern (for me anyways) arises from being made public and posted with image on the front page. not with the open discussion of these matters.
I believe the business related details and studies don't go on the headline, image or go public.
This to me is a way to serve the interests of its membership as a whole and for the good of the market they report on, as dI verse in role as its membership may have. the price of ipvm is high enough that membership won't be purchased by just anybody. Of course, I could be wrong.
I know he has several distributors as IPVM customers that wouldn't want it to happen to them either.
Individual member interest never impact IPVM's editorial decisions. I know you mean well #3 but it is critical to be clear that we just do not and will not do that.
IPVM has many members across the industry even those who do not like our coverage of them because they recognize that we have materially important information on competitors and business issues that they benefit from.
Do you think manufacturers want us to cover unpublicized negative events in their businesses? No, of course not. Should we say 'Oh manufacturer X has an IPVM membership, they wouldn't want us to say something negative, let's be nice and not run this?" No.
An IPVM policy that factored in what members 'wouldn't want to happen' to them would destroy IPVM's credibility and usefulness.
I understand your point, and I do largely agree with you there, and appreciate that you do that, that's an integral part of what makes IPVM what it is, and a major part of the reason I became a member. I even applaud you for doing so! The one exception, IMHO, would be exposing pricing. I would consider that taboo in this context. Just MHO.
And I can also appreciate it if your position is that nothing is taboo! As I've stated, I'm not a journalist or marketing genius. I also thought this was part of what IPVM is about, having these discussions. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I've only been here a couple of months. I had seen you express interest in member feedback in other conversations. And I really appreciate that you instantly created a poll on the topic. And I see there's a a healthy percentage that disagree with me. (It would be interesting to know the breakdown of who's voted: integrator, distributor, manufacturer, or end user) Anyway, I recognize it's just my MHO. I can agree to disagree without losing any respect, and overall, I'm glad you do what you do and would be happy to buy you the adult beverage of your choice at the next ISC show to show my appreciation!
Antonio, good question. I think Dahua is the OEM of these but not positive nor am I positive of the exact models being OEMed. These do strike me as previous generation Dahua or Hiks or whomever they are OEMing since newer ones are 1080p / 4MP not 1.3MP / 3MP.
More and more companies are just trying to keep up the the rat race to the bottom ,
Flir is no exception, see their ads also. No exceptions here.
Just about volume, not quality.
Actually in a few of our past jobs we noticed that the 720p and 1080p cameras outperformed the 2-3mpxl cameras, mostly in odd circumstances, night, moon, cloudy, ex-stream and fast changes in environment. So the results still matter to some.
What we see more and more is, that it is harder to accept low end and no performing cameras once you have the Great Performers in place. Some arecont, axis, bosch, are good examples.
My guess is the same as Roberts, I assume they are trying to blow them out. Far as the 3MP cams go, If its the same model I think they are, they are selling it at a lower cost than what I could used to buy them for. But who knows, Dahua's pricing structure is banannas nowadays. They could be $20 cameras and I could have been getting screwed the whole time for all I know.
I doubt your hypothesis there mainly because of the timeframe they probably got these and the categories in which Honeywell's customers fall under.
Honeywell customers, like many, would typically do small incremental upgrades to existing systems without changing out the entire framework (the wiring in this case). If and when they do major platform changes, they'll be aiming for higher-end equipment off the bat to retain extended value for the equipment they do intend to migrate to. The fact that they are a long standing brand name exaggerates this fact moreso.
1MP-1.3MP IP touches on a segment of the market that would suit people who wouldn't care about brand names in the first place and would be price sensitive all around while still wanting the semblance of a modern technology.
So, I think they got similar pricing to what anyone did when those came out.
TL;DR version: Old cams. Didn't sell. Brand name that thinks highly of themselves without any market foresight. Dumping price that probably still isn't low enough.
The objection over the publication of this pricelist is academic. This is what your average end-user would see in 5 minutes of searching:
So he would think, if he saw the ADI flyer, you are making $16 bucks max on 2 3MP cameras. Surely, he wouldn't think he was getting fleeced. On the contrary, he might be impressed with your price + the added value of not dealing with aliexpress and questionable support.
IMHO, the bigger problem is with listings like these:
I dont think he would think that. Amazon (or most ecommerce sites) is not an authority. IPVM is. Im pointing out that there is an implied authority with a headline like "IP CAMERAS ARE NOW 50 BUCKS!"End-users are well aware there is a bunch of crap on amazon and the internet in general, but again, IPVM is the authority on the matter.
And Frankly, if you are selling a camera for $63 as an integrator, youre either charging a very high labor rate or youre making money in ways Im not privy to.
For the record, Im not minimizing your point, its valid, but there is a distinction between an ecommerce outlet pushing boxes and a journalistic authority.
Sure. This is how I ended up a member myself. 6+ years ago, my brother-in-law kept trying to sell me these cameras that he had just become a dealer for; ones my gut told me were lagging in technology and overpriced.
So I needed some dirt to get him off my back. Doing some searches led me to IPVM, and more credible criticism and rough comparative pricing info than I knew what to do with.
I remember thinking, "This John guy really doesn't like Mobotix." (I didn't know John didn't like anyone yet; even so I think he still has a extra special place in his heart saved for Mobotix.)
I blasted the brother-in-law with the info; and then got him to sign-up.
I bought one camera anyway as an irenic token though, for around $800. He wanted $1,400, so that's 3 years sub right there.
I don't see the problem with this post here. I don't think end users 'need' IPVM to find this kind of pricing on camera's.
And if you read further than the first line you also see this: "Of course, these are Chinese OEMed cameras and Honeywell has a poor track record in IP cameras so this is not a recommendation." which is clear to me that this is not a promotion of IPVM
I see this information as public data through many paths unrelated to ipvm.com. I don't think there's anything irresponsible about discussing numbers that exist in public. I think the concept of a "confidential price list" went out around the time offices stopped using carbon paper. I think that if seeing wholesale pricing exposed in public is a problem for a business then their business model might merit a bit of tuning. Rational people will pay money for the value proposition of one of you badass pixel whisperers facilitating a camera being hung on a wall. Other people will buy from that kid at Home Depot last week pitching cloud-connected Ipv6 two by fours. If you were an electronics giant founded in 1927 trying to compete with Nest then I guess you collaterally might have a division pumping out repackaged stuff from another place. That may not work out elegant but it seems to happen.