Returning to John's opener:
You have to give credit where credit is due.
Yes, Scott's dated message is definitely worthy of a little eye-rolling, but we are usually willing to cut sales guys some slack here because "they're just doing their job." And as idiotic as PixelsPerDollar may be, for Arecont at least, it's better than a lot of other possible metrics, like MTBF* of ANSF/C**.
The MB/MP gaffe though is likely to leave a longer negative impression, because it makes us contemptuously think "he is clueless" instead of the normal audience sentiment of "he thinks WE are clueless".
Which is a bit unfair to Mr. Schafer, because almost undoubtedly he didn't make the mistake. Why? Consider that it was delivered orally by a veteran of the industry, who had likely given the same spiel numerous times previously and was likely transcribed wrong because of the similarity of the 'B' and 'P' sounds.
And consider if he HAD actually clearly said MB 5 times instead of MP; surely the author of the article didn't know the difference either. Only a extremely passive-aggressive editor would have quoted him correctly...
Not to mention Scott Schafer is the Secretary of the the Board at SIA. And judging by his bio image in relation to the others on the board, knows the value of a pixel.
*Mean Time Between Failure
*Average Number of Stuck Filters / Camera