Does Video Analytics Reduce Security Spending by 67%

An analyst report on video analytics implies that the use of video analytics can reduce total security spending by 67%. It's a classic case of misleading users with 

The introduction of Aberdeen's April 2010 report on 'How Video Analytics is Driving a Proactive Approach to Physical Security' claims that "by investing in enabling technologies such as video analytics, the top performers are actually spending about 67% less than all others on a per-camera basis." It would appear that video analytics must have a powerful impact on reducing security expenditures, no?

In the actual full report, on Page 10, they reveal that less than half of these top performers even use video analytics (only 45% do). Even more interesting, the most widely used technology for these top performers is motion detection (79% use). To cap it off, more of these top performers use PSIM than video analytics (53% vs 45%).

What should we conclude? That motion detection reduces security expenditures by 67%? That PSIM reduces security expenditures by 67%? Certainly, it's hard to claim video analytics reduce these expenditures by such large amounts when the majority do not even use them.

Unfortunately, this report provides us no real substance in how much and for whom video analytics provides economic benefits. This, of course, does not mean that they do not exist but such tricks do not help and reinforce the games video analytic vendors play.

This report was sponsored by BRS Labs, the most controversial, hard marketing company in the video analytics space.