Pelco Favorability Results 2019

By IPVM Team, Published Jan 11, 2019, 08:45am EST

Pelco had a significant favorability problem amongst integrators in our previous study (see 2016 Pelco results).

Now, in the first edition of our 2019 series, Pelco's favorability has not worsened but it has not strengthened either:

Inside this report, we examine the specific themes from 200 integrator responses and the problems that Pelco faces with integrators.

Key ******

***** *** ******* ******** over *** **** ******,*** *** **** ** the ****** ** ****, *** *** *** its ******* **** ** least **% ***** ***** acquired ** *********.

** *** ***********, *** main ****** ***** ****:

  • "*****/**********/**** *****"
  • "**** *******/*******"
  • "**** ** ********** **** Them"
  • "********* ********* * ********"
  • "****’** *** ** **** as **** **** ** Be"

Worst ***** - **** ****** *** **** ***

******** ** *** **** edition, *** ******** ***** is **** **** *** more *********** ****** ** not **** ******** ***** them, ***** ************ ***** sense ***** *** ******** to *** ******** ** the **** ****** (***** is ****** ****) ******* have *** ** ********** with **** ** ***, as ***** ********** ********* note:

  • "***** ****** **** ****."
  • "*** ** ******** ****"
  • "***** ** *** ** just * ***** ****. I ***** *** **** in ***********."
  • "** **** ***** ******* Pelco. ** ***'* *** either ******** ** ********."
  • "**** *** ****"
  • "***** ****** **** **."
  • "** ***’* **** **** Pelco."
  • "***** **** **** ******"
  • "***** ****** ****"
  • "***** ****"
  • "****"
  • "**** ***** ****** **** this *******"
  • "***** ****. ** *******."
  • "**** *** **** *** Pelco ** *********."
  • "**** *** **** ****"
  • "** ********** ****"
  • "** *** *** *****"
  • "***** **** *** *******."
  • "* **** ***** **** Pelco, ** * **** no ******* ** ****."
  • "***** ****** **** *****."

Dated/Irrelevant/Poor *****

**** ***********, **** **** negative ********, ***** ******** Pelco, *** ************** *** positively ** ***** *********** commented:

  • "*** **** ***** ** business?"
  • "***** *** ** ********"
  • "*** **** *** ** business?"
  • "**** **** ****. *** expensive. *** **** **** in ********?"
  • "****** *** ****"
  • "********"
  • "* ****'* **** **** still *****"
  • "***** **** *** **** the *** ***."
  • "***** ***** ** ** reinvented **** * ****** product ****."
  • "**** ******* ** *** old **** ****. **** always *** ***** ******** in * **** *** that ******** ***** *** now ******** **** * dinosaur. ***** **** *** massive ******* ** ****** equipment *** ***** * don't *** **** ******* for **** ****** *******."
  • "**** ******* **********. **** admittedly **** ** ****** to ** * ****** leader ** *** **** and ******* ** ******* other ******** ***** **** have **** ****** ** the ****** ** ***********."
  • "*** **** ** ** date."
  • "**** **** **** **** offer *** **********."
  • "*** **** ***** ******? Feel **** **** ****** the **** ** ** cameras *** *** ***** in *** ****** ***. Don't **** ******* ***** them *****."
  • "******, **** **********, *** living *** ****** ************."
  • "*** **** **** ******* engineering *** *** *********. For ***** *** *** you **** ** *** licenses, **** *** *** expensive. ***** ***** **** is *** **** *** reselling. **** **** ** do ***** ******** ****** shouting, ** *** *** best."
  • "*** ********. **** ** much ****** ***** ******** to ****** *** *** long."
  • "**** ** *** *** industry ** *** **** of ******!! **** *** a ******** *** ************* to ** *** **** been **** ******. ****** left * *** ***** in ** ***** **** when * *** ** the *****. **** *** have ***** ** ***** then *** - *'** pass *** ***."
  • "*** * ****** ** the ****** ***** *** longer"
  • "***** **** * ***** brand."
  • "***, *** ******* **** is *** ** ** date."
  • "**** ******** ****** ******* when ******* ******** *****."
  • "**** **** **** ** development **** ***** ******* over *** **** ******"
  • "***** **** ********* ***** the ***** ******, * do *** ***** **** have **** ***** **. Certainly *** ********* ** would **** ** *** primary *** *****. *** that's *** ***."
  • "**’* **** **** ***** since * *** *** value ** *** ***** name ** ********. ***** they ***** **** *** old ***** ************ ****** around."
  • "*** * ***** *******, but *****’* **** ******** impressive **** **** ** a ***** *** ***** expensive."
  • "*** * ***** *******, but *****’* **** ******** impressive **** **** ** a ***** *** ***** expensive."
  • "***** **** *** ******. They **** *** ** many ******** ** ** Video. ***** ********** ** tarnished ****** **** **** if **** *** *** best ****** ****-** ** the *****, * ***** would *** ****** ** them ******* * ***'* trust *** ******* ** not **** ********."
  • "*****'* ***** ******** *** in * **** ****. Doesn't **** **** **** kept ** **** **********. Used ** ** **** in ****** *****."
  • "***** ******* ********** * long **** ***. ** do *** **** **** or *** ****."
  • "* ***'* ***** ****'** quite **** ** **** the ********** **** ***** camera *************."
  • "*** **** ** ** the **** ****** ** years *** *** **** in *** ****."
  • "**** **** *****, *** not *** *****, **** track ** ***** ****** share"
  • "*****'* **** *** ******* in **** * ****"
  • "*****'* **** ******** **** Pelco *** ***** * years. **** *** *** making *** ******** **** would **** ** ******** them **** ** **** equivalent."
  • "*** **** ****** ********"

Poor *******/*******

*** ***** *** ******** and **** **** ***** at **** *****, * number ** ********* ********* the ******* **** *****'* quality ** ******* *** service *** *******:

  • "*** *** ***** **** still ** ********? **** sold ****** *** * decade **** *** ** revolution. ***'* *****, ****. Their *** ******/**** *** garbage. * ***** * rebrand ** ***** ***. Rather *** *****."
  • "******* *****. ** **** had **** ***-**-*** ******** with **** *******. **** than *** *** ***** manufactures ********. *** ** not *** ** **** as *** *** ******** other **** * ***** camera ** *** ******."
  • "**** *** **** ***** for **** ***** *** the **** **** ** did **** **** ********. Support **** *** ******** and *** ******* *** very *** *******."
  • "*** **** *********** **** Pelco ******** ** ** remove **** *** ******* them **** ********* ****. That ***** * ***** indicator ** *******."
  • "** ***** **** ****** PELCO ****** ********* ***** every *** *** **** we *** ***** ****** to *******/****** ******** ***** however ** ***'* *** them *** ** *** to **** ** ******* quality, *****, *** *******."
  • "***-*** *******."
  • "*** ******* ** *** effective."

Schneider ********* * ********

**** *********** **** **** Schneider's *********** ** ***** was * ********, ** typified ** *** ********* responses:

  • "***** ********* ****** *****, the ******* **** *****."
  • "*****'* **** **** ***** they **** ****** *** it *** **** ** heck."
  • "******* ** * ****-** disaster. ********* ********** ********* a **** ****** ** the ********."
  • "* *** **** ************ that **** ***** ** every *** ***** ********* purchased ****."
  • "**** **********, ** *** product *********** ***** **** of ***** ******."

Not ** **** ** **** **** ** **

**** *********** **** **** Pelco **** ** ** an ******** ****** *** that *** ******* *** declined ** ****** *****, as ***** ********* **********:

  • "**** **** **** ********** on *** ****** ****** but **** *** * lot ** ********. ** saw **** ** **** projects ***** ** *** other ************ (**** ********* or ****** ******* ******). I ***'* **** ****, they *** *** ******* the *** *****. **** some ******* *******."
  • "****'* **** *** ****** to **** **** **** vendor, ****** **** ***** well-known ***** ** ****** era, *** * ***** they ****'* ***** ** IP **** ***** **** they **** ******** **, therefore ***** ******* **** their ********."
  • "*** **** **** ********** is *** ****. ***** like *** ******* ***** of * ******* **** rises ** *** *** then ***** ** *** bottom ***** ******** ** big *** ****** *****. Milestone, ***** ***! ***** could ** **** ******!"
  • "** * *****, ** use ** ** * really ****** *****, *** is *** **** ***** using *** ** ****. My *******."
  • "**** **** *** *** leader *** ****'* **** up **** *** ***** of *******"
  • "******* ***** ** **** they **** ** **...."
  • "** ** *** *******. Use ** ** **** good."
  • "***, ******** ******* ** one ***** *** ** last *****."
  • "**** ** ** ** industry ******. ************* *** anymore. **** *** ********* spec **** *** **** to **** **** ******* DOA ****** ******** **** the ***."
  • "***** *** *** ******* of ****** ***** *** were *** ******** ** move **** ** ** video. * **** **** this *** ***** ******** mistake."

Somewhat ******** ********

* ******** ******** *** somewhat ******** ****** ** say:

  • "**** *******, **** * long ****."
  • "******** ********, **** ******** service"
  • "**** ******* ******* *** once *********, ** ***** seems ** **** (**** reliable)."
  • "**** *******, ********, **** cost."
  • "*** *** *** ******* are ****** **** ****. Strong **************/***** ******* *** willingness ** **** **** you ** ******* *** jobs."
  • "***** *** ****** *** nice *******, *** * don't *** *** ** their ***** ******** ** I ***'* ******* ** that."
  • "**** * ******* ***********, Pelco's ******** ***** *** test ** ****."
  • "***** ****** *** **** were *****, ***** *******."
  • "** **** ***** ***** cameras *** **** **** fallen ****** **** *** Bosch ** *******."
  • "***** **** * ****** product *** **** *** looked **** ***** ******* line *** ******."

Pelco *******

********* ******** ** *** going ** **** ****** Pelco ** **** **. They **** ****** ******** to *** ** **** the ****** ** **** will **** * **** to ****** ********** ** this ******* *** *** sides. ** *** *** optimistic ** * **********, even **** * ********* / ****, ** ****** is ***** ****** **** and ***** ******** ** turn **** ******** ******. And, ** **** **** goes **, *** **** powerful ***** *****, ********.

Comments (9)

Wow ... this is really an uphill battle with no obvious solution, based on the replies from the various integrators.  Schnieder trying to be in the security business has always been a frustrating thing, having worked there at one time.  It seems the only way they got into the security business was via the Andover and CSI acquisitions, and much of the effort now is to support the independent dealer based that sold the security solutions from those companies before Schneider bought them out.

It's really sad that with all the resources available to Schneider that they had to private label an access control solution from outside (Feenics) and not actually invent something new. On the Pelco side, I remember all the manufacturers reps who bled Pelco back in the glory days .... how a once great company could have missed the technology boat so badly (by choice) and now find themselves in this perceived pickle is remarkable. 

As long as Schneider is only halfway in the security business, they will remain a big, world-wide company that still elicits the comment "oh, I didn't know Schneider Electric did security" from end users.

Irrelevant. 

LOL, a lot of comments are showing, that who say knows nothing relevant about the company. 

When I don't know anything up to date about a company, I don't say their products are outdated, etc. Silence is golden.

But are they really wrong?

#3, I actually agree with you that some of the commenters are too negative relative to what Pelco offers today. On the other hand, even a charitable analysis of Pelco's current product offering puts them at a clear disadvantage to the 'top' VMS and camera manufacturers. 

However, even here, Pelco has fault. Pelco's marketing efforts over the last few years have been so limited that it is not reasonable to expect integrators to even think Pelco is still relevant. Agree/disagree?

I totally agree with you John.

Lot of mismanagement, poor marketing, or no marketing at all. Bad channels, old partners sometimes favored against new ones, bad decisions, etc.

But what makes me frustrated (and that was my original comment), when somebody obviously have no information at all about current products, their quality, why they giving "intervirew"? Looks so stupid. But this is just a standard human behavior, when somebody wants to look well informed, etc.

Comments like this shows they marketing team performing bad:

"I didn't know they still exist"

These are the honest players:

"Never used the product."

In 2019 talking about a 12 years old stuff. Is it relevant at all? What is this comment about?

"How are these guys still in business? They sold analog for a decade into the IP revolution. Won't touch, ever. Their old DX4500/4600 was garbage. I think a rebrand or cheap OEM. Rather buy Dahua."

Guys like this are don't really know the current lineup. At least he says it's his opinion.

""Is a shame, it use to be a really strong brand, but is not even worth using now in days. My opinion."

 

 

But what makes me frustrated (and that was my original comment), when somebody obviously have no information at all about current products, their quality, why they giving "intervirew"? Looks so stupid.

When 200 people give their opinion, some small percentage are going to fall in this category. For us, when doing statistics, we want to report fairly and reflect what people think, whether we agree or disagree with the statement.

In 2019 talking about a 12 years old stuff. Is it relevant at all? What is this comment about?

Many integrators have long memories, whether that is fair or not. Many manufacturers tend to overinflate the value of immediate financial results while they ignore the long term damage of a declining brand. To me, that is what is most 'relevant' here.

Our real experience in 2018 was not good. We had an install of about 15 PELCO cameras at an airport in 2018. There was about a 6 week delay in providing two of the mounts purchased. There were 2 failures in the first month it took about 2 months to get one of the PTZs exchanges as ther first RMA also failed to work. We had to escalate within  PELCO to get PTZ replaced as an advanced replacement and we did lose business out of this situation. The airport bought six more via a different reseller and he had two failures...

Hrmmm, Pelco has become (old) Arecont?

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,735 reports, 909 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports