Pelco Shutting Down Clovis Line, Laying Off 200

By IPVM Team, Published May 22, 2017, 06:48am EDT

Pelco's Clovis facility once turned out some of the industry's most popular products. Now, the facility is mostly building "obsolete" equipment, and the company is in the process of shutting down its once famous manufacturing line there, laying off 200 employees in the process.

This layoff comes just under a year since Pelco's previous layoff of 43 in June 2016.

IPVM spoke with Pelco's CEO, Sharad Shekar, about the Clovis facility, why the company is moving its manufacturing away from the location, and upcoming products.

Obsolete ******** ** ******, ****** ** ******

*** *** ********* *** products ***** ***** ** Clovis ** ****** *****, many ***** ******* ** analog *******, **** **** in *** ******* ** being *********. ************, *** production ********* ** ****** is *****, *** ** would ** *** ****** to ****** *** **** current ******* ************* *********, leaving ****** ****** *** the ******* ** **** the ******** ******.

200 ******* ******* *** ** ****

************* *** ***** ************* employees **** ** **** off ** *** *** of ****, ** *** company ****** *** ********** in ******.

***** **** ******** ** Fresno *** **** ******** this ******, ** ***** ** a ***** ******** ** the ****.

Other *********** *** ********

*** ******* ******** **** other *********** ** ******, such ** *********** *** product *******, **** *** being ******** ** **** move, *** **** ** was ******* **** ** the ******* ************* *****.

Shifting ** ***** ** & ******** *************

***** *** ******* **** still *** **** ** their *** ********** ** build *******, **** ** their *****, **. ********, other ******** **** ** built *** ***/********** *************, in ***** ******* *** Taiwan. *** ******* ***** this ************* ********* ****** them ** ** **** competitive ** * ****** scale.

Need ** ** ******, ******** *******

*****'* *** **** *** company ***** ** ** more ****** *** ****** products ** * ****** rate ** ***** ** remain ***********. ************, ** the ******* ******* **** business ** ***** ********* it ***** ***** ** diversify ***** ************* *********. By ********* *********-***** *** 3rd ***** *************, *** company ***** ** **** be **** ** **** these *****.

Significant ******* **** *********

********* ** *****'* ***, the ******* **** ************* expand *** ******* **** by *** *** ** 2017. ******* ***** *******, including *** ******* *******, and *** ************ **** referenced ** **** ** this *********.

Staying **** **** *** ***, ***** ** *** *********

***** ** *** ******** to ********* ***-**** ************* in *** **** ** the ******. *** *** said **** **** ******* away **** *** ***-*** markets, *** ************* ** key ********* ***** **** feel **** **** **********: Oil *** ***, ******, City ************, ***/*** *****.

Final ****** ** * **** ****

******** **** ************* ** Clovis, *** ******* * way ** ***** ******** to ****** **** ******* is *** ***** ****** of * * **** plan ** *** ***** on ***** ** ***** a ****** ***** *****, according ** *** ***. No ***** ***** ******* are *********** ** *** company *** *** **** future, *** *** ***** will *** ** ** increasing ****** *****.

Outlook *** *****

***** *** ****** * long *** **** ***** once ******** ******** ** the ******** ********. **** is *** ** **** to ***** *********** ** Schneider, ***** **** ** the ***** ** ** cameras, *** **** *** influx ** ***-**** ******* products, ***** ******** ************* across *** *****.

*********** **** ** ** impractical ** ******* ** price, ***** ** ********* more *******-******** ********, ***** customers ***** ********** ******* functionality, ********, *** ******* over ***** *****. *******, this ****** **** ********* with ******* ********* **** have **** **** **** move, *** **** *********** in ***** *******, *** did *** **** ***** technology ****** ** *** market. ***** **** **** to ***** **** ***, in ****, **** ** with *** ******* **** of *** ******** ** convince ********* ** ****** them **** ****** ***********.

Comments (27)

John Honovich

IPVM | 05/22/17 02:51pm

Google autocompletion for 'pelco layo':

There have been a lot of layoffs at Pelco over the years. I am not sure how much more they literally can cut at this point. They really need to increase R&D spending though to better catch up with their now bigger competitors.

Avatar

Ross Vander Klok

IPVMU Certified | 05/22/17 05:32pm

I would say their fall is 99.9% due to their late shift to IP.  They were still pushing Spectra and making fun of IP about two years AFTER everyone else had already decided IP was the way to go.

Undisclosed Manufacturer #2

In reply to Ross Vander Klok | 05/22/17 08:39pm

And then they came out with Sarix, which was such a cluster.  I tried setting one up for a shootout, and it took over 1 hour due to needing to install quicktime and other prerequisites.  I also find it funny that while they pushed and dominated analog, they decided to sell out and OEM Panasonic analog so they could focus more on IP. Look where that got them....

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

05/22/17 06:40pm

It's amazing how long momentum can carry you.  I would have though Pelco had died 12 or 15 years ago...

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 05/22/17 07:01pm

12 years ago was 2005 when they were at their peak, one of, if not the largest video surveillance manufacturers in the world.

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to John Honovich | 05/22/17 11:14pm

How long ago were they releasing IP cameras that weren't compatible with their own server based VMS?  2008 or 2009?  Big or not, they were already zombies at that point. 

Avatar

Norm Dimick

05/23/17 04:31am

I live in Clovis, CA. My office is 5 miles down the street from their world headquarters. Many of my friends and family made a good living with Pelco in its heyday. Just sad...

How does this work for Schneider? Why acquire a world class brand just kill it?

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Norm Dimick | 05/23/17 10:47am

How does this work for Schneider? Why acquire a world class brand just kill it?

I am pretty sure Schneider did not intend to kill it. Sometimes acquisitions go bad and the unraveling of Pelco has literally taken a decade (it will be 10 years this October).

Schneider made mistakes. I think at this point they have accepted / admitted that. The main questions now is how / if they can turn it around.

Undisclosed #3

In reply to John Honovich | 05/23/17 01:55pm

Sometimes acquisitions go bad and the unraveling of Pelco has literally taken a decade (it will be 10 years this October).

I'd say most of the time.  It just seems when a global conglomerate buys an independent the product never does well.  That list includes Pelco, the original Digital Sentry, Kalatel,  Andover, Casi, IFS, the list goes on.  The cycle seems to be: small company innovates and creates a great product and then a large player (who is not dedicated to security) comes along, scoops them up and then utterly destroys their spirit of innovation and eventually the product dies a slow and painful death.

The odd thing to me is while this happens in a lot of different fields, it seems to be particularly prevalent in the security industry.  I can only speculate that's because the likes of GE, Schneider and Tyco really don't "get" the security market at the highest levels and at the end of the day don't really care about it other than the revenue it generates and when it stops generating that revenue, it's cast off.  I'll give Schneider credit though for sticking with Pelco, but I doubt they will ever be the company they were and that is sad.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #3 | 05/23/17 02:36pm

I'd say most of the time

I think that's accurate, at least the stats I have seen in general.

I do think the Pelco / SE deal is a particularly poorly performing acquisition. SE paid $1.5 billion in 2007 (equivalent to $1.75 billion in 2017 dollars). Maybe they could sell if for $300 million now, if there was a buyer.

Larry Tracy

In reply to John Honovich | 05/23/17 03:22pm

Bringing in people to run companies acquired by a big player never has worked well in the past. This industry has too many quirks for new CEO's to get up to speed fast enough. Dennis McDonald grew up with the business and wasn't really replaceable. That plant was state of the art in manufacturing in the 2000's.

I am not sure they could give it away now.

Paul Haake

05/23/17 03:25pm

I actually do a lot of Pelco, primarily because I worked there, but I like the general animosity toward the brand by other integrators because it lessens my competition.

With over 400 cameras installed in the last 12 months, I have only had one OOB failure.

Support is not as good as it once was, but overall I don't have a lot of negative things to say about Pelco.  I think killing off the analog manufacturing makes a lot of sense.  It's just sad for all those people in Clovis, since Clovis is not a very nice town and there aren't a lot of jobs to be had. 

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Paul Haake | 05/23/17 03:27pm

I like the general animosity toward the brand by other integrators because it lessens my competition.

Paul, that interestingly makes sense. A decade ago if you got Pelco specified you would have a lot of competition. Now, it helps an integrator win if they can get Pelco selected.

Avatar

Gabriel Perez

05/23/17 03:36pm

Not sure moving manufacturing to different parts of the world is going to help your product. As long as product support stays as it is, Pelco may succeed. If product support is down sized to phone calls across the seas, get ready for  a decline in sales as well. Pelco has been one of the largest employers in central California, to take a hit like this is just not economically smart. What would help Pelco all the way around would be to sell products that the average consumer can purchase. This would give the overseas companies a run for their money. Many people often look for home surveillance and security to the big box stores like Costco, Best Buy and so on. Pelco can manufacture some do it your self systems that can be sold to the public. This will help out. I have installed quite a few of these systems for customers and the jobs keep rolling in. If Pelco produced one of these systems, I would definitely push Pelco. Being from the San Joaquin Valley, I stand behind Pelco. I work at a local casino here in the central valley, we are an all Pelco system facility and over the years have seen its decline in what used to be a strong CCTV company. I know I am rattling on but just don't like the fact that the once leader in this industry is taking a hit.

Undisclosed #4

05/24/17 08:40am

When I used the analog PTZ in the first time.I was surprised the camera can move around.Then i found the protocol name was Pelco-D,Pelco-P.

Then I know Pelco developed the first analog PTZ.That was almost 7 years ago.At that time,Both Hik and Dahua should still mainly focus on the DVR&NVR.Have less camera products.

The CEO described the products being built in Clovis as legacy items, many still related to analog systems, that were in the process of being obsoleted.

Then now.After i read the above the comments.I am surprised the analog system is still produced in the Pelco factory.

And Hik and dahua's PTZ maybe already 4th or 5th generation.

The following idea just come up in my mind:

1.Hik&Dahua:Sometimes looks too fast to release the new products and discontinue the old products.

2.Pelco:Looks too slow to discontinue the old products and develop the new products.

There are always both good and bad sides for move in different speeds.

But it seems move fast usually win the game,Sometimes even you are in the wrong direction.But if you move fast enough,you can re-adjust the direction and still win the game.

7 Years are long time,It is enough for you to move fast and try different directions.Then find the right direction and take the lead.

Wait,Just do not be too pround. Keep moving fast,otherwise you would be the next factory to be closed.

Undisclosed #4

In reply to Undisclosed #4 | 05/25/17 06:49am

Here i want to call the IPVM Referee.You setup the rule about what 'unhelpful' means.

Use 'unhelpful' when the comment is off topic / unrelated to what is being discussed.

And my above comment is absolutely not off the topic as my own idea.

As i even quote the words in the article.

The CEO described the products being built in Clovis as legacy items, many still related to analog systems, that were in the process of being obsoleted.

I know there would be people disagree or dislike the words i had comment.

I also know i cannot control the people vote the unhelpful to me.

But i just think it is absolutely unfair to me,so I call for the IPVM referee to make a judgement.You made the rule.And i want to know:if my above comment deserved to be unhelpful.Make my heart peaceful again.Right now I was just so crazy to lose my .35 dollor,haha.

Undisclosed #5

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Undisclosed #4 | 05/25/17 08:30am

Here I want to call the IPVM Referee...

I'm not sure about a referee, but I have seen a lifeguard...

Undisclosed #4

In reply to Undisclosed #5 | 05/25/17 08:43am

Your picture of Lifeguard was trying to hint the lifeguard would just blew a whist and watch the people argue on the sea and do not make a judgement and save the people?

Then that is bad for me.

Are you the guy vote the unhelpful to me?haha(It looks off the topic now but lead by you Undisclosed #5).

Sorry i did not saw the link you put.Thanks for sharing the information.you should be not the one vote unhelpful on me.And I had to say,you really have a very good memory.I found that article was almost 3 years ago.

I would wait the IPVM referee or lifeguard'idea.Maybe i am just too petty to lose my .35 dollor.

Undisclosed #5

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Undisclosed #4 | 05/25/17 04:30pm

Are you the guy vote the unhelpful to me?

No.  

If you wish, I could vote now to prove it ;)

Sometimes an innocent, informative, on-topic and concise statement (not that I am accusing your post of that here) of mine, will get downvoted for no apparent reason.

But you don't see me pointing it out :)

 

Undisclosed #5

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Undisclosed #4 | 05/25/17 07:23am

Then I know Pelco developed the first analog PTZ.That was almost 7 years ago

Almost?

Undisclosed #4

In reply to Undisclosed #5 | 05/25/17 07:42am

Yes,i want to say,i know Pelco developed the first analog PTZ almost 7 years ago(around 2010 or 2011,as i forgot the exactly which year)

I was not saying Pelco made the first analog PTZ 7 years ago.if that make you misunderstand it,I apologize it.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #4 | 05/25/17 09:24am

Yes,i want to say,i know Pelco developed the first analog PTZ almost 7 years ago(around 2010 or 2011,as i forgot the exactly which year)

That's simply factual wrong. For example, see this archived 2001 Pelco website page on their Spectra PTZs. Related, Archive.org can be used to see what various websites look like from years ago, e.g., Hikvision's website in 2002.

Btw, I do not know who voted you unhelpful but your two replies going on about losing 35 cents are unhelpful and distracting to this topic. Also, since your analysis is based on something so factually wrong, it is even more distracting.

Avatar

Richard Lavin

Idibri Consulting
IPVMU Certified | In reply to John Honovich | 05/25/17 05:15pm

I think there is a language barrier here.

In my interpretation, he is not claiming that Pelco developed the first analog PTZ just 7 years ago.  That is obviously wrong.  Rather, he is saying that he personally learned, about 7 years ago, that Pelco was the company that first developed the analog PTZ.  (I don't know if that is factually correct or not.)

Undisclosed #4

In reply to Richard Lavin | 05/26/17 12:29am

Richard.

exactly,thanks for you understand my chinglish.I had thought my words was clear enough,but it seems people are blind to see it.Next time i would use the more accurate words.

I was not saying Pelco made the first analog PTZ 7 years ago.if that make you misunderstand it,I apologize it.

Undisclosed #4

In reply to John Honovich | 05/26/17 12:26am

John,i know my english is not good.but you seem to blind to see my above word in the last comment.

I was not saying Pelco made the first analog PTZ 7 years ago.if that make you misunderstand it,I apologize it.

 

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #4 | 05/26/17 12:28am

My mistake, I was focusing on your initial long comment here.

Undisclosed #4

In reply to John Honovich | 05/26/17 12:41am

OK,Thanks for your reply,i understand now.It is ok for me.

At least now i know the IPVM referee or lifeguard'idea.next time i would not state such unhelpful vote things.

It looks like I am still "too young,too naive".

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,738 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