20 Years Working with AV Consultants—Here’s
What Manufacturers Still Get Wrong..
I’ve spent the past 25 years working
with—and inside—manufacturers across telecoms and AV. For most of that time,
I’ve been on the front line with consultants—first as a solutions engineer, and
more recently in technical sales. That vantage point has taught me one thing
very clearly: there’s a persistent gap between what manufacturers think they’re
delivering and what consultants actually need.
So what have I learnt? For an
industry built on communication…the AV sector I think is still rather bad at
communicating with one of its most important audiences – consultants and
specifiers.
These are the people who ultimately shape the systems and decide which
technologies and products make it into projects. But it seems that time and
again, manufacturers make their jobs harder than it needs to be.
This isn’t so much a technology problem, as it is a mindset problem.
My take on is this? It’s is because AV manufacturers still behave like
they’re just selling kit – not enabling outcomes.
The Specification
Process Is Still Overcomplicated:
If specifying a technology or product feels like work, it’s already
at a disadvantage.
Too many datasheets are still:
- Overhyped with marketing language
- Missing helpful technical detail
- Inconsistent across product lines
Consultants don’t need persuasion at this point - they need clarity. And
we need to give that to them.
The industry though still continues to produce documentation that
basically screams “This product is
amazing” as opposed to answering the question that most consultants ask (in one
way or another) “Can I confidently specify this?”
It’s a matter of manufacturers treating the specification as a design workflow rather than a sales
funnel….
Closed Ecosystems
Are a Consultant’s Liability
This is a big one – and something that I have experienced for decades,
and yet it still unfortunately exists. Let’s just call it what it is: vendor
lock-in is not a feature—it’s a risk.
Recognise that consultants are designing systems that need to:
- Evolve over time
- Integrate with unknown future technologies
- Survive procurement/price changes and substitutions
Closed, proprietary ecosystems do the opposite. They:
- Reduce flexibility
- Increase long-term cost
- Tie the consultant’s reputation to a single vendor’s system and
roadmap
It’s no coincidence that platforms that adhere to these are gaining
traction. Openness isn’t just technically appealing—it’s commercially safer.
Manufacturers who still rely on lock-in aren’t protecting their market.
They’re eroding trust.
(Although, I have to say at this
point, I know some consultants love proprietary ecosystems— and would love to
know your feedback - do you think open standards are overhyped?)
The Industry Still
Over-Engineers the User Experience
There’s a persistent belief in AV that more capability equals better
systems.
It many cases, it doesn’t.
End users don’t care about signal paths, codecs, or control logic. They
care about one thing:
“Can I walk into a room and start my meeting/watch
the news channel/connect my BYOD and it works first time, without thinking?”
And yet, systems are still being deployed that:
- Require multiple steps to operate
- Behave inconsistently from room to room
- Depend on training that either never, or rarely happens
I know we manufacturers love to talk about innovation. But real
innovation here is restraint.
If your system needs too much explaining, it’s already too complicated.
AV Still Has an
Identity Crisis with IT
Technologies such as AV-over-IP and IPTV have been “the future” for
years. The problem is, in many cases, it’s been implemented like it’s still the
past.
Too many AV solutions:
- Ignore standard IT practices
- Create unnecessary network complexity
- Raise red flags for security teams
10 years ago this was a problem. 10 years later…and it’s still a problem.
And then the industry wonders why IT departments push back.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
If your product requires an
exception to IT policy, it’s the product—not the policy—that’s the problem.
Manufacturers who consider and implement IT standards, security
expectations, and operational models will win. The rest will continue to face push-back
on every project.
“Support” Often
Arrives Too Late to Be Useful
Pre-sales support in AV can be inconsistent. I know this, and have to
say have been guilty of it sometimes.
At best, you get:
- Access to knowledgeable engineers
- Fast, practical guidance
At worst, you get:
- Delayed responses
- Generic answers
- A redirect to a datasheet clients have already read (in some
cases..)
Consultants don’t need support after the decision is made. They need it while they’re designing under pressure.
They need you accessible at this important stage.
The manufacturers that understand this become indispensable. The ones
that don’t become, well, interchangeable.
The Industry Has a
Transparency Problem
AV marketing (probably like all marketing) still leans heavily on ideal
scenarios:
- Perfect video
- Optimal room layouts
- Best-case performance
But real-world projects aren’t like that. In reality, rooms are
compromised, scenarios change, budgets get tightened. Constraints are just
something that happen.
When products don’t perform as described, it’s not the manufacturer
explaining why—it’s the consultant.
That’s why honesty matters more than polish.
A product with clearly defined capabilities (and limitations) is easier
to trust than one that promises everything.
We’re Still
Designing for Installation, Not Operation
Yes technology moves ahead – but a system that works on day one but
becomes a support burden by year two or three is not a successful system.
And yet, lifecycle thinking is still an afterthought in many product
strategies.
Consultants get asked on their designs:
- “How do we monitor this system?”
- “How do we maintain it?”
- “What happens when something fails?”
Manufacturers that can’t answer those questions are just flirting with
long-term risk.
Make no mistake - this is an awareness problem.
The industry is moving from hardware
delivery to service continuity,
and not everyone has caught up.
Education Still
Feels Like Marketing
The AV industry produces a huge amount of “training.” But let’s be
honest - much of it is thinly disguised
product promotion.
Consultants don’t need more sales content. They need:
- Deeper understanding of design principles
- Guidance on real-world application
- Insight they can apply across projects
It’s the manufacturers that invest in genuine education that build
credibility.
Bottom line:
Simply put, there is still a disconnect that needs addressing:
Manufacturers are mostly interested in:
- Product sales
- Market share
- Ecosystem control
Consultants are looking to provide:
- System performance
- User experience
- Risk reduction
When this isn’t recognised and those motivations aren’t allied, friction
is inevitable.
What the Best
Manufacturers Do Differently
The manufacturers that consistently get specified don’t just design and
build good products. They try and address the bigger picture by doing their
best to reduce effort and reduce risk.
They:
- Make specification easy and clear
- Implement interoperability
- Design for real users, not ideal scenarios
- Align with IT, not fight it
- Provide meaningful support – whenever it’s needed.
- Are honest about what their products can—and can’t—do
In short, they make consultants look good.
The Confidence
Factor
Ultimately, consultants don’t choose products because they’re impressed,
they choose them because they’re confident.
That’s why consultants still specify systems and technologies that may
be regarded as ‘old’ or outdated. They know and trust them, because they’re
proven to work.
If consultants aren’t specifying newer
technologies, it’s often because we as manufacturers haven’t taken the time to
properly introduce them—though to be fair, getting in front of consultants
isn’t always easy.
If they did get that insight they would be more:
Confident that the system will work.
Confident that users won’t struggle.
Confident that they won’t be dealing with problems six months down the line.
Manufacturers who understand that—and design their entire approach
around it—won’t just be specified more often.
They’ll become the default.
Comments
Post a Comment