The Name of the Game
I’ve watched with great interest the industry conversations related to the rebranding of InfoComm to AVIXA. I put aside the light banter of what the name sounds like or what it reminds people of…I tired to focus on the substantive nature of what the rebranding meant to the organization and its constituents. I believe I am qualified as knowledgeable about rebranding. I experienced it…I lived through it…I produced it; taking Professional Products Inc. (a 40-year-old company at the time) to Human Circuit. I am a huge fan of rebranding under the right circumstances and for the right reasons.
I would agree completely that InfoComm needed a rebranding, just as the industry needs to think and act differently. While the most visible component of a rebranding is the name; what really matters is the substantive change in direction, focus and commitment.
The organization stated in their initial press release the following: “AVIXA members create integrated AV experiences that deliver outcomes for end users.” This is an important focus. “Experience” or “Experiences” seem to be the key word everyone is paying attention to. At all the industry events I have attended in recent years, and in all of my meetings with manufacturers, a key part of the discussion has focused on the end-user experience. This conversation has focused on the improvement of that experience. This has implications that the experience is not always positive. And as the saying goes originally from John Lydgate and then made popular by Abraham Lincoln; “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” But I got the impression more often than not, that the satisfaction of end-users across the board with AV was more like we’re pleasing some of the people some of the time domain.
Why am I writing this? I was sparked to write this morning by a posting by Leonard Suskin’s blog “The Power of Names.” https://www-ravepubs-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/www.ravepubs.com/the-power-of-names/amp/. In his blog Mr. Suskin maintains “It is in the creation of experiences that we are different than IT professionals; an IT designer creates an infrastructure which modern spaces need to function. We use that infrastructure to create experiences. An immersive videoconference is an experience. A corporate meeting room with a seamless presentation interface is an experience for both presenter and audience. A clearly intelligible announcement in an airport is an experience. A home-theater is an experience.”
I don’t want to read too much into the above statement, but I do read this…the industry is still maintaining the split between IT disciplines and purpose and AV disciplines and purpose. The split no longer exists…our industry simply denies that it should be a part of IT. After all IT is Information Technology. What does AV do? It delivers audible and visual information. AV is now a subset of IT. IT has won the battle of infrastructure. If that is not the case…why did 30+ AV manufacturers make such a big deal at the last InfoComm show about new offerings of AV over IP?
I would also caution the industry on how we use the word “experience.” In the blog, the word “experience” is emphasized as something extraordinary. Not as something required and necessary to be efficient, productive, and solve business/life communication problems (we’ll leave home theater out of this). Except for very creative implementations of AV for things like experience centers (hence the name) or splashy retail or building lobby displays; most AV is not an “experience.” Not in the way the word is used in the blog; and it should not be. Meeting the Queen of England is an experience. Attending a premiere sporting event is an experience. Using a well-built conference or huddle room is not an experience.
I bring these two points up for a call to action for the AV industry; 1) accept and embrace the fact that we are a subset of Information Technology and IT infrastructure serves a single purpose; 2) AV systems (with some exceptions) should not be an “experience,” they should be encountered and lived through (true definition of experience).