printer friendly version

From the editor's desk: The high price of cheap

Andrew Seldon, Editor

Bringing fire and safety, along with intrusion and perimeter protection, into the same publication is an interesting exercise. At their core, all these systems exist for one reason: to warn people that something is wrong and give them enough time to act – whether that means calling the right services, evacuating a building or preventing a threat from escalating.

Fire is, of course, governed by far more regulations and standards. Yet intrusion and perimeter protection are not the Wild West either. They are standardised too, and in some cases regulated – the Certificate of Compliance for an electric fence being an example. Fire installations and technician qualifications may face stricter rules, but in true South African fashion, both sectors still attract those who believe standards and regulations are optional.

The spread of ‘chance-takers’ across the security industry is not merely about ignorance, nor even contempt for the law. In fire, especially, poor work can put lives at risk. Too often, however, standards are brushed aside because someone wants the job and the buyer wants the lowest price. If it looks as if something has been installed, everyone is supposed to pretend the box has been ticked.

Years ago, the surveillance industry was trapped in a ‘race to the bottom’. That race has clearly found new lanes across the broader security market. Budgets matter, and not every buyer needs the latest, shiniest product, particularly when the ‘AI’ label is now slapped onto almost anything with a circuit board. But choosing the cheapest bid as a strategy is not prudence. It is an invitation to trouble.

One integrator told me they no longer try to win on product price. There is no point joining the endless bickering and undercutting. Instead, they compete on service: assessing the client’s site properly, planning the solution, installing it correctly and maintaining it afterwards. As a smaller company with a solid reputation, their product costs can sometimes be higher than the cost price enjoyed by the ‘big boys’, who benefit from volume deals. Add grey imports into the mix – which too few international vendors seem willing to tackle seriously – and the playing field becomes even more distorted.

Qualified, experienced installers and technicians cost money. Skills cost money. If you want the job done properly, someone has to pay for that expertise. When margins are squeezed only on services, unethical competitors simply cut corners by using cheaper skills. The result may look acceptable on day one, but 12 months later the savings begin to disappear as faults, failures and rework pile up.

Competition is healthy when it keeps margins realistic and forces service providers to raise their game. It becomes destructive when it drives prices to unsustainable levels simply to win the order. That’s a real case of ‘buy now, pay later’. How many customers have tried to call “the guy who did our security”, only to discover that the company has disappeared, along with the promised maintenance, warranties and accountability?

In larger organisations with dedicated procurement departments, this problem is almost built into the process. There will always be someone willing to do it cheaper. Experience, longevity and the lower lifetime cost of a properly designed and supported system are harder to explain before the purchase order is signed. Unfortunately, they are very easy to understand after something has gone wrong.

The problem faces everyone in the industry, and only experienced professionals will understand that there is value in paying more, not outrageously more, but enough to secure reliable products, competent people and proper support. The real issue is who makes the buying decision, what criteria they use, and whether security providers have the discipline to walk away when a potential customer is clearly on the path to becoming a cost centre rather than a client.

Share this article:

Further reading: