Tue, Mar 24th 2020 3:15am — Tim Cushing
" . . . Last month, Cyrus Farivar undid a bit of Ring's PR song-and-dance by using public records requests and conversations with law enforcement agencies to show any claim Ring makes about crime reduction probably (and in some cases definitely) can't be linked to the presence of Ring's doorbell cameras.
CNET has done the same thing and come to the same conclusion: the deployment of Ring cameras rarely results in any notable change in property crime rates. That runs contrary to the talking points deployed by Dave Limp -- Amazon's hardware chief -- who "believes" adding Rings to neighborhoods makes neighborhoods safer. Limp needs to keep hedging.
. . . Worse for Ring -- which has used its partnerships with law enforcement agencies to corner the market for doorbell cameras -- law enforcement agencies are saying the same thing: Ring isn't having any measurable impact on crime.
. . . But maybe it doesn't really matter to Ring if law enforcement agencies believe the crime reduction sales pitch. What ultimately matters is that end users might. After all, these cameras are installed on homes, not police departments. As long as potential customers believe crime in their area (or at least their front doorstep) will be reduced by the presence of camera, Ring can continue to increase market share."
HEADS UP + LIKE SO MANY OTHER AREAS:
"Hitting the market when things are good and keep getting better makes for pretty good PR, especially when company reps are willing to convert correlation to causation to sell devices."
_________________________________________________________________________
Source: TechDirt 03.24.2020
