from the description it sounds like you are talking about the LG stretch displays.


If so,just know that thet are far from fragile. I mean sure, you cant walk on them but i have hauled one in and out of about 10 architecture and design firms in the last few weeks and have had no problems.

Maybe you can answer: what kind of programming goes on a pair of 2.8 aspect ratio displays?

crosen posted about pushing the physical details off to the GC, not the client. Even so, they'll likely hear just clicks and beeps because they may not understand what's being said, even if it's simplified. Some are good about learning, though.

It's a bit like the electricians who are happy to sell light switches e.g., Caseta, then leave without setting them up to do something useful.

Just throwing this out as another data point: If the client is going to buy the displays at retail for $10K, they are available from B&H Photo for $9280, and several distributors I just checked have them for hundreds less; so it is possible to make some money on them

You missed the data point that providing the displays make them the installer's responsibility. It's a case of "whoever touched it last owns it," which ALWAYS means "has to solve all of its problems." I think the OP wanted to limit his liability with this product since it's such an outlier for his business.

No, I didn't miss that; as integrators we've had to make these sell/no-sell decisions. I was just trying to say that if not being able to make any money on the sale of the equipment was a significant factor in this decision, that it is was possible to make 10-15 points and still charge for shipping, product research, etc.

You know, the last couple of posts made me go back and look at your starting point again. jgordon has made me think differently about this.

When we run into something that has some risk of failure, why are we willing to accept the same risk of failure with no chance of things being any different, simply if someone throws some money at us? Does money somehow make us more bold? In this case, will $2000 profit make us throw away our fear that A LOT more money might be lost if things get screwed up?

I think maybe getting that money is so attractive that we are indeed emboldened, but we're not emboldened to be stupid! We're emboldened by the added money to insist to the client that things can happen; that extra expense will be incurred to totally ensure that the TVs are not damaged... in short, making more money on something makes us more willing to be the hardass that's necessary to control the situation properly.

Suddenly I think you should source the displays yourself, be damn careful about how you do everything, and make the client pay for it. I have a story (long, of course) about losing some money on part of a job by not being that hardass. Do it. Be it. If you're considering doing the job AT ALL, you are already convinced that you can do it right!


If I could add to my signature now, I'd add this: There's no point in having firmly held opinions and beliefs if new information won't change them.

But, if we took zero risk, there would be no progress and we'd all be limiting our business to two channel stereo and composite video -- or whatever was in vogue as we entered the business. We need to stay on the leading edge, our strong point should be the ability to assimilate new, unfamiliar technology -- otherwise the big box guys will take all of our business. Things that might have been on the edge are now part of a deliver and setup from the big box guys.

It would be better if the technology worked reliably. I'd like to see the stats on return trips by BB to replace HDMI cables. If they don't have many, I would bet they don't install projectors, multiple TVs in different/multiple locations and the kinds of racks we do, filled with equipment and in complex configurations.