HETMA Board of Directors
There was a time not too long ago when being an “end user” meant being pushed aside and ignored for other “more important” channel partners. Trust us, we saw it, we felt it. And some of us still harbor the resentment from it. Yet, over the past decade, that social ladder has changed significantly. Overwhelmingly, end users have become welcome and catered to through an industry recognition that a direct connection to the voice-of-the-customer is vital in organizational success.
Occasionally, however, we are reminded that we’re not quite there yet. In a recent AVNation AVWeek episode (Ep: 743), a discussion between Tim Albright, Gina Sansivero, Michelle Loret, and Brock McGinnis, centered around an article from AV Magazine titled, “Are educational institutions wasting their money on AV?” by guest author Zoran Visnjic of Mason Technologies. The premises is that we, educational end users, “fall into the trap of buying whatever is popular in the education technology landscape instead of what their educators can use in practice.”
To summarize, the article paints a bleak picture of classroom AV spending in K–12 and higher ed, arguing that institutions routinely waste money by chasing whatever’s trendy instead of what teaching actually requires. It claims purchasing decisions are too often made by people without the technical or instructional context to judge long-term value, warped by “use it or lose it” grant deadlines, and undermined by siloed planning between IT, faculty, facilities, and administrators which results in flashy, complex systems that don’t fit real workflows and end up underused because educators aren’t properly trained. It criticizes schools for clinging to outdated legacy gear and for falling short on true equity and neurodiversity support, while warning that many are unprepared for the near-future hits of AI, rising student-data security risks, and the infrastructure and staffing demands of VR/AR/IoT, leaving campuses stuck with fragile, unmanageable systems that turn AV from an asset into a recurring drain.
The write-up riled up the guests to challenge the premise of the article, standing up for the higher ed vertical and the progress that has been made. As Gina Sansivero rightly points out, the article is “clickbaity” and that any higher ed individual who read it should be “infuriated.” Yes, Gina, we’re triggered and it “got us” too. The article did show that clickbait works, and it is “offensive” as Michelle Loret pointed out. The article is wrapped around an outdated outlook to gain attention. And yes, Michelle, indeed, we do “live in this world,” day-in and day-out, face-to-face with our customers, the faculty and staff. Brock McGinnis, gave the rightful insight that there has been a “sea change” and we are “no longer cart-pushers.” We are “highly educated, [with] a great association, HETMA, that ensures that even smaller places … have access to the same resources as the other [elite] schools.” He even points out that in Canada more CTS-I and CTS-D holders are held by higher ed professionals than corporate employees.
The problem with this clickbait is that it also collapses nuance, erases institutional complexity, and frames an entire profession as naïve buyers chasing shiny objects. That framing is not just wrong, it is dismissive of the practitioners who design, deploy, and sustain learning environments at scale. HETMA, as the official industry organization leading the charge for the advocacy of the higher ed vertical, has one goal: focusing on developing our professional acumen. And the entire industry has come together up-and-down the channel line to accomplish this together.
So, after you all “checked the date,” and confirmed that, yes, this article did actually get released in 2026, HETMA would like to offer the counterargument, starting with the foundational problem.
K–12 and Higher Education Are Not the Same Conversation: Lumping K–12 and higher education together is analytically lazy. K–12 environments are typically centralized, standardized, curriculum-driven, and often state-mandated in technology selection. Higher ed is decentralized by design. Faculty governance, donor-funded spaces, research requirements, legacy infrastructure, accreditation pressures, and institutional autonomy fundamentally change how technology decisions are made. Yes, both educate students. That is where the similarity ends. Higher ed institutions are cities within themselves with complex systems that center around community development. When an article treats them as interchangeable, without recognition of the intrinsically different missions, every conclusion that follows is built on sand.
Decision Makers in Higher Ed Are Not Technically Illiterate: The assertion that “limited technical knowledge at the decision-making level” drives waste reveals more about the author’s distance from higher education than it does about higher education itself. Universities employ CIOs, AV directors, classroom technology governance committees, instructional designers, accessibility officers, facilities engineers, and faculty advisory boards. Many of these professionals have spent decades in AV, IT, and learning space design. Administration controls funding. Faculty define pedagogical needs. IT and AV teams translate those needs into architecture and operational reality. That is not dysfunction. That is governance. Could alignment always be better? Absolutely. But, framing higher ed leadership as technically naïve is lazy analysis that lacks the understanding that tech managers at R1 institutions area actually making financial and technical decisions for multi-billion-dollar corporations. Yeah, that’s more money than the valuation of any integrator on the current Top 50 list.
“Use It or Lose It” Funding Is Not a Shopping Spree: Grant-driven spending pressure exists. But higher education procurement is not a frantic cart checkout. Major AV investments go through capital planning, architectural design, RFP processes, accessibility and security review, enterprise integration, and lifecycle costing. You cannot impulse-purchase a campus-wide collaboration platform or a standardized classroom ecosystem. Higher ed moves deliberately because failure is expensive, visible, and mission-impacting. What some may see as ivory towers, red tape, and preferential buying, we call due diligence to deliver the right products and services to our end users, the campus community.
Training Is Not Ignored, It Is a Strategic Investment: The critique that technology fails without training is true. But, the implication that higher ed treats training as an afterthought is not. Just HETMA itself hosts an annual virtual conference, monthly Lunch-&-Learns, the Educational Summit at InfoComm, the signature Approved Program, weekly Advisory Councils, HEx Credential, Prism Scholarship, and not to mention all the other higher ed AV conferences that happen nearly weekly throughout the globe. Training and certification is the core of who we are… C’mon, we’re literally in the education industry. Training in higher ed is not a one-time workshop. It is an ongoing institutional effort shaped by faculty turnover, adjunct models, evolving pedagogy, and constantly changing platforms. Universities invest heavily in onboarding, faculty development centers, embedded instructional designers, documentation, and hands-on support.
We’re Casting a HEx: This is also where professional development for AV and IT practitioners matters. HETMA is addressing this directly with the HETMA Credentialed Professional (HEx) program. HEx is not a single course or vendor certification. It is a curated pathway that recognizes higher education, providing relevant training from across the industry. Professionals earn the credential by completing a defined set of courses and meeting required training hours. The initial HEx offering is an entry-level credential focused on foundational knowledge for higher ed AV and instructional technology. Additional HEx pathways in areas such as project management, programming, instructional design, AV system design, and more are already in development. Higher ed does not just need better tools. It needs shared professional standards, common language, and recognized pathways for growth. HEx is designed to formalize that ecosystem. The challenge is not that higher ed ignores training. The challenge is that modern campuses demand training models that match their complexity and diversity of roles.
Brock’s Counterpoints Deserve a Deeper Look: The AVWeek panel did the community a service by pushing back on the framing of the original article. That discussion was necessary and appreciated. However, several counterpoints deserve more nuance when applied to higher education. Brock’s comments on over-specification, boutique solutions, and high-end gear reflected a common integrator concern: gold-plating rooms instead of solving instructional needs. That is a real risk. It is also something higher ed AV teams actively fight. Most universities today are aggressively standardizing classrooms, reducing customization, and driving down per-room cost through repeatable design. The era of every classroom being a snowflake is ending because institutions cannot scale it operationally.
The Camera Example: The discussion around a hypothetical $1,000 camera is a useful illustration of where integrator logic and institutional reality diverge. Yes, you can buy a $1,000 camera, but higher education is not filming YouTube creators. We are capturing instruction for accessibility compliance, research documentation, global distribution, and legal recordkeeping. Reliability, remote management, vendor support, and third-party integrations matter. More importantly, the market has matured. There are excellent purpose-built educational cameras that deliver high-quality imaging, auto-tracking, USB and IP workflows, and enterprise manageability at education-appropriate price points. The conversation should not be “$1,000 camera versus junk.” The conversation should be “right tool for instructional intent, at institutional scale.” That to say, cost is only one dimension. Total cost of ownership, support burden, integration complexity, and lifecycle planning matter more than the sticker price.
“Just Buy Simpler Gear” Is Not a Strategy: Another implicit counterpoint was that institutions should simply buy simpler technology. That advice ignores the regulatory, accessibility, and operational requirements of higher ed. Lecture capture, hybrid instruction, remote participation, assistive listening, recording retention policies, and enterprise identity integration are not optional. Simplicity for the user often requires complexity in the backend. Higher ed AV teams do not chase complexity for fun. They engineer complexity away from faculty and students.
Integrators See Projects. Higher Ed Sees Ecosystems: Integrators often encounter the worst examples, like donor-driven rooms, executive boardrooms, showcase classrooms. That can create the impression that higher ed is addicted to boutique AV. The fact is, our business model is to support as much from design to install as we can internally in order to both lower the total cost of ownership and ensure appropriate support SLAs. Niche projects are often the ones that get bid out, because that’s a better business decision for us. What is often invisible is the hundreds or thousands of standardized classrooms built quietly with tight budgets, lifecycle planning, and centralized management. Higher ed is not a collection of showrooms. It is an ecosystem of learning spaces.
Legacy Gear, Accessibility, AI, and Security Are Not Revelations: The article correctly points out that analog legacy gear, unmanaged devices, and outdated formats should be retired. Higher ed AV teams have been standardizing on IP-based management and digital workflows for years. Are there some schools still “living in the past?” Sure, but with cybersecurity and accessibility regulations that govern our institutions, IP technologies are-and-have-been our method for compliance. Accessibility and neurodiversity are not emerging concerns in higher ed. They are legal requirements, institutional values, and active design criteria. Captioning, assistive listening, flexible environments, lighting control, and multiple interaction models are part of modern learning space design. AI integration, data security, and infrastructure strain are not theoretical risks. They are daily agenda items for CIOs and AV leadership teams operating networks that rival enterprise and research institutions in scale and complexity.
What Articles Like This Actually Signal to Higher Ed: This is the part that matters. When a company publishes an article framing higher education as trend-chasing and technically naïve, it does not position that company as a trusted partner. It signals a misunderstanding of the sector and a willingness to talk down to practitioners. If the goal was thought leadership, the result was the opposite. It read as a lecture from the sidelines, not insight from inside the field. For many of us, it answered a simple question about who understands higher education and who does not.
Buying Intentionally Is Already the Goal: Higher education is not perfect. No sector is. We over-spec spaces. We pilot tools that fail. We inherit donor-driven decisions. We negotiate governance. We compromise. But the narrative that universities are blindly wasting money on AV is tired, simplistic, and disconnected from reality. The future of instructional technology is not about buying less. It is about designing intentionally, aligning governance, investing in people, and partnering with vendors who understand the complexity of our mission.
The Industry Has Spoken: One additional item of note is the industry recognition that higher ed projects and people have received over the past decade from every major AV-industry publication including top projects to professionals and teams of the year. From invited speaking engagements to tradeshow presence, to advisory board consulting, and thought leadership, the influence and advocacy higher ed provides has become essential in product road-mapping and business development. The weight and power of the higher ed vertical united is unmatched in any other vertical sector within the AV-industry.
In conclusion, higher ed does not need lectures about shiny objects. We need partners who recognize that classrooms are infrastructure, not gadgets. Our campuses are businesses that make strategic decisions that impact our living communities. That’s the responsibly we bear, day-in, day-out.
- AVNation Staff
- AVNation Staff
- AVNation Staff
- AVNation Staff
