Business As Usual?

As lighting technology and fixtures evolve, do the business models of lighting companies need to evolve with them?

3 MIN READ

As lighting technology and fixtures evolve, do the business models of lighting companies need to evolve with them? This is something I’ve been thinking about as we have been preparing this issue, our annual mega-look at the latest industry product offerings. The maturation of light sources and luminaires is evident, particularly over the past several years, as manufacturers and designers have grown more comfortable with solid-state lighting.

This year, we received more than 450 product submissions. As we reviewed all of them, there seemed to be a greater awareness on the part of manufacturers about the technical information that is now needed for LED-related lighting products, as evidenced in the more-detailed product literature that we saw this year. Ongoing communication with specifiers has certainly aided in recognition of the need for better coordination between sources, drivers, and control systems. And while there’s still much more to do, it does appear that manufacturers are remembering all of the ingredients that need to be considered as part of luminaire design—including optics and component compatibility along with resolution of technical issues such as flicker, dimming, and color rendering. New product offerings are once again being put forth as a complete package.

And yet, I can’t help but wonder if an analogous progress is occurring on the business side. It seems as though there is a substantial gap between the methods by which a fixture operates and the methods by which fixtures are introduced to market. Long supply chains and multiple vendors still appear to be the norm in the lighting market, and this multilayered procurement process has long been a hot topic in the industry because of the role that it plays in adding time and cost to the specification process.

Does the shift to solid-state lighting offer a possibility for streamlining the industry’s old-school methods? What are the new ways of developing, launching, and bringing products to market that the lighting industry should be considering? Are there examples from other industries that the lighting community should be looking at? How have the mergers and acquisitions that have reshaped the landscape over the past decade changed how the industry works, and what effect has this had on the overall lighting market? Is differentiation between large and small markets still relevant? How has the role of the lighting representative—independent and manufacturer specific—changed?

It doesn’t seem, as yet, that the business side of the lighting industry has evolved to a state where it is reflective of the current technological level of the goods that it produces and sells. Old models of R+D, purchasing, and delivery appear to be the norm. So, how can the business of lighting catch up?

There are signs that companies are challenging the status quo. Borrowing ideas from the semiconductor and electronics industries—markets that have served as a healthy, albeit painful at times, disruptor to lighting—companies are starting to take advantage of new ways of raising capital. One of these ways is by utilizing crowdfunding, which we discuss here. Changes in strategies such as this might offer a glimpse of what future business models could be.

A few years ago, a lighting industry veteran said to me, “Lighting is no longer about bending sheet metal around a source.” Never has that statement been more true. The industry has done an amazing job adjusting to solid-state lighting over the past decade. What remains to be seen is how other aspects of the industry will evolve and adapt. The starting point will be in answering this question: How will the business of lighting evolve, or will it just remain business as usual?

Elizabeth Donoff, Editor-in-Chief
edonoff@hanleywood.com

About the Author

Elizabeth Donoff

Elizabeth Donoff is Editor-at-Large of Architectural Lighting (AL). She served as Editor-in-Chief from 2006 to 2017. She joined the editorial team in 2003 and is a leading voice in the lighting community speaking at industry events such as Lightfair and the International Association of Lighting Designers Annual Enlighten Conference, and has twice served as a judge for the Illuminating Engineering Society New York City Section’s (IESNYC) Lumen Award program. In 2009, she received the Brilliance Award from the IESNYC for dedicated service and contribution to the New York City lighting community. Over the past 11 years, under her editorial direction, Architectural Lighting has received a number of prestigious B2B journalism awards. In 2017, Architectural Lighting was a Top Ten Finalist for Magazine of the Year from the American Society of Business Publication Editors' AZBEE Awards. In 2016, Donoff received the Jesse H. Neal Award for her Editor’s Comments in the category of Best Commentary/Blog, and in 2015, AL received a Jesse H. Neal Award for Best Media Brand (Overall Editorial Excellence).Prior to her entry into design journalism, Donoff worked in New York City architectural offices including FXFowle where she was part of the project teams for the Reuters Building at Three Times Square and the New York Times Headquarters. She is a graduate of Bates College in Lewiston, Me., and she earned her Master of Architecture degree from the School of Architecture at Washington University in St. Louis.

No recommended contents to display.

Upcoming Events

  • Slate Reimagined: The Surprising Advantages of Slate Rainscreen Cladding

    Webinar

    Register Now
  • The State of Residential Design Today: Innovations and Insights from RADA-Winning Architects

    Webinar

    Register for Free
  • Specifying Smarter with Copper-Clad Aluminum (CCA) Metal-Clad Cable

    Webinar

    Register for Free
All Events