ISE 2026 preview: the language of convergence

A data-driven analysis of how broadcast vendors communicate in Pro-AV

ISE has become the event to attend for measuring convergence between broadcast and professional audio-visual (Pro-AV) technology.

Broadcast vs. Pro-AV, in simple terms

Broadcast technology is all about creating and sharing media. TV networks, streaming services, and live productions use it to reach large audiences. Pro-AV technology uses media to support other activities like work or learning, where the content itself isn’t the main product.

For decades, broadcast and Pro-AV maintained distinct technology stacks, vendor ecosystems, and market dynamics. The adoption of general-purpose technologies (e.g., cloud computing, IP networking, AI) progressively dismantled these boundaries. Pro-AV technology gradually infiltrated broadcast workflows while broadcast tools found new applications in Pro-AV sectors ranging from corporate to education. ISE’s dedicated “AV Broadcast” hall stands as one of the physical proofs of this shift.

As broadcast budgets continue to come under pressure, an increasing number of broadcast technology vendors have been turning to Pro-AV for growth. Last year marked Grass Valley’s first appearance at ISE. This year, EVS is exhibiting for the first time. These are major broadcast technology suppliers signalling that Pro-AV is a strategic market for them. If you are a broadcast or media technology vendor that has not yet engaged with Pro-AV, you may be falling behind.

Last year, I published comprehensive research analysing convergence drivers, ISE visitor demographics, exhibitor composition, and strategic lessons for vendors entering the Pro-AV market. That work focused on what has been happened and why. I’ve included it below for readers who want to catch up on the convergence story.

https://lorenzozanni.substack.com/p/ise-2025-and-broadcastav-convergence

This year, I wanted to focus on a more specific aspect of convergence. I spent some time wondering where to start, then I thought: 2025 was the year of “vibe coding”. When access to technology becomes more democratized, non-technical factors start to matter more as sources of competitive advantage.

This piece examines one of these factors: the language of convergence. How vendors describe themselves and their products should offer insights into where convergence stands. For broadcast vendors selling (or planning to sell) into Pro-AV markets, this analysis provides some benchmarks for improving messaging and positioning.

I’ll be at ISE. So, if you’d like to discuss these findings, explore broader industry trends, or get support refining your messaging, I’d love to connect.

A view of hall 3 at ISE 2025 from above

Vendor messaging analysis

Before sharing the analysis, let me provide some additional details on the data and methodology behind it.

Data

For this analysis, I built a dataset of 1,219 text entries drawn from two main sources:

• Company descriptions from the ISE exhibitor directory: 1,083 for non-broadcast technology suppliers, and 108 for broadcast technology suppliers (both in the “AV Broadcast” hall and other halls). This was used to compare non-broadcast and broadcast messaging patterns.
• Product announcements and press releases: 28 products announced in the past year by companies operating at the intersection between Pro-AV and broadcast. This smaller dataset was used to qualitatively identify trends and patterns in specific product announcements.

While many Pro-AV buyers may navigate the show through sources other than the exhibitor directory, the language used in company descriptions is likely representative of broader marketing communications, making it a useful proxy for this analysis.

Methodology

Once the dataset was built, the following steps were taken:

• The text was cleaned by removing punctuation and irrelevant words, and merged similar terms to unify the language and surface trends.
• Word frequency and bigrams (pairs of adjacent words) were analysed to identify patterns and differences, particularly between broadcast and non-broadcast vendors.

Word frequency reflects the marketing buzzwords that appear most often, providing insights for companies looking to differentiate their messaging in an increasingly crowded space. I have discussed this topic in detail in a previous post, which is linked below.

https://lorenzozanni.substack.com/p/breaking-through-the-white-noise

Let’s have a look at the findings.

Research findings

Let’s first compare how broadcast and non-broadcast technology vendors communicate in company descriptions.

Company descriptions: broadcast vs. non-broadcast

Below are the most common words appearing in company descriptions of broadcast technology vendors.

Top terms used across company descriptions by broadcast technology vendors. The word control dominates.

And these are the most common words used by non-broadcast vendors.

Top terms used across company descriptions by non-broadcast technology vendors. The word display dominates.

You’ll notice that the second chart shows higher frequencies, which is due to the larger dataset of non-broadcast vendors.

What are the key differences and similarities?

• Non-broadcast technology vendors tend to use more tangible, product-oriented language (“display,” “LED,” “lighting,” “stage,” “signage,” “electronics”) while broadcast technology vendors rely more heavily on terms that describe infrastructure and processes (“IP,” “network,” “distribution,” “processing,” “performance”). This difference is also symbolically reflected in the top words for each group: “control” operates in the background, while “display” is something visible to the user. This suggests that non-broadcast vendors may be more aligned with what Pro-AV buyers are looking for: a clear understanding of what they are actually purchasing. Broadcast vendors might benefit from using more concrete, product-specific language (“camera”) rather than focusing primarily on technology features. While this distinction is partly driven by the different types of products each group supplies, it nevertheless highlights a potential opportunity for broadcast vendors to communicate their offerings more directly.
• Non-broadcast vendors highlight the markets they serve with specific terms (“enterprise,” “commercial,” “brand”). Broadcast vendors, in contrast, rely on more generic relationship-focused language (“customers,” “partner”). TV is the only specific market they mention! In other words, broadcast vendors do not specify which audiences or verticals they serve, overlooking the key insight that Pro-AV is composed of distinct, diverse markets (have a look at my report on convergence for more details on this challenge).
• The previous two points are reinforced by the top two words broadcast vendors use: “control” and “creative.” As noted earlier, “control” may reflect broadcast’s engineering-centric perspective, where success is defined by managing complex systems. “Creative,” on the other hand, positions them as creative partners, despite the fact that most Pro-AV buyers are unlikely to identify as creative.
• There is some shared vocabulary between the two groups, particularly terms like “design,” “experience,” and “quality,” which appear prominently on both lists. These are common words in technology company descriptions, so their presence is not particularly surprising.

The comparison of the top 10 bigrams for each group, shown below, reinforces the points discussed above.

Top terms used across company descriptions by broadcast and non-broadcast technology vendors. The word display dominates.

With words such as “ control rooms,” “camera control,” and “signal transport,” broadcast vendors’ messaging is again more about technical processes. It is worth noting that the bigram “audio-visual sector” ranks 6th, suggesting that broadcast vendors frequently use this expression in a broad sense rather than to reference specific markets.

Now, let’s have a look at product announcements.

Product announcements

These are some of the key trends identified in the announcements:

• Technical jargon remains excessive and clashes with claims of simplicity: Many announcements still lead with technical language. While some companies (particularly those in connectivity) may primarily address system integrators who are fluent in this jargon, they could benefit from more clearly highlighting business value and real-world use cases. Vendors should also consider the credibility gap created when highly technical messaging is paired with claims of product simplicity.
• Pure audio companies position themselves more effectively than video vendors: Audio-focused vendors tend to use application-centric, outcome-driven language and appear more mature in their messaging. Because audio entered the Pro-AV market earlier than video, these companies may have learned sooner that Pro-AV buyers are rarely audio engineers. In contrast, many video vendors still lead with specifications rather than benefits, which weakens their positioning.
• Only some announcements acknowledge partners: Only some vendors explicitly name integration or technology partners, while others focus solely on standalone product capabilities. As noted in my earlier analysis, vendors that highlight partnerships demonstrate an understanding of Pro-AV purchasing dynamics: integrators need assurance of interoperability with existing infrastructure, and end users are wary of vendor lock-in.
• Some products are highly verticalized, while others remain vague: There is a clear split between announcements that specify concrete verticals (e.g., governments and parliaments) and those that continue to address the market in generic “Pro-AV” terms. Vendors that name specific verticals signal an understanding that Pro-AV is not a single, homogeneous market.
• Announcements are dominated by IP connectivity and hardware: Most announcements highlight IP connectivity, which is not a differentiator anymore. Connectivity-related releases often focus on bridging between standards. Overall, hardware dominates the narrative, with relatively little focus on software or services.

Key insights

These are some of the key insights emerging from my analysis:

• There is a gap between how vendors describe themselves and how Pro-AV buyers think: Broadcast vendors communicate from an engineering-led perspective, while buyers are focused on products, outcomes and applications.
• Specificity correlates with stronger positioning: Vendors that name concrete products, use cases, verticals, and partners communicate more clearly and credibly than those relying on generic, abstract language.
• Technical language is a liability: Across company descriptions and announcements, heavy technical jargon obscures business value and undermines claims of simplicity.
• Market maturity shows up in messaging: Audio vendors demonstrate more effective communication (despite the complexity of their products), suggesting that experience in Pro-AV leads to clearer positioning.
• Ecosystem awareness remains uneven: Only some vendors reflect the reality that Pro-AV purchasing decisions depend on interoperability, partnerships, and avoidance of lock-in.
• Many vendors still treat Pro-AV as a single market: Failure to differentiate between verticals results in vague messaging and missed opportunities for relevance.
• Differentiation should go beyond hardware and connectivity: As many products offer similar hardware capabilities and IP connectivity, vendors need to use more value-driven language to explain what sets their solutions apart.

That’s all for this edition of Sense the Frame.