Private equity owners of gear we use

[RadoStefanov]

I dont know it might be just me but I rather not buy gear from a private equity that is trying to squese every cent out of my pocket and bring it to Europe!

I converted to zaxcom 13 years ago and I am happen to support a local mom and pop company that cares about use and provides an actual support.

The rule of predatory private equity greed should not be something that i want or need to deal with in my life.

[solowiej]

It's times like these I spend too much time looking for the heart icon.

 

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

What do we do when Glenn retires?

 

I've had it in the back of my mind that I would want to try and buy Zaxcom with a group of other production sound mixers to keep it owned by sound / film people.  I'd love to see them get the resources they need to do better QA testing, fix bugs, improve UIs, and address some of the chronic issues with not being able to support Apple / Android / etc.

[solowiej]

1 minute ago, The Documentary Sound Guy said:

I would want to try and buy Zaxcom with a group of other production sound mixers

That's so ...healthy sounding. Benefits everybody in every way. 

[RadoStefanov]

14 minutes ago, The Documentary Sound Guy said:

What do we do when Glenn retires?

 

I've had it in the back of my mind that I would want to try and buy Zaxcom with a group of other production sound mixers to keep it owned by sound / film people.  I'd love to see them get the resources they need to do better QA testing, fix bugs, improve UIs, and address some of the chronic issues with not being able to support Apple / Android / etc.

Without sharing any private information Glenn will never sale. Because while having a good profit and paying his people is good he is not in it for the money. I know that for a fact that might be made public in the future, 

 

I would take the limitation of a small company compared to the greed of private equity.

 

[Philip Perkins]

PE has really damaged what were a lot of great audio gear companies.  But we can't expect the "inventors" or founders of those companies to keep them going as mom and pop operations if their families or employees don't want to do that work.  (See Denecke as an example of employee continuity.). The founders worked very hard and will want to retire by selling up.  We can only hope that a profit oriented PE group isn't their only possible choice of buyer.

[solowiej]

24 minutes ago, Philip Perkins said:

... hope that a profit oriented PE group isn't their only possible choice of buyer.

Rado's OP brought me visions of a worker/user-owned type of organization. Heart emojis.

This can risk the same 'death by committee' type of leadership decision making as PE. But if the end user / customer is also a voting participant in development and production, the proceeds that might have gone to investor profit can now help compensate for learning curve missteps, and ultimately back into development.

Glenn, if you're listening: Sorry for any insensitivity discussing this. It clearly means we panic at the suggestion of a world in which you're no longer running Zaxcom.

[OB1]

Sometimes PE is the only option.

Coming from a former M&A role in a corporation that turned PE (with a short ESOP period in between) sometimes the original founders are closing up shop for valid reasons (health, workload, anxiety, or a mix) - even if profitable and a healthy business. Sometimes these owners are faced with no succession plan. No family or friends that can take the reins. No competitor or vertical market opportunity. What is to happen? Just close? 

 

Of course I speak generically and not specific to the OP, but I've seen a lot of this happen before. Sure the PE is there to generate max for the investors, but is that the worst case scenario? Of course not. Personally I have seen quite a bit of IP and solid businesses fall to the wayside because a mom & pop simply shuttered, and in that scenario *nobody* wins.

[RadoStefanov]

3 hours ago, Philip Perkins said:

PE has really damaged what were a lot of great audio gear companies.  But we can't expect the "inventors" or founders of those companies to keep them going as mom and pop operations if their families or employees don't want to do that work.  (See Denecke as an example of employee continuity.). The founders worked very hard and will want to retire by selling up.  We can only hope that a profit oriented PE group isn't their only possible choice of buyer.

Examples:

zaxcom

shure. 
 

ye you can if you are not greedy. 
and leaving legacy to your kids is better IMHO than just getting a chunk of millions. 

[drpro]

It is slowly happening, look at all of the production gear companies that are now owned by Videndum Production Solutions.  From my reading it looks like Arri may be on the chopping block in the near future.

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

7 hours ago, OB1 said:

Sometimes PE is the only option.

That is part of the problem.  Yes, closing up could be a worst-case scenario, but the fact that financing isn't readily available for passionate young owner-operators is part of the problem.  As is the fact that buying a small business isn't seen as attractive a path as starting your own.  This is a genuine problem in how corporate finance is structured, not just a reason to complain about rich shareholders.

 

We also face a demographic problem where there are way more retiring / dying boomers that have legacy businesses than there are GenXers / Millennials capable of taking over a small business.

But ... all that doesn't change the fact that PE tends to shift corporate priorities drastically in the wrong direction.  I'm not entirely convinced that shutting down is the worst-case scenario ... a niche business that closes opens up that niche for someone else to build something new.  When it's bought out and enshittified, the niche doesn't close, but the level of quality and service plummets to the minimum level that will continue to sustain sales.

[RadoStefanov]

8 hours ago, solowiej said:

Rado's OP brought me visions of a worker/user-owned type of organization. Heart emojis.

This can risk the same 'death by committee' type of leadership decision making as PE. But if the end user / customer is also a voting participant in development and production, the proceeds that might have gone to investor profit can now help compensate for learning curve missteps, and ultimately back into development.

Glenn, if you're listening: Sorry for any insensitivity discussing this. It clearly means we panic at the suggestion of a world in which you're no longer running Zaxcom.

 

That world does not exist. Glenn will never sale. He is not an Jonsshole

 

 

 

53 minutes ago, The Documentary Sound Guy said:

But ... all that doesn't change the fact that PE tends to shift corporate priorities drastically in the wrong direction. 

 

This is what I think happened.

PE pays a consultant firm like McKensey to find where the money are. Mc Kensey says churches and venues.

PE to sound devices: Leave the small TV - film business. Go to churches and compete. 

Sound devices makes a worthless guitar wireless. 

I can bet everything I own that the private equity sound device can not even put a dent in shure sennheiser market!

 

9 hours ago, Philip Perkins said:

PE has really damaged what were a lot of great audio gear companies.  But we can't expect the "inventors" or founders of those companies to keep them going as mom and pop operations if their families or employees don't want to do that work.  (See Denecke as an example of employee continuity.). The founders worked very hard and will want to retire by selling up.  We can only hope that a profit oriented PE group isn't their only possible choice of buyer.

[BAB414]

On 12/12/2025 at 3:42 PM, RadoStefanov said:

Without sharing any private information Glenn will never sale. Because while having a good profit and paying his people is good he is not in it for the money. I know that for a fact that might be made public in the future, 

 

I would take the limitation of a small company compared to the greed of private equity.

 

If he's not in it for the money, then what possible reason would he have for patenting his magic recording transmitters or preventing free licensing of it?

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

1 hour ago, BAB414 said:

If he's not in it for the money, then what possible reason would he have for patenting his magic recording transmitters or preventing free licensing of it?

Patenting inventions was standard legal advice about 20 years ago.  Probably still is.  I tried to read the patents once.  They are written by a lawyer to be as opaque and vague as possible, even though the trade for a patent is supposed to be that you reveal the magic behind the patent.

My read is that Glenn is too friendly with his lawyer, not that he loves money per se.  I've seen Glenn defend the patents up and down on principle, so my read is that he sees himself as a helpless inventor using the law to fend off the bigger corporate sharks.  Not a development philosophy I subscribe to, but also not the same thing as purely profit driven.

[Conor]

Can mom & pop compete against the resources of PE? What happens if they can't?

[solowiej]

1 hour ago, Conor said:

Can mom & pop compete against the resources of PE? What happens if they can't?

They can if they're first to market with their carefully patented inventions.

[Bouke]

Patents are a huge PITA.
It's highly expensive to cover something world wide, and then you have to fight a lot. (Read, hire lawyers...)
And then, if you can't get royalties from it, you need to sell A LOT to see that money ever again.

I had a few patent worthy products, but I never found it worth the hassle nor the financial risk.

[Philip Perkins]

I can't fault Glenn S for defending his work.  I see it as no different from artists, composers and authors defending their creative work.  This defense can be inconvenient for some (ie the Zax recording TX patents), but I don't want to live in a world where anyone with enough legal muscle can steal whatever they want.  Oh, wait...

[Bouke]

34 minutes ago, Philip Perkins said:

the Zax recording TX patents

If I'm correct, the combo of transmitter and recorder is patented. I fail to see how this would hold.
Who would stop me making a transmitter and a recorder that can be clicked together?

But I've seen a patent even for a stupid thingy that existed with other manufacturers before it was registered...

And yes, big mouth, deep pockets, pure arrogancy, you can't win. But the last time I've made a remark about that here Rado went ballistic...

[RadoStefanov]

20 hours ago, BAB414 said:

If he's not in it for the money, then what possible reason would he have for patenting his magic recording transmitters or preventing free licensing of it?

Everybody could have the recording license for pretty much free and Deity did.

12 hours ago, Conor said:

Can mom & pop compete against the resources of PE? What happens if they can't?

This is not the point.

The point is the mom and pop of family owned company is not listening to some Private Equity assholes and making a guitar wireless.

By the way SHURE is a family owned company and it is hard to see how somebody can move their market position.

11 hours ago, Bouke said:

Patents are a huge PITA.
It's highly expensive to cover something world wide, and then you have to fight a lot. (Read, hire lawyers...)
And then, if you can't get royalties from it, you need to sell A LOT to see that money ever again.

I had a few patent worthy products, but I never found it worth the hassle nor the financial risk.

 

True, I invented bunch of zaxcom things. I could have patented them in advance. But I did not. Because I dont have the funds to grading them.

5 hours ago, Philip Perkins said:

I can't fault Glenn S for defending his work.  I see it as no different from artists, composers and authors defending their creative work.  This defense can be inconvenient for some (ie the Zax recording TX patents), but I don't want to live in a world where anyone with enough legal muscle can steal whatever they want.  Oh, wait...

Exactly on point. 

People have tried.

4 hours ago, Bouke said:

If I'm correct, the combo of transmitter and recorder is patented. I fail to see how this would hold.
Who would stop me making a transmitter and a recorder that can be clicked together?

But I've seen a patent even for a stupid thingy that existed with other manufacturers before it was registered...

And yes, big mouth, deep pockets, pure arrogancy, you can't win. But the last time I've made a remark about that here Rado went ballistic...

 

If you know the history of zaxcom you can follow all the inventions : They were first in everything. By sometime 12 years.

I dont care about patents. 

 

When did I go ballistic and for what? Examples? I really don’t give a fuck about the patents. 

And to be honest blaming the patent for the inaction on internal recording is very dishonest. 

People could have made gear for the overseas market long time ago,

I mean look at remote control of TX: Apart from SHure nobody else can do it right.

I dont think this is the patents fault.

[Conor]

12 hours ago, RadoStefanov said:

This is not the point.

The point is the mom and pop of family owned company is not listening to some Private Equity assholes and making a guitar wireless.

By the way SHURE is a family owned company and it is hard to see how somebody can move their market position.

I'm just saying that companies like Zaxcom staying away from PE forever is not certain, there's a reason a lot of companies go that way. Yes it sucks hard but no one is immune to those pressures.
BTW Shure makes "guitar wireless" and loads of cheap crap. Probably what helps them stay in business.

[Izen Ears]

On 12/14/2025 at 1:33 PM, RadoStefanov said:

Everybody could have the recording license for pretty much free

...

I dont think this is the patents fault.

If this is true, can you please explain why Lectro hasn't made a recording tx?

[RadoStefanov]

3 hours ago, Izen Ears said:

If this is true, can you please explain why Lectro hasn't made a recording tx?

Technically unable.
also ... Pride 

And they tried the stick instead of the carrot. 

[Matthew Steel]

57 minutes ago, RadoStefanov said:

Technically unable.
also ... Pride 

And they tried the stick instead of the carrot. 

 

Wait - are you saying that Lectro doesn't have the technical capability to make such a device, yet Zaxcom sued them for making it?

[RadoStefanov]

15 minutes ago, Matthew Steel said:

 

Wait - are you saying that Lectro doesn't have the technical capability to make such a device, yet Zaxcom sued them for making it?

It is a lot easier if you familiarize yourself with things that you are talking about.

Also lectro did not care for it because they had a big chunk of the market and refused to innovate. 

This was a giant mistake and their market share shrunk by a lot.

I really dont see a reason to use lectrosonics in 2025.