Maker Pro
Maker Pro

How to prevent pedestrians tailgating cars

  • Thread starter Daniel (Cut off my bollocks to reply - OUCH!)
  • Start date
D

Daniel (Cut off my bollocks to reply - OUCH!)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Greetings.

I am looking for ideas to solve a particulalry vexing issue.
Specifically, I am trying to protect a multi-level carpark from thieves
who walk in through the roller-shutters behind vehicles.

As it is a residential (i.e. apathetic) complex, it is unreasonable to
expect the tenants to take any steps in ensuring security is maintained.
I realise I can stop pedestrians tailgating pedestrians with a
turnstile, and cars tailgating cars with a high-speed boom gate. How
though do I prevent pedestrians walking in behind a car?

My preference is for actual PREVENTION rather than mere detection (e.g.
Video Motion Detection etc.) however I am interested in all ideas.
Obviously the more economically viable the better.

Feel free to post to the group but kindly CC me directly at the (heavily
munged) email address supplied as my news server is a bit flaky.

Thanks.
 
A

Aegis

Jan 1, 1970
0
The ONLY sure-fire way that I can think of is posting guards. I know that's
not what you want to hear, but much like our Intel in the Middle East, you
need the "human" element to cover all points.

"Daniel (Cut off my bollocks to reply - OUCH!)"
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
J. Sloud said:
I was speaking with several people in the industry the other day about
how technology will be affecting the industry in the next few years.
Someone made the point that we very seldom say no to a customer's
request anymore. Technology has enabled us to solve just about any
problem. Generally with difficult or complex problems, however, the
customer doesn't want to spend the money to do it right.

Having said that, check out:

http://www.geindustrial.com/ge-interlogix/docs/kalatel_vidiq_flier1.pdf

http://www.dbvision.net/index.asp

Integrated with an access control system, the above technology may
give you what you need.

The above information brought to you by an employee of the world's
largest provider of electronic security products and services, the US
Federal Government's largest single supplier of electronic security
installation and service, the holder of the largest GSA FSS in the
industry, and the only company in the United States who can offer
local service to over 220 markets.
Here we go again with more ADT bullshit. Last I checked Tyco operated in the
tax haven of the Bermuda Islands. An Island which is not a United States
Chartered State. It will be interesting to see how the latest issues pan out
with why they choose to evade paying taxes just like the rest of the
legitimate businesses who deal with the Federal Government. ADT is the
largest, but in scale with all Federal work, it's less than 10 percent. Get
a fucking clue. ADT is the largest at every level, including false alarms.
Could explain why ADT has 1 Lawyer per 100 employees. You have always had my
respect until I read that pile of bullshit. **** ADT! They are also the
largest problem in this Industry.

Jack
 
J

J. Sloud

Jan 1, 1970
0
I was speaking with several people in the industry the other day about
how technology will be affecting the industry in the next few years.
Someone made the point that we very seldom say no to a customer's
request anymore. Technology has enabled us to solve just about any
problem. Generally with difficult or complex problems, however, the
customer doesn't want to spend the money to do it right.

Having said that, check out:

http://www.geindustrial.com/ge-interlogix/docs/kalatel_vidiq_flier1.pdf

http://www.dbvision.net/index.asp

Integrated with an access control system, the above technology may
give you what you need.

The above information brought to you by an employee of the world's
largest provider of electronic security products and services, the US
Federal Government's largest single supplier of electronic security
installation and service, the holder of the largest GSA FSS in the
industry, and the only company in the United States who can offer
local service to over 220 markets.
 
R

RH.Campbell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Uh huh...right ! And with all your genuine accomplishments in those areas,
why is it your company is still regarded by most "in the know" as the
worst in our industry when it comes to dealing with normal folk in the
residential market. Maybe you ought to forget the technology for awhile and
put the emphasis back on good old fashioned honest selling and REAL
service...!!

And please don't feed us all the ADT hype about programs to prevent false
alarms. With their one number dispatch and no cancel codes,
their alarm dispatches are viewed by local police as almost an automatic
false alarm. And their monitoring sucks !......the only word I can think of
accurately describing my experiences.....

Our industry has a right to expect more from the largest in the business;
some real leadership.....

Signed: One of your "accidental" third party dealers (6326) who also (and
unfortunately) makes a large part of his living from your unhappy
residential clients !

RHC
 
J

J. Sloud

Jan 1, 1970
0
Here we go again with more ADT bullshit. Last I checked Tyco operated in the
tax haven of the Bermuda Islands. An Island which is not a United States
Chartered State. It will be interesting to see how the latest issues pan out
with why they choose to evade paying taxes just like the rest of the
legitimate businesses who deal with the Federal Government.

Prior to the last annual shareholder meeting, Tyco management had
strongly suggested that the company relocate it's headquarters into
the US. Since Tyco is a publicly traded company, it ain't as simple
as packing up a U-Haul with a couple of your drunk cronies and moving
your trailer across town. Tyco shareholders voted down the move by a
margin of about 2 to 1. ADT, however, being a US-based operating
company, may or may not feel any effect from proposed legislation
limiting non-US based businesses from participating in Federal
Government bids, depending on what version of what bill eventually
makes it into law.
ADT is the
largest, but in scale with all Federal work, it's less than 10 percent. Get
a fucking clue.

You oughta know by now that I've got a clue. Btw, 10% in this very
fragmented business is a helluva lot.
ADT is the largest at every level, including false alarms.
Could explain why ADT has 1 Lawyer per 100 employees. You have always had my
respect until I read that pile of bullshit. **** ADT! They are also the
largest problem in this Industry.

I haven't posted for a while. However, I noticed three or four
threads, with bad information, attacking a company that employees
about 20,000 Americans. I simply stated a few facts.

Also, ADT's legal department is severely understaffed. Just ask
anyone in the company who has had to get a contract reviewed lately.

Let's look at the false alarm problem and its causes.
The cause can be boiled down to one thing: Lack of value placed on
our products and services by consumers

Everyone wants to do it faster and cheaper which leads to poor quality
equipment, salespeople who don't have a clue, terrible installations,
poor service, customers who aren't trained on the products. All of
this ultimately contributes to the false alarm problem.

How did it start? In the good old days, the only people with alarms
were business owners with something substantial to lose, who paid a
pretty penny for the service. It was a substantial cost, and
therefore, people tended to learn the system and how to use it. The
companies that installed these systems generally did a much better job
than today. The systems were built to be reliable and to function in
an industrial envirornment. Alarm companies provided armed guard
response service. Many times, the alarm company guard would arrive at
the same time or before the police. The police respected these alarm
companies and saw them as an asset.

Then came residential security. It used to be that only weathy
business owners installed home security systems. Most commonly, they
had a similar system in their business and thought it a good idea to
protect their family and home in the same way. During the mid to late
1980's, advances in the electronics industry made the equipment cheap
enough to be marketed to the home owner. At first it was sold or
leased in the same way as commercial security, with a substantial
initial cost an a moderate recurring charge for monitoring. As the
market became more competitive and economies of scale began to be
realized, companies in the industry saw the true value in the
residential market to be recurring revenue. In the 1990's low or zero
down schemes were devised to make the acquisition of equipment very
attractive for the average homeowner. The catch was the long-term
monitoring contract which ensured a multiyear, high profit revenue
stream for the alarm company. Alarm companies were bought and sold
soley on the value of their recurring revenue income. The problem was
that people who invested nothing into the alarm system placed very
little value in it. Why should they? They didn't learn the system
and attrition rates sored because of nonpayment, false alarms, and
poor service. Alarm companies tried desperately to cut costs so that
their initial loss on a "free" system was minimal. This resulted in
poor installation, sales, and service. Again, more false alarms.
Finally, equipment manufacturers tried to cheapen their products to
make them more attractive to zero-down installation companies.
Quality suffered and caused more false alarms still.

What ADT is doing:
http://www.adt.com/fade/index.cfm?source=501
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
J. Sloud said:
Prior to the last annual shareholder meeting, Tyco management had
strongly suggested that the company relocate it's headquarters into
the US. Since Tyco is a publicly traded company, it ain't as simple
as packing up a U-Haul with a couple of your drunk cronies and moving
your trailer across town. Tyco shareholders voted down the move by a
margin of about 2 to 1. ADT, however, being a US-based operating
company, may or may not feel any effect from proposed legislation
limiting non-US based businesses from participating in Federal
Government bids, depending on what version of what bill eventually
makes it into law.

They could keep their office right where it is. As they do have offices in
the US, it would take 7 to 10 working days to change their charter. The
Board of Directors/Shareholders elected not to because they would have to
pay legitimate taxes like the rest of the companies dealing with the Federal
Government. ADT will feel the effect of this proposed bill, right up to the
point where Tyco spins them off.
You oughta know by now that I've got a clue. Btw, 10% in this very
fragmented business is a helluva lot.

I know you have a clue. 90% is still a lot more money.
I haven't posted for a while. However, I noticed three or four
threads, with bad information, attacking a company that employees
about 20,000 Americans. I simply stated a few facts.

Don't be selective though. I understand ADT is your employer, and I have no
problem with the thousands of ADT employees around the country, it's the
hundrfeds of Management Individuals of ADT is where most of the issues lay.
Also, ADT's legal department is severely understaffed. Just ask
anyone in the company who has had to get a contract reviewed lately.

I think it's a good learning curve for any company who thinks those pieces
of paper are worth any value. Their simply not. Consumers have a right to
quality services, something ADT feels a piece of paper better protects their
business practices. That's not the case. Taking consumers to court for
providing poor service is catching on to be a loosing battle. I think maybe
ADT's Lawyers are finally figuring that out, and passing it on to those
wonderful managers. There's so little chance of winning.
Let's look at the false alarm problem and its causes.
The cause can be boiled down to one thing: Lack of value placed on
our products and services by consumers

Everyone wants to do it faster and cheaper which leads to poor quality
equipment, salespeople who don't have a clue, terrible installations,
poor service, customers who aren't trained on the products. All of
this ultimately contributes to the false alarm problem.

Again, that seems to be the Corporate "un-announced" formula ADT exec's
figured would pay off. They confused the need to get work from less
financially qualified for the trade off of paper. It was ADT who set the bar
for the faster, cheaper, and less of everything, not the consumer market.
The consumer market fell victim to a group of "so called" Industry
Professionals. Everyone else, who was as stupid in thinking as ADT, went on
this ride as well. Yet in just 10 short years, the entire Industry gets
burden by this mis-judgement, and here we sit knee deep in poorly installed
equipment, poorly trained users, and a boat load of false alarms running the
responding authorities ragged, understaffed, and over budget.
How did it start? In the good old days, the only people with alarms
were business owners with something substantial to lose, who paid a
pretty penny for the service. It was a substantial cost, and
therefore, people tended to learn the system and how to use it. The
companies that installed these systems generally did a much better job
than today. The systems were built to be reliable and to function in
an industrial envirornment. Alarm companies provided armed guard
response service. Many times, the alarm company guard would arrive at
the same time or before the police. The police respected these alarm
companies and saw them as an asset.

I have news for you, a few of us still operate with those values from the
"good old days".
I have never deviated from providing the value of my services, as apposed to
being in the click of the insecurity's of being like everyone else.
Somewhere along the lines companies threw out their values, for the need to
be competitive. Oddly enough value does still work here in the US, at least
that's what I've been seeing, and selling.
Then came residential security. It used to be that only weathy
business owners installed home security systems. Most commonly, they
had a similar system in their business and thought it a good idea to
protect their family and home in the same way. During the mid to late
1980's, advances in the electronics industry made the equipment cheap
enough to be marketed to the home owner. At first it was sold or
leased in the same way as commercial security, with a substantial
initial cost an a moderate recurring charge for monitoring. As the
market became more competitive and economies of scale began to be
realized, companies in the industry saw the true value in the
residential market to be recurring revenue. In the 1990's low or zero
down schemes were devised to make the acquisition of equipment very
attractive for the average homeowner. The catch was the long-term
monitoring contract which ensured a multiyear, high profit revenue
stream for the alarm company. Alarm companies were bought and sold
soley on the value of their recurring revenue income. The problem was
that people who invested nothing into the alarm system placed very
little value in it. Why should they? They didn't learn the system
and attrition rates sored because of nonpayment, false alarms, and
poor service. Alarm companies tried desperately to cut costs so that
their initial loss on a "free" system was minimal. This resulted in
poor installation, sales, and service. Again, more false alarms.
Finally, equipment manufacturers tried to cheapen their products to
make them more attractive to zero-down installation companies.
Quality suffered and caused more false alarms still.

I agree. For the first time in this Industry Recurring Revenue was the greed
of the demise. Let's assume consumers are only price conscience, and build
the enterprise. The unfortunate thing is, is that all things are circular in
motion. For every action, there is an equal or opposite re-action. Sort term
outlooks made companies, executives, and investors boat loads of money. But
the re-action has left this industry unaccountable for it's actions, and
left a plague of everything false, including alarms. Guess what? It has
caught up with us. But rather than a responsible solution, the industry will
spend the next 10 years pussy-footing around the issues through the
Political channels of appeasing those who would question the profession. A
profession, which has a history (a 20 history) of being wrong 98% of the
time, and made Billions doing it.

They're still 20 years behind the 8 ball. When ADT starts to lead by
example, (again) then I would see it as forward progress.

Jack
 
K

Kurt Kurosawa

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Daniel (Cut off my bollocks to reply - OUCH!)"
I am looking for ideas to solve a particulalry vexing issue.
Specifically, I am trying to protect a multi-level carpark from thieves
who walk in through the roller-shutters behind vehicles.

This might not work if a significant part of the thievery is being done by
residents and their children. Install cameras by the gate and in the garage
if you don't have 'em, then hire guards if the problem really is outsiders.
 
M

Mike Helm

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Sun, 02 May 2004 02:16:48 GMT, [email protected] (J. Sloud)
On Sat, 01 May 2004 18:52:35 GMT, "Jackcsg" <[email protected]>

Then came residential security. It used to be that only weathy
business owners installed home security systems. Most commonly, they
had a similar system in their business and thought it a good idea to
protect their family and home in the same way. During the mid to late
1980's, advances in the electronics industry made the equipment cheap
enough to be marketed to the home owner. At first it was sold or
leased in the same way as commercial security, with a substantial
initial cost an a moderate recurring charge for monitoring. As the
market became more competitive and economies of scale began to be
realized, companies in the industry saw the true value in the
residential market to be recurring revenue. In the 1990's low or zero
down schemes were devised to make the acquisition of equipment very
attractive for the average homeowner. The catch was the long-term
monitoring contract which ensured a multiyear, high profit revenue
stream for the alarm company. Alarm companies were bought and sold
soley on the value of their recurring revenue income. The problem was
that people who invested nothing into the alarm system placed very
little value in it. Why should they? They didn't learn the system
and attrition rates sored because of nonpayment, false alarms, and
poor service. Alarm companies tried desperately to cut costs so that
their initial loss on a "free" system was minimal. This resulted in
poor installation, sales, and service. Again, more false alarms.

How do false alarms impact ADT?

So they have to field a call to the police and/or from the homeowner.

If someone in the home "forgets" the alarm is on, they call the company,
give them their code and that's that.

If no one calls in the false alarm, ADT would simply relay the alarm to
the police.

It seems to me this is pretty much a call center that handles 2 types of
very simple requests. Even with a lot of alarms, it is the cops, not
the alarm company who does the real work.
 
R

RH.Campbell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Too bad it isn't that simple ! Around here, when the client sets off his
alarm and turns it off, most companies program in a cancel code telling the
station that a valid user has disarmed, so no harm done. However, without
that code, the customer must quickly call in a request not to dispatch. It
usually seems no one has told the client to stay off the phone if they
inadvertantly set off the alarm (often poor training....). The problem then
comes when the client is trying to call the station while they are calling
the client...the station gets a busy signal, and with one number dispatch,
they immediately call the police. So the poor client is on hold waiting to
get through while the police are driving up the laneway.....:(((

In locations with high incidents of home invasion, and certain high risk
commercial situations and the like, there are good arguments for doing such
a thing. However, for most people in most residential situations, it is
overkill (IMO), and the "downsides" far exceed the "upsides". The real
purpose of an alarm is to discourage break in to begin with, then limit the
time the burglar has in the home to rummage through your possessions, and
NOT to catch the guy in the act (although that can be a bonus...) And
secondarily, it's to make sure the home is properly secured again. The long
term effect of "erring on the safe side" (ie: no cancel codes) is to
contribute to the false alarm problem in the industry, which ultimately ends
up with frustrated police forces developing the attitude..."what's the point
of hurrying to respond; it's only another false alarm anyway..."

And since they are the biggest company around, it stands to reason they
contribute disproportionately to the false alarm rate because of it !!

And...yes Mike...you are quite correct. It IS the local authorities who do
most of the work, and who don't "get paid for it" in a lot of cases where
there are no fines levied and where there is no private guard response. The
alarm industry has had a free ride for a long time now and I suspect it's
almost over....

As the leader in our industry, ADT could contribute significantly if they
took a REAL stance in this business to work with authorities to develop real
false alarm prevention programs that work, not just ones that make them look
better......(ie: ..we always call to make sure you know we're always there
for you.....)

RHC
 
A

Aegis

Jan 1, 1970
0
RH.Campbell said:
Too bad it isn't that simple ! Around here, when the client sets off his
alarm and turns it off, most companies program in a cancel code telling the
station that a valid user has disarmed, so no harm done. However, without
that code, the customer must quickly call in a request not to dispatch. It
usually seems no one has told the client to stay off the phone if they
inadvertantly set off the alarm (often poor training....). The problem then
comes when the client is trying to call the station while they are calling
the client...the station gets a busy signal, and with one number dispatch,
they immediately call the police. So the poor client is on hold waiting to
get through while the police are driving up the laneway.....:(((

In locations with high incidents of home invasion, and certain high risk
commercial situations and the like, there are good arguments for doing such
a thing. However, for most people in most residential situations, it is
overkill (IMO), and the "downsides" far exceed the "upsides". The real
purpose of an alarm is to discourage break in to begin with, then limit the
time the burglar has in the home to rummage through your possessions, and
NOT to catch the guy in the act (although that can be a bonus...) And
secondarily, it's to make sure the home is properly secured again. The long
term effect of "erring on the safe side" (ie: no cancel codes) is to
contribute to the false alarm problem in the industry, which ultimately ends
up with frustrated police forces developing the attitude..."what's the point
of hurrying to respond; it's only another false alarm anyway..."

And since they are the biggest company around, it stands to reason they
contribute disproportionately to the false alarm rate because of it !!

And...yes Mike...you are quite correct. It IS the local authorities who do
most of the work, and who don't "get paid for it" in a lot of cases where
there are no fines levied and where there is no private guard response. The
alarm industry has had a free ride for a long time now and I suspect it's
almost over....

As the leader in our industry, ADT could contribute significantly if they
took a REAL stance in this business to work with authorities to develop real
false alarm prevention programs that work, not just ones that make them look
better......(ie: ..we always call to make sure you know we're always there
for you.....)

It's so easy to SAY these things. I'll give you an example of a recent
event. Home was burglarized and we got the signal. We called the homeowner.
They told us to wait while they checked it out. 3 minutes went by then they
told us to dispatch. Now the spouse is trying to sue us for dispatching 3
minutes later than we should have.

The one number dispatch has EVERYTHING to do with lawsuits and NOTHING to do
with ADT's "convenience".
 
A

Aegis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jackcsg said:
in pan

They could keep their office right where it is. As they do have offices in
the US, it would take 7 to 10 working days to change their charter. The
Board of Directors/Shareholders elected not to because they would have to
pay legitimate taxes like the rest of the companies dealing with the Federal
Government. ADT will feel the effect of this proposed bill, right up to the
point where Tyco spins them off.

Spin off one of your top money makers? Not the way to stay in business...

Also, you just pointed out something important: SHAREHOLDERS. When YOU
convince THEM, we'll change our charter... Good luck. Something tells me
they won't side with you based on a PROPOSED bill. And Tyco shareholders are
NOT representatives of this industry (i.e. ADT; They just collectively OWN a
company that OWNS ADT).
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Aegis said:
It's so easy to SAY these things. I'll give you an example of a recent
event. Home was burglarized and we got the signal. We called the homeowner.
They told us to wait while they checked it out. 3 minutes went by then they
told us to dispatch. Now the spouse is trying to sue us for dispatching 3
minutes later than we should have.

The one number dispatch has EVERYTHING to do with lawsuits and NOTHING to do
with ADT's "convenience".
Horseshit. More than most likely that telephone conversation was recorded.
ADT's ass would be covered. Burglar alarms do NOT prevent crime. With 98% of
all alarms false, it's getting to the point where companies had better start
proving the need for dispatch, or pay for it when it's false.

Jack
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spin off one of your top money makers? Not the way to stay in business...

Also, you just pointed out something important: SHAREHOLDERS. When YOU
convince THEM, we'll change our charter... Good luck. Something tells me
they won't side with you based on a PROPOSED bill. And Tyco shareholders are
NOT representatives of this industry (i.e. ADT; They just collectively OWN a
company that OWNS ADT).

This is true. It is just business. But should we all seek special tax
shelters to work within the Federal Government? Trust me ADT is not a well
liked company within the inner circle. But then again they are just an
alternative to the fucked up companies already doing business.

Jack
 
A

Aegis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jackcsg said:
to
Horseshit. More than most likely that telephone conversation was recorded.
ADT's ass would be covered. Burglar alarms do NOT prevent crime. With 98% of
all alarms false, it's getting to the point where companies had better start
proving the need for dispatch, or pay for it when it's false.

Jack
The call WAS recorded as are all calls to our CS, but it didn't stop the
suit.
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Aegis said:
dispatching 98%
The call WAS recorded as are all calls to our CS, but it didn't stop the
suit.
That's ok, it will end when the tape is played in court. Some people just
don't understand the purpose of Burg alarms. Nor do they read their
contracts.

Jack
 
B

Bill Unruh

Jan 1, 1970
0
]The call WAS recorded as are all calls to our CS, but it didn't stop the
]suit.

Nothing can prevent a suit. I could sue you even though I have never met
you. The question is whether or not the courts agree that it is a valid
suit. With the legal philosophy which has taken hold in the US of
"largest pockets pays" the certainty of winning even totally frivolous
suits becomes suspect.
 
R

RH.Campbell

Jan 1, 1970
0
You are SO right there ! Kinda discouraging to think there are so many
people who don't shop around.....

RHC
 
R

RH.Campbell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Beats me Rob ! You may well be right, but consumers seem to know how to shop
around for every other type of purchase; why not alarms as well. Or perhaps
it's the lure of the "free system" that gets them. Many seem to buy because
their neighbours do, and they don't want to be seen as the only house on the
street without an alarm. So their real buying commitment and interest is
very low, which dovetails well with their perception they are not having to
pay very much for that "free" system. When you don't really want to do
something, most people will probably take the lazy mans way out, simply to
get an uninteresting purchase decision "over with". Combine that with the
Borgs hordes of ever present and aggressive "amateur road warriors" only too
anxious to get a name on a long term contract, and you have the perfect
combination for a poor consumer buying decision in the making....

Some years ago, I put up my site with the naive belief that perhaps it would
provide some readers with a bit more insight into how they should conduct
themselves as consumers in this buyer beware marketplace. But the very same
people who do go up there are also the same careful shoppers NOT generally
succeptible to the Borgs selling practices anyway. So I end up preaching to
the converted !!

I would dearly like to find out the real reasons why people let themselves
get conned by the Borg and the other mass marketers. All it would take is
for the consumer to make one simple call to most anyone else in their area
to find out that that "deal" is nowhere near what they thought it was. I
suppose I shouldn't complain; I sure get a lot of spinoff business from
them, but only after these clients have had a bad experience with service
quality or prices ! Many people go on for years paying those exhorbitant $30
plus prices with no interest whatsoever in taking any action to rectify the
situation. After 10 years in this business, this question still remains
somewhat of a mystery to me...

As I near the end of my active career in this business, I have also come to
the conclusion that it's hopeless to expect any real leadership in this
business from the large firms. They should be taking a leadership role in
dealing with all the industry problems we do have. But, it will always
remain money first and ethics second. Too bad !! (call me cynical....)

As my daughter says...."go figure"....

R.H.Campbell
Home Security Metal Products
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
www.homemetal.com
 
R

RH.Campbell

Jan 1, 1970
0
By definition Rob, that is NOT a true leadership role. That is simply self
serving PR.

By leadership, I mean (amoung others):

1- Changing the way they conduct their monitoring to a way that doesn't
generate excessive false
alarms
2- Working with industry groups to develop universally applicable programs
to reduce the appalling
false alarm rate
3- Working with their legitimate authorized dealers to clean up their
terrible selling practices,
and reign in the army of amateur road warriors hired by their Authorized
Dealers.
4- Setting an example by becoming the best in the business instead of bottom
feeding as they do

The upside for them would be to save their once good reputation as well as
to help justify their high system, monitoring and service prices to an ever
increasingly price conscious buying consumer. As it is, in our area, there
are several dealers who have actively started "targeting" ADT accounts by
going door to door and offering a vastly better deal at the end of the
original contract. The one party that I know of doing that is doing a
booming business in Quebec by doing nothing but takeovers of this nature (he
claims 35 per month....). Without exception, the accounts he "wins" already
have service or pricing gripes that makes them susceptible to another sales
pitch from another company. (Just for the record, I don't and won't operate
that way....their customers call me......)

However, having worked in big business for many years, and knowing the
thought processes of the majority of executive upper management types, this
is not likely to happen based on the ways they are judged for salary
compensation

RHC
 
Top