In all my years in this business. I have never resorted to using scare tactics of any kind to get a customer to sign up. Any company that uses these tactics are usually unethical and immoral IMHO.
RHC: Actually, both the Brinks and ADT ads that you routinely see on TV are quite creative, and very well crafted ads. In the past, having been associated with the design and production of ads, I have a good feel for how much creative work and expense went into the production of both of these ads. I bet these ads cost a bundle !! However, knowing all that somehow doesn't excuse their taking the liberties they do with the truth ( I believe in the advertising industry they call it "artistic license".....:)).....)
I think I read that they cant...but don't know what the time frame is.
We're supposed to...but I'd lose clients if I did.
None to me...I train my clients so CP01 doesn't help my false alarm rate, which is very low.
Yea, but first she runs back upstairs.
Ha..with CP01 he'd have 30-60 seconds (30 if she had it armed Instant).
Here's the commercial I'm waiting for...
Pretty girl on treadmill, trotting along. Bad guy kicks in front door, alarm sounds. Pretty girl stops trotting, walks to endtable, opens drawer, removes Glock 27 .40 caliber pistol, wheels and double-taps bad guy twice in the 10 ring.
Phone rings, "Hi, this is Alex from 2nd Ammendment Security. Are you OK?"
"Yes, I'm OK, I just killed the bad guy."
"OK, I'm sending the coroner right away."
"Thank you very much."
"No problem, thanks for using 2nd Ammendment Security."
Supposed to as in regulation? If you don't enable those options are you not in violation of law?
I tend to look at the artistic license in a different way, for example the supposed central station room layout and computer displays are amusing. Also in the event of an alarm do all the 1's and 0's flowing around the house start flashing?
probably maybe I guess I could just remove the system as well...that would really cut down on false alarms. Our PD sends us quarterly alarm reports, one year we were in the top 3 for lowest false alarms.
that would be a good one to shoot (video) and put on youtube
Well, since it all happened so quickly .... the one thing we know ........... it didn't happen in Texas.
I thought they had a similar program already... Smith & Wesson dealer program I think??????????????? :-))
a certain investing class has for years paid through the nose for what was= thought to be world-class money management by investing in funds that prom= ise access to the best hedge funds.
called fund-of-fund industry.
edge funds or other non-traditional investment vehicles.
but the expenses are exorbitant: often a 1% management fee and between 5% a= nd 15% of any gains.
ut not so much when they're losing money, or worse, investing in a fraud.
ed from the actual investment of money," says Michael Lewitt, president of = hedge fund Harch Capital Management. "To convince people they add value the= y sell themselves as offering diversification, due diligence and access to = exclusive hedge funds. The Madoff scandal hits at the heart of this model, = and could be devastating for the industry."
ll of their clients' money to Madoff -- money that may now be gone.
eenwich and Maxam Capital Management were funding a ponzi scheme for a peri= od of decades blows up the raison d'etre for a fund-of-funds," said Lewitt.
uggling with the same negative trends slamming the average hedge fund -- in= vestors pulling money out, poor performance and lots of volatility.
ing hedge funds by about 2 percentage points.
e that these two layers of fees made their chances of making money pretty r= emote," said Steve Cesinger, the chief financial officer at private equity = and real estate investment firm Dewberry Capital.
t was a victim of fraud and that it did due diligence and hired auditors.
l and that fund-of-funds managers will be exposed to that litigation," said= Steve Thel, a law professor at Fordham law school where he teaches securit= ies regulation.
uestions. First, did the fund managers conduct reasonable due diligence. An= d second, did they disclose to investors that they were not diversified.
argue that proper research was conducted. As for whether proper disclosure= s were made, "that's still to be discovered," said Thel.
That is not the way it works, advertising is a drop in the bucket compared to incoming revenue, stopping advertising wouldn't necessarily give them the ability to reduce monitoring rates. You can hope all you want but they ARE a profitable company with relatively low attrition and now are independent with no debt. That may or may not change with the new name but that remains to be seen.
ADT on the other hand isn't bringing in enough new accounts to make up for attrition losses
I got one of those robotic calls today offeing a free security system. The system, so the call said, is worth "over $800" and it's "completely free!" All they ask is that I help in their marketing by placing their sign on my lawn. The call instructed the vic... er, client to press 1 for more info. I wondered which alarm company was making the call so I pressed 1 and, after about a 2-minute wait, learned it was none other than ADT. The "operator" said he was calling from Utah, but the phone number, 213-710-8112, is from Compton, California.
That is an assumption on your part since you have no way to know what part of Brinks' revenue is spent on advertising and on illegal or misleading telephone calling campaigns like the one ADT is currently running.
Stopping advertising would mean no new clients to replace attrition -- the end of the company. That would not qualify as a bad thing, but it's not going to happen any time soon since they are certainly going to keep spending millions on ad campaigns.
You assume that but it's not a certainty. Brinks' corporate reports may be as misleading as ADT's ads.
You also assume that. Reality may be very different from what you like to assume.
That's another assumption. I refer to the comment about corporate reports.
Who cares, really? Like ADT's residential division, Brinks has nothing to do with security. They can keep selling lick'n'stick crap until Jesus comes back and it won't mean anything to companies that market real alarms.
That's nice.
Sure you did
And yet you seem to know all about it
Not true, it has only been in the last few years Brinks did any major advertising, the name alone sold security systems and still does to some extent
No they ARE a profitable company
Yes I often think that when you talk about your past alarm experiences
Apparently it does or we wouldn't be having this conversation
You guys are too much... :)
Jim Rojas
mleuck wrote:
Perhaps they missed your area code so far.
I know Brinks runs misleading ads. I've seen them and so have several others here. I also know that it's highly unlikely that you, I or anone else here knows what percentage of revenue Brinks spends on advertising. I do, however, know that any major business selling to the general public is likely to spend a significant part of their earnings on advertising. That's business.
The name alone is never enough for the kind of penetration Brinks and ADT are seeking. (Note to "Doug": Not *that* type of menetration)
Maybe and maybe not.
You think? Que coisa!
I didn't start the thread -- only joined in to correct you.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.