Problem with ADT Security Company

Not to question your business plan, but that is when the alarm company, that has the "free" marketing approach, finally starts to make some profit. The rate doesn't drop because, instead of paying off upfront costs which they are doing during the first term, they are making up the profit that was not there during the first term.

There is NOTHING of value or benefit to doing so

Sure there is. A client that signed on with me in 1999 is paying far less than the customer that signs up today. If a client did not agree to have the auto renewal, which I have some, and wants to continue using us as their security provider after their agreement expires, then I go out and sign them to a new agreement at today's rate, so now they are paying more than if they had simply let it renew at the old rate.

Most customer hardly

No, they believe what they have assumed, thought, someone else told them, wished to be true, and any other reason they can come up with, anything except for BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN AFFAIRS. The auto renewal clause was in the agreement from day one. If they don't read anything else in an agreement, they read the terms, where the clause is located, and they have three business days to question, negotiate or strike the clause. To say they don't remember is BS. I'll bet everyone of them can tell you the day their last car payment is due right off the top of their head. It is called responsiblity and in reality the only time it becomes a problem is when they want out. All of sudden they come down with Alzheimer's.

Yet if they don't, they're committed. It's

We are not in the cell phone business.

No, it is worse, right down to grand theft auto and full cost of the value of the vehicle.

If you sign a long term natural gas contract, BOTH

Bob, Bob, of course they do unless the provisions, ie cost of living, for increases are clearly stated in the agreement, they orignally signed, and there are usually caps on those. Do you think the cost of doing business is the same in year one as it is in year three? Companies can't just throw out increases at will because a customer will always have the opportunity to either except or decline.

So you are saying that a 130 year old, multi Billion dollar industry, involving all aspects of our life, has been built on unethical business practices? The one constant that I can see in the business world is that all business owners are free to choose their own business plan. Some choose to be pioneers but the mass majority follow what has been the norm. With that being said, the norm on the customers side is that they just claim to being abused when they want out. I have never seen one of my customers, that are paying 1995 monitoring rates because of auto renewal, come running to me and say "Boy, you've been monitoring me for 10 years, you need to raise my rate." They are as happy as clams just were they are at. They are reminded of that everytime they see a Brinks or ADT advertisement showing that $30 plus monitoring fee.

Reply to
Bob Worthy
Loading thread data ...

Why do the courts uphold it if it is not legitimate? If it is a problem, it can be changed legislatively, which has been done is some states to address certain concerns. I don't think any state has stated that renewals are illegal, unethical, not legitimate etc. I think any laws are written with the understanding that the person entering into an agreement knows what they are agreeing to and therefore should adhere to the terms. Lets not forget that a business makes a plan, writes the terms and if the buyer agrees to those terms, it is a legal binding document. I am not saying that I agree with the hard lined attitude of some companies, but it is within there right. Good customer service is well worth its weight in gold.

Reply to
Bob Worthy

So are you saying that because someone didn't read their agreement they shouldn't be held accountable? I would be interested in seeing the judges decission with that defense. I have reviewed many agreements for different companies. I have a folder caulk full of agreements from my competitors. The renewal clause is always in the terms. I have never seen one that had the clause hidden somewhere else in the body of the agreement. If it were, then and only then might a judge have a question about it.

Reply to
Bob Worthy

See continuation of discussions below...

-----------------------------------------------------------

RHC: Perhaps, but IMO that doesn't justify them building in a clause that is too easily missed by any client. It's one thing to explain the clause up front; it's quite another to hide it in the fine print. Somehow I can't see most salesmen from most of these "free system" mass marketing companies bringing this to the attention of the client up front for fear of losing the sale. To simply rely on all clients to fully read their contracts before signing is totally unrealistic (although legally when they sign they agree they have). I think it is one of those situations that sits on the edge....

RHC: Good for you. That's both a good idea and a good incentive for the client to stay with you. But I'm sure you tell him up front that the auto renewal clause is there, AND give him that clear benefit for both allowing it, and staying with you. I nor most customers would have any kind of problem with that; however, that is NOT how most of these auto renewal clauses are implemented. I guess it pretty much boils down to how the clause is handled up front. So perhaps "can be bordering on unethical depending upon how it is administered" is more accurate,. Point taken !!

RHC: True ! It's amazing how people develop memory loss when it suits their purposes. But IMO that still doesn't justify an automatic renewal clause that is slid in within the fine print for the purpose of locking him in without his knowledge. One can always argue that the client should have read his contract in advance but that never reflects the reality of how most people go about doing business. That's unfortunately why consumer protection laws become sometimes necessary when all else fails..

RHC: No, you're taking what I say and putting words in my mouth. Our industry is no more or less unethical than any other industry. But we do have our own dubious practices ! What I AM saying is there are some things in our industry (like all others) that come pretty close to the line, and a long term auto-renewal clause CAN be one of those the way it is USUALLY adminstered. In some respects, it comes down to basic fairness ! Your approach clearly follows that since you give your clients a clear and obvious benefit for the auto-renewal; however, the example I quoted you of a local company that does that here, is a clear example where the clause is mis-used. Even within the ranks of dealers up here, he has been severely criticized for the arbitrary way he has held clients to this clause and basically extorted the money from them in situations where he could have been more reasonable and fair about it. Nor do I know any other company large or small that follows that practice up here..

BTW, thanks for your comments and clarifications, and a good discussion. I like your idea of a long term price guarantee as part of the long term contract. Benefits given for benefits received !! I wish it was more common...

RHC

Reply to
R.H.Campbell

No, a contract is a contract always, unless if directly contravenes the law. The point I was trying to make, I believe I answered as best I can in another post.

RHC

Reply to
R.H.Campbell

But that is the customer's fault not the alarm company

Reply to
Mark Leuck

Regardless of common perception, contracts are a two way street. Each party has responsibility to the other and either can cause a breach or default on the contract. Both parties are protected and one for the consumer is that if there is anything that does not meet the consumer protection guidelines, state and/or federal, such as size of print, location of certain language within the body of the contract, license numbers if applicable, notice of affiliation with any particular governmental departments, etc. will usually render the contract null and void. It isn't hard to get an opinion from the AG's office on a particular concern. Back at ya on a good conversation!

Reply to
Bob Worthy

Points well taken Bob ! Since I work in a totally unregulated environment, license numbers etc simply don't exist and escaped my vision on this issue, and are a not so obvious benefit to the client. However, this thread was really about the "auto renewal" clause in a lot of contracts, and with a little more thought on the issue, I have to agree with you on most of what you say. It's not whether it's there or not, it's how it's administered when the time comes. So, is it unethical in and of itself....no! (I stand corrected). Can it be abused and often is it abused ? Certainly, my experience here is that it is, and there it becomes unethical behaviour. And if it is, then should something be done about it ? Yes, but how and what are the questions ? I don't have any answers for this, other than to educate the buyer in some small way to watch out for it !! Legally, it is likely dealt with sufficiently in that if the client doesn't read his contract and signs it blind....well...stupidity is as stupidity does !! And consumer protection laws only address issues that are large enough and common enough to come up on the political radar screen ! One can only hope that unhappy consumers who are victim to a full 5 year payout second time around, and simply want to move from the home, will be sufficiently pi**ed at paying $25x 60 months in extra billing, that the company in question will get that much negative PR from forcing the issue....

The Rogers negative option billing that came up about a year ago, cost them a load in lost customers and bad PR. This was a situation where customers were going to be automatically billed for extra things unless you advised them you didn't want them. There was a storm of controversy over this and they quickly abandoned their plans to do so.

Your auto renewal approach makes good sense because it gives the client a visible and obvious benefit. However, to repeat myself, I do see quite often where HOW it is administered CAN be and IS abused. As such, it has fallen out of favour locally here, and most companies simply let the contract continue on a month to month basis. Even the Borg do that, since a lot of their clients that I take over ARE on month to month and have been since the end of the original contract. I've asked customers about this, and they simply say no one ever approached then about re-signing another long term contract, so things just went along in a matter of fact fashion...

The two companies that were infamous for holding clients hostage to these auto-renewal contracts are either out of business in one case, or in the second case, have changed names and are operating the same way still.

RHC

"Bob Worthy" wrote in message news:50O5f.1614$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

Reply to
R.H.Campbell

So in closing, what I am hearing is that, the auto renewal clause is not the problem. What you have a problem with is that you are seeing a couple of companies that have abused of the clause. But, if administered simply as intended, it can be a good advantage for both the customer and the company. As you said, benefit given benefit received. I has worked for me.

discussion.

Reply to
Bob Worthy

I guess that pretty well sums it up Bob; however, in all honesty, I doubt very much if the way you handle it is the way the majority of companies that use a LONG TERM auto-renewal clause handle it. Our market seems to be too competitive to keep raising monitoring rates year over year. Too big an increase, and customers would bail out on you..

Perhaps I'm getting a bit jaundiced in my old age, or our totally unregulated part of the world may be worse than the norm in other areas, but it leaves me personally uneasy about the potential for abuse. It has been my experience in life that if business is left on its own to regulate its own activities, that generally means the consumer will end up catching it in the ear !! (yes, yes, I know...this may sound strange coming from someone working in a TOTALLY unregulated environment....:))

I guess it comes down to once again...buyer beware ! If the consumer doesn't like it, then don't sign it.....

RHC

Reply to
R.H.Campbell

Just thought I'd add to this thread by saying that in NY, we are required by law to notifiy the client by certified mail, between 45 days and 30 days prior to the renewal of a contract, that it will be automatically renewed if we don't receive a response prior to the end of the agreement. I too, hold the prices during the term of the agreement. The agreements are for 5 years initially and one year terms there after. If the client wants to "lock in" a fixed price for 5 more years, he can. If not, he's subject to price increases annually. Also, I've never enforced a contract on any client. Contracts are simply to build equity in my business. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't take advantage of something as simple as this and can't see the advantage of doing it, over the short term advatage of "not" doing it, simply to use it as a sales tool, deserves the consequeces.

Here's a challenge,

Is there anyone here, who participates in the group, who treats their clients the way Campbell says they do? Is there anyone here who "hides" their renewal clause in their contract? Is there anyone here who doesn't tell their clients the term of their contract? Is there anyone here who has maliciously persued a client who was in good standing and forced them to complete a contract, simply because you could? Is there anyone out there who raises their prices during a contract and their contract "forces" their client to accept it? Is there anyone here who doesn't allow their clients a grace period to read the contract so they can cancel?

Hmmmmmmmmm?

I'd go on, but I'm pretty sure this should give "someone" a better picture of what the "real world" is all about.

Reply to
Jim

Here's NY's Law verbatim:

  1. No provision of a contract for service, maintenance or repair to or for any real or personal property which states that the term of the contract shall be deemed renewed for a specified additional period unless the person receiving the service, maintenance or repair gives notice to the person furnishing such contract service, maintenance or repair of his intention to terminate the contract at the expiration of such term, shall be enforceable against the person receiving the service, maintenance or repair, unless the person furnishing the service, maintenance or repair, at least fifteen days and not more than thirty days previous to the time specified for serving such notice upon him, shall give to the person receiving the service, maintenance or repair written notice, served personally or by certified mail, calling the attention of that person to the existence of such provision in the contract.

Jim wrote:

Reply to
Mike Sokoly

If you don't think this feature is commonly abused, I would suggest it is you who is living in a dream world !! We have no such statutes in law up here protecting the alarm consumer. You make a better argument for the need for legislation to be enacted than you do for suggesting alarmco's wouldn't use this to their advantage. Both are ugly alternatives...

RHC

Reply to
R.H.Campbell

Welll Gooooollllleeee, I don't see anyone responding to my questions here. Could it be that you, just like Shit for Brains, just simply likes to paint the industry as black as you possibly can so that you can then stand up and say :

"BUT NOT ME"! "Everyone ELSE does those bad bad things "BUT NOT ME"! "I do this and I do that, but ****** I ******* don't do what all the other bad bad companies in the industry do". "THEY're BAD,BAD,BAD". "I'd MUCH rather give my company equity away, and give lifetime free service and parts". "And anyone who isn't equally as stupid as I am, is a thief, and is ripping off their customers and is really BAD BAD BAD".

And we all know that's true because you, up there in the backwoods, have sure got the advantage over everyone else here, and especially over those who live in metro areas, who are competing against thousands of other alarm companies, by being able to have this great grasp on what the rest of the industry does. Yep, the whole industy is going to do it YOUR way because it's GOOD GOOD GOOD. You betcha!

Get a freakin life Bobby boy. You're a hick in the sticks promenading on your soap box ad nauseum, as if your little world ..... is the whole world ....... and you've reached the point that every time you post the SOS, people roll their eyes, nod their head, yawn, AGAIN .....and get on with important stuff.

Reply to
Jim

Nice try, but no nickel for you.....

Talk to you again when you start to finally grow up and decide to add something worthwhile to the ng instead of simply throwing around empty insults...

Chow !!

RHC

Reply to
R.H.Campbell

I'm not sure what you mean. If the client is in good standing, then he's making payments as agreed, and there's no need to force him to complete the contract. If you mean, suppose the client wants to cancel before the end of his contract because he's moving to a building that already has an alarm in it, or because someone else will give him a lower price, then yes, I know companies that sue people as a matter of course. Personally, I don't, unless I stand to lose a lot of money, but one company I know files quite a few small claims court cases on people who don't fulfill their contracts, including the automatic renewal periods.

- badenov

Reply to
Nomen Nescio

You don't *have" to execute every nuance of a contract...I let people out of contracts all the time...why?...I get their next house or business...or sometimes people fall on hard times temporarily...they come back later if you're not a bastid abt it.

It's a different story if they owe me 3 quarters of monitoring and want to cancel though!

| > >Is there anyone here who has maliciously persued a client who was in good | > >standing and | > >forced them to complete a contract, simply because you could? | >

| > I'm not sure what you mean. If the client is in good standing, then he's | > making payments as agreed, and there's no need to force him to complete | the | > contract. If you mean, suppose the client wants to cancel before the end | > of his contract because he's moving to a building that already has an | alarm | > in it, or because someone else will give him a lower price, then yes, I | > know companies that sue people as a matter of course. Personally, I | don't, | > unless I stand to lose a lot of money, but one company I know files quite | > a few small claims court cases on people who don't fulfill their | contracts, | > including the automatic renewal periods. | >

| > - badenov | | Then what good is a contract? | |

Reply to
Crash Gordon

I think he misses Bass :)

Reply to
Mark Leuck

Then what good is a contract?

Reply to
Mark Leuck

I usuallly don't...they get warned and then shut off at the end of the 2nd deliquent quarter. What irks me the most is that if they would only call and let me know what's up I'd work with them, it's when I'm ignored I feel dissed and get really pissed. I only have 3 scheduled for nastiness on the

30th...not too bad. It's usually the same few accounts too.

| > It's a different story if they owe me 3 quarters of monitoring and want | > to | > cancel though! | | |

Reply to
Crash Gordon

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.