Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Through all of your focus groups, it is obvious you have been beat to
believe, by the law enforcement types, that **system failures** are the
cause of false alarms 99% of the time. I too have spent many more hours of
dealing with the threat of no response and verified response issue, on
behalf of the industry, than I care to count. Although **system failure**
does account for some false alarms, it is actually on the lower end of the
percentage scale. I have tested this with my own company and I am using the
same equipment that the majority of the BA companies are using. I cannot
see, from our service tickes and our customer contact, where there is a 99%
failure rate of equipment when there is an alarm occurance. Our false alarm
rate is .024 to .027 depending on the season no matter how agressive we get
with false alarm prevention. Biggest percentage is still human error and not
the equipment. The only time equipment comes into question is when the
customer doesn't maintain it or heavy lightning, which both can cause false
alarms. The lack of maintenance still falls under human error as does the
customer making any changes within the protected area without notifing to
alarmco. Maybe a better selection of words would help to relay reality to
the people involved rather than **system failure**.

"J. Sloud" <jsloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rr37m1dkfuf6rp75umi29m99guki2r3ak5@xxxxxxxxxx
> On 28 Oct 2005 19:20:01 -0700, "Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Sloud wrote:
> >> On 28 Oct 2005 05:00:53 -0700, "Al Colombo"
> >> <securitymission@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you're concerned about false alarms, I believe one of the biggest
> >> >problems on the consumer side is the mentality of "price shopping."
> >> >The cheapest alarm system is not necessarily the best, just as the
most
> >> >expensive may not be the best either.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Let's take a look at the false alarm problem from 20,000 feet.  I'm of
> >> the opinion that almost all residential and the majority of burglar
> >> alarm systems are a waste of money.  Name another product that has a
> >> 99%+ failure rate.  It wouldn't be tolerated.
> >>
> >> If the average consumer knew the astronomical false alarm percentages,
> >> the ridicuously low police apprehension rate, and the general
> >> perception of law enforcement about electronic burglar alarms, nobody
> >> would be buying this stuff.  This entire industry is based on a false
> >> sense of security.
> >>
> >> It doesn't have to be this way, but until false alarm ordanances and
> >> no response policies force change, there will be none.
> >>
> >
> >
> >If I didn't know better, I'd say that your post was made by someone who
> >didn't have a clue about the alarm installation business. Addtionally,
> >I'd guess that you don't have much to do with residential or with the
> >actual installation of systems or actually selling or talking to the
> >end users. No insult intended but it sounds as if you've obtained all
> >of your information about the alarm industry from reading articles in
> >the newspapers.
>
> I've been in this business for a long time.  I've worked in the field
> as a resi installer, a sales rep, a first line manager, etc.  Part of
> my job is to do market analysis and determine where opportunities are
> for product development.  I've been involved in ADT's False Alarm
> Dispatch Elimination (FADE) initiative, which is the largest effort
> currently underway by any company to actual do something about the
> problem.  I've spoken to focus groups and hundreds of individual
> customers from our smallest BA customer to multisite national
> accounts.
>
> Bottom line is you can blame the consumer because it's easy.  The
> problem is that most of you guys make a living selling and installing
> residential burglar alarms.  It's tough for you to look at the big
> picture.  Looking at the entire electronic security industry, growth
> lies outside of the residential intrusion detection segment.  It would
> be wise to consider the big picture.  The AHJ's are figuring out that
> 99% failure is costing them big money.  No response and third party
> verification is coming to an area near you.
>
> >
> >Video hmmmm?
> >Yep, I can just see it now.
> >
> >Yes Mrs Sloud. I'm proposing that we put cameras in your home so that
> >if your alarm trips, we'll be able to look in your house and see if
> >it's an actual break in or not. Annnnd of course, your bedroom is the
> >most likely place that any intruder would go, so we're going to put TWO
> >color cameras with remotely controled PTZ, in there...... OK?
> >
> >What's that you say? Can't we just turn them on and look in anytime we
> >want to?
> >
> >WHY OF COURSE NOT! ....... Honest, Mrs Sloud, they only turn on when
> >the alarm trips. Do you really think that ANYONE would do something
> >like that?
> >
> >Oh ................ you do?
>
> No that's Sonitrol's gig with their microphones.  In many areas,
> residential electronic security is going to require third party
> verification.  Consumers will have to pay for this service. Obviously,
> the video solution is better suited to business/ government apps.  The
> point of intelligent video is to eliminate false positives before they
> are reported as alarms.  This technology could eventually make it to
> the resi market.  Video verification is something else entirely.
> Don't confuse the two.