Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

J. Sloud wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2005 20:38:30 -0800, "Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> >You give your big company persective too much credit. Even though you
> >think not, it's hard to see the little people from an ivory tower. Just
> >remember,  "companies like yours" are a liken to a flea on the ass of
> >an elephant when compared to the entire rest of the industry.
> >Individual small companies may come and  may go, but as an entity, they
> >will abide. A big company is either here ..... or it's gone. And I'd
> >have to say, if management there is using your logic to run the
> >business ......... whew!
>
> I'm done with this except to say that 99% of police dispatches
> initated by electronic security systems do not result in a report
> indicating a crime has been committed.  These are the numbers being
> used to rationalize non-response.  They're not my numbers.

Then I'd suggest that you don't quote them within the context of
justifying no response.
If you'd have said that these are the figures that the politico's are
using and we've got to find some ways to change their views and we've
got to find some ways to prove that alarm systems can do better
......... then sure....... you're absolutely right. But the way that
you've presented it, even with alarm verification with video, do you
really expect that if no one is actually picked up on video that the
cops shouldn't roll? And what if some thing else caused the video
motion to activate? Not an intruder. If they responded, that would
still put the false alarm rate a 99%. If they respond to two false
alarms or 2000 false alarms, it's still 99%.
>
> Our problem is that there is a growing perception among lawmakers that
> police departments are wasting resources on responding to burglar
> alarms.  If your company and my company are too survive, we must
> change either what we sell or the industry must do somehting about the
> false alarm problem.  That is my point.  The rest is irrelevant.

Exactly. And part of that "something" is educating the police,
politicians, public and people such as yourself who've bought in to the
99% myth.


It's that perspective that we've got to change. We just can't buy into
it and thereby confirm their erroneous thinking. In other responses
here, I've asked if anyone thought that the police departments were
going to lay off all of the extra policemen that they've needed to
respond to these false alarms? Or are we going to see a drastic
reduction in crime because now they're free to fight crime? You know
the answer to both questions. And that's what we'd buy into if we don't
educate them to the idiocy of their thinking.


>
> Btw, my big company has been around for 131 years, and I am
> "management there."  Neither one of us is going anywhere anytime soon.

And neither is the greater portion of the industry that is comprised of
"companies like mine"