Re: False alarms

["R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, those are valid points !! I particularily like the point that we are
ALL involved - no exception- and there is an onus on ALL parties to correct
the situation regardless of blame. A lot of the takeovers I do involve
companies that just don't give a damn about service, and it also shows in
the quality of their installs. Anything which will put pressure on them to
improve (or leave the business) is a go situation in my book !!

It would be interesting to get Irv to come out of hiding and elaborate on
how well the Toronto situation is working in some detail.

RHC

"Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145297062.827212.79180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
> I just have this "notion" that every alarm installers is saying that
> most FA are caused by end users because the installers actually
> 'believe' that their installs, product, quality, training is "the best"
> ..... when really it's not. By eliminating them from the
> "inconvenience" of the fine process, it absolves them of all
> responsibility ..... in their mind  ....  whether they're doing the
> right thing ... or not. Every installer that
> ** IS ** doing the right thing and is ** already ** using quality
> equipment, methods, procedures and follow up, the fining of dealers
> will not affect them. They're already making the effort. But it sure
> will affect the baddies and regardless if either category of installer
> has bad users, they're going to clean them up or clean them out. Those
> that don't, will go out of business, ( probably more so from not
> wanting to deal with the fining process which will add to the "detail "
> work ... which the lack of detail , is what's causing them to do poor
> installs to begin with.) And ..... in the interest of keeping the
> administration to a minimum, with the maximum amount of return ( $ )
> for the authorities, it makes sense for them to only have to
> administrate to the smaller amount of Centrals than thousands of end
> users. If nothing else it shows and effort by the ENTIRE industry to
> cooperate and gets the ENTIRE industry involved with no absolution of
> ANYONE. EVERYONE is involved and everyone will have to cooperate .....
> no one is excused. It's not a blame issue ..... it's getting everyone
> included in the effort. Centrals, installers, endusers, authorities.
> Done any other way simply absolves all the others of any blame and, in
> fact could be an incentive to become even more lax than they already
> are.
>
> I know ** I ** could handle both processes.... being fined direct or
> through a Central, because my FA are kept minimal. I follow up with the
> end user on every one. They KNOW ... they're going to get a call from
> me and we're going to work out a plan to correct the problem. Stop
> reports on trouble zones, move motion detectors, better control of
> people or animals. Reminders on how to operate the system. Whatever it
> takes. End users don't want false alarms either but if there is no
> incentive from the installer, just like you and me, they're not going
> to take the time from their busy lives to effect changes. Even with
> fines, some will simply just pay and continue with their normal
> routines. If the dealer is getting fined, you can bet it wont. And if
> the dealer wont .... if his Central monitoring is at risk, ..... that's
> HIS incentive.
>
>>From what I hear from my Centrals, many/most alarm installers don't
> even ask for or want daly or even weekly reports on the signals from
> their accounts. What does THAT tell you?  If the installers don't care,
> why should the end users. So that alone, could be the reason why "most
> FA come from the end user" that we hear repeatedly .....   .....
> funnny,  .... but that seem to be coming from alarm installers.
> DUUUUHHH! How convenient that there's not too much credibility in that
> "statistic" or if it IS true ..... WHY is it true? What AREN'T they
> doing to change it? And WHY aren't they?
>
> All they need is an incentive  ($).
>