Re: Takeover standards

[Frank Olson <Use-the-email-links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

tourman wrote:
> On Aug 16, 8:08 pm, Frank Olson <Use-the-email-
> li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> tourman wrote:
>>> Point well taken. However, every alarm business does takeovers.
>> Agreed.  For your information we "take over" a fair number of systems.
>> 90% are DIY'er nightmares or professionally installed systems that have
>> been "fat fingered" by the owner.
>
> RHC: Now you seem to be contradicting yourself Frank. I got the
> distinct impression from your last post that you felt your company was
> above all that. Now you tell me that your company does take over
> "nightmare systems" and messed up professional systems. I'm not trying
> to be argumentative, but which is it ? And more to the point, why
> would you even touch these problem systems ?

Read my post again.  We're not in the "business of doing takeovers".
When we are presented with one, however, the customer's on the hook for
bringing the system up to our standard.  For instance: On a commercial
job, we use GRI contacts with integral EOL's.  The PIR's must have
tamper switches (we use Paradox exclusively) and the EOL's must be
installed.  The wires in the can must be individually identified and
documentation must be in the can.  We use yellow and black for contacts,
red and green for power (except for keypads where the wire colours match
the terminals).

>>> They
>>> are a natural part of this industry where rates and service prices and
>>> quality vary all over the map.
>> A customer that's "shopping" for a better rate (or trying to get out of
>> an existing contract because he's been offered a better rate by someone
>> in the business of "take-overs) is a customer that I don't want.  I also
>> have no respect for a company that actively pursues "cherry picking" and
>> have never encouraged my sales guys to do it either.
>
> RHC: Now you're confusing me even more. Why wouldn't any company look
> for clean, trouble free, professionally installed systems to takeover
> if they had the chance?

Spend all the time you want "looking" for such systems.  I prefer to
service existing clients and let the ones looking to get taken over,
come to me.


> If that's "cherry picking" then we obviously
> don't have the same understanding of what that term means.

 From your response, you know exactly what I mean.


> That's
> simply one way to work smarter rather than harder !!

I don't "look" for take-overs.  The ones that come my way aren't
"cherries" either.


> As for customers
> trying to worm out of long term contracts, I honestly know nothing
> about that because I don't ask them to sign those sorts of contracts.

And I'd just as soon leave that issue alone.  "Sleeping dogs", you
know...  :-)


>> And with ADT being the biggest and the
>> most expensive company around, migration from their ranks is to be
>> expected in large numbers after contract terms are up.
>>
>> I know plenty of ADT and Chubb customers that have been their customers
>> for years.  If the attrition rate is as high as you suggest, then
>> someone at ADT in Ontario isn't doing their job.
>
> RHC: I can't comment on Chubb at all, other than one instance where
> they quoted a client of mine $1000 to partition an 864 (no kidding).
> After we both stopped laughing, I did it for nothing in software !!

Shame on you.  You should have charged $905.00.  *Kidding*...


> They also owe me money for unlocking some boards, and it's clear they
> don't intend to pay, so we'll see what kind of service I give them
> next round of boards.

The Chubb you know now is not the Chubb I used to work for.  Since then
they've had several "sweeps" at the senior management level.


> As for ADT in Ontario, their prices are
> ridiculous, their service is piss poor at worst, spotty at best, and
> their customer rapport seems to be non - existent.

Hmmm...  ADT in Burnaby is an entirely different "cat".


> Oh dear...did I
> leave out their monitoring sucks....

Which centre?  The one in Calgary used to be one of the better ones.


> When their contracts are up, their
> attrition rate must be horrible (it's a damn good thing they have long
> term contracts or it seems to me they wouldn't keep their client base
> for more than a few months..). To their credit, the majority of their
> systems are usually well installed, which keeps my ongoing service
> problems down.

Ever read the back of an Edwards (now GE) work order?  If you get a
chance, have a look at one.  I imagine companies like ADT think along
the same lines.  Their techs are one of the best paid in the industry
and they have a benefits package that's hard to beat.


>>> A good quality
>>> system takeover is a gift, and no company just walks away from it.
>> A "good quality system takeover" is more than just a "gift", Bob.  The
>> customers motives for presenting you with this "gift" must be more than
>> "I want a better rate" though, otherwise he'll be doing the same thing
>> again (only this time you'll be the one on the "short end").
>
> RHC: Well I can't speak for others, but I have no trouble giving
> decent service at low prices without holding a gun (er..long term
> contract) to the client's head. My customers are in the drivers seat,
> and that's exactly where they ought to be. I've NEVER lost a client
> because he went elsewhere for service or lower cost reasons. I suppose
> it will happen one day but not yet anyway. Besides, the only people
> lower in cost than I am are The Monitoring Centre in Toronto at $10,
> and they don't offer in-house  warranty or service to their customers.
> So if a customer is stupid enough to leave to save $5 a month and give
> up his warranty and my included service then so be it ! I would just
> write that client off as a bit of a dim bulb and move on......:))

A wise man once told me that the company that offered good service and
fifteen dollar a month monitoring service will "clean up".  We go one
better.  If the customer pays up front for the year, he gets two months
free.


>>> However, it is easy to buy yourself a bundle of trouble, and that is
>>> what my question is about.
>> It seems to me you already have a long list of things to watch out for.
>>   Good topic!!  :-)
>
> RHC: Yeah, I thought it was although it didn't generate much interest
> it seems. But thanks for your responses.....oh, well ....back to
> sleep....

Heh!  Sleep?  What's that?