Re: Changes to Canadian monitoring contract law

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

tourman wrote:

>
> RHC: I don't really give a damn if a client signs a 10 year contract.
> Most legitimate companies don't harrass their clients when they leave;
> they treat them just as you do. Whether my son is standing in the
> wings or not, I choose not to lock clients in long term.  That is just
> the way I choose to do my business and it gets me a tremendous number
> of clients that I wouldn't likely get without giving them this
> flexibility.

That's your choice.  You've modeled your business as a good alternative
to "the Borg" mentality and I certainly can't imagine you changing your
marketing strategy.  RLB would call that "disingenuous".


> When they move as many have done this summer because of
> the hot real estate market, I thank them for their business and often
> get the alarm in their new place (pretty much always especially if
> it's a takeover). Plus 75% of the previous alarm accounts come back to
> me due to low prices and no long term commitment.

We do a similar trade and the three year contract term has never been a
stumbling block (except to one property manager who wound up taking
another year of crappy service with another alarmco before they finally
"caved in").


> I admit to some
> initial trepidation at the beginning, but I soon found this is not
> really an exposure if you also give good service and a good warranty
> and your prices are on the lower side of the spectrum.

I've never been a believer of "the lowest price" mentality.  We offer
good service at a fair price.  We are NOT the lowest.


> And due to my
> particular set of circumstances, I can still get 30 months if I do
> decide to sell. But that won't be happening.

Good for you.  The problem with any sort of buyout is trying to ensure
the purchaser gets a fair return for their investment (and thereby
satisfy the terms of the purchase agreement).  If they're big enough to
be able to fund the purchase without involving a bank then you won't
have a problem.  When a "third party" investor is fronting the money
though, he'll usually want to see "paper".

>
> RHC: I will if you will...with RLB I mean......  yeah, I didn't think
> so....too much water under the bridge :)))
>
>


There's a whole lot more than "water" under that bridge (as well you
know).  As long as he continues to post the nonsense he does I'll
continue to call him on it.  It's all been said before.