Re: Brinks Alarms: Beware of the Fuel Surcharge Tax

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Jul 30, 7:47=EF=BF=BDam, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:32 am, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yeah, I know. It's always the same with you and your obsession. Poke
> > and run.
> > It's just suppose to be acceptable for you to make YOUR remarks and no
> > one is supposed to respond ..... that about it?
>
> > Not gonna happen .........
>
> > Talk about someone not being able to see the obvious .............
>
> RHC: The only "obvious" thing is that long term contracts that are not
> paying down a reduced system cost are never in the client's best
> interest; most definately are in the dealer's best interest; and are
> something that consumers should be fighting to get rid of. The
> "obvious" is that most in the industry don't see it that way because
> it's not in their self interest to do so. The "obvious" is that this
> has been kicked to death (by me) and I don't intend to keep this
> thread going.
>
> Something else that is "obvious" - nothing will change until consumers
> force it to change and nothing you or I say about it will change
> anything. So respond all you want, but it isn't going to change
> anything either way..... that's why I intend drop =EF=BF=BDthe matter.

And that's a good thing.

Consumers have no choice in the matter at this point. They can't
insist on no long term contracts if they want monitoring. It's now a
basic staple in this industry. You act as if it's a bad thing just
because it's in the interest of the alarm company to have long term
contracts. In you're world you're asking every dealer to give up the
value of his business.

After years and years of the alarm trade being in the same category of
every other trade as far as valuation of their business ..... when the
golden egg of monitoring revenue came into existence, the industry
finally turned a corner that made it "different". Now companies could
open up their pricing and didn't have to work from Job to Job, with no
promise of future income, no equity in their business and when wanting
to retire, having to sell their business for peanuts based on that
ever popular "good will" that can never be proved by seller, nor
believed by the buyer. It raised the value of the industry billions of
dollars almost over night. Do you actually think that term contracts
are going to go away? It just aint gonna happen and your harping on it
from A CONSUMERS! point of view here, in this Newsgroup, places you
outside EVER being considered resonable. It was not established from a
consumers point of view, It IS for the alarm dealer! So your logic of
trying to get everyone to look at if from the consumers point of view
is just not going to be a valid platform .... to begin with. And even
more hopeless is your effort to "educate" consumers who come here to
your way of thinking. You're informing them to look for something that
they're not going to find. And in the process, you're maligning the
rest of the people in this group, not even considering all the rest of
the dealers in the trade who legitimately use their contracts to value
their business and DO NOT misuse them. There's just no dealer who's
going to give up his "golden egg" to appease a consumer, as long as
the industry as a whole promotes and bases the value of a company by
the number of contracted accounts. It's a "bandwagon" Robert! And as
long as every company insists on using term contracts, the consumer
doesn't have a choice. YOU can choose not to use them and wave the
flag. But you're a parade of one.  Are there companys who mis-use
them, yep, and there will always be things of this sort in every
trade. That's life. That's reality. It is what it is. This is just one
of those cases where the Consumers don't have the choice and you
proposing to them, that they do, leaves them no exactly nowhere.

Let me give you a couple of other trades that beat up the consumer.
Try finding out exactly how much it costs to make a mattress and look
at the price of them and try to get a so called good name mattress, at
a "bargin" price. But you can buy a living room couch and two chairs
for less.

How about a good set of hearing aids?
( I just went through this for my Mom)  Look at what goes into them
and look at the retail price and try to get them at a bargin price.
But you can buy a 65 inch HD TV for less. As long as those industries
hold firm (and they will, out of self interest) you, I and everyone
will pay exorbitant prices for items of actual little value. Is it
"right"? No. But I dare you to go to Newsgroups in those trades and
propose that they reduce their profit margin because it will benefit
the consumer .......... as you do here.

Anyway, You say you'll drop the subject and as long as you do drop
it..... things will be just peachy. ( of course I'm  presuming that
means you wont mention it again)

Ummmm ... another thing. In your previous post, you accused me of
missing something "obvious".  I notice you had nothing to say about
the rest of my comments. Now THAT was obvious.

Oh .... wait ..... I get it. What I wrote is not worthy of
comment ..... isn't that your usual response to a truth you refuse to
acknowledge?

I know, I know. Mommy always said .... "if you can't say something
nice about someone, don't say anything at all."

Mommy wasn't always right.

Get over it.