[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]


You guys are too much... :)

Jim Rojas

mleuck wrote:
> On Jul 13, 6:06 pm, "Robert L Bass" <Sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> "mleuck" wrote:
>>>> All they are doing is keeping rates high. Their overhead must be choking
>>>> them beyond belief. ADT doesn't need to advertise that much, or nor do they
>>>> resort to using scare tactics like Brinks does.
>>> Jim Rojas
>> I got one of those robotic calls today offeing a free security system.  The
>> system, so the call said, is worth "over $800" and it's "completely free!"
>> All they ask is that I help in their marketing by placing their sign on my
>> lawn.  The call instructed the vic... er, client to press 1 for more info.  I
>> wondered which alarm company was making the call so I pressed 1 and, after
>> about a 2-minute wait, learned it was none other than ADT.  The "operator"
>> said he was calling from Utah, but the phone number, 213-710-8112, is from
>> Compton, California.
> Sure you did
>>> That is not the way it works, advertising is a drop in the bucket compared
>>> to incoming revenue...
>> That is an assumption on your part since you have no way to know what part of
>> Brinks' revenue is spent on advertising and on illegal or misleading telephone
>> calling campaigns like the one ADT is currently running.
> And yet you seem to know all about it
>>> stopping advertising wouldn't necessarily give them the ability to reduce
>>> monitoring rates...
>> Stopping advertising would mean no new clients to replace attrition -- the end
>> of the company.  That would not qualify as a bad thing, but it's not going to
>> happen any time soon since they are certainly going to keep spending millions
>> on ad campaigns.
> Not true, it has only been in the last few years Brinks did any major
> advertising, the name alone sold security systems and still does to
> some extent
>>> You can hope all you want but they ARE a profitable company...
>> You assume that but it's not a certainty.  Brinks' corporate reports may be as
>> misleading as ADT's ads.
> No they ARE a profitable company
>>> with relatively low attrition...
>> You also assume that.  Reality may be very different from what you like to
>> assume.
> Yes I often think that when you talk about your past alarm experiences
>> Who cares, really?  Like ADT's residential division, Brinks has nothing to do
>> with security.  They can keep selling lick'n'stick crap until Jesus comes back
>> and it won't mean anything to companies that market real alarms.
> Apparently it does or we wouldn't be having this conversation

alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home