Re: Which system is better?

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 5, 12:05=A0pm, Frank Olson
<use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> tourman wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 8:48 am, Frank Olson
> > <use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > RHC: What about cancel codes for the customer's protection. Do you use
> > them
>
Frank: We don't use a dialer delay (if that's what you're meaning). =A0I
have
> yet to see a client disarm a system within 30 seconds of an alarm, so I
> always see the "alarm" and the "cancel code" on our activity reports.
> We primarily use API and if they're not "busy", they will follow up on
> alarms even if the cancel code's been sent (although they'll prioritize
> it "lower".

RHC: No, I wasn't referring to dialer delay. If the cancel code comes
in within 30 seconds of activation of the alarm, it goes into software
but not to the boards. After 30 seconds, it comes up on the operators
screens and they respond, but at a lower priority. This sometimes
increases the delay to respond to the client, but it does cut down on
the number of false alarms overall.

I see all the alarms and cancel codes as well in my daily reports.
However, I had an occasion recently where a long time client set his
alarm off, and due to a set of colliding, unfortunate circumstances
also involving cancel codes, he was not able to be contacted for quite
some time. So rather than talk to me about it, he simply cancelled
service and actually went with of all people ADT. I was so bothered by
this that I explained things to him in detail, but at this point, he
didn't WANT to listen even though the problem was his, not the
stations. The sad thing is, if he wanted that kind of mediocre "cookie
cutter" monitoring from ADT, he could have come to me ( I am an ADT
dealer as well), and I could have given it to him for HALF what he is
paying for it directly through them, as well as include a far superior
level of service and warranty...????. Much as I liked the guy, I've
had to write him off as a bit of an idiot.....(but to lose to
ADT....that hurt....)
>
RHC: The downside of this is the client
>may think his alarm is not working, but it's better than an ADT type
>dialer delay, and better than "instant" response, although clients may
 not think so.
>
Frank: I've encountered that complaint on a few occasions. =A0It's been
pretty
> easy for us to address this. =A0You get your client to perform a "test" o=
n
> the system once a week (like the little sticky label on the keypad
> says). =A0:-)

RHC: Right ! I've never had a client test his system to my knowledge
and I damn sure don't want to depend upon customers testing their
systems....daily or weekly auto tests thank you very much. Manuals
written with a "test you system weekly" have more to do with legal
liabilites of the manufacturer than they do with reality...
>
 I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this point. Is it better to
> > give "instant" response with it's inherent risks for false alarms, or
> > build in a dialer delay, or cancel codes to ensure there is more
> > protection against false dispatches, but with the inherent "risk" the
> > client thinks he's getting poor response from his station.
>
> I suppose that a lot of the answers you'll get will depend on whether
> the equipment is being monitored locally or through an "800" line. =A0We
> use a local ULC listed station.

RHC: I use a "local" monitoring station that is part of a large
national.
>
> In most (if not all) cases involving a monitored alarm, the central will
> call the premises first (simple verification). =A0Our procedures regardin=
g
> =A0 a fire alarm differ slightly in that the trucks are dispatched first,
> then the premises are called. =A0In a fire, seconds count! =A0This is
> explained to the client when the system is installed. =A0We have very few
> false alarms from monitored fire systems with the exception of the usual
> vandals that yank on pull stations. =A0In buildings that become a problem
> with this kind of false alarm, we will install the STI covers which
> usually (99% of the time) puts an end to it. =A0We also provide a "cheat
> sheet" (a one page operations guide) that lays out our procedures as
> well as crucial phone numbers and instructions on how to add or delete
> keyholders. =A0The last line of the sheet states that the customer should
> test his system weekly!
>
> We still differ in philosphy regarding contracts, Bob. =A0Our clients sig=
n
> a three year agreement and most are happy to do so. =A0Our monitoring
> rates are $15.00 per month and haven't changed in over ten years. =A0Yes,
> we have an "escalation clause" (it's a standard contract wording), but
> we've never exercised it, nor will we. =A0

RHC: Well, my position on contracts has been stated many times and
hasn't and WON'T change. Virtually all the takeovers I get these days
are due to clients having been screwed by one of the big company
contracts or service levels, and finally waking up. But rather than
antagonize anyone, I'll just leave it at that as I have agreed to do !

The last thing I want is someone
> calling me that's paying $38.00 per month when we're writing new
> contracts for $15.00. This actually happened to me when I first got into
> the industry and was working for Chubb. =A0I had a long time client call
> to inquire what our monitoring rates were. =A0When I said $25.00 per mont=
h
> (on residential at the time), he asked why it was he was paying $48.00
> per month. =A0I let my manager deal with him. =A0I understand the client =
got
> a two year credit on his account. =A0Did they address this issue with
> their other clients who weren't "bright enough" to clue into what they
> were doing?? =A0Of course not!!!

RHC: Monitoring is a service, period ! It shouldn't matter whether
it's a business or a residence. A lot of larger companies have a
variety of rates for the same thing depending upon a lot of different
circumstances. They see nothing wrong with charging this way, even
though many clients end up overcharged for the same thing compared to
identical others. It's either unethical at worst, or overly
opportunistic at best, take you choice. But it's definately not the
right way to treat your clients.

Thanks for the input Frank. I'm going to stay with cancel codes and
try to explain it up front to my clients as I have been doing. But for
most customers, it seems it's in one ear and out the other......
(yes...I am getting a bit jaded.....)