Direct Response
Entry posted by arfur mo
141,486 views
i have blogged here to save making a long post in the thread - and yes it is long 
Arf i dont feel that a 'hatchet job' was wanted or needed.
when i read that remark my reaction was REALLY!!!! me being me i was ready to moutuo and put James to the sword, but to be accurate i so decided to use the BBC iplayer. to explain, i'm having a rest/slob day at home, away from the strains of arguing over the DIY with the strife. decided clients can bleeding well wait, my relaxation and better frame of mind from it is well worth more.
perhaps i like just being a little controversial but really i do like discussion, i like to find out why do you think that or do the things 'your way'.
i have always hated unfair accusations so my 'latency' Shop Stewards training has kicked in to check properly, and best advice learned is the devil is in the detail, never ever jump in based on your or others 1st impressions/conclusions, but calmly dissect every bit of information available, then dig for more by running over the events several times to get all into context.
so i have been reviewing the Watchdog Item on i Player, this time second by second and every word used and how. having to admit i'm now finding i'm defending Mr Hook, and also his company more and more against the BBC.
boy, can hear the crashing from here, trays being thrown, matches being lit for my funeral pyre, but i suggest to clear your minds from what you, and i thought we had seen in that program and read on
have a look here for the companies response -:
http://www.directresponsesecurity.co.uk/blog/
and this -:
http://www.directresponsesecurity.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/06/04/reply-to-bbc-watchdog-feature-on-direct-response-security-systems/#more-42
much has ben made of past issues, i can only gauge on the one in front of me, and i suggest you read them before you can make any really informed comments.
to be honest, while the selling techniques needed changes, when i look really closely there was not really that much wrong with it, other than the Mr Hook claiming of the alarm company has direct contact with Police cars, but 'our' Mr Gale as the expert is not without his own issues in this role imho.
i don't konow of Mr Gale, he is introduced by Matt Albright -
"we need an expert to review our footage - Graeme Dale is just such the one, he's been working with alarms for 30 years and knows them inside out, upside down and in his sleep - he's good!".
if so good, why did not manage to confirm the following as very true, just as Mr Hook had stated
"people have taken their lives as a result of a burglary"?
"have got divorced as a result of a burglary"
"it's one of the most devastating things" (and i agree totally) - "a gentlemen said to me i have no idea what a sexual assault or rape feels like, my wife feels soiled by the burglary"
and again, he was honestly relating what are unsavory to many but real life events.
Matt Alright -:
suicide, divorce, rape all these things he is throwing into the mix" (seeking Mr Gales informed reactions so credence).
now Mr Gale
"and quite clearly none of these have anything to do with burglar alarms"
PARDON? i beg to disagree a tad here, otherwise why do we as professional companies fit PANIC BUTTONS?
why the do top line manufacturers have a PANIC BUTTON facility built into RKP's,
quite clearly we are all excluding Mr Gale obviously conning clients by doing this, as it is of no actual use.
from that statement i wonder if Mr Gale has ever responded to a home met devastated deeply shocked people who suffered a trashed home, paint and thrown over walls, urine and fesses on furniture and carpets, clothing ripped and covered in whatever they can find, should i mansion about physical attack? where people have been beaten with all sorts of implements and to all degrees, sodomised etc. etc. and that's a mater of public record.
while i don't endorse the use of fear in selling systems, i do endorse if asked 'what can happen?' then informing clients of what can really happen and what effect a security system could have in protecting the owners. but also telling them statistically they are unlikely to ever experience a burglary let alone these sort of attacks - but they are made aware.
so what has it got to do with burglar alarms? for Mr Gale's benefit, the siren cover outside has a chance of encouraging the intruder to go next door where there is no siren, no friendly of you towards the neigbour but he/she can always but an alarm system 
.
if the intruder enters while the home is empty, the alarm if armed sounds. in most cases (while there are always exceptions) this reduces the time spent in the property y the intruder/s. this obviously lowers the loss from any robbery, reduces the vandalism level as the intruder is less likely to lay in wait for the the occupants to return, and to press assault or worse strangulation of the occupants.
and THAT is what Mr Gale SHOULD have said.
instead he goes on with "it's quite a disgraceful approach to try and sell by fear" and it is as he main thrust, but to sell by informing accurately in this case of the possible and very real dangers is not a crime or deplorable - insurance is sold all the time like this.
so at this point what has Mr Hook actually said that's so wrong? lets look further -:
Mr Hook states calling 999 can actually delay things, well lets think about it now as imo it hold merit, i'd ask are you always best to ring 999 1st, or lock yourself in the bedroom/bathroom exit via a (safe) window or confront 1st, as i'd advise run for you life 1st so yes dialing 999 in an agistated state could really delay things, like protecting your person or family members first.
the stooge has expressed fears on crime, Mr Hook says quite rightly "999 service is a wonderful service if you can afford to wait 4 minutes to be verfied" he is not wrong while most times you will be answered within a few seconds, you have to ask for Police, then wait while Operator gives name details, location of caller and number, then you have to relate whats is happening - which might be awkward while being raped, assaulted with a bar even hanged. and this 'quick response', have you ever as i have, been put on hold and/or got the engaged tone using the 999 service?
now i don't know about you, but even just a 'bells only' system certainly helps reduce the fear in people of being broken into in their absence or if 'part set' while asleep
Mr Hook is not there to sell a new kitchen or a new roof line, and is by invitation to advise on preventing crime, so of course he is going to talk about crime - he is in that very business of protecting people from so reducing the likelihood of it.
imo really really unfair to load what is a legitimate thrust with an accusation of increasing fear to gain a sale, when he is very right saying "a lot can happen in 4 minutes",
statistics i've read say most intrusions are completed with 4 minutes, let alone stopping for bonus rape, strangulation or assault. the fast in/out intrusion before anyone can react reduces the chance of being caught or confronted - that';s why it is the most popular method.
so when Mr Hook says "without being to dramatic a lot can happen in 4 minutes" - anyone now care to disagree? and if not is he so wrong to point this out? why any more than you or i would be wrong to say "that flat roof outside is an easy access point into a girls bedroom" without the underlying connotations? or those patio doors are the most common entry point? so should he just stay quiet?
NO! of course not!
He is there by invite to advise and sell protection, he has as we have, a legal duty of care to sell the most suitable to aid in that protection i.re. to be 'fit for purpose'.
Mr Hook rightly states in his pitch "a very traumatic one (burglary), you would likely never recover from it" and he is dead right again if ther person were murdered.
Matt Alright -:
if that's not dramatising the situation - i don't know what is" inflecting he feels unfair
just about any sales pitch/routine dramatises the situation (see above), selling pots and pans by clanging them together 'dramatises the sales pitch, that's the basic aim of any sales strategy to get over the value of a product or service to another person or persons so they see an advantage or develop a desire.
Mr Gale in a very disapproving tone go's on "we have had Rape, we have had divorce's and now a burglar alarm that stops strangulation - that really is a 1st"
i'm now incredulous at Mr Gales lac of insight in a trdae he ha ben part of for 30 years, but perhaps i've missed something, are we not in the field of crime prevention as the 1st aim? so by pressing a PANIC BUTTON won't ever deter an intruder before the attack is actually made or at leat a chance of reducing the severity? like pressing a PANIC BUTTON while being throttled won't ever help cease it?
tbh how much more he knows than me - if anything - will imo be insignificant and ill not miss out by not knowing it, i think the evidence thus far, i claim i know a hell of a lot more than he about security systems and i can afford his 'filler gaps'.
Finally Mr Gale manages to show the proper response i'd expect over the ludicrous claims of having direct contact with police cars. while that is obviously complete poppy ****, Mr Gale in his eagerness to attack properly explained the true scenarios, but fails to be fair and also be informative in explaining with any fully compliant monitored system, there are also delays in transmitting to Police of an intrusion commencing, due to the filtering by confirmed alarm action, then a further delay for the message to be transmitted to the Police with a URN.
Mr Gale OR the BBC did not manage to mention there is no legal compulsion on the Police to actually attend to either a 999 call or an automatic alarm signal, which would have been truly damming to the BBC's RT's case, just as to the errant claims of having direct contact with local Police Cars were to Mr Hook.
what Mr Hook said in that regard we know as untrue as confirmed by Direct Response, but he could claim misunderstanding due to poor or incomplete training or lack of experience, Mr Gale with all his experience can't claim any of those excuses in his own defense.
this battle was lost through poorly considered statements 'to camera', perhaps bordering on the naive.
with that in mind and given the BBC's sloppyness, i'm less likely to believe any other RT 'exposures' factual correctness..
Arfur
25 Comments
Recommended Comments