arfur mo Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 no way do i align myself with these 'sales techniques' but unfortunately they are not the only company i've known to use them. in or out of inspectorates i'm sure as trained and honest people we are totally appalled at most of the claims made, was this deliberate actions on the companies behalf, or simply poor training of or mis-understanding of Mr Hook? many believe their system is connected direct to the Police not a monitoring station, they often think the monitoring station is a Police department so will come at a moments notice. hand on heart folks, how many of you actually tell the client all about the confirmed signals and the ramifications to the delays caused in notifying the Police from Central Station? after all to get a URN you have to conform to it. so the program, while it has done really well in bringing it to attention (how long have i been trying to do this in here now?), but then we all know the true facts and are indignant and angry. unfortunately the public in general don't know the facts, and imo they were not explained properly in the show where the sales pitch was so very wrong, so ask what is the fuss all about? just as they don't know or just don't care about the standard of work done on their homes by untrained jobbing labour, with alarms as long as it is an NSI/SSAIB company they can get an insurance reduction and Police response. in paradox one claim Mr Hook (good old sea fairing name that) made, and being regarded as false of intrusions deeply affecting lives, causing splits, divorce, ill health and even suicide however is quite true, i know of at least very sad incidents where the depression after finding the home trashed, and not of feeling secure in their own home was to frightening to bare. in effect that main plank accusation is wrong and unfortunately weakened the whole item. Arfur If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!
IAS Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 in effect that accusation is wrong and weakened the whole show item. Arfur at last someone else has actually watched the show, interesting how in the second house Matt Notbright jumped straight in rather than waiting for more proof of the "shocking" pitch .................. possibly because the guy didnt repeat it but the BBC had backed itself into a hole. I`m pitching an idea to the Tvco. where we doorstep the presenters in car parks pointing out their broad brush reading of the regs in "rogue traders, meet Dom, beat the builders" etc. Do you think they`ll buy it?
arfur mo Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 i watch the show just for a Malinda smile moment. imo she is an odd looking girl and not really beautiful, narrow forehead, small eyes, large jowl, but when she flashes a smile it measures in kilowatts, the poor sod she is scrounging materials from, just don't stand a chance lol!. Arfur If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!
james.wilson Posted June 5, 2010 Author Posted June 5, 2010 arf. i could of gone with the poor training or a rogue salesman if the company hadnt made a statement that neither they or mr hook had done nothing wrong. I wonder if they interupted so early in the second house because they wernt ready and feared they had been rumbled. I also think the boss handles it about as well as he could. But if it was a one off why the trading std's etc findings previously? James ps IAS are you saying that you dont think there was much wrong then in the first house? securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.
IAS Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 arf. i could of gone with the poor training or a rogue salesman if the company hadnt made a statement that neither they or mr hook had done nothing wrong. I wonder if they interupted so early in the second house because they wernt ready and feared they had been rumbled. I also think the boss handles it about as well as he could. But if it was a one off why the trading std's etc findings previously? James ps IAS are you saying that you dont think there was much wrong then in the first house? no, what I`m saying is please don`t just believe everything you see. Matt - "we had a response saying "we did nothing wrong" but we don`t know what he was shown, do we?
Guest RJBsec Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 But if it was a one off why the trading std's etc findings previously? Exactly, as shown above, this company has been doing this and encouraging other companies linked with them to do the same for years. No way is this a 'one-off' or a 'rogue salesman' ... this is their standard package! Now don't tell me that there is anyone here who thinks the company has been misrepresented?
IAS Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 Now don't tell me that there is anyone here who thinks the company has been misrepresented? pray tell, what is your sales pitch - other than "have my alarm and not be ..........robbed, beaten or raped" heck half of my customers call a panic button a "rape alarm"
Guest RJBsec Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 pray tell, what is your sales pitch - other than "have my alarm and not be ..........robbed, beaten or raped" Simple, to do so would open me up to serious legal action - an alarm cannot prevent anything, so I don't sell an alarm as a 'preventer'. heck half of my customers call a panic button a "rape alarm" Try a different user training approach.
Guest RJBsec Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 You want to explain its purpose a bit better then. Simple, an alarm is there to respond to something happening and to request some action depending on the nature of the signalling. Never, ever use the words 'prevent' or 'protect' in a verbal or written sales pitch, quote or whatever. At best an alarm may act as a deterrent, it can never be more.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.