Re: Brinks & Broadview Takeovers

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Oct 3, 10:08=EF=BF=BDam, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> RHC: You may not agree with it, nor any other dealer who sees it as in
> some way assisting his business, but the fact still remains that it is
> abused far more often than it is truly useful, and stating this FACT
> is the point of this discussion.

This may be YOUR point but you have no basis or source of information
except what YOU see, to base your assumption on. So there's no way
that you can legitimately make the assumption that it's a FACT.


>
> It may be a dead horse, and you may be tired of it, but that doesn't
> change things. I can bring up the poor state of organizational
> representation of the security industry and because you agree with it,
> you say nothing, but nothing happens unless someone says something.

Except for the FACT that no one here doesn't use contracts and
therefore you're beating a dead horse to deaf ears. At least the
subject of the poor state of the orgaizational representation of the
security industry has some supporters here.

>
> I've said my piece, and you are right, nothing will change simply
> because too many in the industry see it in a self-serving fashion,
> rather than putting themselves in others shoes.

Putting one's self in anothers shoes, in this case, has nothing to do
with the value that a company gets from the legitimate use of term
contracts. There is no purpose to having a company, if the continuence
of the company is not promoted in legitimate ways. Legitimate use of
contracts is something that the end user agrees to and if it wasn't
ageeed to .....  there would be no relatively low cost monitoring
service to the public. Everyone would install alarm system for the
actual cost and profit of the system. Just as it was done before there
was monitoring back in the "old" days. There would be no purpose for
the alarm companys to offer it, if it wasn't somehow profitable and
advantageous to the alarm company. Why would I want the liability of
monitoring alarm systems simply for a low income monhtly fee, if I
could get all the money up front? It was a great innovation back in
the beginning when low cost alarm monitoring first became available.
Now the opening up of the market to people who couldn't formerly
afford an alarm was a whole new vista of business, because the cost of
an alarm system could be reduced and ammortized into the montly fee.
But wait a minute! What if the client stopped the monitoring before
the full amount of the alarm system was paid for? Well, we'd better
set up some way to assure that it will happen. Well hey, lookit this!
Now people are willing to give us a lot of money for these
"agreements" because we've got a guaranteed income! Well wadayaknow!
Now my company is WORTH something, as compared to before when all I
had to sell was "goodwill" that was hardly proveable and buyers had
some way to know that they weren't buying an empty shell.

It's a viable method that works.

Now, if you're complaining about the people and the companys that
abuse this method ...... THAT's another story.

But you can't blame the long term contracts and say that they're the
problem. Just like you can't say that guns commit the crimes,
therefore they should be eliminated. Sure, if neither of them didn't
exist, there would be no problem. But they do. So you can legitimately
complain about their abuse and the people who abuse them, but you
can't include everyone who uses them or that they, as a legitimate
business proceedure, shouldn't exist.


>
> I sure don't want to own this horse, and I've beaten it enough, so
> fair enough, and to keep peace in the newsgroup,I'll drop
> it....................for now.....-