THE LITTLE SECURITY IN HOME SECURITY
by John Vickers

The setting was as follows.  A sales representative was sitting with an elderly couple who had expressed an interest in getting a security system for their home.  Being smart consumers, the couple had received a second quotation however it came via the telephone.

“The gentleman on the phone said we didn't need the windows contacted in the basement and a motion sensor in the front hallway would do the job”, the older gentleman explained earnestly.

An on-site evaluation of the home however showed that as presented, the competitor's quotation would have allowed someone to access most of the main floor from the basement without ever going near that front hallway!

As recently quoted by an American analyst, there has never been a time when there was so little security in security.  The pursuit of delivering residential monitoring residuals at minimum cost is increasingly putting the protection interests of homeowners down the list.

I recently contacted an industry associate who worked within the “do the deal over the phone” company and asked him his views on how the security needs of his clients were being served.  “What moral authority do you have John on what’s right for the customer?” came the response.

It isn't news that the mass marketer of home security systems, a virtual unknown at the beginning of the decade, runs the industry today.  About six years ago, when that change began to unfold on the Canadian side of the 49th parallel, I was at a crossroads in my security sales career.

At the time, I was running the sales division for a large home alarm company and had decided to take on the new low pricing competitors by presenting what I thought was “truth in marketing”.  We put together base home security alarm packages for seven or eight hundred dollars that were more reflective of a home owners electronic protection interests and hit the streets under the sales philosophy “we have your security interests at heart”.  Four short months later, I was out of a job - fired for poor sales.

For unknowing consumers – whom would you call first?  Someone telling you they could protect your home for $99 or someone telling you they could protect your home for $899?

It was kind of a hard pill to swallow.  Having really bought into the philosophy  of selling “protection” for many years, it was very difficult to imagine that protection didn't really count anymore in the home security game.  I went kicking and screaming all the way.  I contacted Consumer Affairs in our nation's capital  and cited advertising examples of how the public was being misled.  I presented newspaper clippings from various U.S. states where the Attorney's General filed charges for deceptive advertising practices against the very companies which were now doing business in our backyard here in Canada – to no avail.

Time to walk away and find a new profession?  After much consideration, I opted instead to take the view that if you have to additionally use low pricing enticements in order to survive, why not do so with the view that in the interests of serving the public, you can try to make what they do better.

Here in 1999, no one can dispute the fact that thousands of North Americans have their homes electronically protected at some level BECAUSE of low pricing enticements - even though that if you follow industry print ads, etc., consumers are often blatantly misled into believing an alarm system which might effectively protect a one bedroom ground floor apartment is adequate for their home.

I live with this deception while still continually teaching sales forces to do their best to encourage prospective home security buyers to consider a broader quotation reflecting what their protection interests really should be.

You cannot survive residentially today without at least one package offering being free or $95 or $195, etc.  If no one calls you or is willing to book an appointment and you cannot tell your story, you cannot survive.  I endured a firing to learn that lesson!

Therefore, with say an initial $100 offering, the next problem you can run into with presenting a second quotation and suggesting it is for “real protection” is accusations of “bait and switch”.  Something along the lines of “we saw your advertising for $99 dollars however what you are really telling us now is we need to spend $1,000 if we want good protection for our house!”

One way out of this label, as some I believe have chosen to do, is to not offer additional protection.  Just inform consumers their apartment sized package and stickers is all they need and sign them up.

I instead prefer to teach the following approach with customers.

If you want what you responded to – I’ll sell it to you.  If you want what your home really needs – I will sell you that as well.  Any level of electronic protection is better than none at all.  At least I know that I have taken the time and given you the knowledge to make the best informed decision that is right for you.

Both the Canadian and American alarm associations would well serve the interests of the public if they were to initiate a media campaign that fostered education on not only the benefits of electronic protection (and there are many) but on how to make informed protection decisions.  Something that more or less says, hey, market conditions force us to present ourselves one way and here's what is really best for you and your family.

"Doing well as the result of doing good.  That's what capitalism is all about, isn't it?"

Next Feature  Sales Info   Services   Our Founder   Newswire   Time Out