But forget the doom and gloom, say industry analysts, and think of acquiring your competitor.
Ironically, say Plimsoll analysts, this is the best time to do it.
Sorry to throw a cold bucket over this, but behind the up-beat tone of this report there is a more worrying trend. It’s all those 257 installation companies that are not even ripe for picking, the ones analyst David Pattison describes as “casualties”.
He talks with fervour about the need to pare down the installation sector but for all those parings down there’s a small tragedy.
We all like the idea of “economies of scale” until they’re on our own doorstep.
I know it will not count a jot if your company is one of those crouching tigers, hungry to acquire a competitor, but there is another unwelcome result of these acquisitions.
Despite some engineers dropping out and maybe starting up on their own, the pool of choice gets smaller, not good for the customer or the installer looking for a job.
Deterrent factor
In his response to my last newsletter, PC Sean Cannon makes some interesting points about domestic alarm systems. I accept his view that an alarm system is a powerful deterrent and encourages the intruder to pick on another house. However, I can’t help thinking that if its “main purpose” is as a deterrent, then you could argue a dummy bell box would do just as well.
This is not where the industry wants to go and, obviously, installers would latch on to the other benefits PC Cannon lists as “bonuses” – the peace of mind you get with a professionally installed system.
Householders who stick a dummy box on the wall might be taking more chances than they bargained for and even encouraging a break-in.
OK, the passing hoodie looking for quick cash might go next door but would a more seriously determined intruder immediately recognise it as a dummy and lick his lips knowing that there’s probably no other security?
I also agree with PC Cannon about some installers’ quotes. If householders are priced out of a professional system they may well think a dummy is a valid option, benefiting no one, least of all themselves.
Back to basics
Let’s hope the ‘police pledge’ announced this week really does signal a new era of policing focused on the needs of local people and is not just soundbites to kick off the local elections.
Bringing police back to their roots, listening to the specific needs of the local people and picking up local intelligence in the process has got to be the best news for years.
Now that the police are a “service” rather than a “force” I suppose it’s inevitable that the taxpayer is referred to as the “customer”. But doesn’t this kind of language smack of focus groups and marketing plans when all most people want is for them to get tough on the criminals and make the streets safe?
Taking it too far
School security is a thriving business and we increasingly see sophisticated systems being installed to keep the reins on our little treasures when the teachers can’t.
(In the May edition of Security Installer we report on one school where the kids set off the fire alarm up to six times a day before CCTV was installed!)
The networks already in place at most schools make them a natural for IP. However, giving parents the ability to check on their offspring via the internet is a tad more controversial and throws open the whole argument about capturing images of children on CCTV.
We are told there are frightening numbers of online predators out there.
Parents have, often reluctantly, had to accept they can’t even take a photo of their child in the school play.
But aren’t we in danger of taking this into the realms of paranoia?
I’m sure this school acted with the best of intentions but doesn’t its efforts to beat the perverts make an absurdity of the whole issue?
At who’s expense?
At a time when running a small business like installation has never been more difficult – largely down to government red tape, taxation and rising fuel costs – its ironic to see MPs using our money to pay legal fees to stop us seeing their expenses.
However, having already learned of some of their perks, is it any surprise our representatives seem isolated from the difficulties of working people?
Can they really understand the hardship brought on by rocketing living costs when they’ve got a blank expenses cheque to take care of those everyday trivialities. Meanwhile the rest of us have to provide a receipt for every cup of railway coffee.
So I was amused to receive a press release from the Cabinet Office, quoting ministers Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper, and claiming women had done well out of recent budget changes.
The heading? “Harman and Cooper: Women better off”.
Can’t argue with that.
See you next time
Alan Hyder, editor, Security Installer
