PhoneWatch expands it's operation

2011

An interesting article in the Examiner:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0721/business/opening-of-phonewatch-office-creates-15-jobs-276145.html

I did not realise that this company had so many customers. Apperently "The company’s monitored alarm systems are installed in more than 100,000 homes and businesses across Ireland."

kub

God love them their arrogance as usual is amazing. They have not mentioned at all the amount of customers they have lost due to their expensive charges.

2011

I am not a fan of their alarms for multiple reasons.
However clearly this company is very successful and highly profitable, so they must be doing something right.
I put this down to good advertising and marketing.

If they are not the largest intruder alarm company in the country they must be one of the largest.

JillyQ

kub wrote: »

God love them their arrogance as usual is amazing. They have not mentioned at all the amount of customers they have lost due to their expensive charges.

I am glad some else said that lol. It was just what I was thinking

fred funk }{

They're losing a lot of customers, that's for sure. Generally, people don't really know what's what with alarms and going with PW because their marketing and their past association with Eircom, which to some of a certain generaion is a very trusted company.

There's isn't really that many new black PW boxes on show.

If I'm competing with PW for a job I generally get the job once I explain what the difference between PW's alarm and mine.

kub

fred funk }{ wrote: »

They're losing a lot of customers, that's for sure. Generally, people don't really know what's what with alarms and going with PW because their marketing and their past association with Eircom, which to some of a certain generaion is a very trusted company.

There's isn't really that many new black PW boxes on show.

If I'm competing with PW for a job I generally get the job once I explain what the difference between PW's alarm and mine.

I am there with you Fred, they are easy to compete against alright as when you actually explain the technical difference between what we offer and they offer, then people see the light.

I have being thinking recently too that if I was not in this industry I would probably get a PW system as well, but I am a lazy consumer and their marketing and previous association with Eircom would have gotten me to sign up but would be very annoyed with their monitoring and maintenance charges.
I just feel sorry for those now with those black boxes as if they get sick of PW then they are snookered as no other monitoring station has yet got receiving equipment for the signals which these new systems transmit.

altor

2011 wrote: »

I am not a fan of their alarms for multiple reasons.
However clearly this company is very successful and highly profitable, so they must be doing something right.
I put this down to good advertising and marketing.

If they are not the largest intruder alarm company in the country they must be one of the largest.

I would say they are the largest.
Interesting article, there expansion is due to them getting rid of the dealer network and needing to have service engineers in these locations.
In comparison to other systems on the market it is a basic alarm the way they are installing it.

JillyQ

Going back to my own days in monitoring i remember when they used to gaurantee Garda attendence

kub

JillyQ wrote: »

Going back to my own days in monitoring i remember when they used to gaurantee Garda attendence

Indeed then they realised what was written on the Garda response criteria in 2005.

JillyQ

kub wrote: »

Indeed then they realised what was written on the Garda response criteria in 2005.

Well I was going back to the mid to late nineties. I think something did appear around the 95 msrk.

Evolution1

I really like the PW bell box.. At least it won't yellow like the rest of them.

fred funk }{

Evolution1 wrote: »

I really like the PW bell box.. At least it won't yellow like the rest of them.

What do you mean?

2011

kub wrote: »

I am there with you Fred, they are easy to compete against alright as when you actually explain the technical difference between what we offer and they offer, then people see the light.

This tactic can only work if you get the opportunity to pitch your alarm to a potential customer.
The evidence would suggest that many are not interested in hearing a pitch from a rival company.

Many alarm installers claim that PhoneWatch:
1) Are selling an inferior product than they offer.
2) Charge more for monitoring.
3) Charge more for a maintenance contract.
4) Charge more than they would for an equivelent alarm.

However it would seem to me that PhoneWatch:
1) Buy their product for less (I am guessing due to the economy of scale).
2) They can claim that they meet EN50131 (because they do).
3) They enjoy more brand loyalty than any of their rivals (100,000 monitored alarms speaks for itself).
4) Their installation time is on average lower than their competitors as they typically only install a few wireless devices and a dummy bellbox.
5) They are now expanding to increase their market share further!

That is quite an achievement for any business.
How do they do it?

Evolution1

fred funk }{ wrote: »

What do you mean?

The white sabb lids go yellow and dirty looking in a short time period

fred funk }{

Evolution1 wrote: »

The white sabb lids go yellow and dirty looking in a short time period

Their new black boxes are horrendous looking, one of the worst bells I've even seen.

It takes many years for the white plastic to discolour if even at all.

kub

2011 wrote: »

This tactic can only work if you get the opportunity to pitch your alarm to a potential customer.
The evidence would suggest that many are not interested in hearing a pitch from a rival company.

Many alarm installers claim that PhoneWatch:
1) Are selling an inferior product than they offer.
2) Charge more for monitoring.
3) Charge more for a maintenance contract.
4) Charge more than they would for an equivelent alarm.

However it would seem to me that PhoneWatch:
1) Buy their product for less (I am guessing due to the economy of scale).
2) They can claim that they meet EN50131 (because they do).
3) They enjoy more brand loyalty than any of their rivals (100,000 monitored alarms speaks for itself).
4) Their installation time is on average lower than their competitors as they typically only install a few wireless devices and a dummy bellbox.
5) They are now expanding to increase their market share further!

That is quite an achievement for any business.
How do they do it?

2011, did you get a new job or are you trying to wind us up?

Ok let's start at the beginning, you are probably right that a lot of people do not bother to get a quote elsewhere, why? I am not sure, is it due to a slick marketing operation?
An empty vessel makes most noise.

Those 4 points you listed above are all valid and true.

1. Massive economies of scale on what I would describe as a Fisher Price product, no offence intended there to Fisher Price. ( ie the company that used to make those chunky plastic children's toys).

2. I am sure they do meet EN50131, that is fairly simple.

3.On a national scale they do not have rivals bit I would seriously question that 100,000 figure, again as mentioned how many clients have they lost over the years?

4.If I am installing a basic system with a decoy box only and fitting the beams/ cameras on door frames and just plugging in a panel that has already been programmed then yes that will be super quick
But my way of installing a Security System and theirs are 2 very different things.

5. I for one welcome the challenge of their expansion.

They do it because their customer revenue is massive and have a slick marketing machine
But I always regard them as more of a marketing company than a security company anyway.

V.W.L 11

kub wrote: »

God love them their arrogance as usual is amazing. They have not mentioned at all the amount of customers they have lost due to their expensive charges.

signed up to their service as eircom phonewatch,discovered how expensive they still are,discontinued service!still paying a 4 figure sum of debt for a service i am no longer connected to.

kub

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

signed up to their service as eircom phonewatch,discovered how expensive they still are,discontinued service!still paying a 4 figure sum of debt for a service i am no longer connected to.

You and hundreds/ perhaps thousands of others. How come you are still paying them?

V.W.L 11

kub wrote: »

You and hundreds/ perhaps thousands of others. How come you are still paying them?

they stuck on about €600 worth of "monitoring" charges,then when i asked them to come out to fix my cctv i got from them they asked for €200,so i said right,if you charge me (which i never intended to pay) €200 then i will A. revert the account back to my wife's name and B. i will pull the standing order payment and they'd get €0.00 instead of €x.xx a week,got a call today to say my system will be repaired FREE OF CHARGE

kub

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

they stuck on about €600 worth of "monitoring" charges,then when i asked them to come out to fix my cctv i got from them they asked for €200,so i said right,if you charge me (which i never intended to pay) €200 then i will A. revert the account back to my wife's name and B. i will pull the standing order payment and they'd get €0.00 instead of €x.xx a week,got a call today to say my system will be repaired FREE OF CHARGE

Excellent, I hope they have a techy who knows how to fix a conventional CCTV system. Well done.

V.W.L 11

kub wrote: »

Excellent, I hope they have a techy who knows how to fix a conventional CCTV system. Well done.

i aint into all that crap the system aint working and the telephone socket they installed is fcuked cant use it unless they get the debt wiped

2011

kub wrote: »

Ok let's start at the beginning, you are probably right that a lot of people do not bother to get a quote elsewhere, why? I am not sure, is it due to a slick marketing operation?

That is my opinion, you seem to agree.

Those 4 points you listed above are all valid and true.

1. Massive economies of scale on what I would describe as a Fisher Price product, no offence intended there to Fisher Price. ( ie the company that used to make those chunky plastic children's toys).

2. I am sure they do meet EN50131, that is fairly simple.

Still agreeing.
EN50131 is a very low standard in my opinion (but that is for another thread).

3.On a national scale they do not have rivals bit I would seriously question that 100,000 figure

You dispute their figure?
Any link to support your opinion?
Here is mine.
If you can demonstrate that they are lying they can be fined for false advertising and made remove the claim from their website.

again as mentioned how many clients have they lost over the years?

Quite a few I would think, but they are the largest in the country.

4.If I am installing a basic system with a decoy box only and fitting the beams/ cameras on door frames and just plugging in a panel that has already been programmed then yes that will be super quick

In my opinion this system is very basic and simple to defeat.
As I already stated in post #3 in this thread "I am not a fan of their alarms for multiple reasons".

But my way of installing a Security System and theirs are 2 very different things.

I am not disputing that.
My point is they are selling more systems.

5. I for one welcome the challenge of their expansion.

Best of luck.
If you are serious about challenging them it may be an idea to look at their marketing technique.

They do it because their customer revenue is massive and have a slick marketing machine

We agree again.

But I always regard them as more of a marketing company than a security company anyway.

This is probably because you are in the trade and understand the vulnerabilities of their system.
The problem is the average customer does not.
The question is can you and others turn this situation around?

2011, did you get a new job or are you trying to wind us up?

I think you are taking me up wrong.
I am not promoting your biggest rival, quite the opposite.
The funny thing is you seem to agree with all of my post (except for the figure of 100,000 monitored alarms)

Evolution1

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Their new black boxes are horrendous looking, one of the worst bells I've even seen.

It takes many years for the white plastic to discolour if even at all.

3-4 for hkc's to start discolouring.. Same with the keypads if they're placed anywhere sunlight can hit them.
I actually think the new bell is beast looking. Each to their own

kub

The wording on your Link above is interesting 2011, I remember some alarm company getting a telling to from a judge for using the word protect.

Anyway that is the noise of an empty vessel, let them off. People just like the many posters here on this forum will continue to ask us ways in which they cam get away from them. Again as mentioned though, we have a technical issue with the system they are using. Obviously closed protocol is not good for competition.

kub

Evolution1 wrote: »

3-4 for hkc's to start discolouring.. Same with the keypads if they're placed anywhere sunlight can hit them.
I actually think the new bell is beast looking. Each to their own

I am sure that black colour will go grey and the red bit will disappear after a few years but at that stage the house holders might have gotten a security system with perimeter protection instead.

2011

kub wrote: »

The wording on your Link above is interesting 2011

Please expand on that point.
Can you provide anything to support your scepticism about the 100,000 figure?

People just like the many posters here on this forum will continue to ask us ways in which they cam get away from them.

Yes, I can see why.
My first home had a PhoneWatch alarm fitted when I bought it.
I removed it and replaced it with a far more secure system shortly after moving in.
I do not understand how they get away with not having a working bellbox on so many installs.

But my point remains, they are incredibly popular.
Yet in my opinion they are very expensive (for what you get), frequently have very have little or no perimeter protection and can be very easy to defeat.

kub

My point was referring to the use of the word protect as opposed to their figure of 100,000.

Well they very well may have that many, I cannot verify or confirm it as we do live in a country of sheep........but look that is another story, just referring to the way we are and have been taking all these cuts etc over the last few years and are doing nothing about it.

fred funk }{

2011 wrote: »

Please expand on that point.
Can you provide anything to support your scepticism about the 100,000 figure?



Yes, I can see why.
My first home had a PhoneWatch alarm fitted when I bought it.
I removed it and replaced it with a far more secure system shortly after moving in.
I do not understand how they get away with not having a working bellbox on so many installs.

But my point remains, they are incredibly popular.
Yet in my opinion they are very expensive (for what you get), frequently have very have little or no perimeter protection and can be very easy to defeat.

You're drastically underestimating the power of an expensive marketing campaign. It's as simple as that.

2011

fred funk }{ wrote: »

You're drastically underestimating the power of an expensive marketing campaign. It's as simple as that.

Quite the opposite.

In post #3 I attribute the success of PhoneWatch to their marketing campaign.

fred funk }{

2011 wrote: »

Quite the opposite.

In post #3 I attribute the success of PhoneWatch to their marketing campaign.

Then why ask how are they successful if you already know the answer?

2011

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Then why ask how are they successful if you already know the answer?

As stated I believe that they are that successful due to their marketing.

When "I asked how do they do it?" I meant how does a company make their marketing work so well?