Support Services Group
Ken Kirschenbaum, a dominant legal resource for the private security industry, recently circulated a Newsletter titled; “Lawyers trolling for security premises liability cases…”. His message could be of interest to most of the IPVM audience, not just security services. His focus seemed to be on customer “expectations”. Although this short newsletter does not get specific, we believe expectations are created by the contract originator and services supplier, via sales , marketing, advertising, evolutionary changes over RMR term contracts, etc, etc. My long career has been in support of many stakeholders of RMR/recurring-monthly-revenue contracts… from contract origination to investor M&A, all with an awareness or customer expectations. One of my concerns is the “expectation” of site-response by local police to millions of deterrent alarm customers when we now know it is slower that expectations, or not available from their security providers. And in consideration of current political and social issues.
Question for IPVM audience to consider… Is to too late or just-in-time… to mitigate customer attrition or legal responsibility. Is full disclosure a solution, with related attrition… or? Is a new RMR service being created with new expectations. Is this a major opportunity for RMR newcomers, now without much of the legislative restraints. All thoughts and suggestions are welcome.