ADT Shouldn’t Apologize For Marketing Following Family Slaughter

When will people ever learn? Five years ago, the very wealthy Smart family did not have an alarm system and a kidnapper broke into the house and kidnapped their daughter. Three months ago in Portugal, a mother and father left their children in an unsecured building while they enjoyed an evening out. Three year old Stacy McCann disappeared and they have not found her. Now the Connecticut tragedy. . People should know better and get alarms if their family is important to them. The security company has every right to take advantage of the tragedy, just like the pro-tax for roads people here in Virginia have every right to make use of the Minnesota bridge tragedy to demonize anti-tax opponents here in Virginia.

There’s another perspective to this issue to consider.  Recently in our area, a woman and her boyfriend were murdered in the woman’s home by the ex-boyfrined.  According to newspaper accounts, the home had an ADT security alarm system that did not function properly.  It’s my understanding that ADT is being sued for not preventing the murder of these individuals.

Seems to me that if ADT wants to promote the benefits of having a security system after a tragedy like this happens, they also incur at least some responsibility when things like this happen if a security system is installed.

Personnally, I don’t think it’s possible to prevent a determined criminal from committing a crime.  I think a security system can serve as a deterrent to crime but it can’t prevent it, violent or otherwise. 

This is having an impact on obatining liability insurance for us.  While we offer security systems and monitoring, it’s only a small fraction of our business.  However, our insurer didn’t want any exposure to this liability and we had to find a different insurer.

NO…ADT should not apologize. While your premise offers the slight smell of “ambulance chasing” (lawyers bad rap) - as long as ADT handles their marketing responsibly, then there is nothing to apologize for. Security systems are potentially life-saving devices and are currently marketed nationally by a variety of suppliers.

An incident such as the Connecticut murders will inevitably launch a “land grab” by all of ADT’s competitors. It is only smart business for ADT to remind the citizens of Connecticut (and elsewhere) that a security system is a legitimate deterrent to crime.

Ted Green
President, The Stratecon Group, Inc.
http://www.stratecongroup.com

there is a very fine line between “responding to a need” and insensitive aggressive marketing designed to exploit a tragedy, which is what ADT is appearing to do… it is a proven fact that the majority of deaths resulting from murder occur at the hands of a family member or friend, not from random attacks by strangers. Alarm systems (and private security/paramilitary patrols, gated communities, the escalating insanity of arming citizens with firearms) are a direct result of media exploitation of violence. This sad attempt to somehow isolate or immunize ourselves from the fallout of failed social reconstruction is doomed to fail. If we want to feel safe, then we need to address the root causes of poverty, social unrest and inequality which ultimately lead to crime…

Installing an alarm can not prevent a tragedy if it does not work. Look at the case of Teri Lee who had a state of the art security system installed and still was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. Her story was featured on Dateline.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20252303/
ADT installed that alarm and it did not go off when the ex-boyfriend broke a window with a crowbar.  It finally went off when her children were running out of the house and Teri was already murdered. It proves that if not properly installed, security alarms can give you a false sense of security.

Update: ADT Donates $1,000 to “Atone” for Fliers

Over the weekend, the Hartford Courant reported that ADT donated $1,000 to charity for soliciting customers in the Chesire, Conn., neighborhood where the Petit murders took place. The company also agreed to cease solicitations or advertisements in proximity to the community.

This donation came after the Connecticut Consumer Protection Commissioner amazingly ruled that ADT’s fliers were a violation of the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. Exactly what is the nature of the “violation” is unclear, but the article says the department has jurisdiction over false advertising. The fliers were reportedly titled “A Sign of the Times.”

The commissioner, who issued a statetment to the press, said he was “outraged” by the advertising, adding that the fliers were not false advertising, but the timing was “inappropriate.”

The article says that the commissioner believes his ruling will set a precedent for advertising following tragedies in Connecticut.

Sounds like grandstanding to me. Does this mean that if a plane crashes or a bad car crash in the state that the public transit authority cannot advertise for its rail system?

According to the article, ADT could have appealed the ruling. It seems to me that they likely would have been victorious over such as ridiculous ruling.