I was catching up on some old TiVo and saw an ADT commercial that really tweaked me. You know the one, it has a woman alone in the kitchen when the bad guy smashes the window to pop the door and do all sorts of nastiness. Her alarm starts blaring, scares off the bad guy, and it’s ADT to the rescue.
There are two things that bother me about this:
- The average default alarm installation doesn’t include glass break detection. Those free-with-service ADT (or anyone) systems just include contact sensors for someone opening doors or windows, and usually one motion detector. Glass breaks can cost over $100 more each, only cover about a 30’ radius, and are prone to false alarms. Sure, maybe the alarm would go off when the bad guy opened the door, but only if…
- How many of you set your alarm when you’re home during the day? Nope, maybe only those of you in a real nasty part of town. Definitely not in the nice suburbs like our luckless victim.
I really don’t like deceptive advertising- especially when it imparts a false sense of security. I wonder how many people think those sensors on their windows will go off if someone smashes them? How about all those people that lose bikes out of their garages every year because garage doors aren’t normally sensored?
I realize I’m exaggerating a bit to make a point. Just having an alarm can really reduce your risk of any kind of break in, and if you’re in a higher risk area I recommend alarms (and have one myself in Phoenix). But if advertising is going to play on FUD, it’s irresponsible to create a false sense of security. Having dealt with multiple alarm installers over the years, very few of the sales guys (as opposed to the installers) educate customers on the gaps in the system, or additional high-cost options.*
*which is a little surprising, although I suspect they worry about sticker shock to the average consumer.
Reader interactions
2 Replies to “Alarm Ads That Lie- Is a False Sense of Security Dangerous?”
Yeah I agree,Usually the places that have security systems are less potential danger of crimes than the areas that do not have the security systems. The people who concern about security system are the type of people who feel responsible for protecting their home & family 🙂
And then there is the “implied security” of places. My most recent annoying experience is the economy lot at the Denver airport. Gates, cameras, shuttles driving around all the time – should be a safe place to leave your car, right? Wrong. Granted I’‘ve been using the lot ever since the airport opened without problem, but a month ago I arrived back at my car to an alarm that chirped to indicate that it had gone off. Hmmmm. I walked around the car and nothing seemed damaged, so I assumed somebody had bumped it. Wrong. When I got in I discovered that someone had slim-jimmed the door and ripped off my stereo. According to the Denver police, that lot is up to nearly one a day. And the cameras don’‘t record anything they see – they are “monitored” in a security office somewhere in the airport.
They say the close-in parking is safer, because it costs $2 to drive in, case out a car and break in, rather than the $1 it costs for the economy lot.
Oh well.. at least they didn’‘t break the window and let the car fill with snow.