Image or Reputation?

[DarkMetalWolf]

If you were going to hire a company for security, what would be more important, Image or Reputation? Image being nice newer vehicles, new equipment, new uniforms a "GQ" type officer where every officer drives a company vehicle to work. Reputation being a company that is known to do the job they where hired for but they have older patrol vehicles and standing officers use their own vehicles. However, they had more older, odd shaped officers.
This was an interesting conversation I had the other day. I would rather have a company with a decent image and a good reputation than a company that looks dam good, but can never be found when needed. Unfortunately we have a few companies out here that look as good if not better than local law enforcement but......nobody ever see them. The other end of the conversation was image is everything and that is all that counts. So I would like to pose the question, what in your opinion is more important; Image, Reputation.....or both?

[SecTrainer]

You ask a difficult question. "Image" certainly isn't unimportant, and can even have an operational impact, but operational effectiveness (which is how I am interpreting what you mean by "reputation") is much more important.

[DarkMetalWolf]

You ask a difficult question. "Image" certainly isn't unimportant, and can even have an operational impact, but operational effectiveness (which is how I am interpreting what you mean by "reputation") is much more important.

Your interpretation is correct. I also agree that image is not unimportant. I just think it should not be the main factor in the running of a company.

[Mall Director]

Oooo, Toughy..

I will go out on a limb, and if I were the "client", and had to choose whick was more important.. I would say image. I know, not exactly the answer most would respond with. I look at it this way..

I have yet to work for or see a company that places a good amount of value on image. Equipment needs to be updated, vehicles are limitted or not fitted for the job, staff are lacking the appropriate tools and dress due to funding. Typically this has been due to top side soaking up funds. The bottom dollar has been placed as more important then that of service.

On the second note.. When first contacting individuals, parties or subjects, how we appear has a major impact on the public perception, prior to us opening our mouths. Sadly, many agencies have people who when they do open their mouths, image, no matter how good, goes down the toilet.

But I figure as the client, if your security provider hires incompetent or "lacking" individuals, that is something that can be brought up, and if not corrected, the contract can be terminated. I look at it as a stepping process. First step, make sure they are fitted with proper funding to do the job and hold the presence you need, then the next step is to make sure they have the right people. Both have to be met when its all said and done.

Sadly, like I said, I have worked for and seen too many agencies that placed emphasis on cutting every corner in the uniform and equipment funding, which results in higher turn over, and the staff is still lacking.

[Andy Taylor]

Quite honestly if I were choosing between the two firms and all else being equal (ie:$$$) it would depend on the site and the duties involved. Let's say I am hiring the security company to guard a construction site at night after all the workers have left. I don't care a whole lot about how the officer looks. I care a little but you said they are know for getting the job done, and by that I presume that the shirt is tucked in and his pants aren't sagging, but he isn't a model in Gall's catolog either. I would go with that company. If I am hiring security to stand watch over my expensive jewlery store and want a deterant as well as an officer who greats customers, I might well go with the image. Of course at any site, both is best. BTW I believe I fall into what you call "an odd-shaped officer".

[DarkMetalWolf]

I believe I fall into what you call "an odd-shaped officer".

Well, funny enough, so do I........

[craig333]

I have to agree its dependant on various factors. Working in a medical building, do the patients know if we keep them safe, have 0 vehicle breakins and generally do a good job? No. They only know what they see. And what kind of impression would a sloppy officer make no matter how good he is. Personally I think most good officers though want to both. Do a good job and take pride in their appearance. Though sometimes theres only so much you can do if the company gives you crap to wear.

[Qarlo X64]

Man this sooooo describes just about every PSC I've ever worked for (most anyhow), as in they have this super long and overly detailed handbook, Supervisors checking up on the S/Os in the field for uniform inspection and/or site inspections... and it's almost always about "IMAGE". Then these same ppl complain when 9 out of 10 officers aren't worth a damn, have a "If I'm getting paid such and such an hour, the client gets such & such work" attitude, and furthermore make the enviorment a living hell when those of us more concerned with both image & operational reputation have a bad day or won't come in.

If it were up to me I'd opt for a company who would actually hire ppl worth a damn right up front, thus "image" would be merely a part of the respective S/Os personal point of pride and the execution of their mission objectives being met in both O&R and CRE posts would be so good everyone at the company would want to hire the officers to be poster boys for the private security industry overall. But of course this last part would make too much sense. I've found that PSCs say they want pride & confidence from their employees but really don't enforce their own regs, and the clients really want kiss ass S/Os that they'll never have to pay more than $8.00 an hour for, but give hell to everyone when everything goes south. I blame the politically correct day and age we live in, we want good looks over good workers. Sadly this is an issue I don't see changing in the foreseeable future.

[OccamsRazor]

If you were going to hire a company for security, what would be more important, Image or Reputation?

If I was the decision maker for the average corporate client these days, looking into hiring security, my decision would be based on exactly neither.

Who can give me a guard to ease the insurance company's auditor for the lowest price?

Last year, one of our local malls had a highly visible, really pro-active security force. They looked all "tacti-cool" in their BDU's, carrying everything but a firearm. They stopped things before they got out of hand, and it was a nice place to shop (that's saying a lot, as I hate the mall). The local "wannabe" troop avoided them and the mall like the plague.

Nowadays, the mall ownership has changed, and it's very evident. They have guys in ill-fitting, stained, ultra-cheap uniforms, armed with a mini-mag light and a radio. The cutom-designed patches the old crew had are gone, replaced with a 3x5" white patch with "Security" on it. None of the old crew (that I can remember) seems to be there anymore; 2 of the 4 guys I saw this last weekend could barely speak English when posed a direct question. The local PD has told me that the new guards are forbidden by policy to do anything other than O&R.

And guess what? Nowadays, the thug-life types are back and the mall sucks.

Money talks louder than any antiquated notion of "safety". That's what those damn cops are for. Who cares about how they look or what they've accomplished in the past? As long as I can get my premiums lowered, there's always someone willing to call 911.

[sgtnewby]

I would deffinatly say both. If they look half way decent, and are known to be dependable, that's who I would go with. If they look sharper then anything I have ever seen before, but haven't seen them between showing up for their shift and leaving, they'd be gone real quick. Just my $0.02.

[acrand]

I think to have one, you must have the other. The reason I say this; if you have invested in top notch equipment, professional uniforms, generally, your staff will have a higher morale and will be much more professional, which will lead to your company gaining a good reputation because turn-over will be down, Officers will take pride in themselves. When your Officers have high morale, their productivity goes way up as will your reputation.

If I was a client, however, I would have to say image as the image will be a better deterrant than an "odd shaped" officer, with old, worn out uniforms.

[N. A. Corbier]

wilrobinson wins.

The average client wants risk index reduction from their general liability insurance carrier, and nothing more. The average client will hire off duty police officers, who bring no additional liability (in their minds) to the corporation, if they want anything more than risk index reduction.

They want the ability to put on their general insurance policy, "We have security guards." Depending on a few questions, their guard will decrease the risk index. These include "How old is the company." And even better, I have seen some policies that ask guard service, and have check boxes for the major corporations. If you check one, you get a risk reduction, because the insurer is familiar with their operations and probably underwrites them... So they know that the guards won't add liability by doing anything stupid like protecting people.

If you're NOT interested in this, then you probably want what I have said before: People buy services from other people, not companies. They want to know that their account manager "feels them," and that there's someone at the company who's personally accountable to that client, who will help them and know them.

This is big in O&R Contract security, where they give the illusion of protection, and can be a powerful force in actual protective services. The idea, of course, is to get out there and be known.

[Christopherstjo]

For me, this is a no brainer - reputation means more than image. I define such as image being the superficial cosmetics of the company whereas reputation is substance of what the company stands for and from which all other things grow.

[Qarlo X64]

wilrobinson wins.

The average client wants risk index reduction from their general liability insurance carrier, and nothing more. The average client will hire off duty police officers, who bring no additional liability (in their minds) to the corporation, if they want anything more than risk index reduction.

They want the ability to put on their general insurance policy, "We have security guards." Depending on a few questions, their guard will decrease the risk index. These include "How old is the company." And even better, I have seen some policies that ask guard service, and have check boxes for the major corporations. If you check one, you get a risk reduction, because the insurer is familiar with their operations and probably underwrites them... So they know that the guards won't add liability by doing anything stupid like protecting people.

If you're NOT interested in this, then you probably want what I have said before: People buy services from other people, not companies. They want to know that their account manager "feels them," and that there's someone at the company who's personally accountable to that client, who will help them and know them.

This is big in O&R Contract security, where they give the illusion of protection, and can be a powerful force in actual protective services. The idea, of course, is to get out there and be known.

Quoted for (the sad) truth.

However, this is indeed why there are so many problems in this world overall. Everyone's more concerned with looking good and risk index, versus doing what is right and actually treating people (and in this case PSOs) who actually believe in "the mission" and execute pride & confidence the way they should be. Bascially. A company will hire a company to look good and more than likely that company pays crap, their guards will say all the right things at the right moments, and look alert... but watch them and listen to their conversations later. The real truth then surfaces, and then everyone else wonders why the Private Security Sector outside of "Executive" level operations get looked down their nose at.

It's like with the mall I'm at right now. Just today (got off work about an hour ago) the security unit got chewed out for the dumbest stuff, but the client doesn't like it when I as acting OIC strolled right into their office, and with couth, let them know some of the problems their engineering department are making for security, as in when a contractor is done with an electrical room/etc, Security needs to be notified so that room and/or area can be resecured if someone other than security unsecures a place. GOD forbid a kid or dumb teenager get into a place and get injured or killed... cause we all know who'd be at fault... the PSOs and ultimately the PSC with the contract. They'd never had an OIC tell them "hey it's a security risk, you want us to hold it down, then ya'll have to do your part." I was surprised though when the 2nd in Command at the main office thanked me for being ontop of things, but it won't last. Tomrrow's a new day and more needless drama.

I weep for the future, political correctness and bottom lines have ultimately killed common sense and ruined the pride & confidence people (overall) should have.

[DarkMetalWolf]

I weep for the future, political correctness and bottom lines have ultimately killed common sense and ruined the pride & confidence people (overall) should have.

You have spoken my thoughts. Just how sad it is..........