We've mentioned in the past how being in an "anti-" business is very tricky -- because your own success should wipe out the need for your product. Security firms epitomize this problem. If they're successful in making security no longer a problem, then the need for their products goes away. Even trickier is that they need to both scare people into believing they're not safe (often by overhyping threats) while convincing them that one single product will make them safe -- but not so safe that they won't need to eventually upgrade. It seems that this is the tricky balance security firms face, with many tending to overhype the threat aspect. The reality, as discussed in the article, is that it is an ongoing battle back and forth -- but people are getting jaded by security firms crying wolf all the time. It's ending up having the reverse effect. People are giving up -- figuring that many of these firms are making threats out to be much worse, and very few people know who to trust any more. While it may have seemed like good business in the short term, the long term results are causing people to ignore the messaging from security firms.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Feinstein And Rogers Try To Scare Americans With Ooga Booga Terrorism Threats
- Lessons Learned From Adam Lanza's Video Game Obsession: Blame Dance Dance Revolution
- Editorial Claims Houston Prosecutors Are Pushing Through Nearly 1,000 Sex Trafficking Indictments Every Day
- Where Is The 'Free Trade' In The TPP IP Chapter?
- Sandy Hook Video Game Prompts Everyone To Get Everything Wrong