Like many tech titans, we also began our journey as a startup in humble garage - today, we are proud to protect some of the world’s leading organisations.
We prioritie the needs of our customers with exceptional service and keeping them at the center of our focus. Gain access to our platforms and use the guides to accelerate user engagement.
Why choose Zinc for your mass notification and emergency communication needs over more typically known providers?
SHARE
Find out the ‘David vs Goliath’ benefits here…
As an alternative to the ‘Goliath’ providers, such as Everbridge, Blackberry, OnSolve and so on… Zinc presents a fresh all-round perspective on incident management, mass notification, emergency communication, and critical event management. Gone are the days of viewing these processes as complex, rigid and costly endeavours.
At Zinc, we’ve listened to the market and our clients, and crafted a platform that’s fit for companies of all sizes. It combines user-friendliness, affordability and integrated incident management. As for our Zinc ‘squad’, they provide a tightly knit support system, driving customer success, innovation and satisfaction.
Let’s delve into some common criticisms and drawbacks encountered with the ‘Goliath’ notification platforms, and how Zinc’s product ‘SYNAPSE’ can go toe-to-toe with the giants in our industry.
‘Goliath’ platforms – Review
1. The siloed nature
A significant issue reported by users of mass notification platforms is that they often operate as a siloed system, not being fully integrated with overall incident management systems. This lack of integration can hinder effective incident response and management.
Limited integration with incident management systems:
Standalone system: Platforms that are primarily focused on mass notification rather than comprehensive incident management, can lead to challenges when organisations attempt to use them as part of a broader incident response strategy, as they don’t naturally integrate with other critical incident management tools and processes.
Separate workflows: The platform’s notifications are often not linked to incident workflows, resulting in a fragmented approach to handling incidents. Users need to manually coordinate between their notification system and other systems that are involved in their incident management process, which can slow down response times and lead to inefficiencies during critical events.
Operational silos:
Isolated communication: By operating in a silo, notification platforms can isolate emergency communication from other operational data and actions. This isolation makes it difficult to create a unified picture of an incident, which is crucial for timely and effective decision-making.
Manual data transfer: The need to manually transfer data between the notification platform and other incident management systems can increase the risk of errors and delays. This process is not only time-consuming but also detracts from the platform’s overall efficiency and effectiveness during emergencies.
2. Complexity of Use:
Steep learning curve: While globally known notifications platforms can be powerful, they can be complicated to set up and navigate. Users often mention the need for significant training to effectively use all their features, especially for infrequent users or during emergencies when simplicity is crucial.
Complicated interface: Interfaces of large platforms can be overwhelming and not as intuitive as the smaller, more agile competitors like Zinc, making it challenging for new users or those with limited technical expertise.
Cumbersome contact management: Managing contacts within large platforms such as Everbridge can be cumbersome. For example, if a contact is part of multiple groups or has multiple roles, it requires unique identifiers, which can complicate the system’s usability.
3. Cost:
High initial cost: Large, globally known platforms tend to be more expensive than many other emergency notification systems, due to their complex set-up, which can be a barrier for smaller organisations.
Communications: The cost of sending notifications (especially SMS) can add up, and users need to carefully evaluate their needs to avoid unexpected expenses.
Ongoing expenses: The cost of maintaining and operating the system can be high, including fees for additional features, modules, or users.
4. Customer support and setup:
Time-consuming setup: The implementation process can be lengthy and require significant effort, often needing specialised expertise to get everything configured correctly.
Customisation difficulties: While globally known platforms such as Everbridge are configurable, this flexibility can also lead to complexity, making it difficult to tailor the system without substantial time and technical knowledge.
Reporting limitations: Some users have commented that the reporting and dashboard functionalities are not as robust as they would like. There is room for improvement in how data is presented and accessed, which can affect decision-making during critical events.
5. User experience issues:
Non-intuitive navigation: Users often find it hard to locate specific features or functions within large platforms such as Everbridge, which can be problematic during an emergency when quick action is needed.
Infrequent users: For users who do not interact with the system regularly, retaining the necessary knowledge to use it effectively can be challenging, increasing the risk of errors during critical moments.
5. Customer support:
Variable support quality: Some users report inconsistent experiences with the Customer Support functions of large platform providers, ranging from highly responsive to slow and unhelpful.
Training requirements: The need for ongoing training and support to ensure that all users can effectively operate the system adds to the overall cost and complexity.
6. Scalability and performance:
Performance issues: In some cases, users have reported issues with system performance, such as delays or failures in message delivery, which can undermine trust in the platform’s reliability.
7. Integration concerns:
Integration complexity: Integrating large platforms such as Everbridge with other systems and tools used by an organisation can be complicated and may require additional technical resources or support from the system provider which is often difficult or costly to obtain.
8. User feedback:
Negative user feedback: Some reviews and user feedback highlight dissatisfaction with certain aspects of these ‘Goliath’ platforms, particularly regarding ease of use and overall value for money. An example of this for Everbridge is here…
Addressing these integration challenges would require organisations to either develop custom integrations or use third-party tools to bridge the gap, adding to the complexity and cost of using a large standalone notification platform such as Everbridge.
Zinc Systems: Challenging the ‘Status Quo‘
Ultimately, the best critical event management software for your organisation depends on your specific needs, budget, and technological environment. Zinc offers a compelling combination of user-friendliness, comprehensive functionalities, cost-effectiveness, and exceptional customer support.
The platform has been designed by taking learnings from the market, our competitors and insight from our clients. It is easy to implement, easy to use, practical and secure. Its functionality spans across the full spectrum of critical event management bringing multiple systems into one.
Tactics for success
Ease of use:
Intuitive interface: Zinc prides itself on a user-friendly and intuitive interface, making it easy for users to navigate and operate without extensive training. This ease of use is critical during emergencies when quick and efficient action is required.
Simplified setup: The setup process for Zinc is straightforward and less time-consuming, allowing organisations to deploy and configure the system quickly.
Cost-effectiveness:
Affordable pricing: Zinc offers competitive pricing, making it an attractive option for organisations of all sizes. Its modular design ensures that you only pay for the functionalities you need, avoiding unnecessary costs and providing genuine value for money.
Value for money: The platform’s pricing model is transparent and accessible, making it a budget-friendly alternative to the often-higher costs associated with the globally known providers, such as Everbridge.
Seamless integration and holistic approach:
Integrated incident management: Unlike the globally known Mass Notification platforms, Zinc offers comprehensive incident management, compliance, and health & safety features all under one roof. This ensures notifications and alerts are part of a cohesive incident response strategy, enhancing coordination and efficiency.
Avoiding siloed operations: By integrating various functionalities, Zinc prevents the siloed operations that can hinder effective incident management, promoting a unified approach to crisis management.
Robust support and customisation:
Exceptional customer support: Known for its responsive customer support, Zinc ensures quick issue resolution and smooth operation. Extensive training and resources help users maximise the platform’s capabilities.
Highly customizable: Zinc allows organisations to tailor the system to their specific needs, providing flexibility that aligns with unique organisational requirements and processes.
Advanced reporting and analytics:
Comprehensive Analytics: The Zinc platform offers robust reporting and analytics tools that provide valuable insights into system performance and communication effectiveness, helping organisations continuously improve their emergency response strategies.
Going beyond the core features – the techie bit!!
One of the key differences between Zinc and many of the globally known platform providers is that they tend to be legacy platforms that have grown through acquisition, whereas Zinc is a platform that has been designed from the ground up for a specific purpose. Here are a few distinctions:
Legacy platform grown through acquisition: (globally known platforms)
Architecture:
Fragmented and heterogeneous: These platforms are often a collection of various systems and technologies pieced together from different acquisitions. This can lead to a complex and fragmented architecture.
Integration challenges: Integrating disparate systems can be difficult and might require extensive middleware and custom solutions to achieve interoperability.
Scalability:
Potential bottlenecks: Different systems might scale differently, leading to bottlenecks and inefficiencies.
Legacy constraints: Older components might not be designed for modern scalability requirements, limiting the overall platform’s ability to grow seamlessly.
User experience:
Inconsistent UI/UX: Users might experience varying interfaces and user experiences as they interact with different parts of the platform.
Complex workflows: Processes might be more cumbersome due to the need to navigate through different integrated systems.
Maintenance and upgrades:
Higher costs: Maintaining and upgrading a heterogeneous system can be more costly and time-consuming.
Technical debt: Legacy systems often come with significant technical debt that needs to be managed continuously.
Innovation:
Slower to adapt: Innovation can be slower due to the complexity of the system and the need to ensure compatibility across different components, as well as the in-built methodology of change and development often ingrained in large, legacy platforms.
Limited flexibility: The platform might be less flexible in adopting new technologies or features quickly.
Platform Designed from the Ground Up: (Zinc)
Architecture:
Unified and cohesive: Designed with a single, cohesive architecture, making it easier to manage and scale.
Modern design principles: Zinc is built using modern design principles and technologies, ensuring efficiency and performance.
Scalability:
Seamless growth: Built with scalability in mind, allowing the platform to grow seamlessly with increasing demand.
Elastic infrastructure: Zinc leverages cloud-native features like serverless-architecture and auto-scaling more effectively.
User experience:
Consistent UI/UX: Users benefit from a consistent and intuitive user interface across the entire platform.
Streamlined processes: Workflows are typically more streamlined and efficient, enhancing user productivity.
Maintenance and upgrades:
Lower costs: Easier and cheaper to maintain and upgrade due to a unified codebase and architecture.
Continuous improvement: Easier to implement continuous improvements and updates.
Innovation:
Faster adaptation: More agile and able to quickly adapt to new technologies and market demands.
High flexibility: Designed to be flexible and extensible, making it easier to add new features and capabilities.
Summary table
Feature
Zinc Systems
‘Goliath’ platforms
Build
Built from the ground up for a specific purpose
The majority have grown through acquisition
Focus
User Friendly
Feature rich
Customisation
High degree of customisation
May require more integration
Sectors
All industries
Large enterprise only
Cost
Generally a lower cost
Potentially more expensive
User interface
Intuitive, easy to learn and integrated feature set
Choosing Zinc means opting for a platform designed with user needs in mind. It simplifies setup and daily use, offers cost-effective solutions with modular pricing, integrates seamlessly with incident management systems, and provides exceptional support and advanced analytics. Zinc is the practical choice for organisations seeking a comprehensive, user-friendly critical event management platform.
Switch to Zinc and experience a unified, efficient approach to crisis management that ensures you’re always prepared for any event.
Contact us today to schedule a free personalised demo and experience. Our team is happy to answer your questions and help you determine if Zinc is the right fit for your organisation’s critical event management needs.
+44 (0)20 3989 4859 
info@zinc.systems 