Bayonne Exterminating Company's 2008 Progress Report

Introduction

In order to obtain more viable statistics, we have decided that 2008 will be the year used to establish baseline measures of our statistical coefficients. As such, any effort to implement the over arching 5 year PESP strategy has been delayed until January 2009. On February 3 of this year we will roll out the PESP strategy and tactics to our technical staff. We will also introduce the program in full scope. Fortunately, our methods and tactics do not differ significantly on a day to day basis. The most important part of the PESP rollout will be to enfranchise our technicians to be an asset in implementing this program without negatively impacting their performance and effectiveness in the field. As a note for statistical reference, all track able coefficients will be carried out to four decimal places. The methodology for generating the coefficients as well as all related figures was retained so that we can duplicate methodology exactly in future years.

Goal 1 and Tactics

Reduce our per capita pesticide usage

Specific tactics to implement this change are already a part of company procedure and training. An effort to reduce baseboard and barrier applications has been ongoing. Targeted and specific applications significantly reduce hazard and volume, and generally move toward a low-impact product selection. We will also supply our technicians with the most efficacious products. Trying to save money with the second best product available leads to repeated or exaggerated applications, simply put. If that’s not “what makes the customer happy” we cannot give up and give in. It will be our responsibility to train our technicians in IPM strategies enough to effectively relate these strategies to customers, not to simply perform them. Ongoing company training as well as induction training has been modified with this specific end in mind.

To determine the success of these tactics easily, we must utilize statistical analysis and track a coefficient over time. In this case:

Rm=S/I

The coefficient of R will be known as the reduction coefficient and can be obtained monetarily. S (service revenue) is divided by I (inventory cost) to obtain R.

In compiling the statistics for 2008, it came to our attention that compiling this statistic volumetrically is unwieldy and needlessly complex. This may change as technology changes, but as for now, this statistic will be complied on a monetary basis. For 2008,

R = 15.4140

Goal 2 and Tactics

Reduce the frequency of unscheduled callbacks

Reducing pesticide usage can be aided greatly by simply reducing opportunities to apply products. “Doing it right the first time” will reduce secondary, and potentially, unnecessary applications. It will also reduce the amount of drive time for our staff with the added bonus reducing gasoline consumption and by extension our company carbon footprint.

As with many other industry concerns, these goals can be achieved through customer contact and education. Loading our information on the front end of a service will be greatly helpful instead of saving the good tips and tricks for customers who seem to need them (i.e. repeat callbacks). Integral to that is allowing our technicians as much face time as possible. Opening up our scheduling to allow more interactive time with our customers, as well as offering educational supporting materials, both in hand and online, will be highly effective. It will also help to generate the trust needed to change customer’s preconceived notions of pest control. Administration and support of our technical division will affect these changes in our day to day operations.

Effectiveness of these steps can be tracked in a statistical manner similar to above:

C=U/N

The coefficient of C (the callback coefficient) shall be determined by U (the number of unscheduled service calls) divided by N(number of customers in the service segment). For 2008,

C = 0.7482

Goal 3 and Tactics

Increase the service mix of IPM and “Green” programs in our market share

Since the launch of our Green Program in late 2006 we have seen little growth in our market for these types of services. The Green Program as offered by this company entails use of IPM methodology and environment manipulation to achieve pest control. If pesticides must be used, they are either low-impact products as defined by NJDEP or botanically derived products generally considered “exempt” by EPA. This program has been piloted and tested in schools and health care facilities in our client rolls but has yet to be grabbed on to by our “mainstream” customers.

Specifically, we as a company have begun to promote our Green Program with our advertising and sales. Green Program options must be a standard addition to every sales estimate, as well as a serious effort to convert existing traditional customer into Green Program clients. We must also change our marketing style and message to resonate more with the part of the market that would be receptive to these services. We could help bridge the gap between traditional customers and Green Program potentials by showing the efficacy of IPM in regular service and hoping to convert based on a “risk reduction” logic. We can also offer IPM inspections, with supporting documentation, to both existing and potential customers in an effort to sell or convert to the Green Program.

Tracking the success of this initiative will be somewhat more simple than the first two goals. All we need to do is obtain a baseline percentage of service mix. For accuracy, this percentage must be based on the ratio relationship between Green Program Pest Control versus Traditional Pest Control. Therefore:

M=Nt/Ng

The coefficient of M (Service Mix of Green Program) will be determined by dividing Nt (the number of traditional Pest control accounts) by Ng (the number of Green Program accounts). For 2008,

M = 112.8000