[Green Pest Control] What Do Customers Think?

Authors’ note: Regarding route set-up and treatment protocols for this research, refer to the October 2007 PCT article titled “Road Test.” The study period was January through December 2006.

What Means What?
In this article, the authors refer to the following titles, programs and products:
Traditional means mostly pyrethroids.
Green means EcoSMART products, inorganic dust and baits.
Reduced Impact Pest Management means EcoSMART products plus non-repellents and non-pyrethroids (Termidor, Premise and Phantom)

Note: For both the Green and Reduced Impact Pest Management approaches, a few exceptions were made in areas where at this time there is no EcoSMART product (i.e., gel bait).

Why are organic pest control programs so popular? Their popularity is linked to the National Organic Program (NOP), which established a national standard for producing and handling organic products. The NOP was the result of the Organic Food Production Act of 1990. So what was the result?

A certified producer can sell its products internationally or anywhere in the United States. Consumers can now purchase organic products with great confidence (and purchasing power) and consumer trust took hold. The sales of organic food increased by 284 percent between 1997 ($3.594 billion) and 2005 ($13.831 billion) (OTA 2006). A national standard and consumer acceptance are two key factors for the success of organic food products. Alternative pest management programs should mirror this national organic program — this is crucial for commercial customers.

Western Exterminator, Anaheim, Calif., evaluated the impact of three different pest management strategies: traditional (mostly pyrethroids), green (EcoSMART products, inorganic dust and baits) and reduced impact pest management (EcoSMART products plus non-repellents and non-pyrethroids (Termidor, Premise and Phantom). This article presents our customers’ perceptions of these programs.

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. We used Western Exterminator’s quality assurance score for evaluating customer satisfaction with the reduced impact program. Our firm’s QA card collects customer feedback on 14 service attributes. One of the questions is “Did we control the pests?” Customers rate our service on a scale of 1 to 5, with one being the best. The overall QA rating and the answer to the “did we control the pests” question are good indicators of how our customers perceive our service. We can associate these customer ratings with a particular service technician. Western inputs the quality assurance data based on the route number and the customer number. We compared the pooled data of the green and reduced impact pest management programs against the traditional approach.

RESULTS. Following are various results from our different projects.
Quality Assurance Satisfaction Rating — 2006. From January to June, the QA score for traditional and green/reduced impact approaches were 1.47 and 1.46 respectively. Our data indicated customers did not see any difference in the overall service quality. The trend was different for the second half (July to August) of the year. QA score was 1.50 for the traditional approach and 1.56 for the green/reduced impact programs. The difference is not big but Western’s goal is to have a QA score of 1.50 or below. Customers felt the overall service quality of the green/reduced impact approaches were not on par with the traditional approach. (See Figure 1.)

Quality Assurance Rating for Technicians on the Same Route in 2005 and 2006. Seven out of 10 technicians worked the same route both in 2005 and 2006. This enabled us to evaluate customers’ perceptions about the service quality using the traditional approach in 2005 and the green/reduced impact approach in 2006. These technicians’ QA scores were lower than the service center for June 2005, December 2005 and June 2006 (lower is better). In 2005, customers perceived the service quality provided by these technicians was better than their service center. Despite switching to the green/reduced impact approaches in 2006, customers’ perceptions did not change in June but the trend changed for December. Both the service center and service technicians had the same QA score of 1.48. The December 2006 data indicates customers perceived the service quality of the green/reduced impact approach to be on par with the traditional approach. (See Figure 2.)

Did We Control the Pests? (2006) Comparison of 2005-2006 QA rating of the seven technicians indicates the “Did we control the pests?” score could have influenced the score. Our assumption turned out to be true. In June 2006, these service technicians’ QA score was 1.77 while the service center QA score was 1.66. Our data indicated customers perceived they were seeing fewer pests with the traditional products. The trend remained the same for the second part of the year. In December 2006, the service technicians’ QA scores were 2.03 while the service center score was 1.72. Like June, customers perceived they were seeing more pest activity in the summer with green/reduced impact use products. (See Figure 3.)

Did We Control the Pests? — (2005-2006) We also looked at how Western’s customers perceived the performance of the same technicians using traditional products in 2005 and green/reduced impact products in 2006. In 2005, technicians had QA scores of 1.68 and 1.64 respectively for June and December. These scores were lower (better) than their service center. Customers felt the technicians were able to control pests better than the counterparts were. In 2006, the same technicians had a higher (worse) QA score than the service center average. The technicians’ QA scores were 1.71 and 1.95 for June and December, respectively. In contrast, the service center scores were 1.66 and 1.71 for the same period. Our customers perceived the same technicians were not controlling the pest(s) as efficiently as they did a year before. (See Figure 4.)

CONCLUSION. In our October PCT article, we concluded that callback and chemical costs were not a major hurdle for alternative pest management programs (Pachamuthu and Keith, 2007). However, customers are concerned with service quality. During low pest pressure, customers perceived the overall service quality was the same for all pest management strategies. Their perception changed as we went through the summer months (July through October). Western’s strategy to increase green/reduced impact doses to offset increased pest pressure had minimum impact. Western’s customers perceived a drop in the service quality, i.e., they were seeing more pests outside with biorational products.

Further, customers perceived that the technicians familiar with the routes (they had the same route in 2005 and 2006) provided better quality service in June 2005, December 2005 and June 2006. However, their perception changed from better service to “on par service” in December 2006. Most of these technicians indicated customers are concerned with increased outside pest activity in the summer.

Western’s technicians’ comments correlate with our “Did we control the pests?” data. In 2006, Western customers were unhappy with the control efficacy of the green/reduced impact products. They felt even though the technicians were familiar with their routes that they were not controlling the pest(s) as they did in 2005. Customers were unhappy because they were seeing more outside pest activity than the year before.

Overall, we feel the success of an alternative pest management program depends on the products’ efficacy and customers’ perceptions. Callbacks and chemical costs are not the issues. Technicians familiar with a route are able to overcome the product efficacy to a certain extent but not entirely. Customer cooperation and commitment to the program will be the key components for the success of any alternative programs. Many pest management companies are switching to every other month service and any product we use must limit the pest activity to the outside. We also need to educate our customers that alternative products are effective yet they do not stay in the environment as long as traditional products. Knowing this, we can educate our customers that they may see an increase in pests outside before the next service visit. The green or reduced impact pest management approaches are viable alternative strategies and can lead to customer satisfaction if we educate our customers as to what they can expect.

The future looks promising. In 2007, Western will be looking more at the reduced impact approach. We have five service centers involved with the project and three are completely switching to the reduced impact approach. Overall, we will have 53 reduced impact routes. We will be looking at callback data, chemical cost and customer satisfaction scores.
 
Acknowledgements:
Thanks to Fred Rozo and Mike Lawton (for reviewing the manuscripts), Lisa Schneider (for data analysis) and Penny Meyers (for proofreading). Special thanks to the following service technicians for helping us with the project: Albert Tejada, Richard Diaz, Xavier Juan Ulloa, Jason Hetrick, Jose De Trinidad, Jeff Chitwood, Gilbert Hernandez, Tony Quintaner, Christopher Gonzalez, Howard Chick, Steve Hernandez and Noel Eddy.

References:
Organic Trade Association. 2006. Manufacturer Survey. Category and growth estimate derived from survey responses. Nutrition Business Journal. (Primary Source: Organic Trade Association, www.ota.com)

Pachamuthu, P., and K. Willingham. 2007. Western Exterminator Company’s Experience with Biorational Products (Green Pest Management). Pest Control Technology. October Issue: 64-66.

Both authors are with Western Exterminator Company, Anaheim, Calif. Dr. Pari Pachamuthu, B.C.E., is a regional entomologist and Keith Willingham, B.C.E., is vice president of technical services.