The Trap‑Alert™ System Pilot Program Case Studies

I. Summary

New Frequency, Inc. introduced beta test units to a select group of NWCOA leaders in Charlotte, NC in January of 2010 and created an online questionnaire to solicit feedback on the product and its practical applications within the trapping industry. New Frequency received over 10 applications to participate in the pilot program. Of that, 3 companies were selected and the Trap‑Alert™ unit, the Trap‑Alert™ system web site, sensors and mounting brackets were modified based on feedback from the questionnaire. The pilot test units were made available in the early Fall of 2010 and the pilot companies began testing our units.

One of our pilot companies in the Mid-Atlantic region used the device as a maintenance plan for their residential customers after animal exclusion was performed. The pilot company would attempt to locate the animal and point of entry into the home and patch the area. They would then tell the home owner they could visually inspect, daily, over the next 2 weeks to verify removal and to make sure that no additional animals had remained in the home or had come back in through a different location. They gave the homeowner 2 options: (a) to have the tech come by every morning to inspect the trap(s); or (b) the homeowner could pay a $100.00 convenience fee to leave the trap(s) remotely monitored for up to 2 weeks to verify a positive result. In all cases, the trap(s) checked-in daily, and when an animal was caught, the techs received a notification and promptly communicated with the customer and scheduled a time to remove the animal. In addition, the pilot customer also gave their customer/homeowner the option of receiving the e-mail or text notification when an animal was trapped. Some homeowners used this feature while others let the tech manage the process.

II. Pilot Summary Statistics

• New Frequency's pilot was based on 3 test companies in 3 different states for 90 days.
• The Trap‑Alert™ units were used both indoors and outdoors.
• Types of traps device was attached to: rat, small squirrel, large squirrel, chipmunk, raccoon, bird and hog.
• Animals actually caught: raccoons, hogs, chipmunks, flying squirrel, gray squirrel, and rats.
• Pilot company's customers' response to using a monitored system was always positive.
• Pilot company's customers indicated they would use the service again because the trap was monitored and it reported daily.
• Pilot company indicated that use of monitored units would allow them to sell more jobs and expand their geographic service territory.
• Customers were more than willing to pay an additional convenience fee to avoid daily visual inspections.
• Average convenience fee: $100.00 per job.
• Average length of job: 11 days.
• Average number of avoided daily inspections: 9 days.
• Average number of avoided miles per job: 297 miles (33 miles per day).
• Average number of man hours avoided per job: 9.5 man hours per job.

III. Bottom Line Value

Of the 3 pilot companies, there were 2 different strategies implemented as described below, resulting in the following cost/benefit illustrations:

Scenario 1

We analyzed a short round trip to a customer's site with the average job being 10 days; one with an additional convenience fee and one without.

The short round trip was based on a 30 mile trip to and from the customer site and a total job length of 10 days and 8 avoided trips. In this case, on a 12 month basis only using the device 10 days a month, the customer would have recovered their cost of both the unit and the web subscription over a 12 month period averaging an additional savings of $71.00 per job/per month.

For one pilot customer, they were also able to charge an additional $100.00 per job for a convenience fee resulting in additional $170.92 per job/ per month. In the cases where they were able to use the device on 2 jobs per month, the monthly savings rose to $219 per 2 jobs/ per month or an average of $110.00 per job.

Scenario 2

We also analyzed an average round trip to a customer's site with the average job being 10 days; one with a convenience fee and one without.

The average round trip was based on a 50 mile trip to and from customer site and a total job length of 10 days and 8 avoided trips. In this case on a 12 month basis only using the device 10 days a month, the customer would have recovered their cost of both the unit and the web subscription over a 12 month period and averaging an additional savings of $136.00 per job/per month.

For one pilot company, they were also able to charge an additional $100.00 per job for a convenience fee resulting in additional $236.00 per job/per month. In the cases where they were able to use the device on 2 jobs per month, the monthly savings rose to $349.00 per 2 jobs/ per month or an average of $175.00 per job.

IV. Conclusion

Using the Trap‑Alert™ system only 1/3rd of the month (10 days) on average can save your business approximately $104.00 per unit/ per month if used 12 months a year based on the above scenarios. When used more often, the savings should double and in some cases may even triple! Our other pilot companies who did not charge a convenience fee felt that based on their customers' feedback they could have charged such a fee, and after demonstrating the Trap‑Alert™ system capabilities they could in the future move in this direction. The pilot customers believed that the use of the Trap‑Alert™ system provided a major advantage in closing the sale and ensuring future customer retention.