How Low Can You Go?

A low-impact approach to pest management is not a new concept. Doing more with less accurately describes our industry’s evolution. Yes, our environmental impact has reduced over time, but what does the next generation of residential service look like as we prepare for increased restrictions from the regulatory or legislative arenas?

A research project in California seeks to answer this question. The Pest Management Alliance Project (funded by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation) is currently testing the efficacy of low-impact treatments so PMPs can adopt them with confidence. UC Riverside urban entomology researchers Dr. Dong-Hwan Choe, Dr. Chow-Yang Lee and Dr. Michael Rust are collaborating with product manufacturers and pest management companies to test commercially available products for ant control. The research aims to reduce the amount of pesticide applications to control ant populations, a pest contributing to a high volume of callbacks for most PMPs.

As a member of a service company partnering in the Alliance project, here are three key takeaways I’ve learned so far that can help you improve your service quality at your company.

USE NARROW-SPECTRUM PRODUCTS. Some of the most innovative products to hit the market in recent years are extremely specialized for certain pests. Though these materials may not boast a broad-spectrum label, their impact on customer satisfaction can be significant depending on your region’s unique pest pressure.

At face value, one may look at a product like a pheromone adjuvant and write it off, thinking, “Our customers don’t pay for Argentine ant control, they pay for pest control! Why focus so much on one pest when our service agreements cover a whole host of invaders?”

It is a fair question, but our initial findings show that that conclusion may be misguided. As part of our initial trial within the Alliance, we split a Southern California technician’s route with half low-impact adjuvant treatments and half conventional services. We saw a three-fold difference in callbacks, with the low-impact protocol accounts coming in on top. The difference? A strategically timed application featuring a pheromone adjuvant to draw Argentine ants to the treatment area.

Instead of thinking, “Why would I invest in a material targeted for just one pest?” perhaps we should say, “Wow! Focusing on a major pest had a significant impact on my service quality and callback percentage.”

FOLLOW THE 80/20 RULE. Some service protocols instruct technicians to apply the material in consistent bands as a preventive measure for crawling pests on the exterior, keeping callbacks at bay until the next service. This blanket approach is simple for new technicians to understand and easy to apply to a variety of residential homes, but it is not in line with the principle of performing an inspection and assessment-based service.

We all are familiar with the Pareto principle, which states that roughly 80 percent of consequences come from 20 percent of causes. Applying this concept to a residential service, it is safe to say that a majority of the material applied around a home is placed in a subpar spot or degrades from the elements and may never have the chance to come in contact with a pest. This blanket approach is also our security blanket — why change it, reduce the coverage and risk an uptick in callbacks?

We must apply the Pareto principle for low-impact treatments and become extremely deliberate about product placement to maximize success and improve our stewardship. This goes beyond the basics — we already know pests will be in areas that provide harborage, moisture and a food source. Choe has collected data to determine which interfaces have the greatest chance of delivering our materials to a pest. For example, does lawn to concrete, mulch to concrete or soil to concrete interface with more ant activities? These findings will help to provide much greater specificity to technicians in a service protocol beyond a general directive to make applications based on inspection.

Though all technicians should use materials based on inspection, directing a large workforce to apply materials based on inspection relies on the human eye, which is tough to control at scale. These key learnings can provide us with actionable information to fine-tune our service protocols with clarity.

CHALLENGE YOUR TECHNICIANS. The critical thinking process in the technician’s mind is an essential aspect of achieving success with low-impact treatments. So, how do we elevate this level of critical thinking in our field staff today?

You don’t need to be a partner in a research project to apply these concepts in your company. Take a technician who is a self-proclaimed “bug nerd” and give them a challenge. How targeted can they become in their approach to serving their residential customers this season? Run a contest in your branch with the theme “How Low Can You Go,” incentivizing technicians to do more with less material. With laser-sharp focus and precise product placement, how little material can be used on a property while still providing excellent service? We prioritize route efficiency and production to our technicians, so we should provide an incentive for providing a high-quality, low-impact service, too.

Speaking personally as a director of quality assurance, rarely is my guidance to our field staff to “do less” to better serve our customers. While counterintuitive, this direction is necessary to prepare for navigating the long road of regulatory and legislative challenges ahead. This isn’t cutting corners; it’s cutting down on unnecessary placements of materials we know we’ll have to use sparingly in the future.

So, how low can you go?

Blair Smith is director of technical and quality assurance for Clark Pest Control in Lodi, Calif. She is the public relations chair for the Pest Control Operators of California and serves on the organization’s regulatory and legislative committees. Smith is also a member of the Urban Pest Management Technical Committee (upmtc.org).