City of Richmond Water Metering Contract Renewal…..or not??

Should Neptune extend the contract?
Pro’s
 Spread the initial start up costs  Maintain a hold in the market.  Opportunity to build on existing competencies.  Strengthen and enhance the relationship with the City which could lead to referrals  Avoid cost of shut down and new RFP.  Experience developing customer relations would otherwise be lost.  Opportunity to pursue other service support roles.  Opportunity to renegotiate some conditions but not cost.

Con’s
 Lose Revenue and Contract  Generally low operating profit of $28 equivalent per volunteer (2007) from the program.  Potential for profit to lower if marketing and advertising costs increase.  Incur cost from shutting down the business.

2

Analysis of Neptune’s Initial 2005‐2007 Approach:
INTERNAL (micro environment ‐ 5 C’s)
STRENGTHS: • Gaining competence and credibility in meter installation and servicing • Strong Customer Relationship Record being established • 20% of the target market already adopted the new system • Development of a direct channel to the customer

EXTERNAL (macro environment ‐ PEST)
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES • Capitalize on the awareness peaks in Feb/March. • Endorsement and support from the growing sustainability movement. • Investigate new social technologies to 'spread the word' • No media aimed specifically at the ‘kids’ target market • Not taking advantage of the ‘kids' target market to convey the 'save water' message at home. • Presenting the emotional tie to the product, as an opportunity to ‘make a difference’ – empowering the water user. • Endorsement from local environmental lobbyist groups.

POSITIVE

WEAKNESSES: • Neptune chose to focus on only 15% of the Richmond population – target market may have been too narrow. • No agreed target for volunteer