Guy,
Your poll will probaly reveal the same results of an article I read in the Jrn. of Arb. years ago which was surprising to me considering the source. Removals account for approx. 60% of gross inc., followed by pruning 30%, 10% of gross from tree care .
That !0% figure raised my eye brows as we seem put the most effort into promoting ourselves as being tree preservationists. But in reality it seems to be one the one thing we do the least and brings in the least amout of gross dollars. Ironic to say the least.
That article appeared at a time when I really gearing toward tree care in our area, in an attempt to seperate myself from the crowd. The results of my efforts were on the disappointing side. It seems the consumer view of tree care is far removed from ours, and ends when you shut off your saw.
Removals add to the gross big time, it is also the easiest thing to do when you have employees. On the other side of the coin it is the least profitable operation when you view the total picture.
Pruning IMO generates the most profitable bottom line, over the long run. The skills needed are more technical and reflect a more professional image. The customer sees a dollar value for the money spent. The tree remains in the landscape to be serviced again at a future date. Pruning a tree on a cycle will result in better profitable dollars than a one time removal.
Controlling insects and diseases can be profitable, if you gear yourself to this niche market. I could never make it work because of the timing involved, lack of a good client base in our area and a plain reluctance of people to act before it is to late to do any thing for suffering trees.
