Corporate & Business · NPO & Social Impact · Fleet & Logistics
Compare the requirement before you compare the subscription
The fleet split almost evenly between vehicles still committed and vehicles already out of term, which made a single price-per-vehicle comparison meaningless. Underneath sat a stack: fleet-management subscriptions, backup devices and extended warranty, each with a different purpose.
- 81.7%
- negotiated cut in exit liability
- 43.6%
- best like-for-like, modelled
- 73.9%
- if the need is recovery only, modelled
- 100%
- of flagged warranty charges acknowledged
Proof context: A field fleet split almost evenly between committed and out-of-term vehicles
The situation
Bought once, then left running in the background
Vehicle tracking is typically procured once and allowed to run. Over time the fleet changes, contracts expire at different points, extra devices and warranties accumulate, escalation structures build up, and the organisation ends up paying for fleet-management functionality it does not actively use.
The audited fleet was split almost evenly: 45.8% of vehicles still carried contractual exposure, 54.2% were already outside their original term. A single price-per-vehicle comparison across that split would have been meaningless.
The baseline
Not one tracking charge, but a stack
Scroll table sideways →
| Component | Share of recurring baseline | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Core fleet-management service | 80.1% | The dominant block — so functionality and actual utilisation matter materially. |
| Primary backup / secondary tracking | 9.8% | A meaningful secondary cost, to be tested against recovery and insurance requirements. |
| Extended warranty | 9.5% | Large enough to justify contract-by-contract validation rather than being treated as incidental. |
| Additional backup on selected vehicles | 0.6% | Small in aggregate, but useful evidence of product layering across the fleet. |
The move that changed the economics
The real obstacle was not price. It was the remaining liability attached to the committed vehicles, which made switching look impossible.
KuTh negotiated a settlement at about 18.3% of the modelled remaining liability — an 81.7% reduction in the exposure used for the business case. That converted an immovable barrier into a transparent switching cost that could sit inside the supplier comparison.
Results
Two specifications, deliberately priced separately
Scroll table sideways →
| Scenario | Reduction against baseline | Commercial meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Incumbent, broader feature set | 8.3% | Renegotiation improved pricing without changing provider, but retained a relatively costly service structure. |
| Alternative, broader feature set | 43.6% | The strongest like-for-like market-tested reduction. |
| Second alternative, broader feature set | 32.3% | The next full-service option tested. |
| Incumbent, recovery only | 28.9% | Rightsizing alone created a substantial reduction, before any change of provider. |
| Alternative, recovery only | 62.6% | A reduced specification with a different provider. |
| Strongest, recovery only | 73.9% | The largest modelled reduction — and a materially different service. |
Every recurring reduction above is quoted or modelled. The pack documents quotations and negotiation outcomes, not final implementation evidence, so none is presented as a realised saving.
43.6% and 73.9% answer different questions
The first asks what the current bundle costs elsewhere. The second asks what the organisation actually needs, if the genuine requirement is primarily stolen-vehicle recovery.
They are different solutions to different operational requirements, not a range of estimates for one decision. Running both prevented a full-featured bundle from becoming the automatic benchmark simply because it was the incumbent configuration.
The warranty findings
Two problems that look alike and are not
An exception schedule identified extended-warranty charges continuing beyond the relevant contract end on nine vehicles. The supplier confirmed the detailed credit breakdown and submitted it for internal approval. On that schedule, 100% of the quantified post-contract charges were acknowledged for credit processing.
A second finding looked similar and was not. Extended-warranty charges were being levied during periods when manufacturer warranty would ordinarily still exist. The commercial concern was valid, but the contract position did not support treating the full amount as recoverable.
An inefficient charge is not automatically an overcharge. One of these produced a credit; the other produced an argument for changing the specification at renewal.
The KuTh principle stated in the pack
Do not compare tracker prices until you have compared the requirement, the contract position and the full switching economics.
A cheaper device can still be the wrong solution, and an apparently expensive contract can sometimes be made commercially movable through negotiation. Where location and driver information may constitute personal information, the commercial decision also has to sit alongside clear access, security, purpose and retention controls.
Supporting documents