One Stop Cooling and Heating Market Research Package
1. Disclaimer: Confidential/sensitive information on the company should not be included in the
YES symposium presentation or the business research report produced by the YES student.
However, we realize that some mentors may still want to restrict publication of these
deliverables to the YES Website for a certain period or permanently, depending on the
materials presented about the company. YES students are required to get approval from the
mentor before submitting their presentations and business research papers. Presentations and
business research papers produced by YES students will be published publicly on the YES Web
site (yes.ucf.edu) unless otherwise notified in writing (by completing and submitting the
Entrepreneurship/Internship Showcase Authorization form on the Forms page at
http://yes.ucf.edu/new/?forms If notification is given that the presentation and/or business
paper should not be published publicly on the YES Website, it will be password-protected.
Title Page: A Market Analysis for One Stop Cooling and Heating, LLC.
By: Jose Valderrama
Date: Spring 2016
Mentor: Zack Boera, Commercial Manager
Market Research Package
Target Market Analysis
One Stop Cooling and Heating’s Target Consumer: Residential Homeowners and Commercial
establishments
Residential Homeowners
New construction installments
Maintenance and repair of systems
Commercial establishments
New construction installments
Range: Small business to large corporations
2. Market Demographics of Winter Park, FL
Figure 1: Population Numbers
Table
Source: Demographics Now Library Edition
Population for 2015
Population info 5 miles 25 miles 50 miles
Total Population 249,353 2,050,078 3,469,083
Female Population 50.3% 50.9% 51%
Male Population 49.6% 49% 49%
Population Density 3,175 1,044 441
Figure 1 shows the population characteristics 1,25,50 miles from One Stop
Figure 2: Age/Generation
Table
Source: Demographics Now Library Edition
Population by Age
2000 2010 2015
Age Range Census % Census % Estimates %
0 to 4 153,929 6.0% 185,974 5.7% 192,386 5.5%
5 to 14 346,962 13.5% 394,179 12.1% 413,776 11.9%
15 to 19 163,081 6.3% 224,069 6.9% 218,046 6.2%
20 to 24 156,824 6.1% 228,691 7.0% 248,420 7.1%
25 to 34 344,176 13.4% 407,453 12.6% 455,238 13.1%
35 to 44 421,034 16.4% 422,009 13.0% 435,060 12.5%
45 to 54 330,915 12.9% 469,460 14.5% 481,745 13.8%
55 to 64 241,567 9.4% 390,937 12.0% 431,508 12.4%
65 to 74 217,008 8.4% 283,880 8.7% 337,361 9.7%
75 to 84 138,559 5.4% 166,924 5.1% 183,887 5.3%
85+ 40,746 1.5% 60,080 1.8% 71,652 2.0%
Figure 3: Race/Ethnicity
Table
Source: Demographics Now Library Edition
Race and Ethnicity Population Percentage
American Indian or
Alaska Native
0.3% 0.4% 0.4%
Asian 4.3% 4.4% 3.3%
Black 8.6% 17.1% 14.9%
Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Multiracial 3.3% 3.6% 3.1%
Other Race 5.6% 6.7% 5.5%
White 77.4% 67.5% 72.4%
Hispanic 27.1% 29.0% 23.0%
Non-Hispanic 72.7% 70.9% 76.9%
3. Figure 4: Socio-Economic Levels
Table
Source: Demographics Now Library Edition
Blue Collar vs White Collar Employment Percentage
2000 2010 2015
Census % Census % Estimates %
Blue Collar 443,954 37.4% 556,007 38.6% 625,940 38.7%
White Collar 741,208 62.5% 881,224 61.3% 989,295 61.2%
Figure 5: Marital Statuses
Table
Source: Demographics Now Library Edition
Marital Status
2000 2010 2015
Census % Census % Estimates %
Married,
Spouse
Present
1,072,368 52.2% 1,219,992 45.9% 1,294,491 45.2%
Married,
Spouse
Absent
106,027 5.1% 136,315 5.1% 144,228 5.0%
Divorced 233,921 11.3% 320,946 12.0% 355,130 12.4%
Widowed 142,875 6.9% 164,448 6.2% 179,055 6.2%
Never
Married
498,078 24.2% 811,806 30.5% 890,017 31.0%
Figure 6: Household Size and Structure
Table
Source: Demographics Now Library Edition
Household Status
2000 2010 2015
Size of
Household
Census % Census % Estimates %
1 Person 245,715 24.6% 318,112 25.3% 340,812 25.3%
2 Person 368,852 36.9% 453,675 36.1% 485,892 36.1%
3 Person 161,414 16.1% 202,223 16.1% 216,415 16.0%
4 Person 130,807 13.0% 159,874 12.7% 171,829 12.7%
5 Person 57,971 5.8% 74,250 5.9% 79,727 5.9%
6 Person 22,175 2.2% 29,337 2.3% 31,448 2.3%
7 + Person 11,648 1.1% 18,346 1.4% 19,576 1.4%
Average 2.50 2.52 2.52
5. Figure 8: Occupations
Table
Source: Demographics Now Library Edition
Employment by Occupation: Sorted Descending By Percent
Occupation Percent Occupation Percent
Office and administrative
support occupations
15.8% Healthcare support
occupations
1.6%
Sales and related
occupations
13.2% Architects surveyors
cartographers and
engineers
1.5%
Management occupations
except farmers and farm
managers
9.1% Health technologists and
technicians
1.4%
Food preparation and
serving related occupations
6.3% Community and social
services occupations
1.2%
Construction trades workers 5.3% Firefighting and law
enforcement
1.1%
Production occupations 5.0% Other protective service
workers including
supervisors
0.9%
Education training and
library occupations
4.5% Legal occupations 0.9%
Building and grounds
cleaning and maintenance
4.2% Supervisors construction
and extraction workers
0.8%
Installation maintenance
and repair occupations
3.9% Drafters engineering and
mapping technicians
0.7%
Motor vehicle operators 3.1% Farming fishing and
forestry occupations
0.6%
Personal care and service
occupations
3.0% Life physical and social
science occupations
0.5%
Health diag and treating
practitioners and technical
2.9% Rail water and other
transportation
occupations
0.2%
Arts design entertainment
sports and media
occupations
2.2% Supervisors
transportation and
material moving workers
0.2%
Computer and mathematical
occupations
2.1% Aircraft and traffic
control occupations
0.2%
Business operations
specialists
2.1% Farmers and farm
managers
0.1%
Material moving workers 2.0% Extraction workers 0.0%
Financial specialists 1.9%
Figure 9: Consumer Spending
Table
Source: Demographics Now Library Edition
Consumer Expenditure - Top Ten Categories 2015A Average Dollars
Shelter $9,298
Transportation $9,156
Food $6,009
Utilities $3,725
Health Care $3,359
Entertainment $2,083
Apparel $1,273
Household Furnishings and Equipment $1,043
Household Operations $905
Gifts $641
Figure 9 shows a summary of the estimated consumer expenditure report for 2015
6. Preferences of the Target Market:
Figure 1: Energy consumption in homes by end uses by percent
Table
Source: US Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey
In comparsion, US home energy use is no longer driven mainly by heating and cooling costs. Residential
Energy Consumption Survey, collected in 2010 and 2011, show that energy consumption is down by 10%
Space Heating
53%
Air Conditioning
5%
Water Heating
18%
Appliances,
electronics and
lighting
24%
1993 ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN HOMES BY
END USE
Space Heating
41%
Air Conditioning
6%
Water Heating
18%
Appliances,
electronics and
lighting
35%
2009 ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN HOMES BY
END USE
7. Figure 2: Most Trusted HVAC Brands
Table
Source: Lifestory Research 2015 America’s Most Trusted
Lifestory Research 2015 America’s Most Trusted HVAC System Brands
Rank HVAC Brand Index Score
1 Trane 122.5
2 Carrier 113.5
3 Whirlpool 113.3
4 Rheem 108.6
5 Lennox 107.2
6 York 101.6
7 Bryant 100.7
8 Rudd 98.3
9 American Standard 97.9
10 Heil 96.1
11 Mitsubishi Electronics 96.0
12 Goodman 94.0
13 Payne 93.2
14 Viega 91.9
15 Climate Master 91.6
16 Daikin 88.5
One Stop holds some of the most trusted HVAC brands in the US.
8. Figure 3: Central A/C System Repairs
Table
Source: Evergreen State Heat & AC: 2014 Consumer Report Ratings on HVAC
9. Product Mix
Within the HVAC industry, the bulk of services lies in new construction. Maintenance and repairs also
drives the industry for companies like One Stop Cooling and Heating.
Product Mix by Percentage of Sales:
Analysis
HVAC installations are expected to account for about 64% of industry revenue in 2016. In the next five
years, the number of installations is expected to continue rising on the back of accelerating construction
market.
Source: IBISWorld
10. Bargaining Power of Buyers
Key: 1 = Low; 5 = High
Score Parameter
0
Backwards Integration: If buyers (particularly in business to business selling)
possess a credible backwards integration threat, their bargaining power
increases. These buyers can threaten to buy producing firms or rivals.
5
Buyer Independence: If the buyer does not need the firm to provide them with
the product they are seeking, and if the buyer can go to another firm in the
industry to obtain the same product, the buyer is considered independent, and
the bargaining power of the buyer increases.
0
Buyer Size: If buyers are fragmented—where there are many, small buyers—no
buyer has any particular influence on products or prices. When the buyers are
small and numerous, their bargaining power decreases. Alternatively, if buyers
are concentrated—few buyers but with significant market share—their
bargaining power increases.
3
Financial Muscle: If the buyer has considerable financial influence, the
bargaining power of the buyer increases. This can be the financial strength of
the individual buyer, or the strength of the market as a whole.
5
Low-Cost Switching: If the switching costs are not significant, buyer bargaining
power increases. When there are significant switching costs, the products are
generally not standardized and the buyer cannot easily switch to another
product.
0
Oligopoly Threat: An oligopoly is a market form in which the number of buyers
is small (and are often individually large and powerful) while the number of
sellers in theory could be large. Because the buyers have the advantage of
being able to play one firm against another, the bargaining power of buyers
increases.
3
Price Sensitivity: When buyers are highly price sensitive, they tend to purchase
only from those firms who can provide the lowest price. This increases
bargaining power, as in order to keep the business of these buyers, firms must
compete intensely on price.
2
Product Dispensability: When the product a firm sells to the buyers is not a
necessity for the buyers, the bargaining power of buyers increases. If the
product is not vital to the buyers, they have the choice to go without it if the
firm does not meet their demands.
3
Tendency to Switch: As with the low cost of switching, a high tendency for
buyers to switch leads to an increase in bargaining power. The ability to go
from one firm to another gives the buyer power of choice.
2
Undifferentiated Product: When a product is standardized, the buyer can easily
obtain the product from any firm, increasing the bargaining power of buyers.
Source: MarketLine/DataMonitor, Quick MBA & Purdue University Agriculture Innovation &
Commercialization Center
11. Analysis
There are numerous buyers present within this market, including a large number of individual customers
with little financial muscle. For these buyers, household appliances are generally important purchases.
Greater deliberation usually occurs over more expensive items, such as refrigeration and washing
appliances, while cheaper items such as microwaves and toasters are usually bought with lesser
expectation in terms of life cycle. Buyers expect more expensive appliances to have longer lifespans to
avoid the need to purchase them frequently. Consumers focus on efficiency and quality as well as cost.
Such deliberation increases buyer power as it forces retailers to consider the relevant sensitivities of
buyers in terms of price and quality.
Although brand awareness within the market is high, customer loyalty to specific brands is low. This is
particularly true for cheaper appliances like toasters, with consumers enjoying a wide variety of choice.
Loyalty towards retailers is usually a less significant factor and most buyers are likely to compare offers
available from different sellers before a purchasing decision is made. While switching costs are low;
maintaining a degree of freedom for buyers, product differentiation is fairly high; alleviating this effect to
some extent. Additionally, retailers try to retain customers and attract new ones with additional services
such as extended guarantees, free repairs and loyalty programs. Overall, buyer power is moderate.
Acknowledgment
Partial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation Scholarships in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM) program under Award No. 0806931. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Partial support for this work was
also provided by the United States Department of Labor, the State of Florida, and the UCF Office of
Research and Commercialization.
