"We need to keep them on their toes ... or keep them higher on their tyres," policy and resource planning committee chairman Michael Deaker said.
Councillors at Wednesday's committee meeting debated how to improve public bus services.
The services attract almost two complaints from the public every day.
"That is pretty awful," Cr Deaker said.
While the council could be compensated for missed runs as part of its contract, there was another course of action available, chief executive Graeme Martin said.
Whenever the council made a mistake it was reported in the media.
The power of public awareness could work for errant bus companies, he said.
Councillors discussed the merits of publicly highlighting poor performance or whether it would merely portray the services in a bad light.
Citibus Ltd general manager Tony Collins said a move to name and shame companies would not work, as there were only two bus companies contracted to supply the runs, and "people know who the companies are".
The council would be better to invest in real-time information to complement the bus company's global positioning system (GPS) devices, he said.
That way customers would know where a bus was and when it was scheduled to arrive at their stop.
"The technology is here," he said.
Dunedin Passenger Transport director Kayne Baas declined to comment.
Transport manager Dr Jane Turnbull said for the year ending June 30 there was an average of 6.6 missed trips a month, and "if we advertise a bus is going to run, we want it to run".
Considering the council contracted 4845 bus runs in the Dunedin area each week, the number of complaints and missed trips was "very low", but the aim was for none.
The council did not want to talk down the services and create a negative perception, particularly for casual users, as there was a high level of satisfaction with services.
The topic of missed trips had been raised with both companies, and they were aware of council's expectations for contracted services, she said.
However, rather than just not paying contractors for missed trips and reporting findings publicly every six weeks, council had asked staff to investigate the "name-and-shame route".
A report on the topic would be tabled at the next committee meeting.
