In addition to Dragongeeks existing answer, Electron has a couple of advantages in design when it comes to achieving launch on demand.
The cost per vehicle is relatively low - easier for a customer to justify paying to keep a rocket on standby.
The rockets are physically smaller, and integrate horizontally so it is feasible to keep a stack assembled and ready to go in a non absurd building. In addition it looks like the actual ganitary/TEL supports moving fully assembled rockets around.
The smaller vehicle size mean the support buildings are closer (see video) so easier to quickly traverse from assembly building to the pad.
Not trying to recover first stages means they can be less fussy on weather (and getting a recovery ship into place).
The electric pumps and electric vectoring reduce the consumables (hydraulic fluid, monoprops, hypergolic starters) to be either loaded at launch or left in the assembled rocket (and therefore need servicing).
Similarly a turbo pump motor can only be tested 'hot' on a test stand with propellants running through it, the electric pumps and actuators can be run up indoors which is quicker and easier on maintain on standby basis. The mechanically simpler motor may also be easier to preserve for storage and de mothball for flight.
The electric pumps should in theory also offer better odds of a launch once ignition sequence started since they can have more certainty the all 18 pumps on the first stage will in fact spin up on demand unlike the more complicated turbopump step up sequence.
The mission profile of one satellite per rocket, rather than SpaceX rideshare arrangement is why the wording about precise delivery. Your payload is not waiting until every other one on the launch is ready, and can be directly inserted into the target orbit rather than one that suits all involved payloads and then have to adjust into final orbit over one or more days.
The slightly cynical answer is that the PR team knew they could not compete on price so came up with something else.