Just about everyone in the business has repeatedly heard and read that the average shopper visits only 1.3 dealerships before buying a vehicle. It’s been repeated in countless articles and at nearly every automotive marketing conference. That statistic is false, it was always false, and it remains false. New research released by J.D. Power and Associates again debunks this myth. J.D. Power also put out information in 2011 which contradicted this myth, but few wanted to hear it. Here is the link to the entire story and a complete understanding of what the actual data means, http://www.dealereprocess.com/1-point-3-dealer-myth-destroyed/

Having the facts right does not diminish the importance of the internet. Just getting shoppers to the store is still not enough. Great websites meet the information needs of shoppers, bring them to the store more ready to buy, and provide full content on mobile devices to meet shopper needs within the store. In the modern buying cycle, websites never stop working.

Just about everyone in the business has repeatedly heard and read that the average shopper visits only 1.3 dealerships before buying a vehicle. It’s been repeated in countless articles and at nearly every automotive marketing conference. That statistic is false, it was always false, and it remains false. New research released by J.D. Power and Associates again debunks this myth. J.D. Power also put out information in 2011 which contradicted this myth, but few wanted to hear it. Here is the link to the entire story and a complete understanding of what the actual data means, http://www.dealereprocess.com/1-point-3-dealer-myth-destroyed/

Having the facts right does not diminish the importance of the internet. Just getting shoppers to the store is still not enough. Great websites meet the information needs of shoppers, bring them to the store more ready to buy, and provide full content on mobile devices to meet shopper needs within the store. In the modern buying cycle, websites never stop working.

Recently, an article emerged stating that all optional fields should be eliminated from lead forms. This, according to the article, is a primary issue impacting conversion. That kind of information can be dangerous for dealers, so I’d like to provide a more holistic view of optional fields in lead forms.

To start with, you don’t have a problem with your lead forms as long as the completion rate is high. Completion rate is a function of how much the shopper wants the information and what they need to do to get it.

Lead Form Entry Rate X Lead Form Completion Rate = Email Lead Form Conversion

Dealerships need to balance their desire for more information with their need to maximize website conversion. Maximizing the creation of sales opportunities is the objective dealers are most focused on. This is why top-rated website providers allow the dealer total control over their lead forms, both what is optional vs. required and which fields are shown or not shown.

Email Lead Forms X Appointment Rate X Appointment Show Rate = Sales Opportunities

Here are a few reasons you might opt for additional information fields:

• A dealer producing more leads than can be properly handled at the time may want to have the leads scrubbed and/or scored to know which leads should definitely not be overlooked. Of course, the long-term answer is more capacity to handle leads, but it’s hard to do that quickly. The short-term answer is to include the information needed to have these automated processes performed.
• The additional information may be improving lead handling. Before responding to the lead, it can be very helpful to know if the customer lives down the street or 100 miles away. Don’t just A/B test to maximize the immediate dependent variable (form completion rate or conversion rate). Test to be sure the impact on appointment set rates and appointment shown rates are also considered. You may obtain more sales opportunities asking for the additional information.
• Getting the customer to contribute more information may cause them to have a greater investment in the lead submission. An old sales trick was to ask the customer if you can borrow a pen or pencil. (There was a time when carrying one was normal.) It was a little thing that increased the customer’s investment in the relationship. Most people naturally avoid those they owe something to and stay close to those who owe them something in return. In an electronic world, asking for a few more fields of information may be the modern equivalent of asking for a pencil. You don’t need to guess at this. Test, as discussed in the previous bullet point.
• The additional information may later add to your ability to communicate carefully targeted messages based on information in your CRM. If you don’t ask for a mailing address, you can’t mail. That is not at all important to some stores in some communities, but it is very important to others.

Whatever your situation is today, reconsideration may be justified in the future. The most powerful variable is how badly the shopper wants the vehicle, the information, and the relationship. Giving the shopper more information, and better navigation to find that information, helps turbocharge their desire and their corresponding willingness to provide additional information.

Understand what works on your own site for your unique store in your unique community. Secondary research can be directional, but it is generally not proof of how you should run your store. When you do use secondary research, be sure you fully understand it and its implications. The article I mentioned in the beginning was based on secondary information.  They mistakenly thought because Expedia’s A/B test showed a profit by eliminating the optional “company” field from one of their forms meant that auto dealers should eliminate all optional fields.

An article on the Expedia test shows why the “company” field was a problem:

• When visitors see the “Company” field, they were confused.
• Visitors thought Expedia meant they should put in their Bank name.
• Users then put their Bank’s address into the billing fields.
• This led to failed transactions, which led to abandons.

Clearly, we don’t have these problems with lead forms. We don’t ask for confusing things like “company”. This research cannot be applied to asking shoppers for their address or asking them if they’d like to include any comments.

Be sure you have control over your website and be sure you use that control based on sound research rather than rash predictions from desperate vendors. As a wise man once said, “Beware of false prophets.

Recently, an article emerged stating that all optional fields should be eliminated from lead forms. This, according to the article, is a primary issue impacting conversion. That kind of information can be dangerous for dealers, so I’d like to provide a more holistic view of optional fields in lead forms.

To start with, you don’t have a problem with your lead forms as long as the completion rate is high. Completion rate is a function of how much the shopper wants the information and what they need to do to get it.

Lead Form Entry Rate X Lead Form Completion Rate = Email Lead Form Conversion

Dealerships need to balance their desire for more information with their need to maximize website conversion. Maximizing the creation of sales opportunities is the objective dealers are most focused on. This is why top-rated website providers allow the dealer total control over their lead forms, both what is optional vs. required and which fields are shown or not shown.

Email Lead Forms X Appointment Rate X Appointment Show Rate = Sales Opportunities

Here are a few reasons you might opt for additional information fields:

• A dealer producing more leads than can be properly handled at the time may want to have the leads scrubbed and/or scored to know which leads should definitely not be overlooked. Of course, the long-term answer is more capacity to handle leads, but it’s hard to do that quickly. The short-term answer is to include the information needed to have these automated processes performed.
• The additional information may be improving lead handling. Before responding to the lead, it can be very helpful to know if the customer lives down the street or 100 miles away. Don’t just A/B test to maximize the immediate dependent variable (form completion rate or conversion rate). Test to be sure the impact on appointment set rates and appointment shown rates are also considered. You may obtain more sales opportunities asking for the additional information.
• Getting the customer to contribute more information may cause them to have a greater investment in the lead submission. An old sales trick was to ask the customer if you can borrow a pen or pencil. (There was a time when carrying one was normal.) It was a little thing that increased the customer’s investment in the relationship. Most people naturally avoid those they owe something to and stay close to those who owe them something in return. In an electronic world, asking for a few more fields of information may be the modern equivalent of asking for a pencil. You don’t need to guess at this. Test, as discussed in the previous bullet point.
• The additional information may later add to your ability to communicate carefully targeted messages based on information in your CRM. If you don’t ask for a mailing address, you can’t mail. That is not at all important to some stores in some communities, but it is very important to others.

Whatever your situation is today, reconsideration may be justified in the future. The most powerful variable is how badly the shopper wants the vehicle, the information, and the relationship. Giving the shopper more information, and better navigation to find that information, helps turbocharge their desire and their corresponding willingness to provide additional information.

Understand what works on your own site for your unique store in your unique community. Secondary research can be directional, but it is generally not proof of how you should run your store. When you do use secondary research, be sure you fully understand it and its implications. The article I mentioned in the beginning was based on secondary information.  They mistakenly thought because Expedia’s A/B test showed a profit by eliminating the optional “company” field from one of their forms meant that auto dealers should eliminate all optional fields.

An article on the Expedia test shows why the “company” field was a problem:

• When visitors see the “Company” field, they were confused.
• Visitors thought Expedia meant they should put in their Bank name.
• Users then put their Bank’s address into the billing fields.
• This led to failed transactions, which led to abandons.

Clearly, we don’t have these problems with lead forms. We don’t ask for confusing things like “company”. This research cannot be applied to asking shoppers for their address or asking them if they’d like to include any comments.

Be sure you have control over your website and be sure you use that control based on sound research rather than rash predictions from desperate vendors. As a wise man once said, “Beware of false prophets.

A recent debate is causing quite a stir in automotive retail. Manufacturers and dealers alike are weighing in, and industry trainers are certainly not without their opinions. Just what is the optimal time it should take to sell a vehicle?

A growing camp insists it takes too long to sell a vehicle and customer satisfaction is suffering for it. If this is true, real money is at stake. Many dealers make more money servicing vehicles than selling them. Losing the opportunity to get that future service business is a stiff price to pay for upsetting the customer, not to mention the prospect of future sales and the sales that could come from advocacy and referrals.

Another group argues close rates improve as the time spent with the customer increases. In their view, spending less time with the customer will cost the store in vehicle sales, and they think they have the data to back it up. According to a recent Automotive News article, famed sales trainer, Joe Verde, claims his data shows the following:

Those involved in the debate are good people with good reputations, and there is a lot of money riding on the answer. Nonetheless, it brings to mind the famed quote about the three levels of falsehood, “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Not all customers arrive at the store with equal intent to buy, not all stores have the same policies, and not all salespeople have the same skill or even intentions when handling these opportunities. I’ll explore these differences and show how they twist the numbers.

Correlation is often confused with causation. Looking at those who spend less than 60 minutes with the sales person, did so few of them close because of the amount of time spent with the customer, or was the time spent with the customer cut short because they were not going to close? Maybe the store didn’t have the right vehicle, maybe the chemistry between the salesperson and the customer was not good, or any number of things from affordability to the desire to trade cars in the first place was not in alignment. For lots of people, this gets determined in less than 60 minutes. If the salespeople could have found a way to get this same group of shoppers to stay to 100 minutes would another 51% of them have closed? No chance.

Of those who spent more than 100 minutes with the salesperson and bought a vehicle, how many of those bought a vehicle because of the time spent and how many of them spent the time because they deeply desired the vehicle and spending that time was the only way to get it? There is no doubt some shoppers require more than 100 minutes with the salesperson in order to make up their minds and do the deal. Trying to force everyone to buy in less than an hour would certainly cost some sales. Many of those who advocate a shorter sales process, like leading sales trainer Grant Cardone, acknowledge you must spend the extra time with those who want or need it. There is also no doubt many shoppers who buy in a long sales process would rather have done so in less time.

Cardone says he has data showing the longer the sales process the less money you make. Again, a simple correlation may be misleading. Customers who are intense negotiators may take longer on average. If that’s the case, these shoppers both add to the pool of long sales processes and reduce the average gross from that pool with skinnier deals.

In reading comments from consumers online, there is clearly a segment of shoppers who want a shorter shopping process. There is a segment of shoppers who even think the reason it takes so long is because the salespeople, managers, and F&I department are focused exclusively on grinding the customer to maximize commissions and don’t give a hoot about the satisfaction of a customer they probably won’t sell to again for years.

While this may not be the experience at your store, it remains the reality at some stores, and shoppers know it. This dissatisfaction is not just with the length of the sales process but with the process itself. There is no way to eliminate it without eliminating the cause of it, and that’s hard to do. How do you motivate based on gross profit while keeping the process short if salespeople are successful at using time as a negotiating tool? It will be tough to hold salespeople to any process if they can, or think they can, make more money by going outside the process. In my view, that is the bigger debate and the reason our industry so desperately needs training for sales and training for sales management.

A sales process that provides shorter times for shoppers who want it and lots of attention for shoppers who need it is a worthy objective. Achieving it will not be fast or easy. Clouding the issue with poorly analyzed data is not going to help the problem. I’ve yet to see any data on this subject that controls for the shopper’s pre-arrival intent, the store’s policies, and the salesperson’s process. My hypothesis: each of these variables has more influence on close rates, gross, and customer satisfaction than the variable being studied, length of sales process. Without controlling for these in the research, correlation analysis means little or nothing.

This post won't end the debate, and I welcome comments. But I hope this independent candor regarding the data helps get the discussion back onto a fruitful path.

A recent debate is causing quite a stir in automotive retail. Manufacturers and dealers alike are weighing in, and industry trainers are certainly not without their opinions. Just what is the optimal time it should take to sell a vehicle?

A growing camp insists it takes too long to sell a vehicle and customer satisfaction is suffering for it. If this is true, real money is at stake. Many dealers make more money servicing vehicles than selling them. Losing the opportunity to get that future service business is a stiff price to pay for upsetting the customer, not to mention the prospect of future sales and the sales that could come from advocacy and referrals.

Another group argues close rates improve as the time spent with the customer increases. In their view, spending less time with the customer will cost the store in vehicle sales, and they think they have the data to back it up. According to a recent Automotive News article, famed sales trainer, Joe Verde, claims his data shows the following:

Those involved in the debate are good people with good reputations, and there is a lot of money riding on the answer. Nonetheless, it brings to mind the famed quote about the three levels of falsehood, “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Not all customers arrive at the store with equal intent to buy, not all stores have the same policies, and not all salespeople have the same skill or even intentions when handling these opportunities. I’ll explore these differences and show how they twist the numbers.

Correlation is often confused with causation. Looking at those who spend less than 60 minutes with the sales person, did so few of them close because of the amount of time spent with the customer, or was the time spent with the customer cut short because they were not going to close? Maybe the store didn’t have the right vehicle, maybe the chemistry between the salesperson and the customer was not good, or any number of things from affordability to the desire to trade cars in the first place was not in alignment. For lots of people, this gets determined in less than 60 minutes. If the salespeople could have found a way to get this same group of shoppers to stay to 100 minutes would another 51% of them have closed? No chance.

Of those who spent more than 100 minutes with the salesperson and bought a vehicle, how many of those bought a vehicle because of the time spent and how many of them spent the time because they deeply desired the vehicle and spending that time was the only way to get it? There is no doubt some shoppers require more than 100 minutes with the salesperson in order to make up their minds and do the deal. Trying to force everyone to buy in less than an hour would certainly cost some sales. Many of those who advocate a shorter sales process, like leading sales trainer Grant Cardone, acknowledge you must spend the extra time with those who want or need it. There is also no doubt many shoppers who buy in a long sales process would rather have done so in less time.

Cardone says he has data showing the longer the sales process the less money you make. Again, a simple correlation may be misleading. Customers who are intense negotiators may take longer on average. If that’s the case, these shoppers both add to the pool of long sales processes and reduce the average gross from that pool with skinnier deals.

In reading comments from consumers online, there is clearly a segment of shoppers who want a shorter shopping process. There is a segment of shoppers who even think the reason it takes so long is because the salespeople, managers, and F&I department are focused exclusively on grinding the customer to maximize commissions and don’t give a hoot about the satisfaction of a customer they probably won’t sell to again for years.

While this may not be the experience at your store, it remains the reality at some stores, and shoppers know it. This dissatisfaction is not just with the length of the sales process but with the process itself. There is no way to eliminate it without eliminating the cause of it, and that’s hard to do. How do you motivate based on gross profit while keeping the process short if salespeople are successful at using time as a negotiating tool? It will be tough to hold salespeople to any process if they can, or think they can, make more money by going outside the process. In my view, that is the bigger debate and the reason our industry so desperately needs training for sales and training for sales management.

A sales process that provides shorter times for shoppers who want it and lots of attention for shoppers who need it is a worthy objective. Achieving it will not be fast or easy. Clouding the issue with poorly analyzed data is not going to help the problem. I’ve yet to see any data on this subject that controls for the shopper’s pre-arrival intent, the store’s policies, and the salesperson’s process. My hypothesis: each of these variables has more influence on close rates, gross, and customer satisfaction than the variable being studied, length of sales process. Without controlling for these in the research, correlation analysis means little or nothing.

This post won't end the debate, and I welcome comments. But I hope this independent candor regarding the data helps get the discussion back onto a fruitful path.

What is the best way for Honda dealers to capitalize on the new December incentive money offered by Honda?

1. Cut price and make additional profit through volume
2. Continue on with business as usual
3. Increase television and radio advertising to promote a sale
4. Focus communications on your customer base, particularly where the money can be used to help shoppers get financed
5. Increase digital marketing

Some shoppers are more price sensitive than others, and this translates into some vehicle categories being more price sensitive than others. If the inventory you need to move most is price sensitive, then this may be an option. However, cutting price does no good unless you tell people you did it. Now you have three costs to the campaign: 1) a lower gross on the new business received, 2) a lower gross on the business you would have received anyway 3) the cost of additional advertising to support the promotion. Keep in mind that there is a cap on the program of 20% over last December sales. If you go over 120% of last year’s unit sales, you may be giving a discount you don’t have incentive dollars to support. It is all too easy to sell at or above the targeted number of units without moving the profit needle, or even losing money.

A store that expects to be at or near this level without any change in pricing and promotions might wish to simply pocket the additional incentive. This is the position we strive to keep our Honda dealers in all year. In this position, one needs to keep a close eye on unit sales and competitor behavior. If other Honda dealers are trying to make their number by taking sales from you, then you need to be positioned to strike fast, even in the last week of the month.

This is the hardest time of the year to acquire sufficient TV and radio to achieve frequency, and it is the toughest time of the year to make a message stand out. Special offers seem to be the best attention grabbers, and that puts you right back into the problem of spending more on advertising and decreasing front-end gross per unit at the same time.

A store that really works its CRM will be able to identify deals that could have been made earlier if this money were available to assist customers who are upside down on their trade. However, one needs to be realistic about the ability to get those customers financed now. Some will already be thousands of dollars deeper in credit-card debt. This can be a good strategy for bringing a few additional deals into the incentive, but it probably won’t get a store into the money that was otherwise going to have a December 90% as big as last year. It’s a competitive month.

A digital campaign can instantly target a wide range of shoppers with incentives at a variety of levels. It can be dialed up or dialed down. This is ideal for targeting a small window, like 100% to 120% of last December’s sales. However, the devil is in the details. Getting more aggressive on digital marketing by only raising bid prices can be deadly, especially when others selling the brand are in the same boat. Those buying digital marketing via a custom approach, as opposed to the common automated approaches, have a huge leg up in their ability to add additional opportunities, rather than simply bid more for the same old thing.

The dealers who will gain the most from this incentive are the ones who have grown all year and would have made 120% of last December’s sales even without the additional funds. These programs don’t show up for every brand every year, but the dealers with good, steady, growth tend to be in the best position regardless of what the manufacturer does. I hope every dealer has a great December and enters 2014 ready to position themselves even better. Call if you need help, (518) 703-6109.

What is the best way for Honda dealers to capitalize on the new December incentive money offered by Honda?

1. Cut price and make additional profit through volume
2. Continue on with business as usual
3. Increase television and radio advertising to promote a sale
4. Focus communications on your customer base, particularly where the money can be used to help shoppers get financed
5. Increase digital marketing

Some shoppers are more price sensitive than others, and this translates into some vehicle categories being more price sensitive than others. If the inventory you need to move most is price sensitive, then this may be an option. However, cutting price does no good unless you tell people you did it. Now you have three costs to the campaign: 1) a lower gross on the new business received, 2) a lower gross on the business you would have received anyway 3) the cost of additional advertising to support the promotion. Keep in mind that there is a cap on the program of 20% over last December sales. If you go over 120% of last year’s unit sales, you may be giving a discount you don’t have incentive dollars to support. It is all too easy to sell at or above the targeted number of units without moving the profit needle, or even losing money.

A store that expects to be at or near this level without any change in pricing and promotions might wish to simply pocket the additional incentive. This is the position we strive to keep our Honda dealers in all year. In this position, one needs to keep a close eye on unit sales and competitor behavior. If other Honda dealers are trying to make their number by taking sales from you, then you need to be positioned to strike fast, even in the last week of the month.

This is the hardest time of the year to acquire sufficient TV and radio to achieve frequency, and it is the toughest time of the year to make a message stand out. Special offers seem to be the best attention grabbers, and that puts you right back into the problem of spending more on advertising and decreasing front-end gross per unit at the same time.

A store that really works its CRM will be able to identify deals that could have been made earlier if this money were available to assist customers who are upside down on their trade. However, one needs to be realistic about the ability to get those customers financed now. Some will already be thousands of dollars deeper in credit-card debt. This can be a good strategy for bringing a few additional deals into the incentive, but it probably won’t get a store into the money that was otherwise going to have a December 90% as big as last year. It’s a competitive month.

A digital campaign can instantly target a wide range of shoppers with incentives at a variety of levels. It can be dialed up or dialed down. This is ideal for targeting a small window, like 100% to 120% of last December’s sales. However, the devil is in the details. Getting more aggressive on digital marketing by only raising bid prices can be deadly, especially when others selling the brand are in the same boat. Those buying digital marketing via a custom approach, as opposed to the common automated approaches, have a huge leg up in their ability to add additional opportunities, rather than simply bid more for the same old thing.

The dealers who will gain the most from this incentive are the ones who have grown all year and would have made 120% of last December’s sales even without the additional funds. These programs don’t show up for every brand every year, but the dealers with good, steady, growth tend to be in the best position regardless of what the manufacturer does. I hope every dealer has a great December and enters 2014 ready to position themselves even better. Call if you need help, (518) 703-6109.

AutoNation announced that nearly all of their stores will carry the AutoNation name, similar to CarMax. The shift from the AutoNation collection of stores to an AutoNation brand carries with it a lot of implications. Experimentation will undoubtedly continue, but a brand image demands a high degree of uniformity. You can't have one GM trying to become the second coming of Carl Sewell and another GM under the same brand name going on TV in a clown costume and acting crazy. Some degree of uniformity with respect to promotions becomes mandatory under a brand strategy.

You can't have one store delivering full value transparency and another refusing to price their vehicles online. So there needs to be a uniform level of transparency across the brand, and AutoNation appears clear about their dedication to transparency as a competitive advantage. Already, stores uniformly offer a three-day, 150-mile money back guarantee.

Brand uniformity is easier across used cars, and CarMax has done a good job of it. AutoNation is not including its highline vehicles as part of this move. Selling Bentley under the same brand name as Smart is a bit like trying to expand the Kmart name across Tiffany stores. There will need to be some level of uniformity around the quality level of used vehicles and the quality of customer care provided. The more different the product mix is across a retail brand strategy the greater the need for uniformity around how those products are merchandised and delivered.

Much of the uniformity necessary has already taken place. It would be a mistake to announce a national brand strategy and then hope it can be pulled off. AutoNation has not been secretive about its long move in this direction. By the firm's own accounts, this has been in process for at least 13 years. Other dealer groups appear to be taking similar steps toward the same objective. It will take time.

CNN compared the AutoNation move to becoming the McDonald's of car dealers. I'm not sure that is a good analogy. There are some things AutoNation still cannot do, like national advertising. Outside of manufacturers, only AutoTrader.com and Cars.com have enough national coverage to cost effectively buy advertising on a national level. (I know others have done it, but I said cost effectively.) AutoNation claims to have no ambition of becoming a truly national brand. However, AutoNation already had branding strategies within various regions. There is a reason they are moving forward with a national brand strategy.  This strategy of a national brand without national distribution would have been less beneficial in a TV era than it will be in the Internet era.

While I am not permitted to discuss the online marketing I performed for one publicly held dealer group. I can say the Internet has opened new opportunities for retailers with a widely recognized brand name selling dozens of nameplates. In my first book, Sales Integration, I suggested some of the changing opportunities. This first is but one of the many milestones to be crossed in the future of automotive retail.

 (Sources used include public documents and articles from AutoNation, Automotive News. CNN, Sun Sentinel, and Bloomberg)

AutoNation announced that nearly all of their stores will carry the AutoNation name, similar to CarMax. The shift from the AutoNation collection of stores to an AutoNation brand carries with it a lot of implications. Experimentation will undoubtedly continue, but a brand image demands a high degree of uniformity. You can't have one GM trying to become the second coming of Carl Sewell and another GM under the same brand name going on TV in a clown costume and acting crazy. Some degree of uniformity with respect to promotions becomes mandatory under a brand strategy.

You can't have one store delivering full value transparency and another refusing to price their vehicles online. So there needs to be a uniform level of transparency across the brand, and AutoNation appears clear about their dedication to transparency as a competitive advantage. Already, stores uniformly offer a three-day, 150-mile money back guarantee.

Brand uniformity is easier across used cars, and CarMax has done a good job of it. AutoNation is not including its highline vehicles as part of this move. Selling Bentley under the same brand name as Smart is a bit like trying to expand the Kmart name across Tiffany stores. There will need to be some level of uniformity around the quality level of used vehicles and the quality of customer care provided. The more different the product mix is across a retail brand strategy the greater the need for uniformity around how those products are merchandised and delivered.

Much of the uniformity necessary has already taken place. It would be a mistake to announce a national brand strategy and then hope it can be pulled off. AutoNation has not been secretive about its long move in this direction. By the firm's own accounts, this has been in process for at least 13 years. Other dealer groups appear to be taking similar steps toward the same objective. It will take time.

CNN compared the AutoNation move to becoming the McDonald's of car dealers. I'm not sure that is a good analogy. There are some things AutoNation still cannot do, like national advertising. Outside of manufacturers, only AutoTrader.com and Cars.com have enough national coverage to cost effectively buy advertising on a national level. (I know others have done it, but I said cost effectively.) AutoNation claims to have no ambition of becoming a truly national brand. However, AutoNation already had branding strategies within various regions. There is a reason they are moving forward with a national brand strategy.  This strategy of a national brand without national distribution would have been less beneficial in a TV era than it will be in the Internet era.

While I am not permitted to discuss the online marketing I performed for one publicly held dealer group. I can say the Internet has opened new opportunities for retailers with a widely recognized brand name selling dozens of nameplates. In my first book, Sales Integration, I suggested some of the changing opportunities. This first is but one of the many milestones to be crossed in the future of automotive retail.

 (Sources used include public documents and articles from AutoNation, Automotive News. CNN, Sun Sentinel, and Bloomberg)