I've been involved in the TrueCar discussions for months now, sometimes prominently.  And the idea of protecting the dealers'--nay the industry's--data has become very, very important to me.  Thank you, Jim Ziegler, for goading us to pay attention to these issues.

However, lately I've taken to also looking at these points:  Is the "Data Horse" already out of the barn?  Data genie out of the bottle?  Data under the bridge?  Maybe, maybe not.  

And even if we can still just lock all vendors out of the dealers' data . . . well, what ramifications does that have for our business?  Should we just pull that plug with possibly as much ignorance in stopping the practice as we have had during it's birth and growth (when we, admittedly, weren't paying any attention)?  Are there strong and business-REQUIRED positives which we don't even know about that will die without that information?  And hurt dealers' business?  It is very hard to tell just where the data goes in all this, how much is sourced back at the dealer, how much is sourced downstream, and how much is sourced in ways we just don't know about at all.  That's our fault, being taken advantage of by vendors because we weren't paying attention.

Thinking it through, then, it seems to me that dealer data used only to provide buyers--and not giving those buyers a better buying experience!--is doomed to fail.  Call that model what we've seen from TrueCar.  So, forgetting all the emotional errata on that for few moments, I think that "better buying" experience is just what TC left out.  They focused on the "negotiation" but not the sale and used stereotypes to position themselves with consumers as their advocate--I have pointed out many times  that I believe that Painter's anti-dealer position blinded him to who TC's real customers are (dealers!!), so those stereotypes are Cheap & EZ Marketing 101 for those who make that mistake from their own prejudices.

However, these negative car-buying stereotypes exist today, and people are still experiencing them.  Or saying they are.  Cases in point are a couple of articles I read this week about the horrible buying experience some women still have with dealerships, and also sometimes men (one is by Becky Quick at Fortune, and see another in Forbes). Whether this is really still a rampant problem or not, it's a rampant STEREOTYPE.  I've compared the need for Painter's ouster from TC as the same issue that Nixon had--no matter what you thought of the president, politically he Had To Go.

Well, WE are our own "Nixon" here on the buying experience issue, and we can't remove ourselves from the seat in the middle.  We CAN, however, pursue a modern buying method that serves the dealer's bottom line, modernizes the sales staff and processes, and delivers a great experience for the buyers.  Make any bad sales process "resign like Nixon", and right NOW.

On top of that, we have controversies over Google's March 1, 2012 privacy changes, the Whitehouse wanting data privacy standards, and the EPIC/FTC fight about privacy and Google.  We need to know how our own data in our own industry can be protected and put to use for the dealers.

We don't need to focus on the past ("When you let your past go, just make sure it doesn't run ahead into your future." - Keith Shetterly) or we just drag along our own stereotypes.  

IF the data aggregators information could be turned into a positive for the dealers, providing great buyers, and then the dealers can provide a great buying experience, THAT is modernization.  Great Dealer Evolution, not Painter's Dealer Cataclysm.

Is there a vendor out there to do this?  I perceive that Criss Castle, Ralph Paglia, and myself have recently made the point in Jim Ziegler's TrueCar Blog that data use on BEHALF of the dealers for dealer success is certainly a possibility.  A great pro-dealer cause, if you will, especially if the "data horse is really out of the barn."

Who is that vendor that will rise up and make great and fair money for themselves and dealers while promoting--and helping to provide--that great modern buying experience for both men and women shoppers?  Is there one?  Can there be one?

I don't know.  But I know we need one.

by Keith Shetterly, Copyright 2012
All Rights Reserved www.keithshetterly.com
keithshetterly@gmail.com

I am who I am.  I am me!  I work as me, I advise as me, and I write and publish as me.  I am this way because, as a person, I fit the “new credibility” very well:  I am all over the Web, and you can reach me by email and phone if you go to my website.  You can find me, easily, and find out about me, because I don’t hide.  I am real.  And I don’t ever use pseudonyms for my work, and I don’t participate in pseudonyms for hire, either--so don’t bother asking me to ghost write for you as some have requested.  The answer is “No”.

I have experience and a mind you can purchase services from, but many times I give away so much for free that my friends want to tie me up and gag me to get me to stop talking myself out of money.  I don’t adjust my ethics versus what I’m paid to do (you can’t hire me if I don’t basically agree with you on some important level), and you can’t get me to say or do just anything you want by waving a fat checkbook at me. 

Whenever and wherever I express myself, smart or stupid, I own it.  And you can find me on the web very easily.  That’s the new credibility, “Certified Me!”, to just be who you are on the Web and be honest there.   Come on along!

Are you with me?

By Keith Shetterly
Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved
www.keithshetterly.com keithshetterly@gmail.com

We are not doctors, but I love the idea of “First, Do No Harm” for working with dealers.  Even though that phrase is the common, but incorrect, quote of the Hippocratic Oath for Physicians, it still conveys a lot for the proper doctor/patient relationship—and it also means a lot for vendor/dealer, consultant/dealer, and even blogger/dealer relationships.  And, so, I’m establishing it here as the cornerstone of a vendor/consultant/blogger creed for working with dealers.

When any of us (peers, dealers, vendors, consultants, etc.) are working with, critiquing, or advising dealers—or even affecting the readers on this and other online forums by what we write—we need to remember up front to not over-state and/or overreact:  Help for a hangnail shouldn’t be amputation!  Not even for a frantic, and possibly hypochondriac, patient. 

Next, we need to remember that the “patient/doctor confidentiality” from medicine goes a long way towards the trust we also need in place to really help a dealer--so neither a minor outing nor “going tabloid” on a dealer issue to the public (especially online) will do anything to help that dealer and may in fact hurt.  The “facts” online for dealers are all too often a frustrating mix of good and bad information already, and singling out particulars (even wrong ones) in public--even if you mean well!--can just lead to a cascade of bad feelings mixed with possibly-damaging SEO effects:  For example, customers should NOT be able to search a dealer and find links on SERP 1 pointing to automotive professionals writing negatively about the dealer.  Or on any searchable page, for that matter.

So, as a simple reminder to all that, Shetterly’s Creed is hereby founded for vendors, consultants, and bloggers in the automotive professional space:  First, do no harm; second, seek to fairly assist as can be agreed; third, deliver on what you promise.

by Keith Shetterly, www.keithshetterly.com
Copyright 2011, All Rights Reserved
keithshetterly@gmail.com

First, let me assert this:  There is NO such thing as “purity and sanctity” of a customer review of a business.  Of ANY business, dealership or not.  Why?

For any review "collector" (Google, etc.), trying to police reviews while thinking otherwise is Pollyannaish and is really an enormous “plate of spaghetti” (whether the reviews were performed on the business’ property or off)—because either, or both, the business and the customer may have agendas that bear little on the actual experience and more on their personal and/or business reasons.   And that’s assuming the review came from a real customer—as both businesses and individuals can “game” any system of reviews, and they will.  So, again, whether the reviews are done on or off property of the business does not change that.

And gaming is hard to fairly detect, even if you start by looking at a pattern of reviews done by a single individual, or reviews done once by an email that is never used again, etc.  None of that will ever be fair—because, for example with Google Places, customers may or may not use Google as their primary email, they may not review often, etc.  And seeing a review IP a thousand miles from a reviewed restaurant may just indicate a review after travel.  And so on.  What makes a lot more sense is looking for patterns of abuse that have to do with relevance of review content.   And even that can be misleading.

As to IP monitoring, watching a business IP for review creation on-property is also unfair to both the customer and the business.  Shouldn’t a customer on the business’ guest wireless be able to review that business?   Should the business be forced to purchase tablets on the local cell network just to avoid being “detected” while taking REAL reviews from real customers?

And the whole idea that reviews that are asked for are somehow invalid is ridiculous:  It’s long-known before the Internet that happy people don’t write letters and unhappy people DO.  Modern online reviews are the same way; human psychology hasn’t been so altered on this point by the Internet as to make any difference in the outcome.  Businesses have a right to ask happy customers to share their experiences because the business MADE THE EFFORT TO PROVIDE THAT EXPERIENCE.  More so, the business has a responsibility to future customers to provide the full spectrum of their experiences.

Finally, understand that “gaming for profit” will happen in any review system.  Customers have in the past threatened bad reviews (and will again) in order to get their way (or even gain financially) when they should NOT be allowed to do so; businesses will also be approached by 3^rd parties who promise “great reviews” from shill customers in return for $.  And combos of all that and more will happen.  NO MATTER WHAT IS DONE—and the more policing that is done, the more valid reviews will be discounted.  And lost.

The best path is to remain as neutral as possible and allow the market to do what it will wherever that is possible—and so reviews taken at a business are valid, but maybe reviews of a business that are always 5 star might need a look.  However, the real push should be to educate shoppers on what to look for in business reviews so that they can police validity themselves.

Because customers started reviews of some kind way back in the annals of time.  And they should be able to continue that wherever they want, unfettered, but strongly educated.

by Keith Shetterly, Copyright 2011
All Rights Reserved www.keithshetterly.com
keithshetterly@gmail.com

Yeah, I said it:  GM’s Internet lead response measurements are wrong-headed.  The age of pushing dealers to a better 24x7 response time is over, and the results are misleading.  And they are unfortunately too often focusing dealers, and therefore precious resources, AWAY from car sales.  And here’s why. 

First, the requirement:  To be measured as “passing”, a dealer has to have an average response time—across 24x7—of under ONE hour and 95% of the dealer’s leads must be answered in under 5 hours (and NOT by an autoresponder).  It’s that second time measurement that makes no sense at all, and here's why . . .

Second, the "Lead Response Math":  Say a dealer gets 100 leads.  Then that means, no matter what effort they make on response time, NO MORE THAN FIVE leads can ever go over five hours.  That's very, very few mistakes allowed, and it can be very hard to achieve even for dealers with average response times of under 1 hour.

Third, why this doesn’t make sense:  For a dealer who is open 9am-9pm Mon-Sat, then leads can come in randomly during closed hours (9pm-9am Mon-Fri AND/OR any time on Sunday) and be missed.  Even rotating your Internet Dept. through “Sunday duty” doesn’t stop the risk for “midnight leads”, as remember you only have FIVE per 100 that can have a response time over five hours.  That means that EVERY NIGHT someone has to watch leads until 12:30am and someone (else, I hope) has to get up no later than 5:00am (4.5 hours later) to check until you open.  Otherwise, just one night with no one watching and five leads might come in at once . . . or a couple of nights the Watchman (or woman) falls asleep . . . 

Fourth, what dealers have done:  They’ve hired, in most cases, an off-site BDC of folks who just respond with silly “We’ll contact you when we’re open!” emails.  Because the RESPONSE TIME is what GM measures, not the quality or relevance.  And who can say this isn’t enough relevance, anyway, considering that these leads do NOT necessarily represent actual people online BUT ARE RELEASED INTO THE LEAD FLOW for many other reasons.  When this all started with GM, they were batching leads at night, but I can’t say that’s specifically what’s happening now.  By the way, I’ve personally been coached by more than one GM SFE coordinator to get one of these “midnight lead” services to keep the response time down . . . hooookayyyyy, so even the people pushing this realize it is silly!  Can you say “Emperor’s New Clothes”?  (for those who know that old fable). 

Fifth, what the SHOPPERS have done:  They have moved away from the Internet lead.  Fewer leads come from the web, and everybody knows it.  Customers are coming in without leads, though many do call before getting into their car.   They’re just educated now on what effects come from giving up their contact info, even to an OEM:  eMails and phone calls TO them, INTERRUPTING them, from MULTIPLE dealerships, etc.  Better to just view inventory and pick up the phone.  And more than a few just come on in. 

SO, because NO MORE THAN FIVE leads can go over five hours on a 24x7 clock, GM and their lackeys have a nation of dealerships distracted by nightly response time and less focused on daily sales--dealers focused THE MOST, in fact, on the response time of the few folks shopping at 3am (IF that’s really going on, which is debatable) rather than those shopping during work hours.  Don’t you think a lead dropped to a dealer during a shopper's work day is most valuable?  They have a job, they have an income, they have interest, and they probably WILL buy a car if they can. 

GM’s 24x7 measurement of lead response time doesn't clearly result in sales, though they try mightily to make that case.  Any Internet closing rate is a function of total advertising, inventory, and Internet sales skill, not just response time, even for those closing as high as 10%:  “Jim Smith” might come in and buy, but he may in fact have never responded to the email you sent or the call you made from his lead!  He was just in-market, filled out a form online, totally ignored your efforts to contact, and came in because he heard about 0% from his TELEVISION.  And maybe you’re the only game in town for his type of vehicle, anyway.  Jim Smith never bought from a lead or your contact:  However, he’s counted as an “Internet Sale” by GM just the same. 

True sales measurement is how is a STORE doing.  Not response time to what is, via Internet leads, at MOST, 20% of your sales contacts.  (What’s going on with your phone and/or lot visits the other 80% of the time is pretty important!).  And GM driving any store, from those successful to those not-so-good, towards these leads is not heading them towards sales but instead off a cliff of distraction.  Especially at 3am.

Unfortunately, GM’s “lead response math” seems to have too little to do with sales and more to do with what can easily be measured.  Well, just because something CAN be measured doesn’t mean it is the ONLY thing to look at. 

If you can take your eyes (and precious sales resources) off your "3am Clock", how are your SALES doing?

by Keith Shetterly, keithshetterly@gmail.com
Copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved
www.keithshetterly.com

"Negotiation is the art of reaching agreement by trust while lying."  -- Keith Shetterly, 2011

Wow!  My friends have pointed out that I needed another article for "trust-eroding" words and phrases--spoken or written--that can kill sales, so here comes Part 2 of what is now a series.  What do I mean by "trust-eroding"?  Well, that's best explained by going right to the first example:

Honestly.  You're eroding trust directly with the use of this word--because when you reach a point in a conversation where you say, "Well, honestly, . . .", does that mean to the customer that you were lying the entire time before you said that phrase?  YES.  My opening quote is true of negotiation, in that the customer knows things like the dark history of their trade and/or their credit score that can kill a deal, while the dealer knows the invoice, holdback, step money, bonus motivations, etc. that can make a deal happen.  And nobody wants to reveal any of that right out at the front.  It's hard enough to establish trust in any negotiation because of that situation, so you don't need to call yourself out in some mistrustful way while you are negotiating!  Using "honestly" puts you backwards immediately and erodes trust.

The Fix: Instead of saying "Well, honestly, . . . ", say "Let me share something more with you . . . ".  The first says you're a liar, the second says to the customer that they've successfully negotiated and corned you into revealing more information--and it's usually a very good idea to stroke the customer's ego during a sale.  So, "Let me share something more with you . . . " is now your trust mantra!  And, as well, never, ever, use the next phrase . . .

To Tell You The Truth.  This sounds a lot like "honestly", and there is certainly that full aspect for this phrase, so if necessary please read the previous item on "honestly" again.  However, there's even more for this phrase:  It's often mis-applied as a bonding-with-the-customer moment, as in "I'm breaking a rule here to reveal this . . .", but "To tell you the truth" actually says to the customer that, not only have you perhaps been lying up to this point, but that you also might lie again in the future!  You'd have to beat this phrase to death as a preface to every statement you make in order to theoretically offset that, but that repetition in reality would just erode trust even further.  Avoid "to tell you the truth", even as a preface phrase like "To tell you the truth, I don't know."  Really?  Thank goodness you didn't give another lying answer to the other questions I asked already or as you will to the next ones I'm going to ask!

The Fix:  Use the phrase "Let me tell you one of our secrets . . ." instead.  Again, you're stroking the customer's ego, bonding with them, and telling them (again) that they've cornered you in the negotiations into revealing more information.  And NOT eroding trust!

The Honest Truth Is.  Yep, here's the "Ultimate Trust-Eroding Combo Pack" built on the last two phrases.  Are you saying there is a "dishonest" truth?  And, whatever that is, the customer is now thinking, again, that you're a liar, that you're going to be a liar--and, additionally, that the very next words you are now about to utter after this phrase are most certainly a lie.  "The honest truth is that my sales manager has done as much as he can, and this is the lowest price he can offer."  Sure it is.

The Fix:  Say, instead, in this case "The fact is . . ."--because facts are evidence, and truth is philosophy.  You are telling them a fact they can choose to believe because they know you've worked hard on their behalf with your sales manager.  You've let them know that, right?  You're not using "The honest truth is . . ." because you're shortcutting the sales process, are you?  Exactly.  Use "The fact is . . ." because your work on their behalf is a fact, your sales manager has negotiated fairly, and your dealership does treat its customers the best in the area.  

We Aren't Here to Rip You Off.  Ugh!!  Really?  If you're not here to do that, why did you have to tell me that??  Alert!  Alert!  Trust erosion ahead!  This phrase, and those like it, attract customer suspicion like honey attracts bees. 

The Fix:  Just learn that real trust is built, not on what you aren't, but on what you are--and say instead:  "We are an honest dealership . . .".  Simple and says it all.  And back-able by appropriate additions such "our online reputation with our customers shows", "our fifty years in business means", etc.  Trust is built on positives, not negatives!

Now, hit your sales floors (phone, UPs, Internet, email, etc.) knowing how to get, and keep, trust from your customers with the words you use.  Honestly, they're very important!  :)

by Keith Shetterly, keithshetterly@gmail.com

Copyright 2011, www.keithshetterly.com

All Rights Reserved

Want to make more sales or maybe just sound smarter?  Then learn which words make lots of people--from your peers, to your bosses, to your CUSTOMERS--cringe.  Spoken or written, these words lose you sales!