ATC.com blitz is a joke. The sales guys are sent into the market to do hard sales and are never seen again.. This is a lot of promises with absolutely no follow up. Amongst talking to my dealer 20 groups, there has never been and positive feedback from ATC.com. They also try to sale the highest package which is a waste due to the saturation level and also how their leads and searches are terribly down.. This is obviously not the place to be anymore..
On the otherhand, I have had tremendous growth and positive feedback with my Cars.com sales rep. These are true quality leads and not only that, I can honestly say that Cars.com is a true advertising solution with the rest of my advertising mix.

Just broke 100 posts on this one. I guess I lost the bet.

Lightnup,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. It’s nice to be a part of a well authored forum debate. I will let the advertising dollars spent topic die after this post.

I’m certain that you will agree that the readers of this forum are intelligent enough to understand if an AT rep is bragging about spending 70+ million in one year that it seems almost inconceivable that they have spent 100 million in the last 3 months alone. If I were bragging, I would probably brag about the later if it were true.

I also believe that 99.9% of the readers realize that if she meant 100 million she would NOT have said 70+ and let the readers assume the other 30 million (nice try)

Knowing several members of this forum I assure you (after Amy’s post) it would take posting a snapshot of the 2008 AT ad campaign to get anyone to believe they spent the alleged 100 million in the last 3 months (please don’t use Photoshop)

Once again thank you for participating in this debate I always enjoy entering a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

While I do agree with alot of the comments regarding vendors in this thread I do have to give kudos to cars.com for the ads.

As a dealer, you can continue to try to hide from the reputation you have or take advantage of it. Cars.com does a great job in these spots embracing the idea of customers expecting to fight for the perceived deal then brushing that idea aside with humor.

I know of 2 dealers in our DMA that are at less than 30% of units sold as same time last year. They spend most every day trying to hide from their reputation.

While some of us if not most might initially feel slighted by the stereotyping, seeing it as a whole provides better insight.

After all, the customer is already thinking this way. Why not let it work for you.

I had one GM out of 30 that was not happy about the creative, I've never seen an effective campaign that everybody likes. That said, he hasn't complained at all about the uptick in contacts and sales off the site. As far as insulting the client base goes, I think we can gather quite a bit of info on that just by looking at the number of posts this topic has received relative to the one discussing our ad creative. The "clients" seem to be much more insulted by your sales tactics.

I'm going to throw in for the other rebuttals too. Compete is a great tool, but you've misapplied it. You've got out the 8lb sledge to put the boat in the glass bottle...

Until ATC deals with the spiders and bots that necessitate the "small text" in admanager, it's hard to definitively say what kind of traffic or uniques you are driving. I think the better stat from compete to look at is velocity over the last 45 days. Look at page visits monthly too...Yikes! not a good trend.


The other thing that you already know is that partnership sites play a giant role in this kind of measurement. Add yahoo to the mix and the total searches picture changes pretty quickly.

Not making a sales pitch here, but it's way more than what you've presented.

@Ryan
Sorry you're disappointed. I'll try to do better next time.
Your ads are still running and they still convey the "Mr. Dealer, you're not trustworthy" message, so why would I change my opinion of them? You're insulting your own clients.

@cars 3.0
Deciding not to proceed on a major capital project in a lousy economy and selling off newspapers both seem like pretty astute moves, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps good management is how they got to $15 Billion in the first place?

@cars believer
$70+ and $100 are not contradictions. The + means "plus" or "more than" and $100 is more than $70. Nice try though.

Since you're into quoting numbers, perhaps you noticed that compete.com shows ATC up 22% in unique visitors this year while cars.com is up 4.1%.

I haven't posted since early July and was content to let this thread die, but since cars believer felt compelled to "set the record straight," so did I.

@ Lightnup

You "cleared up" the superbowl ad issue for us on July 1st. Scroll up a bit and you'll find my reply, I guess you missed it.

Nothing new from you on this? I'm really kinda disappointed. I hate to call you out, especially after you nailed Jeff on exposing "his furry" to vendors, that was classic, but let me ask you, if the bounce on the ads was shortlived, how long are you planning on spinning the creative to look like something it wasn't?

Amy wrote:
of all of the "vendors" you want to compare autotrader.com to....which one can say to you they are spending 70 plus million to drive traffic?

Lightnup wrote:
ATC spent $100 million in just the past 3 months.

Contradiction n. The act of contradicting. The state of being contradicted. A denial. Inconsistency; discrepancy.

The above possibly could be considered a contradiction...

I'm curious if there are any dealers that would like to comment on the results the 100 million spent in the last 3 months have generated...

Cars.com avg monthly visitors were 300,000 in 2007
Cars.com avg monthly visitors are over 800,000 in 2008

That's what the 200 million in advertising has generated. (in case you were wondering)

Cox most recently cancelled the construction of a 28 story new headquarters building to house autotrader and as recently as last week announced they are putting 29 newspapers on the block for sale in addition to Valpak. They are circiling the wagons to divest of revenue draining sectors of their business, they should really think twice about pissing off anymore dealers with autotrader rates if they're seriously looking to maintain or grow their $15 billion in overall revenue the next couple years.

"$200 million in 2008." Yawn. So what...ATC spent $100 million in just the past 3 months.

The "bounce" from cars.com Superbowl commercials (the commercials that insult their clients' ethics and integrity by implying that it takes witch doctors and voodoo dancers to get fair treatment from a car dealer) was over almost before it began.

Amy wrote:
of all of the "vendors" you want to compare autotrader.com to....which one can say to you they are spending 70 plus million to drive traffic?

Cars.com is spending $200 Million Dollars on their 2008 ad campaign to drive traffic to their dealers. They are also providing comparable value to the dealers at 1/3 of AT's monthly cost.

DON'T get me wrong I never bash AT because at the end of the day even at their higher prices they are still providing a great deal of value to their dealers. However based on Amy's comment I felt compelled to set the record straight. According to the latest ad sheets they have delivered to me they are advertising on the following:

Comedy Central, Discovery, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNnews, ESPNU, FOX sports, TBS, TNT, USA

3 commercials on each FOX MLB game
Major spots in NASCAR races including sponsorship
Major college football game sponsorships
Major NFL football sponsorships
CONFIRMED spots in the upcoming Super Bowl (the BIGGEST stage in advertising)

$200 MILLION Spent to drive traffic to their dealers in 2008 and they are still providing tons of value for 1/3 of the cost.

"Searches for used cars were down across all of AutoTrader.com, with significant double-digit dips despite strong overall site traffic"


I guess Chip Perry neglects to inform the blitz sales people this little factoid before they ran thru our area this Spring. I've never seen a company with a faster revolving door of sales reps than with Autotrader.com, we cancelled last year and we must've had 5 sales reps w/them in 4 years.

Steven,

You're absolutely right. It is about what works and what doesn't, and that is a very personal equation. We've been at it since the mid-90's and have done all sorts of experimentation. There was a time when ATC was something that did work, but that is not the case today. Cars.com works very well for us. ATC does a fantastic job of ticking us off - the inspiration for all the ATC threads on Dealer Refresh I've started.

Alan,

Yes, you are there to sell the cars that don't "automatically" sell just because we have them in stock. Your job is to present those vehicles to a broader audience, and that is all there is to it.

Alex and Alan both bring up great points of havingthe right inventory for the internet. We are the type of store that if we decide to buy a used vehicle or keep a trade in we stay with it till it sells. On this, we, at times, have inventory that is very old. Three of the 5 most searched and inquired vehicles that we now have our the vehicles that we have had in our inventory for over 300 days. They have been great flip vehicles for us so that have paid off, however they must now leave. Autotrader's premium listings have really helped in moving these vehicles. I know many out there, and believe me I was one, has had enough of their we are better than everything else opinions of themselves, however I am seeing some great results. I guess what I am trying to say is try many different products to find out what works best for your store and more importantly you.

Alex, you said: Dealers pay vendors to help move the "wrong" inventory......

That's a tall task for vendors to live up to. Holding the vendor to the same standards you place on other outlets to move the "wrong" inventory is just "wrong". You then challange the demographics of broad-reach, online classified sites as lower-quality. ATC has approx. 14 million uniques and Cars.com has about 10 million uniques a month. Are they all lower-quality? No, they are looking at all price ranges, all types of vehicles. There are many Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, Mercedes (Jeff?) dealers that do quite well on these sites with $30K+ used units. It goes back to how the dealer is utilizing the sites to their advantage. Being agressive with marketing their inventory whether its "right" or "wrong". My point was--as dealers: take responsibility in running your business and put your best effort forward in your marketing on any of the sites you use (or traditional media for that matter). It will pay off.

Alan,

You're right. It isn't just a "drop a check, then sit back and wait for the customer" system - it is all about marketing. Of course, the easiest thing for a vendor to say is "it is your inventory" and that vendor would be right. However, don't you think every dealer in the nation tries to carry the "right" inventory? It isn't that simple. Dealers pay vendors to help move the "wrong" inventory because dealership lots simply are not enough exposure to show people our Hyundai store might have that BMW you were looking for.

In response to a vendor who says "it is your inventory" my response is, well....it is your inventory of customers. This is where AutoTrader.com becomes problematic for a dealer group like the one I work for. ATC is somewhat plagued by magazine distribution that was around long before ATC. Because you share the same name with the magazine, you're associated with a distribution cycle that appeals to an audience who wants a cheaper car in my area. Just like the dealer-facing Autotrader reps who sell us things, there are also outlet-facing distribution reps who try to get the magazine placed on news stands. Everyone has quotas and for the distribution reps it is easier to find placement in some of the lower-quality news stands-yielding establishments (7-11, Food Lion, KMart, etc) than it is to put them in say a Target or somewhere someone with a higher income would shop. Brand association goes a long way, and it is the same as having a site/magazine full of buy-here-pay-here lots vs. a site/magazine full of new car franchised dealers. It was brilliant for ATC to carry the same name as the magazine initially (instant name recognition), but the issues of that association are showing today.

That is the problem with Autotrader on the grand level. Selling tactics, what this thread is about, is just a smaller sub-set of their other problems.

And the last comment says it all......from a dealer that no doubt knows what's going on in his dealership. Too many times I've called on ISMs that have "no clue" how to maximize whatever they have from whatever vendor. Amy was right earlier. Why would a consumer, very interested in YOUR car, reading about it click on one of the "leaks"? Not because ATC or Cars.com put it there. Because THEY DIDN'T LIKE YOUR CAR! Whaaah! Let's blame our vendor (no matter who it is) for our failure to put great photos, comments, a call to action!, competitive pricing, etc, and let our car outshine the others! Yes, when a dealer buys a newspaper full page ad, he dominates the page, but there are still LEAKS when the customer turns the page and sees another dealer's full page ad. Guess what? The customer DIDN'T LIKE YOUR CARS! It's not the newspaper's fault they have more than one page of car ads to look at. The real trouble that internet advertising has caused--laziness on the part of ISMs (some) that think, "duh, if we list our inventory on all these cool, popular sites, we just have to sit back and answer emails and phone calls." Hey, why don't you NOT wash and recondition your used cars, LEAVE the plastic shipping protectors on the new cars, turn all your lights OFF, take DOWN your signs, banners, flags, balloons, blow up waving men, painted windshields, spinners, flags (oh I already said that). And park your cars in an open field somewhere to see who looks at your cars? A word to all you struggling ISMs out there---use your brick and mortar marketing creativity on your virtual showroom and maybe leaks wouldn't matter! Next time your on Amazon or some other retail site, if you click off the product to a "leak" site, ask yourself one question, "why did I click off that product and not buy it, call them, send them an email?" It's the product you're selling online--not the channel that gets the customers there that matters. The dealers (and Mr. Isakson is probably one of them) that maximize every tool they have will win online. They don't have to spend the most money, but use to the fullest all the tools! Just trying to get everyone to look at another perspective.

Hello everyone, first time post and a new reader. I too was approached by Autotrader. We were about to cancel our subscription when too corporate reps from the west coast showed up. They did present an excellent offer which we took because we priced locked for three years and can cancel at any time. In the first three weeks, we have had more contacts by going to a premium partner than we have had all year long. I would advise everyone to give this a try if they can get a deal like this.
Steven Isakson
Isakson Chrysler Dodge
Northwest Indiana

Well...

I'm looking forward to UFC 86 tomorrow night when Rampage Jackson fights Forest Griffin for the light heavy weight title. If for some reason the fight is lacking I will be content after reading this octagon like beat down of AutoTrader.

Big thanks to all y'all!

Shaun

I recently spoke with an autotrader rep I've known for a couple years who informed me they are seeing unprecedented levels of cancellation and or downsell. Seems to be the perfect storm situation for them in that the car market is the worst in decades and autotrader gouged another set of price increases at the same time. We cancelled them last year for much of the same reasoning mentioned here, the ROI was really lacking compared to what it used to be so we cancelled. Glad we did because we've been killing it with SEO & SEM for about the same ad spend we had with autotrader, maybe that's the "slack" afterall, bigger search engine audiences.

Fact: Auto Dealers nationwide are under financial duress not seen in decades.
Fact: ATC's ROI is not what it was.
Fact: ATC continues to raise rates.
Fact: Many of my "untouchables" will be getting the axe in 2009.

ATC rates are high enough for me to seriously experiment with "life after ATC". God help 'em if I find another venue to pick up the slack (ahem... will there even be any slack??).

Joe

Just had a visit yesterday from my AT Rep and a guy from a different area. The new guy didn't say a word, and the existing guy just said "I'm not leaving" about 5 times.

Kinda funny that I came here & read this thread today

The morning coffee just left my nose. Thanks for not resisting Lightnup, that post needs to go straight to the DR hall of fame for hilarity.

Jeff Kershner wrote: ".....I would wait to unleash my furry on the Blitz team....."

Jeff, I've been calling on dealers for longer than I care to remember. Thank God I have never had one unleash his furry on me. I've had to withstand a dealer's fury on a number of occasions, but the first time one unleashes his furry on me, I'm switching careers!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Alex: "Am I going to lose the "under" bet? Here's another post toward my loss "

I've been trying to help you win Alex by staying (mostly) out of the fray, but who started this one in the first place?

And just for the record, it would make my day if ATC discontinued blitzes immediately if not sooner. IMHO, the long-term damage done (to image, credibility and local relationships) more than offsets the short-term revenue generated. Note that I am not disparaging the value of the solutions. It's just that I, like many others, am not a fan of this particular sales tactic.