Tallcool1 said:

I agree with you here. Furthermore, I believe that customer that never knowingly raised their hand will be creeped out by that call. I also believe that vendor method makes it even harder to find a ROI number when I have a vendor in my ear telling me about how they are delivering the leads but my dealership sucks because they aren't converting them. As you said, they never were and still are not "leads". They are nothing more than identified web surfers.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That is the part I do not want the vendor to skate past. I am not against the technology. I am against changing the definition of a lead to make the number look better.


An identified visitor may be useful for personalization, retargeting, or understanding demand. But until that shopper knowingly asks this dealership to contact them, I would not put them in the same bucket as a real lead or hand the record to a salesperson to cold call.


The scorecard should separate identified visitors, valid contact records, consented leads, conversations, appointments, shows, and sold units. Remove existing CRM and DMS customers, prior leads, employees, bots, duplicates, and Do Not Call records first. Then use a holdout group and show the net-new sold units the tool actually caused.


Otherwise the vendor gets credit for a bigger lead count, the store gets blamed for a weak close rate, and the customer may feel like the dealership was watching them.


My question stays simple: what exact permission does my dealership have to call that person, and how many additional cars were sold after every suppression and against a control group?

awolniewitz said:

love this. I'll put something together to gauge interest throughout the community. I agree wholeheartedly, the power of the room cannot be understated. Pair that with the generous legacy that is DealerRefresh and it's an exciting thing to think about.


fantastic feedback. A couple of months ago I tried convincing @Alex Snyder & @Jeff Kershner to migrate the community over to discord. They resisted, and i now see that they were correct in doing so. I do still believe a mobile first UI and more casual, instant message type of chat room is missing.

I'm going to build a simple 'what actually worked' module and we'll see where things go. Stand by.

Click to expand...

I think you landed in the right place. Discord would make the conversation faster, but it would also pull a lot of the best information out of DealerRefresh’s searchable history. Keep the forum as the home base and add a mobile-first chat room inside it. When a chat becomes useful, let someone save it as a regular thread so it does not disappear.


For What Actually Worked, I would keep the first version simple: what was broken, store type and volume, starting numbers, what changed, cost or resources involved, the 30/60/90-day result, what failed, and what they would do differently.


I would also show whether the result came from a dealer, vendor, or consultant, along with the date. Then let the members question it and add their own results. That will keep it useful and stop it from turning into another vendor case study.


Put the newest ones in Daily Activity, but let members filter them so they do not take over the feed. I’ll test it as you build it. Done right, this could become one of the most useful parts of DealerRefresh.

KennySmithAutoUnite said:

I agree dealers should pay a lot more attention to what happens after the traffic lands. But I would separate a website visitor from a lead.

If somebody never filled out a form, called, chatted, or asked us to contact them, appending a name, email, and phone number to that visit does not automatically make them a lead. It makes them an identified visitor. That may still have value, but I would want to know exactly how the match was made and what permission we have to contact them.

Before comparing the results to third-party leads, I would want to see the full funnel:

Unique website visitors
Identified visitors
Valid contact records
Actual conversations
Appointments
Shows
Sold units

I would also want existing CRM and DMS customers, service traffic, duplicate records, employees, bots, and prior leads removed from the comparison.

Attribution matters too. A shopper may have found the vehicle on Autotrader, clicked a Google ad, and then landed on the dealership website. The final visit happened on our site, but that does not mean the other source played no role.

The 4x number could be legitimate, but without the denominator and the duplicate-removal rules, it is hard to tell whether the tool is creating incremental opportunities or identifying shoppers who were already known and further down the funnel.

My biggest question is what happens when the salesperson calls someone who never knowingly raised their hand. Does the customer see that as useful follow-up, or does it feel like the dealership was watching them?

I am all for owning more of the website journey. I just would not call every identifiable visitor a lead.

Can you share one dealer’s complete funnel from unique visitors through sold units, with existing customers and duplicate records removed?

Click to expand...

I agree with you here. Furthermore, I believe that customer that never knowingly raised their hand will be creeped out by that call. I also believe that vendor method makes it even harder to find a ROI number when I have a vendor in my ear telling me about how they are delivering the leads but my dealership sucks because they aren't converting them. As you said, they never were and still are not "leads". They are nothing more than identified web surfers.

It seems as though CG is trying their best to clean it up. Some dealers still like to trudge around in the cesspool of deceptive tactics.

I am not going to spend the time looking because I have looked at this in the past. Search the franchise dealers entire inventory and you will likely see a whole bunch of accidental oversights on the equipment. Ya, I shouldn't make that blind accusation...but I just did. Hope I am wrong.

I was just at a meeting a few weeks ago and 3 of the 6 dealers there completely shut off all 3rd party providers. The subject of this thread was a primary reason for 2 of them.

I agree dealers should pay a lot more attention to what happens after the traffic lands. But I would separate a website visitor from a lead.

If somebody never filled out a form, called, chatted, or asked us to contact them, appending a name, email, and phone number to that visit does not automatically make them a lead. It makes them an identified visitor. That may still have value, but I would want to know exactly how the match was made and what permission we have to contact them.

Before comparing the results to third-party leads, I would want to see the full funnel:

Unique website visitors
Identified visitors
Valid contact records
Actual conversations
Appointments
Shows
Sold units

I would also want existing CRM and DMS customers, service traffic, duplicate records, employees, bots, and prior leads removed from the comparison.

Attribution matters too. A shopper may have found the vehicle on Autotrader, clicked a Google ad, and then landed on the dealership website. The final visit happened on our site, but that does not mean the other source played no role.

The 4x number could be legitimate, but without the denominator and the duplicate-removal rules, it is hard to tell whether the tool is creating incremental opportunities or identifying shoppers who were already known and further down the funnel.

My biggest question is what happens when the salesperson calls someone who never knowingly raised their hand. Does the customer see that as useful follow-up, or does it feel like the dealership was watching them?

I am all for owning more of the website journey. I just would not call every identifiable visitor a lead.

Can you share one dealer’s complete funnel from unique visitors through sold units, with existing customers and duplicate records removed?

Interesting data. The part I would want separated is an actual undisclosed product from a customer who agreed to something but never really understood what it was, what it cost, or how it changed the payment.

Both can end up in a review as “they snuck it in,” but they are two different failures.

From the store side, the weak point is usually the handoff. The customer leaves the desk focused on one number, then gets to finance and sees a different payment, term, rate, or product mix without anyone clearly walking them from the first worksheet to the final contract.

I would audit the whole trail: selling price, out-the-door amount, trade and payoff, base payment before products, each product and its payment impact, final rate and term, and what the customer actually signed. Then compare that to the exact language in the review.

I would also be curious about the customers missing from the data because they walked before completing the purchase.

Can you separate true unauthorized add-ons from poor explanation or a broken sales-to-finance handoff? That distinction would tell a dealer what actually needs to be fixed.

Mico Silver said:

We are debating on whether we should port all our phone lines to the phone tracking software we use (one of the big ones). The hesitation is from an opinion that once we port it to them - we might lose control of the number if we have to fire them. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I would not port every core dealership number unless forwarding cannot give you the reporting you need.

The concern is half right. A valid port-out generally has to be honored, so the vendor should not be able to simply keep the numbers. But a bad setup can still make leaving painful if the vendor controls the account records, routing, CSR, BTN, PIN, or toll-free information.

I would keep the main store numbers under an account the dealership controls and forward them into the tracking platform. Use separate tracking numbers for campaigns.

If they require the main numbers to be ported, I would get the exit process in writing before moving anything. The dealership should be clearly identified as the end user, have account-level admin access, receive a complete inventory of every number, and be able to obtain everything needed for a port-out.

Then I would test a small group of noncritical numbers before moving the rest.

The question I would put back on the vendor is simple:

If we terminate tomorrow, exactly what do you give us, who approves the port, and how long should we expect it to take?

Alex Snyder said:

For the first time in 20 years, we have full control of the technology that powers DealerRefresh. If you’ve ever thought, “I wish DealerRefresh would just…” – this is the time to say it. Big swings, small annoyances, and controversial ideas are all welcome. We have the power to evolve fast!

Not sure where to start? Pick one (or more) of these and drop a quick reply:

1. One thing you’d change about DealerRefresh tomorrow if you had our keys.
2. One feature or thread type you wish we’d never remove.
3. A new section, tool, or recurring series you’d love to see us build this year.
4. Where do you think DealerRefresh has the most untapped potential right now?
5. How would you like to see AI used (or avoided) on DealerRefresh?

Click to expand...

Alex, here are the biggest things I would change.


1. Update the mobile UI first. The thread should take up most of the screen, not the navigation. Collapse the top and bottom bars while someone is scrolling, tighten the member information above each post, and keep Reply, Quote, Follow, Bookmark, and Search easy to reach without covering the conversation.


I would also let members customize Daily Activity. Give us filters for Dealer Only, Following, Unanswered, Reviews, AMAs, and the ability to hide categories we do not want in the feed.


2. Never remove the raw threads. The names, dates, quotes, reactions, and full back and forth are what make DealerRefresh valuable. A summary can help someone catch up, but it should never replace seeing who said what and how the discussion developed.


3. Add a recurring “What Actually Worked” section. Have dealers break down the store type, the problem, the starting numbers, what they changed, what it cost, what happened after 30, 60, and 90 days, what failed, and what they would do differently. That would be useful across lead handling, CRM, BDC, recon, websites, service, AI, vendors, and pay plans.


4. The biggest untapped opportunity is the history already here. DealerRefresh has 20 years of real dealership conversations. Connect related threads, show what is still current, flag advice that may be outdated, and make it easier to find dealers who have already dealt with the same problem.


Verified dealer benchmarks would also be valuable. Show anonymous ranges by store type and volume for response time, appointment rate, show rate, sold rate, cost per sold, recon time, and vendor performance. Always show the date and sample size so dealers know how much weight to give the number.


5. Use AI to help members find the right human answer faster. Better search, thread summaries linked to the original posts, duplicate-question detection, stale-content warnings, topic tagging, and routing questions to members with real experience would all help.


I would not use AI to write member replies, auto-post opinions, or create fake activity. The people and the honest conversations are the reason the site matters.


My first move would be the mobile UI and customizable Daily Activity feed. The bigger long-term opportunity is turning the history here into current, usable dealership knowledge without losing the people who created it.

Tzur.asaf said:

Curious to hear from dealership leaders:

How do you actually know what happens in live sales conversations on the showroom floor?

Most dealerships have strong visibility into leads, CRM activity, appointments, test drives, follow-up, F&I, and closed deals.
But the actual face-to-face conversation between the customer and the salesperson is often much harder to measure or coach consistently.

That conversation is where a lot of value is created or lost:

• How well the salesperson qualifies the buyer
• How objections are handled
• Whether trade-in, financing, protection plans, or next steps are positioned well
• Why some deals move forward and others stall
• What top performers do differently

We’re building InstoreX, an AI platform designed to help dealerships understand and improve showroom sales conversations — with the goal of helping managers coach better, improve customer experience, and close more deals.

We’re currently looking to speak with a small number of dealership managers and sales leaders who would be open to sharing how they manage and coach their teams today, and potentially help shape the product as design partners.

No sales pitch — we’re trying to learn from operators and build this around real dealership workflows.

If you’d be open to a short conversation, comment here or email me at [email protected]

Learn more: www.instorex.co

Click to expand...

Most stores really do not know. You hear the salesperson’s version, review the TO, then look at the CRM and the final deal. By then, you are coaching the result, not the conversation that caused it.


The value is seeing the exact point the deal moved or died. Missed question. Weak value build. Objection not handled. No clear next step.


The biggest hurdle is trust. If the floor sees it as a gotcha tool, they will fight it. How are you handling consent, and can it connect the conversation to the full deal in the CRM, including the trade, payment, pricing, and manager involvement?

NEW ARRIVAL Upgrade

More Form + More Style = Better
p.s. built to be a 4:3 like the original.

craigh said:

I'd be interested to see if a better design with identical content helped moved the needle.

Click to expand...

Function versus style.
Many people believe that white space and style drive the function. Style is fungible, style is like fashion, it's A/B testable. The function is the innovation, the style is like paint on a car.


Google "Change Overlay to 'geo-cities' formatting". lol

joe.pistell said:

Sources: reymore.com inventory feed & 16-month archive · Tiles: reymore.com, Jul 29 2026

Click to expand...

I love what you're doing and I want to know if the design matters.
The fonts and styles you have on the text are straight out of the 90s when everyone learned about "outer stroke" in Photoshop, with some Drop Shadow to boot. I'd be interested to see if a better design with identical content helped moved the needle.

Here is Gemini's first attempt - I asked for a "2026 style overlay"

For me (not a lot operator, work with many lot operators) this has always come down to 2 things:
1. Are the build sheets actually accurate? Can you take a Toyota VIN and accurately decode down to the trim and equipment?
2. Does it require the dealer to use yet another tool? (in this case, yes)

There are many inventory merchandizing solutions that have this as a feature, but very few are actually integrating it into their websites or actually implementing the QR codes. We tried QR codes that scanned to the VDP and the number of scans was shockingly low - consumers didn't seem to interact with it at all when looking at the physical car.

In this AI slop wasteland dealers are telling us every week one clear message: "we want less tools, not more tools"

Another DealerRefresh 1st...
Do the pre-recon shots sell more cars?

Pre-recon are the cell phone lot shots, quick, non-professional (example)


Compared to the stores front line photo process:


Solution?

Give your New Arrivals extra attention!​

1 -- Have your photographer take high-quality photos — more is better.
2 -- Don’t photo dirty cars. Period.
3 -- Annotate NEW ARRIVAL on the footer.



Prepared by AutoMagic Labs · TurnSignal ·
The stats: Jul 1–28, 2026, Reymore GA4 (ASC events) —
--141 fully photographed units: 8.5 median VDP views/day in their first 30 days, 53 leads (forms + calls) ·
--49 photo-pending units: 0.3–1.0 views/day, 0 leads, 14 with zero shopper activity ·
--Average wait for full photos: 15 days ·
Sources: reymore.com inventory feed & 16-month archive · Tiles: reymore.com, Jul 29 2026

ryan.leslie said:

paging @joe.pistell ... Mismerchandized vehicles is STILL a problem. Carry On.

Click to expand...

LOL.

Some are worse than others...

(hid the dealers name to protect the innocent

Good thread, thanks for the input! I would like to attend in order to do some speed AI demos at the expo, but agree the $3,500.00 is a high price to check out vendors. The Hackathon is also tempting, to pick Brent and attendees' brains. I plan to be in Detroit for that week, and may end up paying the ounce of gold price, if folks are attending we could try to connect for a beer!

Doesn't look like a sunroof to me:


but...



paging @joe.pistell ... Mismerchandized vehicles is STILL a problem. Carry On.

@Matteon

They are not equipped the same according to CarGurus, or rather, according to the equipment selected in the listing. YMMT match isn't sufficient for badging.

Look at what is returned when I replicate your search:



Now... look at what is returned when I add sunroof from the options:



I can't see a sunroof in the images in this listing, I have no idea if it actually has one, but Gurus thinks it does... they put a value on the sunroof using a bookout, or if they are doing what we did at CarStory 10 years ago their own value based on market scarcity/consumer interest/geography etc.. There is the valuation difference that is likely driving the badging difference.

I dont't think there is foul play here, but if there is, in my opinion it would be related to the actual equipment on the vehicle, not preferential treatment for the retailer.

@Matteon - Is this a one-off, or are you seeing multiple examples of this?

I hope that this isn't the case, but in the past, a dealer could go into the back end and select options that did not populate in the VIN decode, think aftermarket adds etc.

Those features did impact the assessed value. Might be interesting to audit the equipment differences between these two listings.

Rob said:

Don’t spam here. This site ain’t the one, chief.

Click to expand...

I love that you're helping us out on the spam gates!!! Thank you so much, @Rob

In this case, Jon reached out to Jeff and me ahead of time, and I gave him the go-ahead to post this. It would be cool if we had better news curation in the industry.

With that said, I don't care for all the new vehicle updates. There is already so much of that to see - it is the most covered thing in our industry because that's what the consumer wants. I do care about some of them, but I don't subscribe to any of those anymore.

I care about what's happening inside the retail process and service sides of our industry. CarDealershipGuy used to be a great source for that. But it's gotten too obvious that he's chasing the money, not the story. I rarely find something in his newsletter interesting these days.

Do you know of other sources that are diving deeper into the dealership?

KennySmithAutoUnite said:

Alex, I still think appointments matter. The problem is we made the appointment count the goal instead of the next step.


If the customer agreed to a real time, the vehicle is there and ready, and somebody owns the visit, that’s an appointment.


If they said, “I might stop by Saturday,” and we put it in the CRM so the board looks better, that’s not an appointment.


I’d still track set, show and sold. I’d just rather have 10 real appointments than 25 pencil-whipped ones.


Mr. Appointment can stay. He just has to stop counting maybes.

Click to expand...

Let's see if I can remember where my head was at 8 years ago when I made that post... I can only guess I was seeing a lot of appointment gamification that was leading to poor show rates.

I am not against setting appointments in any way, shape, or form. I'm against pay plans that are too focused on setting appointments and not focused enough on selling appointments.

Survey Your BUYERS at delivery.
​

So simple, yet so few do it.​

​

Take Aways​

1. 60% of all sales were on your website 3x or more.
2. 40% of all buyers NEVER went to another dealership.

This is a small Chevy point in a mid-size market that is flooded with 13 Chevy stores within a one-hour drive.