Someone at a Ford dealership reached out to raise concerns about how FordDirect structures its certified vendor and Co-op reimbursement program. Their core argument is that the program is locked into an older model and hasn't kept up with where the technology is going — particularly around AI-driven tools and real-time data.
To back it up, they built their own dealership website using AI and live inventory feeds, and say it outperforms the certified vendor's site on measurable metrics. They brought this to FordDirect leadership directly and heard nothing back.
The submission also includes what appears to be a confidential internal white paper — marked as such and addressed to named FordDirect executives. It lays out criticism of the vendor certification framework, describes friction with two certified vendors over unresolved technical and SEO issues, and proposes moving to a more open architecture.
It sounds like things have been ignored.
Worth broadening this beyond Ford/FordDirect as you could swap in almost any OEM and their middleman of choice and tell the same story.
For instance, Stellantis, Kia, and Mazda run through Shift Digital, which in my experience functions primarily as a gatekeeper taking a cut off every vendor "partnership" they approve. I saw this firsthand when I was at DealerInspire and we were added to the FCA program in 2017. Revenue from existing stores immediate dropped by 25%. That was Shift's take out of the gate. The certified vendor list isn't curated for dealer performance rather it's curated for who paid to be on it. The co-op dollars follow accordingly.
Not saying DealerInspire wasn't awesome, just the premise is flawed because they also added some crappy site providers. I have yet to run into anyone in automotive from the OEM, Vendor, or Retail side that doesn't have the same eye-roll reaction when talking about Shift's model.
I get it. We're franchise dealers. The OEM has every right to protect brand standards and control how their nameplate shows up in market. That's a legitimate interest. But there's a meaningful difference between brand protection and a pay-to-play vendor ecosystem that skims money before it ever reaches the retail level. The OEM is often just as much a victim of these middlemen as the dealer is (Mazda CORE Ad program is absolutely this) they're funding a structure that benefits the intermediary more than the brand. IMO, the OEMs could reduce both dealer and their co-op expense by allowing dealers to shop in an open market. The OEM could still contract with brand compliance companies (like Ansira) to audit brand standards at whatever level they see fit. Porsche sites need to look the same? Probably. Ford and Chevy? Uh, no.
I'll carve out a partial exception for FordDirect. My read on them isn't "actively corrupt" but more "built for a different era and not keeping pace." Their most recent, as an example, of "look at what we did" was the bolted-on AI search function in their already tangled web of dealer tools. They also fumbled the "FordDirect CRM" DriveCentric partnership when it comes to private offer list integrations etc. The intent may have been dealer-aligned, and maybe still is, but the execution is missing the mark right now.
On the practical side: I started working around OEM vendor limitations in 2010, beginning with websites. Running WordPress sites past the OEM-approved offerings wasn't hard and we treated the certified sites like a Page 1 placeholder and built real performance elsewhere. That was fifteen years ago. The gap between what the approved vendor can do and what's available outside the program has only grown since then. Much like the complaint on this tip, I literally have to send paid search to
OEM approved URLs that convert at lower rates than our own sites if I want to see any co-op credits... Explain that away, OEMs.
The frustration in this tip is real and legitimate. But it's not a Ford problem. It's a structural problem that every franchise dealer is navigating to some degree.
Dear OEMs, the compliance piece is solvable without the gatekeeper tax. Audit brand standards, open the vendor market, and tie co-op credits to compliance with brand and ad standards, not vendor selection. I'm sure there are arguments you, the OEM, have against breaking out of that model. I'd just bet most of them were written by Shift.
