CarFax launches new history impact tool - Press Release

[Joe Turner (blog)]

Great point Brian, perhaps using the other more traditional forums, such as 20 groups and state associations.

 

[Mark]

I posted this in the other thread about "CARFAX - What are you thinking?" but one of their sales guys sent me a .pdf of this release, and with "what dealers are saying" about the product, and it quoted Troy Shields from 'unknown dealer' comments from that other thread as some of the great things dealers are saying about the product.

They're aware of this feedback, but aren't addressing it at all - at least not publicly. A little interesting that the person's comments they're using are from an unknown dealer - has Troy Shields been active on here outside of the Carfax comments before?

 

[Jeff Kershner]

My group will be seriously considering Autocheck after this sloppy ordeal.

We do have consumers wanting the additional sum that CarFax suggests on the CarFax - that ofcourse happens to be right on our dealer websites.

Many of our cars are already price adjusted to the market. Consumer want the discount off your low price NOT the average "Retail" price.

Dealer should be given the opportunity to decide if they want this feature on their CarFax.

CarFax can spin this anyway they want but this was simply an unintelligent move.

 

[Dan P.]

I am not a dealer, but just a simple car owner who has tried to trade his vehicle in for a new one. Here is my take on this new history impact feature. Sure, its new and no one at CARFAX wants to share how they are coming up with this impact number. If it truly were an accurate reflection of what the vehicle history impact had against the trade in value or retail value, I think it would seriously help to correct the biggest flaw with these type of reports. These type of reports, more often than not, create a false value of a vehicle. Take for instance the SUV I want to trade in. It was involved in an accident 6 months after I bought it new.(I rear ended a car doing about 5 MPH, after almost stopping)I needed a new hood,radiator,grille, lights, etc. There was no frame damage and the car has driven perfect from that time almost 3 years ago. Yet, I go to the dealer and they want to heavily penalize me because the CARFAX report says there was an accident? Because the buyer of a used car wants the car heavily discounted for an accident? The car drives perfect! I paid the deductible, the insurance paid for the car to be repaired, I have been and will keep paying insurance surcharges and now a hefty "accident deduction" off my trade in? This is the true problem here. Everyone is trying to heavily discount the vehicles value, not on the "impact of the vehicles accident history" but on the word "accident". I am not saying that this impact value that CARFAX has come up with is a true indicator of the vehicles +/- value, just that something like this needs has to be done to correct the monster that these reports create.

 

[vinrock]

Dan P., the simple car owner who had tried to trade in his used vehicle for a new one, is the only commenter to this article who properly capitalized the word "CARFAX".

He has also concluded from this single experience that "more often than not... these reports... create a monster... that must be corrected...".

 

[Dan P.]

I don't understand your input there, Vin. Are you agreeing with me or do you not think I am who I say I am?

In any case, I went to another dealer yesterday and pretty much heard the same thing, that there would have to be some deduction based on there being an accident on my CARFAX report. "This is because when a buyer of a used car sees the report, the first thing they want is a discount." So I threw this question out to the salesman...If I have a brand new vehicle and some little old lady backs into me at the grocery store, not only should I get her insurance info and call for a police report, I should contact a lawyer to sue her for the $1,200 loss that I will realize when I go to trade in my vehicle in 3 years? He just laughed. No, seriously I said. I guess you could try, he said. I think that any vehicle that had an accident should be inspected after repair and an "accident impact value" be reported to CARFAX. That way the owner of the vehicle, the dealer, and the buyer of the vehicle are on some sort of level playing ground.

 

[Jill]

Dan P.-

I was in an accident last month and incurred $3500 damage. It was the other drivers fault.

So I settled with his insurance company had my car repaired and i then proceeded to file my claim with the other drivers insurance company for vehicle depreciation claim. I knew that in the future when i go to sell my car the CARFAX will show the accident. I received $1600 for my claim with no questions asked. So i now have the money I will be out when I go to trade in and they offer me less because of my CARFAX.

Much easier than the police report and sueing scenario.

 

[Tim Jennings]

So CarFax calls to try and sign me up on their Free service reporting product. (They have been trying for all 3 years its been out) 32 min later (I checked the time stamp) I had rep somewhat agreeing with me about flaws in the pricing tool they just rolled out. He didn't know how they came up with the + - = number as well. He gave me his speech and I said, ' You told me you sold cars, If you used that word track to a customer, do you think that would buy that explanation? He said probably not. Point is he was taking notes and said he wanted to hear all feed back If the powers at be hear enough feed back maybe things will change. SO LETS CONTINUE TO GIVE THEM THE FEED BACK!!!

 

[Joe Turner (blog)]

Tim,

Great post. You guys in stores need to also press your GMs and Owners to bring this up at 20 groups and state associations too.

Joe Turner

502-230-1563

 

[Rob Fontano (blog)]

I have a meeting with two reps from CARFAX next week. They are very aware of what is going on here as well as other automotive sites.

I clarified my concerns and position and asked that they come prepared to answer "What Book Value" is being used and exactly what criteria is used to establish the + / - values. They understand that if they do not have clear answers to these questions they should not bother having me paged to the showroom.

I think what has taken place here on Dealer Refresh has had a tremendous effect on the industry. I know for a fact that other vendors like Cars.com and Autotrader have been watching this exchange very closely.

Regardless of how this ends up being handled or not handled by CARFAX, a message has been sent that Dealerships have matured beyond having things rammed down their throats or glossed over by software and internet vendors.

We the Internet Directors are the eyes of the dealerships and we take our positions very seriously. We will only accept what is best for our stores and we are communicating with our peers like never before in the history of the Auto industry at any level. We place value in vendor partnerships and expect them to do the same.

hmmm.... sounds like the beginning of an Automotive Vendor Manifesto, jump on and add something if you care to.