WARNING – Longer than normal post ahead
It has been an interesting couple of months since this thread first started. We have seen videos from top industry consultants, Brian Pasch and Jim Ziegler, and from Cars.com CMO Linda Bartman. I thought of producing my own video but figured, who wants to see a small used car dealer from Richmond VA on air, so thought that I would put my thoughts in writing instead. Man, I had no idea this thread would become viral on this forum, Facebook, and other areas online. Is that a good thing? I’ll let you make your own decision on some of the things being said and bantered about.
From the beginning my concern was the email campaign that Cars.com initiated offering our leads other dealer’s inventory. My concern as a dealer is what I’ll refer to in this post as “the 20% rule”. Top notch dealerships with their email and follow up procedures firing on all cylinders only close around 20% of their internet leads. Stop and think about that number for a moment. How many people would like to play a game if you knew your odds of winning were only 2 out 10? Not many. I’ll bet our friend Jerry Thibeau would play way less blackjack if he knew he was only going to win 2 out 10 hands. But car dealers play this game every day. We get up early and we go to bed late playing a game that we know we are only going to win 20% of the time,
IF we are at our best. I felt, and still do, that the follow up email from Cars was an interruption that we did not need in our internet follow up process.
My other concern was the amount of emails our customers would be receiving from my store, the other dealers that they are shopping, and also Cars.com. I am not naive enough to think that my store is the only one that the consumer submitted a lead to. They have more than likely inquired with us and at least 1 or 2 other dealers. They have now entered into “email hell” as it has been described on these forums and elsewhere. In reading these and other forums online, sometimes I come across a quote that is so powerful that it sticks with me. Back in February in another thread: “How important are email lead conversions?” Alex Snyder made a statement that has stuck with me and I’ll share it with you here:
“Consumers don't fully appreciate the complexity of a car deal until after they've purchased the car. And they forget that until after they've purchased the next car. So, when they're looking online, they're remembering the bad experience they had from giving the dealership their info last time....all the email newsletters they've tried to unsubscribe from, all that junk mail that came to their physical mailbox, and all those voicemails left for them. It was annoying, irrelevant, and hounding. It is no wonder lead conversion is stagnant or sinking across all dealer websites while the actual visits are increasing. We did it to ourselves. And more leads = more problems. They do not = more money anymore.”
I feel that Alex’s statement is relevant here in this discussion. The Cars process with the follow up emails just adds several more unwanted emails to the consumers already clogged inbox. I’m speaking here from my own opinion of course and I apologize to Alex if he feels that I am using his quote out of context. Here is the link to that thread if you would like to check it out:
http://forum.dealerrefresh.com/f43/how-important-email-lead-conversions-3100.html#post27821
I also want it to be known that after this thread started, Linda Bartman from Cars.com reached out to me to discuss. We were both scheduled to be in New York that weekend for the President’s Club event and scheduled a meeting to chat about this in person. We met with another one of her coworkers to discuss the issue, from my point of view, and I certainly listened to hers. Our meeting probably lasted about an hour and I walked away feeling better that my voice was heard. But not feeling better about the issue at hand because at that time they were still intending to continue the program with a few tweaks. One major tweak was the schedule of the emails not starting until after the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] day. I was okay with that change but still not happy that the process was still going to happen. I was okay with the slight change because within those 3 days, my store has more than likely contacted the customer, and hopefully scheduled an appointment. We could have already sold them a car, but Cars.com doesn't know that. If we did, then the customer would still be getting those follow up emails as well as the many others from the competing dealers. I still feel that the follow up program was a threat to the “20% Rule” that none of us in dealerships need.
I understand all of the points and counterpoints that Jim and Bryan have made in their blogs and videos. The whole “more eyes on the VDP” deal, I get it, and I really do. But let’s not forget that the customer’s eyes were on my VDP to begin with, which resulted in them making a decision to submit a lead. Call me selfish, but I feel I’m just trying to protect my 20%!
So after a flurry of videos, blogs, and social media posts, Linda Bartman comes online and alerts everyone via video that the program is cancelled. I’m okay with that. End of discussion in my world. But it hasn't been the end of discussion in the world of many others. This thread has sort of morphed into an assault on many people that we all do business with. Yes, it has uncovered some areas of our business that we should be paying attention to. But at the end of the day, I don’t feel that Linda Bartman or Cars.com is my enemy. We had an issue, we met, they listened, and they reacted. They didn't just listen to me, I’m certainly not trying to take credit for the change, but thank them for making the change that this thread started out asking for.
Last week at Digital Dealer was an interesting experience. It seems that everywhere I went people were asking: “Hey Bill, are you the guest of honor at the Cars.com booth?” They were asking jokingly and I knew that. But it made for some great conversation on why this thread was initially started. The 20% Rule. My fellow dealer friends know where I was coming from when I initially started this thread and the changes we hoped would happen. I cannot say all, but certainly many agree with most of what I have written here. I actually did visit the Cars.com booth and also called Linda Bartman on her cell to let her know my thoughts.
What’s the moral to all of this?
Vendors should understand more about our business and how their actions could impact us in the dealership, ie the 20% Rule. Dealers, as Eley pointed out earlier in the thread, need to do a better job of knowing what wordage and DMS access, and inventory privileges we are granting when we sign a contract. If there is a website that your inventory is going to and you don’t want it there, have it removed. Credit to Dominion Dealer and their Dealer Specialties unit for stepping up and providing their dealer with instructions on how to opt out once the inventory feed issue reared its ugly head. Dealers can decide for themselves which websites are good or bad for their business, no one else. As I write this is, it being written that Homenet is about to do the same.
In closing this very long post, I am reminded of a quote that I heard from my friend and vendor partner Sean Stapleton with VinSolutions. We were at a dealer advisory board meeting a couple of years ago and the discussion somehow turned to dealer-vendor relationships. Sean was quick to say “At the end of the month if you don’t feel that you are a partner with your vendor,
“DON’T WRITE THE CHECK” Anyone that knows Sean and how excited he can get can imagine the enthusiasm that he made the statement with. I’m not planning on stopping writing checks to Cars or anyone else at the moment. Some of you that have participated in this thread apparently are ready to make that decision. I wish everyone the best with whatever decision you decide to make.
