Hello Ryan,
I appreciate the input and would like to take this a little bit further. To do that I have excerpted your post and kept your text in black and have replied under it in blue below:
1) If you really blow it before I get to the point of purchase, say you are running a crazy loss leader that you don't even have on the lot and then you are extremely rude when you can't switch me does that make my negative review of your store somehow invalid because I didn't buy from you? Different side of the same coin, I come in for service but the writer quickly identifies my problem as trivial during the walk and repairs it for me in the drive so there is no R.O. Is my glowing positive review invalid? The argument you are trying to make here is simply not logical.
I would almost agree but for Dealer Rater's model and counterpoints that are detailed here. The Dealer Rater model allows Dealers an exorbitant amount of time IF THEY ARE A PAYING client to "negotiate" with the prospective buyer so they don't leave the bad review. Isn't that pay to play? And..how many reviews like this ever see the light of day if I am a paying Dealer Rater client? I am sure it is a small percentage. Further, if a dealer is engaging in a "bait and switch" scheme, won't their other reviews that relate to actual purchases reflect the dealers poor conduct? This isn't bad service at a restaurant, this is a major purchase and the parameters of how reviews are posted should be measured accordingly. Perhaps some sort of verification system like a purchase order, receipt or again manufacturer CSI should be a criteria that applies to the weighting and credibility of a review. Basically, if you want Dealer Rater or any "Rating Site" to have substance why not do what eBay and Amazon do? Only allow people with proof of purchase to review a product or service purchase. Or at the very least "weight" an actual purchase or service higher then someone saying "I did not like a salesman's cologne" The argument is very logical, and it is not just my argument, look again at Amazon and eBay, they don't let people with no proof of interaction review a product or service and nor do car manufacturers. The only reason why Dealer Raters engages in a "anyone can post a review" model is so that dealers have to sign up, pay a fee to guard their reputation from posts that sometimes have no substance and should never have been allowed.
The worst experiences terminate well before a sale and the best reviews often originate from a dealer going above and beyond to earn customers for life because they understand the quick buck isn't the best buck.
I don't agree with this statement either. Most complaints come when a salesman promises things to get a sale that are not delivered. For example, in reading many reviews over the course of time you would be shocked to see how many people reference that they didn't receive an extra key, books, navi discs or were not properly educated on the fine points of the car they purchased. I think those reviews are fair because at least you know they purchased.
2) You don't! That said, some of the most damaging content out there isn't the negative reviews, it's the defensive responses to negative reviews from dealers with this type of access.
You don't? If no one needed to respond to a negative review left on Dealer Rater you wouldn't have a job at Dealer Rater as it would not exist. The "You don't" is an illogical statement. So, yes, yes you do need to pay to play in the Dealer Rater game.
As for the following excerpt I am perplexed;
"Some of the most damaging content out there isn't the negative reviews, it's the defensive responses to negative reviews from dealers with this type of access."
Are you saying that people shouldn't use Dealer Rater to respond, or even at all? Maybe I misread that. Maybe you are saying that when dealers respond they put their proverbial "foot in their mouth". Wouldn't that then justify an articulate honest response? Doesn't it then make sense to hire a company to carefully craft responses after working with the dealer client who had received a negative complaint to tell their side, or express regret and a remedy? PR is a necessary evil because people and competitive businesses often have their own agenda. I can't tell you how many clients come to us and tell us their side of a "review" that is markedly different from what had been posted by people who often hadn't purchased a car or service.
Case and point; We have seen "people" way upside down on their trade-ins not get the dollar amount they expected leave terrible review when they hadn't purchased. But what wasn't disclosed in their review was they were basing their cars value on "Edmunds Full Retail Value", when they should have been using "Edmunds Trade In Value" and they failed to mention the 3 accidents on the Carfax report. Should a dealer leave such a review un-responded to?
What about people who leverage the threat of a "bad rating" to get a better deal, Or former employees of a specific dealer post fictitious reviews about a fictitious purchase to slant consumers against their former boss because they feel that their pay plan was off. There are 3 sides to every story, yours, theirs and the truth, but to not respond in a competent, well thought out, fact laden way to a negative review would be tantamount to allowing your reputation to be slandered and accepting character assassination.
I welcome your follow up.
