Frankly, all the website companies are the same in certain aspects. I think it really comes down to their conversion ratio or the traffic to the site being converted into leads, either phone calls or emails. We personally have a Cobalt website through GM, and we have the upper package with the search. We have gotten great results in the past 8 months. Our "procare" person is awesome and always helping us with specials and going over our reports and constantly helping us with our online strategy. The search that GM does for their dealers are on 3 tier levels. The first pushes back to GM. The second pushes back to a DMA landing page. The third pushes back to the dealer and is triggered by name and location of the dealer. I think this is a good thing that GM is looking out for us and spending our money digitally. As far as doing additional search with Cobalt, it has more than paid for itself. Unlike other companies I have used in the past, they actually come up with a strategy and have someone running my campaigns rather than just flip a switch and spend my money. We can sit here and bash GM and Cobalt or any other OEM or website provider all day long, but at the end of the day, most of the OEMs are moving towards this and if you ask GM and the dealers out there, it has greatly produced results (even for some of us that have been doing this for a long time). Frank, it seems as though you really have a bug up you about GM and Cobalt. I understand that some dealers want their freedom of choice, but most make the wrong decisions. Coordinating efforts gives us better pricing and more value. I love Cobalt and what they have done for my dealership. Best of luck to all of you. Instead of complaining and complaining, come up with a marketing strategy that works for you, use your procare person (the 299 a month is well worth it), and sell some cars. The squeeky wheel gets the greese, but sometimes it gets replaced. Happy Selling!
-
This thread is just the tip of the iceberg.The people ahead of the curve aren't Googling for answers — they're already in here, having the conversations you haven't found yet. DealerRefresh is free.Get the full picture →
Hello John
Thank you for the post and the information and I have to say it is great to hear that someone is doing well with the cobalt site. If you notice at the begining of my post I said GM and Cobalt had a great idea but with major faults built in. I had a good pro care advocate and was always very helpful.
I have come up with a marketing stratagy as you have suggested and Cobalt gets in my way. I am not complaning as you suggest but pointing out the fact that GM and Cobalt has lied to the dealers and continues to direct consumers away from our website that we advertise for, I believe you have not read the article or understand its content and you need to understand that I have a huge amount of respect for not only GM but also for Cobalt as they have a huge amount of experience etc to offer "some" dealers. Other dealers that have been aggresive on the internet have other " marketing plans" that do not include Cobalt, simply said Gm should not push a website provider on its dealers that have that "marketing plan" in place nor should they place a PPC campaign using a dealers name when they have been asked not to. I want the Cobalt site for one reason and that is to get the link from Chevy.com to a website for Jim Glover Chevrolet.
Thanks for the response. It is good to see another point by a dealer that is successful with a marketing plan utilizing a Cobalt website.
Frank Davis
Thank you for the post and the information and I have to say it is great to hear that someone is doing well with the cobalt site. If you notice at the begining of my post I said GM and Cobalt had a great idea but with major faults built in. I had a good pro care advocate and was always very helpful.
I have come up with a marketing stratagy as you have suggested and Cobalt gets in my way. I am not complaning as you suggest but pointing out the fact that GM and Cobalt has lied to the dealers and continues to direct consumers away from our website that we advertise for, I believe you have not read the article or understand its content and you need to understand that I have a huge amount of respect for not only GM but also for Cobalt as they have a huge amount of experience etc to offer "some" dealers. Other dealers that have been aggresive on the internet have other " marketing plans" that do not include Cobalt, simply said Gm should not push a website provider on its dealers that have that "marketing plan" in place nor should they place a PPC campaign using a dealers name when they have been asked not to. I want the Cobalt site for one reason and that is to get the link from Chevy.com to a website for Jim Glover Chevrolet.
Thanks for the response. It is good to see another point by a dealer that is successful with a marketing plan utilizing a Cobalt website.
Frank Davis
I am not understanding how you feel that GM and Cobalt lied to the dealers. In what way did they lie. Honestly, I have no loyalty to GM or to Cobalt. I have used Dealerskins, TK Carsites, and Dealer.com in the past, and honestly, there is not much difference. If you look at a top of the line Cobalt site compared to any of these, including your Reynolds site which I was just on, I think you will not see that much difference. I was able to make my site look much different than many of the other GM dealers out there and I am happy to see GM using our ad dollars where the eyes truly are, in digital on the web and in TEVO proof television like the news or sports. I cannot see the bad in that. Would you rather GM spend it in places where the eyeballs are not? While I don't agree with everything GM does, I can see where they want to keep uniformity and have some sort of control over the web content as a Chevrolet, Caddy, GMC, etc... dealer is representing their product. Nissan is the same way. You have to have a Nissan compliant site, but they do allow for different vendors. What GM did was allow us a base site using our ad dollars (which we can opt out if we want) and also negotiate a very fair price. Take that into consideration with the fact that it is all turn key coopable and I think it is fantastic. Take Cobalt out of the picture and replace them with any of the other Web Providers, and I still think that GM is trying to do the right thing and many other OEMs have followed ie: Chrysler, Subaru, etc.. Now take a look at Lexus, you want to talk about stringent, they will not let you put new inventory on your site. They have their reasons for this as well. I am not arguing with you at all Frank, but I really don't understand where you say GM and Cobalt lied, and I see true value in what they are tring to do. Sooner or later the OEMs will get it right. It just takes these big giants to move a bit slower than other industries. Cheers! Let's sell some cars!!!
This is an AWESOME explanation of The Cobalt/GM/Dealer relationship. The whole situation is ridiculous. A few points:
#1 - Bidding on the dealers name could be acceptable in SOME instances. Let's say a 3rd party lead provider is bidding on a dealers name and coming up first. You may want to take that position away from them with your own URL. There are some much shadier and devious reasons you may want to own that spot yourself which I'm not going to mention here. Let's just suffice it to say that if you don't own spot #1 for your own name you are OUT OF YOUR MIND! (I'll explain this to Jeff privately if he wishes)
#2 - Did you know that if you don't have a Cobalt website, Cobalt (or Chevy) trademarked their name in Google making is super hard to run a PPC campaign if you don't direct the traffic to an official dealer domain (aka a cobalt website for the most part). Why would you want to drive traffic to a URL unrecognized by chevy you may ask? How about if you are setting up custom landing pages to do something a little different and change up your message...
I hope I have brought some ideas to the table here. I'm a search marketing superstar and always around to help cool folks like you.
Keep Hustlin'
Ad Hustler
#1 - Bidding on the dealers name could be acceptable in SOME instances. Let's say a 3rd party lead provider is bidding on a dealers name and coming up first. You may want to take that position away from them with your own URL. There are some much shadier and devious reasons you may want to own that spot yourself which I'm not going to mention here. Let's just suffice it to say that if you don't own spot #1 for your own name you are OUT OF YOUR MIND! (I'll explain this to Jeff privately if he wishes)
#2 - Did you know that if you don't have a Cobalt website, Cobalt (or Chevy) trademarked their name in Google making is super hard to run a PPC campaign if you don't direct the traffic to an official dealer domain (aka a cobalt website for the most part). Why would you want to drive traffic to a URL unrecognized by chevy you may ask? How about if you are setting up custom landing pages to do something a little different and change up your message...
I hope I have brought some ideas to the table here. I'm a search marketing superstar and always around to help cool folks like you.
Keep Hustlin'
Ad Hustler
Regardless of how we look at GM's handling of their alliance with The Cobalt Group, we should probably take note when a company who is suckling from the American taxpayer after receiving assistance from the US Congress, stands up for what are basic American principles. Such as Freedom of Speech, often defined as "Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment."
Yet, GM has seen fit to contact Frank Davis's employer and threaten the dealership with adverse actions if Frank does not rescind or retract any criticism he has made about GM and their sole-supplier relationship with The Cobalt Group. Is this the America we really want? Where corporate egos can intimidate and silence their critics without need to defend or explain their actions? Is this the type of intimidation and coercion that we want our government to support with taxpayer money?
In addition to threats and coercion applied to Frank Davis, other automotive professionals who have provided a platform for GM dealers to express their criticism of the GM and Cobalt partnership have had their jobs threatened and have been banned from doing any business with GM. For what? For simply allowing GM dealers to have freedom of speech and a venue with which to express their complaints.
General Motors and Cobalt are certainly free to run their very successful, dynamic and fast growing innovative companies any way they see fit, but when becoming a federally funded institution, which GM certainly is right now, shouldn't they be required to at least honor the constitutional and civil rights of their dealers and the people who work for them?
Yet, GM has seen fit to contact Frank Davis's employer and threaten the dealership with adverse actions if Frank does not rescind or retract any criticism he has made about GM and their sole-supplier relationship with The Cobalt Group. Is this the America we really want? Where corporate egos can intimidate and silence their critics without need to defend or explain their actions? Is this the type of intimidation and coercion that we want our government to support with taxpayer money?
In addition to threats and coercion applied to Frank Davis, other automotive professionals who have provided a platform for GM dealers to express their criticism of the GM and Cobalt partnership have had their jobs threatened and have been banned from doing any business with GM. For what? For simply allowing GM dealers to have freedom of speech and a venue with which to express their complaints.
General Motors and Cobalt are certainly free to run their very successful, dynamic and fast growing innovative companies any way they see fit, but when becoming a federally funded institution, which GM certainly is right now, shouldn't they be required to at least honor the constitutional and civil rights of their dealers and the people who work for them?
Regardless of how we look at GM's handling of their alliance with The Cobalt Group, we should probably take note when a company who is suckling from the American taxpayer after receiving assistance from the US Congress, stands up for what are basic American principles. Such as Freedom of Speech, often defined as "Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment."
Yet, GM has seen fit to contact Frank Davis's employer and threaten the dealership with adverse actions if Frank does not rescind or retract any criticism he has made about GM and their sole-supplier relationship with The Cobalt Group. Is this the America we really want? Where corporate egos can intimidate and silence their critics without need to defend or explain their actions? Is this the type of intimidation and coercion that we want our government to support with taxpayer money?
In addition to threats and coercion applied to Frank Davis, other automotive professionals who have provided a platform for GM dealers to express their criticism of the GM and Cobalt partnership have had their jobs threatened and have been banned from doing any business with GM. For what? For simply allowing GM dealers to have freedom of speech and a venue with which to express their complaints.
General Motors and Cobalt are certainly free to run their very successful, dynamic and fast growing innovative companies any way they see fit, but when becoming a federally funded institution, which GM certainly is right now, shouldn't they be required to at least honor the constitutional and civil rights of their dealers and the people who work for them?
Yet, GM has seen fit to contact Frank Davis's employer and threaten the dealership with adverse actions if Frank does not rescind or retract any criticism he has made about GM and their sole-supplier relationship with The Cobalt Group. Is this the America we really want? Where corporate egos can intimidate and silence their critics without need to defend or explain their actions? Is this the type of intimidation and coercion that we want our government to support with taxpayer money?
In addition to threats and coercion applied to Frank Davis, other automotive professionals who have provided a platform for GM dealers to express their criticism of the GM and Cobalt partnership have had their jobs threatened and have been banned from doing any business with GM. For what? For simply allowing GM dealers to have freedom of speech and a venue with which to express their complaints.
General Motors and Cobalt are certainly free to run their very successful, dynamic and fast growing innovative companies any way they see fit, but when becoming a federally funded institution, which GM certainly is right now, shouldn't they be required to at least honor the constitutional and civil rights of their dealers and the people who work for them?
What this comes down to as I have said in the past is: if you want to do something different then the dealer 5, 10, 15, etc miles away then do something different.
On a national level, GM-Cobalt does not have the dealers best interest in mind. What about the areas you want to target and so forth?
I have placed lengthy post on ADM on this subject. Feel free to check it out. ( Thats if it is still there and not removed lol! )
On a national level, GM-Cobalt does not have the dealers best interest in mind. What about the areas you want to target and so forth?
I have placed lengthy post on ADM on this subject. Feel free to check it out. ( Thats if it is still there and not removed lol! )
Jeff,
It is a shame to see that the GM and Cobalt black hands of censorship has extended into DealerRefresh as well as the other places where Frank's article has since been rescinded... Can we think of a few other times in history when a major corporation has used threats and intimidation tactics to silence their critics?
It is a shame to see that the GM and Cobalt black hands of censorship has extended into DealerRefresh as well as the other places where Frank's article has since been rescinded... Can we think of a few other times in history when a major corporation has used threats and intimidation tactics to silence their critics?
- May 1, 2005
- 5,999
- 1,914
- Awards
- 12
- First Name
- Jeff
@Anonymous Car Guy - You're right about that but I had to make a call here. I didn't want anyone loose their job. I held onto it as long as I could.
