- Feb 13, 2020
- 10
- 15
- Awards
- 2
- First Name
- David
If someone else controls access and use of your data, do you really own it?
- Thread starter David Steinberg
- Start date
- Mar 21, 2012
- 887
- 1,168
- Awards
- 9
- First Name
- Ryan
I've never been so inclined to read 100+ pages of a court order; it reads like a spy novel and pulls back the curtain on what vendors often go through when accessing dealer client data.
The DMS market for the most part has been a 2-horse race for the longest time until recently. OEMs have begun looking outside the legacy DMS giants with GM, BMW, Nissan, and Hyundai saddling up with newcomer Tekion and Ford choosing Salesforce, both of which seem to offer more open and robust data integrations.
I'm sure these OEM partnerships along with the continued dealer group consolidation trend will put further pressure on their market share.
It's crazy to think it will likely be several more years before this works its way through the American court system. A lot will change by then - EXCEPT REYNOLDS 1980'S ERA BLUE AND YELLOW DOS INTERFACE OF COURSE (PS: I'M NOT YELLING, I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE MY ADVANCED SOFTWARE SYSTEM DOESN'T UNDERSTAND LOWER CASE LETTERS).
I see merit on both sides - DMS companies want to ensure data security and integrity, while vendors want easy, affordable access to client data. Ultimately, I hope everyone can find a happy medium and do what's best for their mutual client: us, the dealers.
The DMS market for the most part has been a 2-horse race for the longest time until recently. OEMs have begun looking outside the legacy DMS giants with GM, BMW, Nissan, and Hyundai saddling up with newcomer Tekion and Ford choosing Salesforce, both of which seem to offer more open and robust data integrations.
I'm sure these OEM partnerships along with the continued dealer group consolidation trend will put further pressure on their market share.
It's crazy to think it will likely be several more years before this works its way through the American court system. A lot will change by then - EXCEPT REYNOLDS 1980'S ERA BLUE AND YELLOW DOS INTERFACE OF COURSE (PS: I'M NOT YELLING, I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE MY ADVANCED SOFTWARE SYSTEM DOESN'T UNDERSTAND LOWER CASE LETTERS).
I see merit on both sides - DMS companies want to ensure data security and integrity, while vendors want easy, affordable access to client data. Ultimately, I hope everyone can find a happy medium and do what's best for their mutual client: us, the dealers.
Last edited:
- Apr 7, 2009
- 4,633
- 2,122
- Awards
- 10
- First Name
- Joe
- Mar 21, 2012
- 887
- 1,168
- Awards
- 9
- First Name
- Ryan
I take it you've never had the pleasure of using a DMS or emailing someone in parts / service?
I take it you've never had the pleasure of using a DMS or emailing someone in parts / service?
I got the reference immediately lol - too many Reynolds legacy clients here in Canada still to this day.
Reynolds is really hanging on to their DOS-based ALL CAPS 'advanced software system', aren't they?
It's a 2 prong problem - on one hand some systems are still using the blue screens, but even dealers who moved to IGNITE and have a GUI.. the managers have just had their CAPS LOCK on for 10 years now and don't know better.
- Feb 13, 2020
- 10
- 15
- Awards
- 2
- First Name
- David
| it reads like a spy novel
It is definitely more interesting of a read than I was expecting. Even more so, I think it illustrates that a lot of the lack of making data accessible is by design. It’s unfortunate because it is really hurting the dealers they claim to be helping.
| DMS companies want to ensure data security and integrity
I would argue this. As a vendor, I can tell you we’ve been the recipient of leaked dealer data coming from thousands of dealerships (yes, thousands). These leaks and 100% of incidences them have come through the CRM’s “certified interfaces.” The lack of security and protocols in these interfaces has been alarming. Pages 37-38 call out this lack of security and demonstrate the real objective was to make money and that security was the marketing angle to limit competition and increase revenue.
“Plaintiffs cite evidence that SecurityFirst was considered a marketing campaign designed to drive up 3PA revenue, rather than a bona fide security effort. (See id.) For instance, an internal email from CDK’s Global Security Officer, Josh Sowers, criticized the company for launching its initiative “where our security sucks and is no where near industry best practices.” (DRPSOF ¶ 122.) In another email, Sowers complained that CDK had “[n]o product security strategy and Yet we want to talk security to sell products.” (Id.) Sowers believed CDK was “going to market way too soon” and could not “answer the fundamental question of what is more secure.” (Id.) Plaintiffs also note skepticism on the part of some vendors and dealers about whether the new measures were genuinely adopted for security reasons. (Id. ¶ 125; see also id.¶ 126 (evidence from 2006 to 2013 that CDK employees believed Reynolds’s similar security measures were motivated by financial rather than security concerns); id. ¶ 128 (evidence CDK relaxed security measures for dealers whose DMS contracts would be up for renegotiation soon).)”
