I've always disagreed with this logic and approach - I find it too surface level.
A dealer that advertises on 10 networks (Facebook, Google, billboards, radio, etc) is always going to have more touchpoints per sale than a dealer who spends less but still sells cars. I have never needed a single touchpoint to buy a car, but when I am in the market to buy a car I am overwhelmed with dealer marketing and communications. Just because I see them all, doesn't mean they're actually impacting the sale.
The data often comes from studies where they ask customers "how many times did you see an ad" or "check all the places where you looked before buying" - but none of that actually indicates that these touchpoints are required or actually resulting in a specific sale.
Customers I talk to don't slowly get convinced to buy a car by seeing overwhelming amounts of ads and touchpoints from the dealer - they decide to buy a car and then inevitably see and engage with these things everywhere. We also run countless campaigns where we send a letter to customers and with 1 letter we convince them to come in and buy a car.
I do agree with all of this, and it aligns with what I tend to see personally (both at the stores I work with and with my own friends/family).
When someone is ready to buy a car, they go to the dealership website to see if the car is available. I also see them go back over and over again to show their spouse, their parents, check if the car is still in stock, drool over it, etc. They're excited about this purchase and many times they'll show you that in the data.
I don't often see people shopping dealership websites if they aren't in the market fairly seriously, as this is a low funnel step where they're often looking for a very specific unit that they've already decided on.
