In my opinion, there is a lot of "hair splitting" going on with this thread. I feel like there are a lot of different people saying about the same thing in a slightly different way.
This is some of what I see.
I completely disagree. My buyer has to, and needs to trust me. Your definition of trust/faith states that it is not based upon proof, yet your method of building credibility is Market-Based Proof. They are one in the same, and necessary. FOR THE MOST PART, customers will not buy from me unless they trust me. Sure, if I have a giveaway type of order taker price on a vehicle the customer may not care. That is the rare exception, not the rule.
In theory, I like this idea. I worked in a store that did exactly this. It was great for the bottom line because the product specialists were hourly employees that just didn't want to work in a factory setting and wanted to put on nice clothes every day. We eliminated a lot of the showroom squabble because ultimately they were getting paid either way. They didn't care which customer belonged to which product specialist, they just wanted to be happy and help people.
This was not good for customer morale. We start with this guy, get handed over to someone else, go in with this other person, and then someone completely different handles this. What happened to that funny nice guy we started with? Is he still here? We want to talk to him. The transition from Party to Combat was perceived as even worse than the alternative.
NOW, I am not saying that this will not work. I am saying that if this process is fully embraced from the second a customer hits the lot, it can work. I believe that the product specialist needs to be completely honest with people and just tell them: "I really don't know how all of that works, my job is to make 100% sure that we have found the vehicle that will come the closest to doing every single thing you need it to do. When we are all satisfied that we have found that vehicle, Joe will help you with the price, trade in value, payments, and all that other stuff."
Personally, I believe that the level of talent required to sell for your asking price is directly related to the pricing structure that the individual store uses. If you are in a vAuto type of store that aggressively chases the turns, and the vehicle is a 50 day unit that is priced to just get rid of it......it is a clerk's job. If you are pricing your cars at 5% over Retail, you aren't going to get your asking price (generally speaking) and you better be good at negotiation. It all ties back to the gross profit that the individual store is trying to attain.
As dealership managers, how do we evaluate our sales people? Volume? CSI? Gross Profit generated? Payroll? F & I profit? Finance Penetration? All of the above? None? I don't know what the answer should be, but I know for me it is total gross profit generated. I like the salespeople that generate a lot of gross throughout the entire front end. Over the last 20 years, month in and month out, these people have been great negotiators. Split the hairs as many ways as you want, call it what you want, they were great at negotiation.
[USER=2]@Alex Snyder[/USER] acknowledges this in his idea of transitioning to product specialists, negotiators, and delivery people. His system would in essence put every customer in front of the strongest negotiators in the store!
Anyway, lots of good information in this thread.
Oh, one more thing...I don't know how we can be more transparent. I can however share a link to a dealer's website that in my opinion is about as transparent as it gets. Look at their Shares Program and the vAuto powered Real Deal thing.
http://www.truworthauto.com/default.aspx
