Are Check-Ins Useful For Business?

June 13, 2011 By Arnold Tijerina

(Originally published on Dealer magazine)

Yesterday, I got to attend the NBA Playoff game between the Los Angeles Lakers and Dallas Mavericks with 2 friends and I credit it all to a Facebook check-in. I was planning on attending the game anyways, however, while browsing my Facebook news feed, I noticed a friend who doesn’t live in my area had checked into Los Angeles airport. I didn’t know he was coming into the area. I reached out to them and within an hour we had made plans to attend the game together. Without that check-in, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to attend the game with some industry friends.

As I thought of this, I thought of one of the first things we teach all new salespeople. Tell everyone you know or meet that you sell cars. When I was in retail, there was nothing more frustrating than finding out after the fact that someone I knew had bought a vehicle somewhere else…especially if they bought the same brand I was selling. I also didn’t want to be “in your face” with everyone by yelling “Hey, I sell cars” everywhere I went. What better way to tell people you know that you sell cars in a passive, non-aggressive manner than to “check-in” at your dealership on a daily basis.

By doing this, you can leverage the check-in to inform your social network and keep it fresh in their minds that you sell cars. By doing this one simple thing, I guarantee that when it comes time to buy a car, they’ll know that you sell them.

Brand Protection: The Line In The Sand

June 13, 2011 By Arnold Tijerina

(Originally published on Dealer magazine)

In our online world, many companies’ brands are increasingly being challenged by others. Dealers are increasingly becoming more aware of the importance of reputation management. Vendors are shouting its importance through blog articles, conference session and webinars. Many people only look at one aspect of brand/reputation management – online reviews. While reviews are certainly important, they are only one aspect of it. Search results, domain names, PPC campaigns and online content also must be monitored in any company’s brand and reputation management programs.

There are many “types” of brand attacks your company can be forced to deal with ranging from those that are hostile to those with good intent. Here are some types:

Domain squatters – These are individuals that buy domain names (website addresses) that include other company’s trademarked names with the express intent to sell them back to those companies for profit.

Competitor attacks – These would include people who buy domain names, create content or run Google pay-per-click ads with the intent to use your branding for their benefit. In example: Your competing dealer buying domains, writing blog articles or running PPC campaigns that are designed to appear when consumers search for YOUR name.

Supporters/Fans – Yes, even your supporters and fans, despite their good intentions can also attack your brand. More about this.

Which do you deal with? All of them? Some of them?

The first two are the easiest to decide. Of course you don’t want your competitor running around driving your consumers (actual or potential) to them. I’m fairly certain that you also don’t want to have your brand name hijacked by a domain squatter and be held ransom for some exorbitant amount of money. There is at least one industry vendor who screams to dealers that they MUST control search engine results by buying domains that contain their names and branding then quietly buys domains that belong to others. There are certainly moral dilemmas involved here. On the one hand, you want to maximize your exposure to people not looking for you but, at the same time, you don’t want your competitors doing it. I’ve heard many people complain about their competition doing this to them and arguing how it’s “dirty” and “immoral” and then opposite comments resembling “you snooze, you lose” (usually followed by a snicker).

The last one is where many companies waiver and don’t know what to do. You can take the open path and allow all of your fans and supporters to create any content they want or you can protect your brand from these actions also. Every business likes and wants fans and you certainly don’t want to alienate them. Your company may even have “partners” that, while in support of your brand, utilize it for their interests, even if you benefit in some way.

What’s the “right” response?

Here’s my advice:

Any use of your brand or trademark that allows others any amount of control over your name without your permission and consent should be treated the same whether it’s out of malice or support.

Some would call this extreme and disagree. That’s fine.

Let’s take some examples of extremely popular brands with gigantic fan bases: Apple, Lucasarts and Toyota.

“Between January 2008 and May 2010, Apple Inc. filed more than 350 cases with the U.S. Trademark Office alone..” [link] Apple aggressively protects its brand in all cases. There aren’t many days that go by that you don’t see Apple suing somebody or sending “cease and desist” letters for some violation of their trademark whether it’s from companies utilizing part of their names (ie. iWhatever), fans creating websites supporting (or not supporting) Apple products whether or not they actually contain any reference to “Apple” in the domain, or blogs leaking unannounced product information. Do they piss their fans off? Sure, at times they do. Do they still do it? Absolutely.

Lucasarts, the owner of the Star Wars brand, has arguably one of the largest fan bases in the world. Whether its companies selling knock off products , websites that are “close” to something they own (Note: They sued Digg because the popular social media sharing site sounded too much like an old video game they made titled “The Dig”), or fans creating (and growing) the Star Wars brand through fan created content or websites, they don’t care. It’s their brand and name and they are very aggressive in controlling it. They’ve even gone so far as to say if you create anything that involves or uses any of our trademarked assets or intellectual property, we own it. Go ahead, draw a picture of R2-D2 right now. Yeah, they own it. Sorry.

Any Toyota dealer out there can attest to the aggressiveness in which Toyota protects its branding. I worked as an Internet Director for two dealer groups that owned Toyota stores. I remember all the hoops I had to jump through whether it was with Google or Toyota just trying to buy Google pay-per-click ads containing our dealership’s name. I even had to argue with Toyota to buy my own dealership’s exact domain name! Go ahead. Buy a domain or try and place a GoogleAd containing the word “Toyota.” See what happens.

While your company is arguably not as popular or has as much of a fan base as either Apple or Lucasarts, does that mean you shouldn’t take the same position? I would argue that they have even MORE to fear from this standpoint than any dealership would ever have to worry about. How many people could you potentially upset versus either of whose companies? I would guess they have some of the best attorneys and brightest employees on the planet making these types of policy decisions. Any of us would happily trade places with them in terms of company success, popularity and brand awareness.

How do supporters of your brand hurt you? It may not be so obvious. Think about a consumer searching your brand on Google. When the results appear, they see all sorts of content, which you may or may not own. Any content that uses your name but doesn’t drive the traffic or business to you is an attack. Whether it’s a Google pay-per-click ad, a fan community, or a competitor trying to use your name to drive the consumers to themselves, it is all the same.

Look, I’m not against your business having fans. You should create and encourage your raving fans to be fans. You should identify the ones with the most influence and have them shouting how great your business is from the top of a mountain. That being said, there are many ways in which your fans can support you without innocently (or not so innocently) attacking your brand. They can encourage their friends to join YOUR community, leave reviews FOR you, write blog articles saying how great you treated them, and SHARE your content with their social network. Your brand protection and your fans’ support can coexist without your trademark being violated. Encourage fans that are supporting you the right way, absolutely.

If you come across a fan that IS using your name, identity or branding that, in any way, could potentially confuse your consumers or drive traffic to themselves that you would have received had that content not existed, you should take action. I would advise that the first thing you should do is reach out to the supporter, thank them for their support, explain your brand protection policies and ask that they cease, alter, or turn-over your trademarked assets (depending on what the trademark violation is).

What do you do if they refuse? Well, if they refuse to respect your wishes and comply, you only have two choices: allow them to retain control of the asset(s) or not.

We’ve all heard the saying that 1 happy person will tell 1 person about their experience while 1 unhappy person will tell 100.

Keep in mind when deciding whether to enforce your trademark that it only takes one bad experience to turn that happy person controlling trademarked assets from a raving fan into avocal opponent. I would advise that rather than wait until that moment arrives to deal with it, you become proactive and take control of your assets. None of the companies I used as examples are where they are from being passive.

If you reinforce the ship before the attack, you minimize your company’s vulnerability and spend less time doing damage control and more time on building a better ship.

If You Could Only Make Front-End Profit, Could You Stay In Business?

June 12, 2011 By Arnold Tijerina

(Originally published on Dealer magazine)

You may be forced to find out.

How many less cars would you sell if you couldn’t spot deliver cars?

What if you couldn’t add negative equity into a transaction?

What if you couldn’t make any reserve money on the financing?

What if the mark-up on back-end products was regulated?

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). This legislation gave the Federal Trade Commission the authorization to regulate, in essence, how car dealers do business by defining “unfair or deceptive acts or practices by motor vehicle dealers.” It seems now the FTC is moving towards defining, and enforcing this.

On March 15, 2011, the FTC announced the start of a series of public round roundtables in which they are seeking “data and empirical evidence” to begin deciding in what way, and how, to regulate car dealers.

The question isn’t whether they will, it is in what way. The FTC is a consumer protection organization. “Unfair and Deceptive” are certainly subjective terms which mean different things to car dealers than they do to consumers.

In the roundtables, some of the questions they want feedback, data and evidence on are very telling on how they view the practices of dealers. The mere fact that they are asking the questions at all leads me to believe that they already have some idea of the answer and just want confirmation (or the opposite) of their views.

So let’s go on a jaunt holding hands with the FTC while they explore, and decide, the fate of your store’s profit.

Q: Do motor vehicle dealers engage in “yo-yo financing”?

This question is obviously talking about spot-delivering customers and then having to re-write them. The definition they use in the footnotes defining “yo-yo financing” pretty much alludes that dealers intentionally do this and focuses on instances in which the actual secured financing increases interest rates and/or elevates monthly payments. If the FTC is asking whether consumers believe this is an unfair or deceptive practice, someone believes it is. If the FTC decides to regulate rewrites, which is the natural solution in protecting the consumer, the response by a dealer will have to be to cease spot deliveries. It’s hard to believe that they will prevent dealers from offering consumers more favorable terms after delivery so my guess is that regulation would be limited to instances in which terms are less favorable. What’s less favorable though? The question focuses on two components: higher interest rates and higher monthly payments. There are many facets of any deal that could cause either of these things to occur. Shortening the term of the loan would increase monthly payments. Will that be considered “unfair and deceptive”? I’m sure you can see how their definition immediately impacts how, and to whom, you spot deliver a car (or if you do at all). This changes how you desk a deal even. If you know that you can’t spot deliver a vehicle unless you can pretty much guarantee that you won’t have to re-write them unless the terms are more favorable to them, you are forced to offer WORSE deals up front, in the box. This just makes deals harder to close. How many sales would you lose from customers that cool off between the time you would have spot delivered them and the time you actually get an approval and are able to complete the delivery?

Q: Do finance companies provide incentives or payments to motor vehicle dealers in exchange for consumers receiving more expensive credit? Do motor vehicle dealers charge interest rate markups..for credit or leases about which consumers are unaware?

Yes. It’s called reserve and, apparently it’s being considered as an unfair or deceptive practice. I highly doubt most consumers are aware that dealer-secured financing isn’t always at the “buy-rate” and that dealerships can make money by marking up the interest rate. Sure, we can justify it a lot of ways but the bottom line is that if consumers believe it’s unfair, and the FTC agrees, dealers could lose the ability to make reserve. How does this affect how you sell a car, work a deal, or determine the selling price discount you would offer to a customer?

Q: Is substantial negative equity from a prior purchase, or money owed on a prior lease, frequently rolled into consumers’ next vehicle purchases or leases?

I highly doubt that the FTC will remove a dealer’s ability to roll negative equity for several reasons: banks already monitor and regulate loan-to-value and limit the amount of negative equity they will accept. What I do think could happen though is that the FTC could limit theamount of negative equity a person could roll into a new loan or lease regardless of the purchase price, loan structure or bank criteria. What if the maximum you could roll into a deal is $5000? $4000? Does it make a difference in how much your car costs? Will some makes get an advantage over others if the amount is regulated (versus a percentage)? How they choose to do this and/or determine this will absolutely effect how a deal is structured and/or if it happens at all.

Q: Do motor vehicle dealers engage in credit or lease packing, such as by including amounts for credit insurance, guaranteed automobile protection (GAP) or other add-ons into payment amounts?

I thought this was addressed by the single document rules but, apparently, the FTC is investigating this as well. They also want to investigate and consider the mark-ups allowed on these products thus limiting the price at which you could sell them. What’s a fair markup? Do you think your answer would match a consumer’s answer to that question?

These are just four of the 14 questions (each of which have multiple parts) that the FTC will be considering at the roundtables. I actually counted each question and sub question being considered and there are 72 questions that encompass a huge range of topics including: discriminatory financing offers on the dealer level, financing military personnel, paying off liens or trade-ins, the use of GPS devices on financed vehicles, vehicle auction houses, and more.

The first roundtable is scheduled for April 12, 2011 in Detroit, MI. They say there will be a total of 4 roundtables disbursed around the country but the other ones haven’t been announced yet. Given the chance, I’d love to be a part of one of those roundtables as a fly-on-the-wall.

To read the whole text of the announcement and all the questions that will be posed to the public, visit this link. Just the URL name alone (that’s not anywhere in the document) should give you an idea where this is headed: AutoTaskForce

Is Social Media Important To The Auto Industry? AutoNation Thinks So.

June 12, 2011 By Arnold Tijerina

(Originally published on Dealer magazine)

Many dealerships have realized that social media has become the communication method of choice for people. Dealers came across this revelation via many methods – maybe it was through an article they read, a session topic at a conference, through their OEM’s initiative or through an enlightened member of their staff. Some dealers are just now realizing it while some dealers still don’t.

AutoNation has not only been progressive in their social media campaigns, they’ve created positions within their organization that, to my knowledge, were the first of their kind in the retail automotive industry.

They have a “Chief Blog Officer” and a “Chief Facebook and Twitter Officer” within their corporate marketing department and have designated a “Social Media Champion” at each of their dealerships. They’ve embraced social media at all levels and in every way. These positions indicate a top-down embracing of social media from the corporate to the dealership level.

They took the next evolutionary step yesterday when they announced Alison Rosenthal as a new member of their Board of Directors. Ms. Rosenthal joins AutoNation’s board after leaving a 5 year career as an executive of Facebook.

“We are very pleased to have Alison Rosenthal join the AutoNation Board,” said Mike Jackson, AutoNation’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “Alison’s technology experience, especially in the areas of mobile applications and social media, will be a valuable resource for the Board.”

AutoNation has run some great Facebook promotions in the past, including “Mosaic” which utilized the Facebook platform to achieve over 36,000 page views in less than 30 days while increasing interactions with fans by over 76%.

Their goal is to be known as the “un-dealer” through online interactions, transparency and responding to their customers. They answer questions publicly that most dealers would shy away from such as financing and invoice pricing as well as proactively seeking out online conversations about their brand, whether that’s through blog articles or social media, and participating. Every customer gets asked to leave online reviews – good or bad.

It’ll be interesting to watch in what ways AutoNation leverages Ms. Rosenthal’s expertise to further engage its fans and increase its already large online footprint.

We’re used to seeing technology companies being acquired by technology companies. It may not be too far in the future where we start seeing technology companies being acquired by automotive industry companies.

The Case Of The $30 Million Rims

June 11, 2011 By Arnold Tijerina

(Originally published at Dealer magazine)

Last week, a California Court of Appeals judge determined that a dealer violated several California state laws and ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit that will have huge ramifications for dealers within the state. The ruling was the result of some poor decisions from start to finish. Ultimately, this ruling will allow 1,500 car buyers the right to have their purchase contracts rescinded, which is estimated to potentially cost the dealership upwards of $30 million.

The story began in 2004 when Reginald Nelson purchased a vehicle from Pearson Ford (now Kearny Pearson Ford) in San Diego, CA. The car cost $9,995 and was spot-delivered without financing being secured. The customer also did not have existing auto insurance, so a binder was purchased for $250. This was added to the purchase price of the vehicle as well as some rims that were promised the customer. The insurance binder was on a “due bill,” but it is unclear whether the rims were. (My guess is that the rims were initially on a due bill but, once the approval came through, either the profit was reduced or the structure didn’t meet the approval’s financing restrictions. So, to keep the car on the road, the rims were taken out of the deal.) Six days later, the dealership contacted Reginald asking him to return to the dealership to fill out more paperwork. The paperwork reflected a change in the financing terms per the actual approval received by the dealership and was dated the date the vehicle was spot-delivered. Mr. Nelson signed the new contracts.

In interviews with Mr. Nelson, he says that he repeatedly tried to get the rims he was promised by the dealership but the dealership would not give them to him. Eventually, this led Mr. Nelson to contact an attorney. Unfortunately for the dealer, he contacted Hal Rosner, a consumer-advocate and auto law expert attorney specializing in automobile transactions and dealerships.

Mr. Rosner immediately identified several things that the dealership did that were not in compliance with state laws:

1. The second contract was backdated to the date Mr. Nelson took delivery of the vehicle, not the date in which he signed the new contract.

2. The insurance binder was added to the price of the vehicle, not itemized separately on the contract.

Both of these are violations of the state’s one document rule. Through discovery, Mr. Rosner was able to determine that these violations had occurred many times at this dealership. The 1,500 occurrences that Pearson Ford manipulated were all illegal. “That’s more than once a day for five years that they’re telling people, ‘We gave you the wrong financials,’”said Rosner. “That’s hardly an accident.” Rosner was able to get the lawsuit converted into a class-action in March 2007.

Prior to the class-action trial, Pearson Ford made a settlement offer of $500,000 which was accepted. After the settlement was approved, both sides asked for their attorney’s fees to be paid by the opposing party. The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Mr. Nelson and denied them to Pearson Ford. Upon further review, the judgment was vacated and trial moved forward.

The initial trial court found no violation save for a “technical violation” and awarded restitution in the amount of $50 per class member ($75,000). Both parties disagreed with the ruling (for different reasons) and it was taken to the California State Court of Appeals.

The California State Court of Appeals found that both actions described above were, in fact, violations of the Automomobile Sales Finance Act, the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act by backdating the contract and including the insurance in the cost of the vehicle, effectively costing Mr. Nelson an additional $27 in interest plus the sales tax on the $250 insurance binder wrapped into the vehicle purchase price (then approximately $19). This ruling effectively will give the 1,500 class members the right to have their contracts rescinded.

Keep in mind that these contracts are at least 7 years old, some much older. Assuming some of these vehicles were used at the time of purchase, this dealership will have to buy back contracts IN FULL for vehicles that could be 10+ years old.

I personally know that the practice of backdating contracts is common in Cailfornia, as is wrapping in insurance into the purchase price. In the past 3 years or so, dealers have slowly been changing those practices, but this ruling sets a dangerous precedent. I’m sure there are plenty of civil attorneys itching to get their hands on a consumer with a backdated contract right now.

This story started as a credit challenged consumer, with no car insurance, that wanted some rims for the 1998 Infiniti I30 that he bought from the dealer. This vehicle was already 6 years old when he purchased it. Had the dealer honored their promise to the consumer and given him his rims, legal action probably would never have happened. Once legal action happened, the dealer argued against paying the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees on top of an accepted settlement offer.

Those rims and $46 ultimately put the dealership on the hook for an estimated $30 million.

Those have got to be the most expensive rims in history.

Click here for ABC news 10 story: Pearson Ford Ordered to Buy Back Over 1,500 Vehicles

Click here for a Copy of Appeal Court Ruling

Social Media ROI Just Got A Little Easier

June 11, 2011 By Arnold Tijerina

(Originally published in Dealer magazine)

Social media has been a hot topic for a while now in the automotive business. As the communities grew, dealers and OEMs started paying more attention. Progressive dealers started social media campaigns while others adopted a “wait and see” attitude. As time progressed and search engines started recognizing the importance of the content generated by the sites, they started integrating data from these sites into their search algorithms (Google includes Twitter content while Bing includes Facebook “Like” data.)

The biggest, and most basic, question that dealers always ask is the same core question that they ask for any advertising medium: How will this help me sell more cars?

Facebook recently announced that it was phasing out FBML in favor of iframes. All those custom landing tabs you created won’t go away… yet, however. If you already have the “Static FBML” application installed on your fan page, you’ll continue to be able to use it for now. It is, however, expected to be phased out eventually with some saying it could go away completely by year’s end.

The advantage of using an iframe on your Facebook page, in simplest terms, is that you now have the ability to use your current tracking software to measure traffic generated by Facebook to your site. An iframe basically allows you to create a “window” within your Facebook page (on its own tab) in which you can show users a website without having to pull them away from Facebook.

Historically, search engines have ignored content within iframes – they see the window but not the picture inside. I don’t know whether this will be changing or not so the SEO value of the framed website may be negligible. Don’t get me wrong, your actual Facebook Page will still be seen by search engines, it’s only the content framed into your landing tab that may not count.

About a year ago, I wrote an article showing people how to frame in their inventory and/or website into their Facebook page. It was great while it worked but it had its drawbacks. The biggest one being that, the easiest “solution” for website integration or display was displaying an existing web page on your site, which framed in your website at its actual size. Your website, in whole, is still much larger than the display area contained within a Facebook tab. This produced ugly looking results with horizontal and vertical scrollbars. Facebook also didn’t allow outside analytics so, while it was cool to have your website or inventory framed in, you couldn’t really tell whether anyone was on your site within Facebook. Facebook then got rid of the ability to implement iframes and limited businesses to FBML.

With their migration back to iframes, and their decision to allow analytics on the framed site, you now have the ability to measure traffic that is viewing your website from within Facebook. You also have much more control over the design of what you display.

My advice to you has several components –

Install the app “Static FBML” on your fan page now. You will not be able to do so after March 11. If you have it before that date, you can keep it. I only say this because, if you decide you would rather use FBML, or some website or SEO wizard determines that a FBML landing tab converts or optimizes better than the iframe, you’ll have the OPTION of using it.

If you decide to utilize iframes, create SEPARATE LANDING PAGES for each tab you create. (ie. If you have a tab “About Us” with a website framed in, create a page (website) just for that tab. If you then decide to add a “Specials” page, create a different landing page for that tab.

Make sure your analytics code is installed on these customized landing pages.

Make pages specifically designed for optimized viewing within Facebook. What do I mean by that? As I mentioned before, by simply framing in existing websites, you end up showing people a very small view of your website and have these scroll bars in which they have to scroll all over the place to see it in whole.

Bottom line:

Facebook landing tab windows are exactly 520px by 800px. Create individual landing pages, with analytics code installed, and sized to view within Facebook. By doing this, you will have an attractive landing tab for your fans AND you will be able to measure conversion and views. Personally, I would create and display some sort of conversion device within the landing tabs, like a “Contact Us” page, or something that could generate some leads.

I’m not promising that you’ll all of a sudden generate massive traffic and leads.

What I’m saying is now you’ll have the ability to track views, test different landing pages and measure conversions…

And that’s the first step towards being able to measure your efforts.

To learn more cutting edge digital marketing strategies, please join me at the 10^th Digital Dealer® Conference & Exposition being held in Orlando, FL on April 19-21, 2011.

BREAKING: DealerTrack to Acquire eCarList

May 25, 2011 By Arnold Tijerina

DealerTrack to Acquire eCarList

May 25, 2011 8:30 AM ET

Adds Innovative Vehicle Merchandising Solutions to Industry Leading Inventory Management Offering

LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y., May 25, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — DealerTrack AAX, Inc., a subsidiary of DealerTrack Holdings, Inc. TRAK, today announced that it has signed an agreement to acquire substantially all the assets of eCarList LLC, a leading provider of inventory management and merchandising solutions for automobile dealerships The combination of DealerTrack’s current AAX inventory management solution with eCarList’s product suite of vehicle merchandising, pricing analytics and mobile inventory solutions will provide dealerships with a comprehensive vehicle management offering. Len Critcher, president and chief executive officer of eCarList, along with the entire eCarList management team, will remain with the combined company. The acquisition is expected to close in July, subject to customary closing conditions.

Mark F. O’Neil, chairman and chief executive officer of DealerTrack, commented, “We are extremely excited to announce this acquisition. eCarList is one of the fastest-growing companies in the industry and is a leader in delivering innovative vehicle merchandising and management solutions for the automotive retail industry.” O’Neil continued, “We believe the addition of eCarList will enable DealerTrack to expand its leading position as the industry’s most comprehensive suite of inventory management and merchandising solutions that leverages the best from each company.”

“We look forward to joining the DealerTrack family,” said Len Critcher. “The combination of DealerTrack AAX and eCarList will drive even more innovation to help dealerships generate additional vehicle interest and higher quality Internet and showroom traffic, all while maximizing overall deal profits.”

The financial impact of this acquisition to DealerTrack’s 2011 guidance will be given in conjunction with the release of DealerTrack’s results for the second quarter of 2011.

About DealerTrack (www.dealertrack.com)

DealerTrack’s intuitive and high-value software solutions and services enhance efficiency and profitability for all major segments of the retail automotive industry, including dealers, lenders, OEMs, agents and aftermarket providers. DealerTrack, whose solution set for dealers is the industry’s most comprehensive, operates the largest online credit application network in the United States, connecting approximately 17,000 dealers with more than 1,000 lenders. DealerTrack’s Dealer Management System (DMS) provides dealers with easy-to-use tools and real-time data access to enhance their efficiency, while DealerTrack AAX delivers the inventory management tools and services needed to accelerate used-vehicle turn rates and help increase profits for dealers. DealerTrack’s Sales and F&I solutions allow dealers to streamline the entire sales process as they structure deals from a single integrated platform. Its Compliance solution helps dealers meet legal and regulatory requirements and protect their assets. DealerTrack also offers additional solutions for the automotive industry including electronic motor vehicle registration and titling applications, paper title storage, and digital document services. DealerTrack’s family of companies also includes data and consulting service providers ALG and Chrome Systems. For more information, visit www.dealertrack.com.

About eCarList (www.ecarlist.com)

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, eCarList provides a full suite of inventory management and online marketing tools for the retail automotive industry enabling dealers to appraise, price, and merchandise vehicle inventory online in real-time. eCarList’s services include inventory management, inventory distribution, vehicle appraisal and pricing tools, mobile software, dealership health reporting, CRM, custom web design, and digital marketing solutions via a fully integrated software as a service platform. eCarList improves dealership productivity, inventory turn, sales, and profits for its clients by improving and simplifying the way in which inventory is managed, distributed, and viewed by consumers.

Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking and Cautionary Statements

Statements in this press release regarding benefits to DealerTrack and its customers of the pending acquisition of eCarList and all other statements in this release other than the recitation of historical facts are forward-looking statements (as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). These statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results, performance or achievements of DealerTrack to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements.

Factors that might cause such a difference include: economic trends that affect the automotive retail industry or the indirect automotive financing industry including the number of new and used cars sold; reductions in auto dealerships; the impact of some vendors of software products for automotive dealers making it more difficult for DealerTrack’s customers to use DealerTrack’s solutions and services; security breaches, interruptions, failures and/or other errors involving DealerTrack’s systems or networks; the failure or inability to execute any element of DealerTrack’s business strategy, including selling additional products and services to existing and new customers; the integration of the eCarlist acquisition and the expected benefits; DealerTrack’s success in expanding its customer base and product and service offerings; and other risks listed in DealerTrack’s reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K. These filings can be found on DealerTrack’s website at www.dealertrack.com and the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Forward-looking statements included herein speak only as of the date hereof and DealerTrack disclaims any obligation to revise or update such statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events or circumstances, except as required by law.

Originally published on DealerElite.net and ADM

NLRB Files Complaint Against Luxury Car Dealership For Unlawful Termination Over Employee’s FB Post

May 24, 2011 By Arnold Tijerina

On Friday, May 20, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against a luxury car dealership in Lake Bluff, IL for “unlawfully discharging a car salesperson because of his Facebook posting concerning the dealership’s handling of a sales event which could impact his earnings.”

The complaint was filed out of the NLRB Office Region 13 Chicago. I contacted Regional Director James Barker who indicated that a formal press release will be issued in the next day or so in regards to this complaint.

I spoke with legal counsel for the dealership, James Hendricks, seeking more information about the case. While he couldn’t get too specific as they are taking this to trial, he was able to give me a brief summary of the facts regarding the case. When asked what the salesperson posted on Facebook that is involved in this complaint, Mr. Hendricks indicated to me that the salesperson posted a picture of an accident involving another salesperson while on a test drive with a customer that occurred at an adjacent dealership owned by the same company as the one he was employed by.

Mr. Hendricks’ position is that the employee in question was not terminated for that action (posting on Facebook) but for different reasons.

“We advise all of our dealer clients to have a social media policy in place that contains a disclaimer that nothing within their policy is meant to violate the employee’s section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act”, said Mr. Hendricks. Section 7 is the core of the NLRA as it defines protected activity including employees’ right to organize, take part in grievances, protests and strikes.

There is very little information available as of now but this is certainly something dealerships should be watching. The National Labor Relations Board has recently begun taking an active interest in employers in regards to terminations and disciplinary actions taken against employees, most recently including an April 27, 2011 settlement by the NLRB with build.com and a February 8, 2011 settlement with American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc. both of which involved employees being terminated due to Facebook posts that were made. In both of those cases, it was determined by the NLRB that the activity was protected activity since the employees were discussing workplace conditions with fellow co-workers.

There have been plenty of cases in which terminations related to social media activity by employees were upheld by various legal entities. The fact that the NLRB seems to feel that this activity (posting photos of an accident that occurred at your workplace by a co-worker which involved a customer) is protected in some way will be something we need to watch. The trial date is set for July 21, 2011.

UPDATE: After breaking the news on this matter on Dealer magazine, new information was brought to my attention. I re-contacted the dealership’s attorney to clarify facts in this case. According to the attorney, the NLRB’s position is that the employee was terminated due to posting a comment on Facebook relating to what he considered poor quality food and beverages offered to dealership customers at a sales event, however, the dealership’s position is that the employee was terminated due to the posting of the photograph which I described earlier.

(Article mentioned by Dave Jamieson of the Huffington Post).

In The Trenches During The AutoTrader Acquisition Of VinSolutions

May 23, 2011 By Arnold Tijerina

As I’m sure you’re probably aware by now, AutoTrader announced Wednesday that they had reached an agreement to acquire VinSolutions.

I was in the unique position to actually be with most of the executive leadership and employees of VinSolutions when the news broke. I was also with HomeNet Automotive when the rumors started that AutoTrader was working to acquire HomeNet Automotive. I also came really close to working directly for AutoTrader as they attempted to recruit me and, ironically, I was actually at an event in Colorado that Chip Perry was in attendance when I was informed by the Autotrader recruiter that I was “not worthy” (their loss). I like to think that AutoTrader is following me around acquiring companies I work for simply because they actually want to “acquire” me. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

After my initial shock passed, as an employee of a media company, the investigative part of me started paying attention. What I expected to see was executive management in a celebratory mode making plans to roll around in the pile of money they must have just made. I expected phone calls being made and Internet leads being submitted for new Ferraris. I expected VinSolutions employees to be anxious about their future employment and having a feeling that this company, that they all were very proud to be a part of, was at an end. I saw none of that.

What I saw was quite the opposite. Executive management and VinSolutions employees were still talking to dealers. VinSolutions employees were excited. The entire team was customer focused, not acquisition focused. In fact, it really seemed as if VinSolutions had acquired AutoTrader rather than the opposite. They weren’t feeling as if this was the end, quite the contrary. They felt like this was the beginning. They were excited about the incredible resources and value now available to VinSolutions to make their product(s) bigger, better and faster than they ever were able to before.

What makes this acquisition a historic moment is that this is the first time in our industry’s history that a non-DMS company has acquired a company that does what VinSolutions does. VinSolutions wasn’t interested in being acquired by a DMS, because several trends inevitably happen: the acquired company immediately loses half their market share, but they also fall into this virtual black hole eventually disappearing never to be heard from again. AutoTrader “could” make VinSolutions the hub of their operation powering and integrating with ALL of the AutoTrader/Cox owned properties acquired in recent history.

With all of the properties that AutoTrader owns, they are in the unique position to dominate the automotive market. All of these properties, prior to their AutoTrader acquisition, had stellar reputations within the industry and with their customers. AutoTrader “could” leverage these properties to offer an unprecedented value to their customers. Whether (and how) they do this is still up in the air.

Not discounting the incredible value and loyalty that current VinSolutions customers have, ultimately VinSolutions is more than just another company. In fact, the people DEFINE VinSolutions. Yes, they have innovative solutions and offer the power and convenience of a completely integrated solution to dealers. VinSolutions could easily be named “Mike-Sean-Matt-Kendall-Solutions,” but that would certainly be hard to create a marketing campaign for. Why? The reason is simple. Mike Dullea, Sean Stapleton, Kendall Billman and Matt Watson ARE VinSolutions. Without them, AutoTrader would now own air. I sincerely hope that AutoTrader recognizes this (if they don’t already) and just like a NFL team, these people were signed to 20-year contracts. If you buy the Colts, you make sure Peyton Manning is included in the deal. Yes, VinSolutions’ integrated dealer solution offers great value to their customers. They are continuously looking to improve the value VinSolutions offers to their customers. The dedication and passion that these people, along with the entire VinSolutions team define VinSolutions.

As I talked to VinSolutions’ dealers that are attending this event, their concern had nothing to do with money/price increases, etc. It was completely focused on how AutoTrader would change WHO VinSolutions IS, and who they are is the key to their success. Yes, there are other people who can be a CEO. Yes, there are other people that can run a sales team. Yes, there are other programmers. Yes, there are other people who can be the “website” guy. The fact is that there is NOBODY that can replace these people, perform with the passion, dedication and experience that they have and perform at the level that they do. Disregarding the standard “business as usual” statement, VinSolutions truly has a culture of family. That family makes them who they are.

In my eyes, AutoTrader didn’t acquire a company; they acquired the equivalent of the Justice League of America. Take away any member of that team; the Justice League ceases to exist. JLA without Superman isn’t the Justice League of America. What made the JLA the powerhouse that they were was the collective power that they all brought to the table.

Does the competition need to be worried, absolutely, but not because all of a sudden VinSolutions is now owned by AutoTrader, but because AutoTrader acquired Superman, Batman, the Flash and the Green Lantern and, most importantly, a family.

Originally published on DealerElite.net and ADM