Commentary
It seems everyone who owns a car is an expert on the auto industry, so lately we’ve heard plenty on how to heal the battered behemoth.
Such home-remedy tips often are premised on the belief that U.S. auto makers are the same folks that built Conestoga wagons and must now revitalize, but fast.
The unsolicited suggestions occasionally are good, sometimes wacky and often stale ideas pitched as fresh.
Probably because most of these car owners/critics bought their vehicles at dealerships, they’re quite vocal on how a modern auto store should look.
“As Detroit teeters in and out of bankruptcy, thousands of car dealerships are closing,” notes a technology magazine writer, fearlessly and recklessly straying from his beat. “Here’s an idea: Why not close them all?”
Hey, there you go. But, uh, then where would we buy cars?
Why, at special auto centers – “lean” stores offering “hands-on experience” (apparently this guy has never done a demo drive at a regular dealership) and mainly selling build-to-order cars.
Never mind that U.S. consumers have shown little interest in those during all the other times – such as 10 years ago – when build-to-order was billed as the way to go.
The tech writer’s story was headlined, “What Detroit Can Learn from the Apple Store.” The idea is that buying a car should be as easy as procuring a small electronics item. It reminds me of an article I wrote headlined, “iPod has the Right Idea.”
My story quoted someone saying that, despite a big difference between a $300 iPod and a $30,000 car, the auto industry should emulate how Apple sells its wares. That means providing convenience to save customers time, upgrades to keep them interested and simplicity to make for “a great buying experience.”
The seer who said that? John F. Smith, a top executive at General Motors. Apparently not all in the auto industry are stuck in the Pleistocene age. When did he say it? Four years ago.
Good dealers already strive to respect customers’ time, offer upgrades and thrill buyers. That’s been going on for years. It is why – popular misconceptions to the contrary – the vast majority of consumers consistently give dealers high marks on surveys.
Then there’s the oldest “new” idea around. It’s this: Big-box stores selling lots of makes and models under one roof should elbow out conventional dealerships.
I’ve lost count of the so-called experts touting that one over the years, claiming it would become a welcome reality were it not for anachronistic dealer-franchise laws that block progress.
Well, dealer-franchise laws – enacted in all 50 states to deter auto makers from mistreating dealers – have nothing to do with thwarting a Wal-Mart-like business model for selling cars.
“Naturally, the National Automobile Dealers Assn. hates this idea,” a dealership detractor proclaimed online recently.
Dealers don’t loathe it. Auto makers do. They see it as a nightmare, like a painting by Hieronymus Bosch, an odd old master who really got going when depicting people agonizing in hell.
But it’s customers who would suffer the most from big-box auto retailing, in which a bazaar of different auto brands would occupy one huge sales floor.
Under that big top, sales people would take the path of least resistance by pitching only what is selling at the moment. To advance their brands, some auto makers would directly spiff the sales staff, like a few dubiously did a few years ago at dualed dealerships.
Such veiled bribery hardly helps customers. Nor does an environment in which staffers are a mile wide and an inch deep on product knowledge, because they must represent (and fix) everything.
Big-box stores, despite the theoretical appeal, would mean fewer sales points, less competition, higher prices and longer driving distances for customers.
Other than that, they’re a great idea. They must be. Why else would self-proclaimed authorities on the auto industry keep promoting them?
