http://jalopnik.com/5567283/audi-dealership-wont-help-customer-robbed-on-lot
Long story short: A guy can't pick up his car, so he asks the dealer to put his car outside of the gate so he can pick it up. When he gets there, the wheels are missing, and it's up on jacks, damaged. The dealer didn't contact him immediately about this.
He wants them to put up the $500 deductible to get his car fixed. I don't think they should. Here's why:
By putting the car outside of the wall with his permission, they can't be held responsible. Sure, they weren't the most swift with letting him know what was going on, but they did nothing wrong.
At work, we tell people to park at their own risk. A place that does that sort of business cannot be held responsible for having the car taken out of its security. They claim their video cameras were not working, but who knows? OTOH, there were wheels stolen from the BMW dealer where I worked a long time ago. The dealer had to replace them because they were in the storage barn for the dealer, under the dealer's watch.
I don't think this is the same sort of thing. Thoughts?
Quote from: the Teuton on June 18, 2010, 08:06:49 PM
so he asks the dealer to put his car outside of the gate so he can pick it up.
I didn't see that in the story.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 18, 2010, 08:06:49 PM
I don't think this is the same sort of thing. Thoughts?
I think sometimes you do things to maintain good relationships with your customers. Even if the dealership isn't legally responsible, it may be in their best long-term interest to take care of a customer who just dropped $50,000 in their place of business.
Because I can guarantee he won't be buying another Audi from them any time soon if they don't try to make it right.
It's probably technically fine, but it certainly is bad customer service. Luxury car dealerships surely understand their client?le, and know that special requests should be taken seriously. Also, the security cameras weren't working? That seems either like a lie, or just reckless. I can't think of a luxury car company that would be comfortable leaving their lot without any surveillance or security.
At any rate, I understand the dealer's position and I don't disagree, I just think it's a reckless way to run a business that sells luxury cars.
At the BMW dealer, I made a point to greet all of the customers who I interacted with. I helped a guy learn how to use his climate control.
One day, there was a couple that had gotten pissed because their car was two hours late for delivery. I talked to a salesman and said that these people were buying a lux car and should be treated like they are, even if it was just a 3 Series. He told me that they were just purchasing a $40,000 car that happened to be at a BMW dealership. The luxury was the BMW itself -- not the dealer's workings.
That made me feel sick.
So it makes you feel sick...but you'd turn around and do the same thing?
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 08:36:39 PM
So it makes you feel sick...but you'd turn around and do the same thing?
I'd explain to the person over the phone BEFOREHAND that authorizing the car to be set outside of the gate would defer any liability on the dealer's part. That's the difference.
It's not the same kind of situation at all.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 18, 2010, 08:38:05 PM
I'd explain to the person over the phone BEFOREHAND that authorizing the car to be set outside of the gate would defer any liability on the dealer's part. That's the difference.
It's not the same kind of situation at all.
No, it's the same thing.
Your thread title says, "dealer acts like douchebag...but I agree with him."
Acting like a douche is acting like a douche. Just because you have the legal right to act like a douche, doesn't make it a wise move. Especially not for business.
My guess is those salespeople where completely within their rights to make that customer wait two hours.
Maybe they should have read him a disclaimer, "we are not responsible should delivery extend past X:XX o'clock."
Yeah, that would have made them less douchey.
But how can they be responsible for this when they were told to put the car outside?
Quote from: the Teuton on June 18, 2010, 08:51:34 PM
But how can they be responsible for this when they were told to put the car outside?
As you pointed out, they're not. It's called "going the extra mile" = doing something you don't have to to keep your client happy.
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 08:53:34 PM
As you pointed out, they're not. It's called "going the extra mile" = doing something you don't have to to keep your client happy.
I'll agree with that then.
Where in the article does it say they put the car outside the gate?
Just like will asked like 10 responses above...
Nah, dealer ain't responsible and the dealer doesn't gain any good will by reinforcing a poor business/legal decision, especially in the car dealer business where repeat business is the last thing on the dealer's mind.
The A4 owner is acting like a sissy cry baby. It sucks but he needs to buck up.
I don't see where it says they parked it outside the gate.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 18, 2010, 09:05:49 PM
I don't see where it says they parked it outside the gate.
+1
As a matter of fact, it says explicitly that the car was parked on the lot, behind the gate. Additionally, it says that the dealer did not tell him his car was ready until three minutes before closing, and so he had to leave it there (since no one was willing to stick around to wait for him).
To me, this screams dealer responsibility.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on June 18, 2010, 08:22:24 PM
I didn't see that in the story.
It isn't. Hell, the picture shows it tipped on its bumper right there in the lot. Two-ton's reading comprehension sucks.
Two tons of assumptions and fallacy!
;)
Quote from: Rupert on June 18, 2010, 09:14:27 PM
As a matter of fact, it says explicitly that the car was parked on the lot, behind the gate. Additionally, it says that the dealer did not tell him his car was ready until three minutes before closing, and so he had to leave it there (since no one was willing to stick around to wait for him).
To me, this screams dealer responsibility.
If the A4 owner were a friend of yours and leaves it in your garage and the same thing happens, are you responsible?
Quote from: Rupert on June 18, 2010, 09:14:27 PM
As a matter of fact, it says explicitly that the car was parked on the lot, behind the gate. Additionally, it says that the dealer did not tell him his car was ready until three minutes before closing, and so he had to leave it there (since no one was willing to stick around to wait for him).
To me, this screams dealer responsibility.
Okay, my bad with the reading comp.
Yeah, the dealer needs to man up in that case.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 09:18:34 PM
If the A4 owner were a friend of yours and leaves it in your garage and the same thing happens, are you responsible?
If I tell him, gosh, I don't really want to open the garage door right now; come back in three days, probably.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 09:18:34 PM
If the A4 owner were a friend of yours and leaves it in your garage and the same thing happens, are you responsible?
Yeah, it's called a bailment. Depending on the circumstances you might well be liable.
Quote from: Rupert on June 18, 2010, 09:35:46 PM
If I tell him, gosh, I don't really want to open the garage door right now; come back in three days, probably.
C'mon, think about it...
OF COURSE you're not responsible (that is, if you didn't do it).
Okay, hadn't read the actual article.
It's the dealer's responsibility to help make this situation right. It was on their lot and the customer was not able to pick it up in the narrow time frame they provided. Even if they're not directly liable for the damages (which may be somewhat arguable), they shouldn't have pulled his loaner car and hung up on reporters, particularly since their time windows and "broken" security camera contributed to the problem. This dealer deserves any decline in business this article may cause. If you don't take care of your current customers, you'd damn well better not expect a good reputation for prospective customers.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 09:40:27 PM
C'mon, think about it...
OF COURSE you're not responsible (that is, if you didn't do it).
Nope. You'll owe a minimum duty (beyond simply not "doing it") to anyone who entrusts their personal property to you. It's called a bailment. Depending on the circumstances, you might well be liable for the damage to your friend's car. (Is there an echo in here?)
The dealer will be held to a much higher standard of care than two friends.
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 09:36:58 PM
Yeah, it's called a bailment. Depending on the circumstances you might well be liable.
My non-law school self says that there'd have to be gross negligence on Rupert's part - like parking the car on a cliff about to give way - for Rupert to be responsible.
What the dealer did wasn't illegal. But they should be willing to help rectify the problem if it did, indeed, happen in closed off territory.
Like I said, at work, we have a park at your own risk policy. But someplace in the boundaries that is closed off is more or less B&E if someone comes in and messes with something like that. And the dealer's insurance should have picked it up.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 09:58:56 PM
My non-law school self says that there'd have to be gross negligence on Rupert's part - like parking the car on a cliff about to give way - for Rupert to be responsible.
Rupert isn't entitled to use the bailed property, so he can't park it anywhere.
His standard of care will depend on the situation the bail arises under, as well as the jurisdiction in which the event occurs. Which is why I said "depending on the circumstances."
I think leaving the car unlocked and the garage door open over the weekend while he's out of town would probably get him in hot water,
depending on the circumstances.
But your question is pointless, because the dealership likely owes its customers a much greater duty than Rupert owes his friends. Check yer premise.
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 09:58:00 PM
Nope. You'll owe a minimum duty (beyond simply not "doing it") to anyone who entrusts their personal property to you. It's called a bailment. Depending on the circumstances, you might well be liable for the damage to your friend's car. (Is there an echo in here?)
Think about - your girlfriend leaves her car in your driveway for you to change the oil for $20. You change the oil and leave it be. You wake up in the morning and the car is stolen. LOL - of course you're not responsible.
Quote
The dealer will be held to a much higher standard of care than two friends.
The dealer already met a higher standard - a locked lot, likely tons of lighting, and the like. I guess it's not to say that every jurisdiction is the same on the subject (but they should be).
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 10:05:24 PM
Rupert isn't entitled to use the bailed property, so he can't park it anywhere.
His standard of care will depend on the situation the bail arises under, as well as the jurisdiction in which the event occurs. Which is why I said "depending on the circumstances."
I think leaving the car unlocked and the garage door open over the weekend while he's out of town would probably get him in hot water, depending on the circumstances.
But your question is pointless, because the dealership likely owes its customers a much greater duty than Rupert owes his friends. Check yer premise.
Your "premise" of you making this something beyond what it is should be rechecked - there are no other "circumstances" to consider.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 10:10:31 PM
Think about - your girlfriend leaves her car in your driveway for you to change the oil for $20. You change the oil and leave it be. You wake up in the morning and the car is stolen. LOL - of course you're not responsible.
Did you have her keys? Did you leave the door unlocked? Did you tell her you would keep it in the garage?
If I have to write "depending on the circumstances" one more time, my fingers are going to fall off.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 10:10:31 PM
The dealer already met a higher standard - a locked lot, likely tons of lighting, and the like.
Like the security cameras that weren't working?
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
Your "premise" of you making this something beyond what it is should be rechecked - there are no other "circumstances" to consider.
Aww, buck up little camper.
My hunch is the de-facto deciding factor will be the insurance companies.
For example, in my state, if I borrow Tave's car and I cause a wreck, Tave is responsible for the damages to whatever I hit. I am only responsible for damage to Tave's car itself. Sounds f'ed up, but that's how it works here. No one has any say about it - not I, not Tave, not the people I hit, and not the insurance company of any of us three. This is all detailed in state law as are pretty much any and all claim situations concerning cars.
Here I suspect the A4's insurance company knows what has happened and if they have room to deny the claim be sure that they will - as in, if they know the law about these kinds of things and who has responsibility. Not sure if that's how it would/could go down, but I wouldn't be surprised. That it's implied that the A4 owner's insurance company will cover the cost (as there was already mention of his deductible) the dealer is on solid footing by denying responsibility.
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 10:18:23 PM
Did you have her keys? Did you leave the door unlocked? Did you tell her you would keep it in the garage?
If I have to write "depending on the circumstances" one more time, my fingers are going to fall off.
Like I said, you're inventing circumstance - my oil change example is 100% equivalent to the situation. Of course you're not responsible for your girlfriend's stolen car - even if you have the keys, left it unlocked, and left it outside when you said you'd keep it in the garage.
Be sure in the paperwork one signs at the dealer there is some legalese regarding all this. The only way I see the dealer legally on the hook is if there was an actual contract - i.e., if there was a storage fee as part of the repair bill.
Quote
Like the security cameras that weren't working?
Did the thieves know that?
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 10:29:00 PM
Did the thieves know that?
They did if they worked for the dealership.
Legally? Who the fuck knows or cares?
Making a good business decision? The dealer probably already regrets their decision to not pay. This guy seems to be stirring up quite a stink between jalopnik, the forums, etc. It also says at the end that Audi is investigating it. If they had just paid the extremely minor 500 dollar deductible they would have lost MAYBE 1 customer (if that happened to me, I would be weary of their operation, regardless of how I was treated after the fact), but who knows how many people have made a personal not to never shop at XX dealer from now on?
It's just an all around bad business decision to not fork over a piddling 5 bills.
Quote from: Jon? on June 18, 2010, 10:34:08 PM
They did if they worked for the dealership.
The point being, security cameras don't deter crime whether they're working or not. They only help with the aftermath. The thieves would have stolen the wheels and damaged the car regardless.
My hunch is that it was an inside job. Just sounds odd that thieves would bother with a car lot, which is a heckuva lot higher risk than a car on the street or in a driveway. That risk turns to an advantage however if you know how the place operates.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 10:29:00 PM
Like I said, you're inventing circumstance
No, I'm pointing out that your hypothetical does not provide enough information to reach a sound conclusion. Neither does the article, for that matter.
Quotemy oil change example is 100% equivalent to the situation. Of course you're not responsible for your girlfriend's stolen car - even if you have the keys, left it unlocked, and left it outside when you said you'd keep it in the garage.
I wouldn't bet on it.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 10:43:39 PM
The point being, security cameras don't deter crime whether they're working or not. They only help with the aftermath. The thieves would have stolen the wheels and damaged the car regardless.
My hunch is that it was an inside job. Just sounds odd that thieves would bother with a car lot, which is a heckuva lot higher risk than a car on the street or in a driveway. That risk turns to an advantage however if you know how the place operates.
You contradicted yourself. You can't claim that security cameras aren't a deterrent if you think it was an inside job. Duh.
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 10:45:31 PM
No, I'm pointing out that your hypothetical does not provide enough information to reach a sound conclusion. Neither does the article, for that matter.
I think they both do.
Quote
I wouldn't bet on it.
Then no one would ever want others' cars on their property for fear of being responsible for a very expensive asset (for which there is no standard insurance for) - not very realistic.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 10:57:23 PM
Then no one would ever want others' cars on their property - not very realistic.
Parking your car at someone's house, and getting paid to work on someone's car and keep it for the night, are two totally different things.
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 11:00:41 PM
Parking your car at someone's house, and getting paid to work on someone's car and keep it for the night, are two totally different things.
Nah, if but for nothing else who is benefiting more in either case - the car owner or the homeowner?
Using the insurance industry as a barometer once again - comprehensive claims are very easy to file and they do not raise your rates. If it were so easy to assign responsibility to an external party I don't think they'd be so quick to pay comp claims.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 11:14:42 PM
Nah, if but for nothing else who is benefiting more in either case - the car owner or the homeowner?
It's not an all or nothing inquiry.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 11:14:42 PM
Using the insurance industry as a barometer once again - comprehensive claims are very easy to file and they do not raise your rates. If it were so easy to assign responsibility to an external party I don't think they'd be so quick to pay comp claims.
Which of the two scenarios is more common--your car gets stolen off the street, or your car is stolen while under your friend's supervision (while he's benefiting financially off the arrangement)? It's not easy because it doesn't happen often.
Wow, Cougs is hijacking another thread by being a bullheaded douche, film at 11...
I don't keep up with laws so this could be off. But at my shop I was told that the original owner wouldn't put up a fence because if he did and something happened he'd be held responsible for it. When the new owner took over he put up a fence and when things like this happened he paid for them.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 10:43:39 PM
The point being, security cameras don't deter crime whether they're working or not. They only help with the aftermath. The thieves would have stolen the wheels and damaged the car regardless.
My hunch is that it was an inside job.
Lol... if it was an inside job... don't u think they could/would have disabled the security cameras? :wtf:
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2010, 10:57:23 PM
Then no one would ever want others' cars on their property for fear of being responsible for a very expensive asset (for which there is no standard insurance for) - not very realistic.
Nah.... people trust other people with their expensive assets because they figure the risks of something happening to them are close to zero. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore... by not helping dude out the dealership made the wrong decision from a business standpoint. They're getting shitted on from all angles with the wave of bad press.
If this happened on their property (especially inside a gated compound), doesn't the dealership's insurance cover this kinda thing?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 19, 2010, 09:38:50 AM
Nah.... people trust other people with their expensive assets because they figure the risks of something happening to them are close to zero. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore... by not helping dude out the dealership made the wrong decision from a business standpoint. They're getting shitted on from all angles with the wave of bad press.
I'm arguing because I'm right (as is the dealership).
Nah, the dealership made the right business decision - a business is a business - it can't go around reinforcing decisions outside the bounds of responsibility and otherwise setting a precedent of poor business practices. This time it's a white A4 owner - what if next time the A4 owner is black, doesn't have insurance, and the damages/loss is $6,500? The dealership finds itself in a real pickle.
The only "bad press" with whom this carries weight are people who don't understand how this stuff works who coincidentally are the same people not likely buying a new Audi anytime soon. The dealership would be stupid and cowardly to cave - a decision that would likely cost them significantly in the future. This guy needs to stop being a sissy whiner and buck up IMO.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 19, 2010, 09:36:26 AM
Lol... if it was an inside job... don't u think they could/would have disabled the security cameras? :wtf:
Uh, don't-let-yourself-get-distracted-by-shiny-things-in-the-corner PROTIP - cameras weren't working (or so says the article)
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 11:01:54 AMThis time it's a white A4 owner - what if next time the A4 owner is black, doesn't have insurance, and the damages/loss is $6,500?
Wait... so black people don't have insurance? Are you kidding me?
And yea the cameras weren't working.... but if you acknowledge it was PROBABLY an insider job, why not acknowledge the simple possibility of the insiders disabling or breaking the cameras before doing the crime?
What are the positives for the dealership? Not spending $500. What are the negatives? Being known as negligent and completely indifferent to damages of customer's property on their premises. The rims are not even THAT valuable- the only other cars they fit are other VWs/Audis, meaning the thieves would have to know the value of the wheels within that community. So it definitely looks like an inside job, and the fact that the dealership "has no camera footage" and doesn't seem interested in investigating anything just makes the whole thing look suspicious. $$$ wise, the dealership came ahead, but reputation-wise I'm sure they're being slammed in the VW/Audi enthusiast community... and I am sure the value of that exceeds $500
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 19, 2010, 12:49:48 PM
Wait... so black people don't have insurance? Are you kidding me?
Please stop being obtuse - you know perfectly well what I was trying to get across.
Quote
And yea the cameras weren't working.... but if you acknowledge it was PROBABLY an insider job, why not acknowledge the simple possibility of the insiders disabling or breaking the cameras before doing the crime?
Please stop obsessing about the cameras. It's a non-issue on every level.
Quote
What are the positives for the dealership? Not spending $500. What are the negatives? Being known as negligent and completely indifferent to damages of customer's property on their premises. The rims are not even THAT valuable- the only other cars they fit are other VWs/Audis, meaning the thieves would have to know the value of the wheels within that community. So it definitely looks like an inside job, and the fact that the dealership "has no camera footage" and doesn't seem interested in investigating anything just makes the whole thing look suspicious. $$$ wise, the dealership came ahead, but reputation-wise I'm sure they're being slammed in the VW/Audi enthusiast community... and I am sure the value of that exceeds $500
Like I said, it sets a precedent that it will pay for all claims when not responsible, and like I said, the few fanboys masturbating themselves into a frenzy over this don't buy new Audis, and certainly not from this one dealership. This is a non-issue for the dealership on every level.
Don't mess with the internet, that scandal with the Mazda dealer scamming a mentally challenged lady, that sunk their business.
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 08:24:32 PM
I think sometimes you do things to maintain good relationships with your customers. Even if the dealership isn't legally responsible, it may be in their best long-term interest to take care of a customer who just dropped $50,000 in their place of business.
Because I can guarantee he won't be buying another Audi from them any time soon if they don't try to make it right.
i agree with you 100%! in fact, loving audis as i do, i would have put this dealer #1 on my list if in the market and if the dealership was fairly close by. my parent's honda-acura dealership has done some amazing things for friends and family - way beyond the call of duty without charge. this has led us to keep marketing them. you get the sense that it is out of sheer kindness, as it seems genuine in that way - while assuming that it "has to be" just great business.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 01:05:25 PM
Please stop being obtuse - you know perfectly well what I was trying to get across.
I'm not being obtuse. White owners have insurance. Black owners don't (and spend $6,500 on rims). If that's not what you were saying, what were you saying?
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 01:05:25 PM
Like I said, it sets a precedent that it will pay for all claims when not responsible,
ONLY if that payout is publicly advertised.
If they had just quietly thrown him the $500 he would have went his way and next time someone's car gets seriously jacked, they don't have to pay anything. If 2nd car owner says, "hey, but you paid so and so!" it still wouldn't matter. The dealership could do whatever they like.
Maybe this guy IS guy#2.
And methinks if the cameras had been working the police could at least put a decent case together.
I was victim to cameras not working when someone stole more than $1k from the Tacobell I was a shift manager at. Magically the tape for that day Started at 12noon, the manager who replaced me (who I suspect of the theft) said he realized it wasn't running and hit "record" then. (During lunch rush at a fastfood joint?!!?!) (Oh and that guy got fired a few months later for giving his girlfriend a raise using another manager's computer password.)
Fault or not, not putting forth a measly $500 deductible to keep a possible repeat customer that drops $50,000, or possibly more in the future, at your dealer is just stupid.
Quote from: Xer0 on June 19, 2010, 03:42:33 PM
Fault or not, not putting forth a measly $500 deductible to keep a possible repeat customer that drops $50,000, or possibly more in the future, at your dealer is just stupid.
Nah... tossing a potential lifetime customer + all his family and friends + whatever members of the online community who saw this article as a matter of principle = a win. After all, you gotta figure customer's cars are getting damaged left and right on their premises, and they shouldn't set a precedent that would make them responsible.[/Cougs]
Quote from: Xer0 on June 19, 2010, 03:42:33 PM
Fault or not, not putting forth a measly $500 deductible to keep a possible repeat customer that drops $50,000, or possibly more in the future, at your dealer is just stupid.
#1 rule about car dealerships is they aren't ever in it for repeat business.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 05:21:08 PM
#1 rule about car dealerships is they aren't ever in it for repeat business.
That doesn't mean that they don't appreciate or want repeat customers. And its not like this is a dispute over several thousand dollars worth of damage, no, its a little $500 deductible. A $500 deductible that they would have gotten back during the life of ownership with service fees alone, which is also were most of the dealer's profits come from anyway.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 05:21:08 PM
#1 rule about car dealerships is they aren't ever in it for repeat business.
But if I (and lots of other people,) tell my friends I had a GREAT experience at XX place, they'll build up plenty of business in the long run.
If I (and lots of other people,) tell everyone I know that is looking for a car to never go to YY dealer, then they'll never be as successful as XX.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 05:21:08 PM
#1 rule about car dealerships is they aren't ever in it for repeat business.
eHow: How to Earn
Repeat Business As A Car Salesman (http://www.ehow.com/how_2093323_earn-repeat-business-as-car.html)
http://www.izmocars.com/
QuoteThe best car dealers using our iCRM averaged 60% of repeat business.
Common Car Dealer Sales Tricks (http://autos.aol.com/article/car-dealer-sales-tricks/)
QuoteFor every crooked car dealer, there are probably just as many for whom you really do come first, because the smart ones worked out a long time ago that repeat business and personal recommendations are the key to successful selling. And remember that line that you used to escape the car dealership, that you had to pick up the kids or mother-in-law, and would be back the day after?
Greater New York Automobile Dealer Association Homepage (http://www.gnyada.com/guide/dealer)
QuoteRepeat Business: Dealers invest time and money in training, state-of-the-art equipment and building a strong customer base. They know satisfied customers mean repeat business ? and repeat business is, after all, key to maintaining a successful, long-term operation.
Jesus Christ, you are a fucking idiot. No offense.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 19, 2010, 07:02:01 PM
eHow: How to Earn Repeat Business As A Car Salesman (http://www.ehow.com/how_2093323_earn-repeat-business-as-car.html)
http://www.izmocars.com/
Common Car Dealer Sales Tricks (http://autos.aol.com/article/car-dealer-sales-tricks/)
Greater New York Automobile Dealer Association Homepage (http://www.gnyada.com/guide/dealer)
Jesus Christ, you are a fucking idiot. No offense.
I wanna see how he'll refute this.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 19, 2010, 07:06:05 PM
I wanna see how he'll refute this.
Another strawman in 3...2...1...
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 05:21:08 PM
#1 rule about car dealerships is they aren't ever in it for repeat business.
That's simply not true. Of course, they are in the business of making money off every sale, but repeat business is critical to car dealerships. A customer buys their A4 and has a positive experience, where do you think they're going to come first in three to five years when they want to replace it? I have a family member who has bought term new cars from the same dealer because they've treated him well, so don't tell me car dealerships don't care about holding customer loyalty. Customer loyalty and positive word of mouth is what keeps them in business.
No, I'm pretty sure it's those super loud TV ads that keep dealers in business.
LOL - you turkeys have a lot to learn if you truly believe car dealerships, or any retail business, is about repeat business.
I end my win by citing Tueton's quote from page one, with emphasis added (you know, that friend of ours who worked at a BMW dealership):
Quote from: the Teuton on June 18, 2010, 08:33:18 PM
At the BMW dealer, I made a point to greet all of the customers who I interacted with. I helped a guy learn how to use his climate control.
One day, there was a couple that had gotten pissed because their car was two hours late for delivery. I talked to a salesman and said that these people were buying a lux car and should be treated like they are, even if it was just a 3 Series. He told me that they were just purchasing a $40,000 car that happened to be at a BMW dealership. The luxury was the BMW itself -- not the dealer's workings.
That made me feel sick.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 08:11:29 PM
LOL - you turkeys have a lot to learn if you truly believe car dealerships, or any retail business, is about repeat business.
I end my win by citing Tueton's quote from page one, with emphasis added (you know, that friend of ours who worked at a BMW dealership):
And your 'proof' about repeat business is a quote from a single salesman from a single dealership?
Run along now.
Repeat business is extremely important to retail in general, and if you think otherwise, I can see why you are an engineer.
Quote from: Rupert on June 19, 2010, 09:58:36 PM
Repeat business is extremely important to retail in general, and if you think otherwise, I can see why you are an engineer.
You work in (auto dealer) retail, possibly at some managerial level?
(Did you just see how I beat you?)
Do you? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Rupert on June 19, 2010, 10:20:12 PM
Do you? :rolleyes:
First, you issued an
ad hominem attack - the hallmark du jour of defeat - being the nice guy that I am I'll give you a pass since you weren't nearly as bitchy as the others in announcing it.
Second, you predicated valid judgment on working in retail yet you issue judgment yet you don't have a career in retail. IOW, you have explicitly stated that you cannot be right, thus you yourself pronounce your judgment wrong (all in the same post, BTW).
Uh, no, that would be you.
Also, my uncle is a somewhat successful car dealer and has been in the game for about 10 years. He swears by repeat business :huh:
My dad, who is a doctor w/a private practice, doesn't keep people sick, but also values repeat business
Repeat business is great because it makes your customers do your advertising work for you at a much more successful rate than traditional means... for free
If someone doesn't see the value in that... they probably don't know shit about business :huh:
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 05:21:08 PM
#1 rule about car dealerships is they aren't ever in it for repeat business.
That's not necessarily true with luxury car dealerships. The customers for those cars are fewer, their competition is narrower, and once people buy cars at that level, they don't like to drop back to average cars. So for them, it's worthwhile to hold on to customers and maintain relationships. For a Chevy dealer, I agree with you.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 08:11:29 PM
LOL - you turkeys have a lot to learn if you truly believe car dealerships, or any retail business, is about repeat business.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 10:14:03 PM
You work in (auto dealer) retail, possibly at some managerial level?
My family has been in the dealership business for years (owned GM dealers).
You're as wrong as wrong can be.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 05:21:08 PM
#1 rule about car dealerships is they aren't ever in it for repeat business.
You're dead wrong. Perhaps in a huge city you can get away with that. But in smaller ones you MUST look for repeat business. And I'm not sure how long you could get away with not looking for it even in a big city.
My local Mazda dealer had a good reputation for years and I know we had repeat buyers. Then after some bad changes it all went down hill over the last 8 years. It's closed up now.
FWIW they might have just been wiped out by the downturn
But yea... unless you're a sleaze first volume dealer I can't see why repeat business wouldn't be a, if not the goal of a salesman
As I look out over our business landscape, from some of the retail outlets up to the executive suites of banks and manufacturing companies, it has occurred to me that maybe our problem is that the businessmen of the past couple of decades really are just not very good businessmen.
We've become captivated by certain ideas and ideologies, and fallen under the thrall of some sophistocated analyses, but we don't seem to be able to see that the results are bad. We're losing ground on every front in the economy, as our infrastructure decays, our manufacturing base atrophies, and the great philosophies we follow have made us progressively poorer and deeper in debt.
Car dealers are no exception to this. They've long had a reputation for following shoddy business practices and mistreating many of their customers. Maybe people will find a way to go around them and buy cars without their dealers. Some already have. Then when the dealers go extinct, we can cry over all the lost jobs that result from that too.
Our businesspeople have been overtaken by the same short-sighted and blind mentality as our consumers. When will we learn?
Never.
Quote from: Rupert on June 20, 2010, 12:48:22 PM
Never.
You're probably right. But I hope you're wrong. Because we can't keep going the way we're going.
People have been saying that since they were first allowed to have opinions...
Quote from: Rupert on June 20, 2010, 01:17:05 PM
People have been saying that since they were first allowed to have opinions...
And they've usually been right...That's why things are always changing.
Not sure you got the point I was trying to make.
I think it's important to note that while many people (why distinguish between managers, professionals, consumers, etc; it's across all members of society) are shortsighted, many are not. Let's not be too pessimistic here.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 20, 2010, 12:12:18 PM
FWIW they might have just been wiped out by the downturn
But yea... unless you're a sleaze first volume dealer I can't see why repeat business wouldn't be a, if not the goal of a salesman
No, it was going under before the downturn. In the 90's it was the top selling Mazda dealer in the south east for years. For a few months it was the top selling Mazda dealer in the US. And I was told that in one month the top seller in the world. But a few changes made it's reputation become damaged and in 5 years after that it was gone.
Quote from: TBR on June 20, 2010, 01:31:58 PM
I think it's important to note that while many people (why distinguish between managers, professionals, consumers, etc; it's across all members of society) are shortsighted, many are not. Let's not be too pessimistic here.
But the overall direction of our business and economic policies have been shortsighted. It's getting harder and harder to deny the erosion we have suffered, as we have eschewed investment for consumerism. We've dressed it up in all sorts of fancy theoretical language, but the result is that we're getting poorer. We're exporting a trillion dollars of our wealth overseas year after year.
I'm not trying to be a pessimist, just a realist. We can't fix our problems until we actually recognize and admit they exist, rather than masking them, as we did so successfully until pretty recently. I am optimistic that we can find our footing again if we decide to face up to our problems.
Quote from: dazzleman on June 20, 2010, 01:37:31 PM
But the overall direction of our business and economic policies have been shortsighted. It's getting harder and harder to deny the erosion we have suffered, as we have eschewed investment for consumerism. We've dressed it up in all sorts of fancy theoretical language, but the result is that we're getting poorer. We're exporting a trillion dollars of our wealth overseas year after year.
I'm not trying to be a pessimist, just a realist. We can't fix our problems until we actually recognize and admit they exist, rather than masking them, as we did so successfully until pretty recently. I am optimistic that we can find our footing again if we decide to face up to our problems.
That's true, but as long as there are foresighted people out there we do have a chance.
Quote from: dazzleman on June 20, 2010, 01:26:32 PM
And they've usually been right...That's why things are always changing.
Not sure you got the point I was trying to make.
I got your point about shortsighted businesspeople, etc. My point is that I don't really think it's the people that have changed.
Quote from: Rupert on June 20, 2010, 02:37:02 PM
I got your point about shortsighted businesspeople, etc. My point is that I don't really think it's the people that have changed.
People never change. But sometimes, the way we react to our circumstances change.
Because our circumstances change, but only a little.
Quote from: dazzleman on June 20, 2010, 02:38:24 PM
People never change. But sometimes....we ......change.
WHAT!?!?!?
Dazzle is confused again.
:lol:
Quote from: TBR on June 20, 2010, 02:20:57 PM
That's true, but as long as there are foresighted people out there we do have a chance.
Of course we do, but we need to face reality.
When I see that supposedly top-level businessman made the following decisions on a grand scale:
1. Auto executives made a conscious decision, over a period of decades, that it was in their best interests to make products inferior to their competition, relying on patriotic jingoism to keep their customers buying those inferior cars over foreign competition;
2. Union executives decided that it was in their best interests to bankrupt the companies that paid for their salaries, pensions and medical benefits;
3. Bank executives decided that their profits would be enhanced by lending large sums of money to large numbers of people who had little to no ability to repay this money;
all while we have allowed our ecoomic basis to erode and covered that erosion with ever growing sums of debt, a policy that continues even more strongly than before, I know that we need a fundamental change in how we do business. Business people who make the type of decisions that I outlined (and those are but a few examples) are not good businesspeople, and having them collectively running our economy can't be a good thing.
Sorry to go off on this tangent, but the comment about dealers not caring about repeat business is what triggered it, because it seemed a smaller-scale version of the larger scale problem of bad decisionmaking by businesses, large and small, on fundamental issues.
Quote from: Rupert on June 20, 2010, 02:43:46 PM
Dazzle is confused again.
:lol:
I must have started smoking some of that stuff you sent me in the mail.... :devil:
Good job; about time.
a couple of perspectives. mega dealerships are generally less customer oriented (from my experience) than what i call single make "ma and pa" stores. the large dealerships probably rake in far more money, secondary to volume sales. i find many to appear (perspective) heartless, accept for attracting attention but large community donations that the smaller business may not be able to afford. i see more attention paid out to the individual customer or family from the community based dealer down the street. i think they must work harder. these are obviously generalizations, based on what i have encounter. both types of businesses (small vs. large) may help out for different reasons, but the result is typically the same - a happy customer.
Quote from: Rupert on June 20, 2010, 02:46:08 PM
Good job; about time.
:lol:
But I don't want to get in trouble, man.....don't you think that's a little too badass for me? :confused:
Quote from: Atomic on June 20, 2010, 02:48:54 PM
a couple of perspectives. mega dealerships are generally less customer oriented (from my experience) than what i call single make "ma and pa" stores. the large dealerships probably rake in far more money, secondary to volume sales. i find many to appear (perspective) heartless, accept for attracting attention but large community donations that the smaller business may not be able to afford. i see more attention paid out to the individual customer or family from the community based dealer down the street. i think they must work harder. these are obviously generalizations, based on what i have encounter. both types of businesses (small vs. large) may help out for different reasons, but the result is typically the same - a happy customer.
The American 'consumer' (I hate that word) is also to blame for a lot of this. We say we like the mom and pop businesses, but we don't frequent them for various reasons. They're more expensive, have less of a selection, and are usually opened shorter hours. So we choose the big box stores that are cheaper, but treat us poorly a lot of the time. Just as we have undervalued our free time in order to chase more material goods, we have also undervalued good service in a lot of cases.
Quote from: dazzleman on June 20, 2010, 03:00:04 PM
:lol:
But I don't want to get in trouble, man.....don't you think that's a little too badass for me? :confused:
Nah, everyone and their mother smokes the reefer these days. Well, in California, at least.
Quote from: Rupert on June 20, 2010, 03:15:26 PM
Nah, everyone and their mother smokes the reefer these days. Well, in California, at least.
Well, I have wanted to upgrade my 'bad mothafucka' tatto to 'SUPER bad mothafucka' so maybe I'll do it.... :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on June 20, 2010, 02:44:09 PM
Sorry to go off on this tangent, but the comment about dealers not caring about repeat business is what triggered it, because it seemed a smaller-scale version of the larger scale problem of bad decisionmaking by businesses, large and small, on fundamental issues.
You sir are correct.
It takes a long time for things to evolve in society, some of it is history, some of it cultural shift. "People inertia" is very hard to predict or direct.
Look at the rise and fall of Rome or the British "Empire"- at one point not too long ago, they "owned" half the free world and acted like it, too. That was a long story of fortune, technology, and location. They're still not doing too badly as a nation- even though they still resist to some measure the EU.
America has reached the "top" and as such has failed to think things might change in the future. Instead, we'll be starting a downward slide (2008, anyone?) which will gain momentum until some other country is "on top". We'll still be crying about the glory days and insisting everyone listen to us because we "are the best" for a long time..
Its gonna take a long time for America to come to grips with the idea of short term profit/operating costs not being the be all end all of business. We seem to operate minute to minute with no foresight for long term consequences. You can even see that in this situation.
Exactly sporty. That's what led me into my little thread hijack.
Ha! I was on fire in this thread!
Sheesh - sure is a lot negative Nancy-ism. We still do it best in America even in spite of the catastrophic government actions of the past little while.
Nah, the issue with car dealerships ain't an indicator of general business practices as a whole. The one-time sale nature of the auto dealer industry, and the resulting byproduct of shoddy and sometimes nefarious business practices, is simply what it takes to sell very expensive, very cultural-rich products, to the American public.
People lie about how much they make. People lie about their financial health. People lie about the condition of their trade-in. People want to act like a big shots and try to get the "best" deal by any means possible. If dealerships played it on the straight-n-narrow they'd go out of business in no time dealing with such clientele.
Quote from: Tave on June 18, 2010, 08:24:32 PM
I think sometimes you do things to maintain good relationships with your customers. Even if the dealership isn't legally responsible, it may be in their best long-term interest to take care of a customer who just dropped $50,000 in their place of business.
Because I can guarantee he won't be buying another Audi from them any time soon if they don't try to make it right.
You're absolutely right. If I ran this dealership, regardless of legal responsibility, I'd like to think I'd offer to replace the wheels, or at least cover some of the charge. If the dealer was asked to leave a car outside of their protected property, then they're really not responsible. If all this guy wants them to cover is the damn deductible, I'd eat the $500, because this is really bad publicity. This guy probably won't even service his car there anymore, let alone buy another from them.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2010, 05:21:08 PM
#1 rule about car dealerships is they aren't ever in it for repeat business.
How is that a car dealer rule? Repeat customers are almost always less hassle than getting new customers. They tend to shop around less, don't push as hard on the deals, and are more likely to service cars at that dealer past warranty. The number one rule in any business is that keeping a customer costs vastly LESS than getting a new one.
Check the Audizone link in the japolink article - update as of a few days ago - the dealership kowtowed and paid the deductible. Apparently the A4 owner was originally dealing with the service department not the sales department.
Which brings another point, don't put S4 wheels on an A4.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on June 19, 2010, 06:38:46 PM
But if I (and lots of other people,) tell my friends I had a GREAT experience at XX place, they'll build up plenty of business in the long run.
If I (and lots of other people,) tell everyone I know that is looking for a car to never go to YY dealer, then they'll never be as successful as XX.
No, that never happens. Take this unlikely scenario:
CarSPIN member A services a car at a dealership.
Member A tells SJZ3 about that dealership's excellent service.
SJZ3 then buys a GTI from that dealership.
Wait, that seems familiar.
Quote from: dazzleman on June 20, 2010, 08:24:58 AM
That's not necessarily true with luxury car dealerships. The customers for those cars are fewer, their competition is narrower, and once people buy cars at that level, they don't like to drop back to average cars. So for them, it's worthwhile to hold on to customers and maintain relationships. For a Chevy dealer, I agree with you.
Not even. You're talking about a broader part of the market and you're selling something that is perceived to be of lower quality. Customer loyalty (to a brand or dealership) is
extremely important if you don't have the best seller or the perceived best in your segment. If we were talking about Toyota two years ago, I'd say loyalty wouldn't mean much to them, but you're kidding yourself if you think a wider range of competitors doesn't make repeat business that much more important.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 21, 2010, 08:48:08 AM
Which brings another point, don't put S4 wheels on an A4.
Well, money doesn't buy taste and all that. :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on June 21, 2010, 08:48:08 AM
Which brings another point, don't put S4 wheels on an A4.
Why not? Stock A4 wheels suck, and not everyone wants/can afford an S4.
I'd just get the S4 badge and tape it over the 'A4'.
If it is behind a security fence, it is the dealer's responsibility.
If it on the lot, and there is no security fence, it is the dealer's responsibility.
If the dealer left it outside of a security fence at the owner's request, it is the owner's responsibility. If taken to court, the dealership will lose, but only because a business is considered financially able to take the hit. Been there, had it happen.
Even a sign that proclaims the dealership is not responsible, isn't enough to fulfill the legal obligation. The dealership personnel have to point out the sign and explain it for a court to consider the business has met their obligation.
As to the security cameras...don't be surprised if they don't work or are even dummy cameras. At the Benz dealership I was at, we had beware of dog signs and no dogs. No one ever climbed the fence after we installed that "security" system though.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 21, 2010, 01:13:53 PM
Why not? Stock A4 wheels suck, and not everyone wants/can afford an S4.
Well then you still shouldn't act like you got one. It's kind of pathetic.
...and the Audi dealer caved.
http://jalopnik.com/5568413/audi-dealership-caves-to-internet-pressure-helps-customer?skyline=true&s=i
Quote from: the Teuton on June 22, 2010, 10:17:24 PM
...and the Audi dealer caved.
http://jalopnik.com/5568413/audi-dealership-caves-to-internet-pressure-helps-customer?skyline=true&s=i
Good.
Quote from: Onslaught on June 21, 2010, 03:15:20 PM
Well then you still shouldn't act like you got one. It's kind of pathetic.
I don't think the dude was swapping badges or w/e. I do not think going for OEM wheels of another model is rice or in poor taste TBH. I'd rather that than dude get some piece of shit chrome things.