Toyota vs GM: Guess Who's the Dinosaur!

...economic theory says dominant firms adopt strategies that undermine their dominance ...

This isn't an enthusiast site, and I'm not a car guy. My family didn't have a second car growing up so tinkering with one never became a hobby. My attitude is horribly utilitarian: a car's function is to get me from point A to point B. So my own vehicle is 24 years old, my secondary one is 14 years old (while my wife's is only 8 years old). When I go on long trips I try to rent a car. And when I visit auto suppliers as a PACE judge or otherwise do the limited travel in which a normal academic engages, I also rent cars.

That said, I have written on this blog about the logic of a leading firm to "never be first" (in its heyday this was the case at GM, and in the past two decades became an operating motif at Toyota). Furthermore, there is an internal bureaucrat logic at large companies. I've not interviewed people about this, so I'm not being my normal careful academic self in stating it, but I surmise that if you're an ambitious engineer / designer / marketer at Toyota, you wanted to be associated with the Scion (Akio Toyoda's pet project) and with Lexus (prestige and profits). To work on the Camry would be a ho-hum posting. You wouldn't be using it as a platform to launch new technologies. It isn't a platform for future products for developing markets.

That would be quite different at a Hyundai or at today's GM. Hyundai started out with a very small market presence, both quantitatively and prestige-wise and in the size of its cars. The Sonata received a lot of attention, details well done including NHV, but I've not driven one for a couple years so don't know the new model. GM needs to reconquer the sedan market. I've driven both the Malibu and the Impala -- the latter so quiet that I had to double-check that I'd turned on the engine, and with a "clean" interior. I was impressed.

Then there's the Camry – I drove a new one with a few thousands miles on it. It was noisy, wind noise in particular. Then there was an occasional vibration from somewhere in the instrument panel, a matter of both design and (poor) build quality. Next was the instrument panel itself. I counted 12 active functions in the speedometer area, a cacophony of visual information (the mixed metaphor seems appropriate). Speed. Tachometer. Miles per gallon performance. Engine temperature. Odometer. On and on. Other than the speedometer, you really had to take your eyes off the road to decipher these functions – and it wasn't clear why a driver of a modern, automatic transmission family sedan would want a tachometer or most of the other functions. Dysfunctions, actually. There was also a large and hard-to-use LCD display -- and the gas mileage information on it didn't match that found next to the speedometer. Furthermore, the hands-free phone function didn't work consistently, particularly dialing out. The developers clearly hadn't done their homework on testing the bluetooth protocols of various phones against their system. Finally, it drove like a modestly responsive boat. That may be what older drivers want – and by older, I mean those pushing age 80. I don't think that's really their target market in theory, and in practice age 70-something drivers wouldn't be particularly receptive to the boatload of gadgets confronting them every time they got in the car.

So, this is congruent with economic theory. A dominant player plays it safe, and puts its resources into growth areas and pet projects of senior management. Over time of course they lose their dominance. But this sort of thing is not easy to turn around, viz. GM's experience. Toyota has a well-entrenched bureaucracy, structured in ways that date back to when they were an exporter of models developed in Toyoda City. On the marketing side in the US there was Toyota, and Southeast Toyota, and Southwest Toyota, rather than a national structure. And they've bought into the upmarket strategy, with profits (and internal kudos) from Lexus and not small cars. That no longer matches their actual market base and production base, and it leaves them ill-suited to tap new markets such as China and India.

I strongly suspect that this is well-known at Toyota itself; after all, there was an internal coup in Toyota that elevated Akio Toyoda earlier than planned under the normal bureaucratic progression, even before the recall scandal. The Camry suggests however that organizational dynamics are deep-seated and have to date resisted change.

Mike Smitka

Bush 43 at NADA 2012

LAS VEGAS ― Having hit a low in 2009 due to the trauma of two domestic automakers nearing bankruptcy and the overall industry in turmoil, the annual National Auto Dealer Association convention this year was indicative of the vigorous rebound of the industry as a whole. Attendance was brisk and the expo hall was packed with vendors. Spirits were upbeat and optimism abounded.

As the final speaker on the closing day, former President George W. Bush had the last word. The hall was packed during his 25-minute prepared remarks and subsequent Q&A, with outgoing NADA Chairman Stephen Wade asking the questions. The ex-president showed his human side with a liberal mix of applause lines and humor. He cracked up the room on numerous occasions with spontaneous off-the-cuff remarks. He devoted some time to trying to sell his book, But every time Bush mentioned Decisions Points, he added with a wry expression and a twinkle in his eye, “We still have plenty of inventory.” The line became funnier every time he said it. “Did I mention, we still have plenty of inventory?”

Despite the fact that the room was primarily Republican, based on an informal polling, (and my interactions over the years with hundreds of dealers) there was no booing or hissing for the fact that then-President Bush authorized the advance of a bridge loan of $17.4 billion from TARP funds to GM and Chrysler in December 2008 after having been turned down for a bailout package by Congress. In current RW rhetoric, this is known as “government picking winners and losers.”

So given the audience, and after first spending some time on his personal battles with alcohol, Bush addressed the economic situation he faced at the end of his presidency. In fact, the auto industry rescue/restructuring might as well be termed the rescue of the North American industrial base, since that is what was at stake. Bush spoke glowingly of the advice and support of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. He cited them as perfect examples of people a leader should surround himself with to offer insights on subjects about which the leader is unfamiliar.

Speaking of the massive government support for the financial services industry by his administration during the economic collapse of late 2008, Bush says: “In a normal environment, the free market would render its judgment and they could fail. I would have been happy to let them do so. As unfair as it was to use the American people’s money to prevent a collapse for which they weren’t responsible, it would have been even more unfair to do nothing and leave them to suffer the consequences. The consequences of inaction would have been catastrophic.”

Regarding the economic crisis, “If we’re really looking at another Great Depression, you can be damn sure I’m going to be Roosevelt, not Hoover.” “Wall Street got drunk, and we got the hangover.”

In his book, Bush says he “opposed the Carter/Reagan bailout of Chrysler.” “Yet the economy was extremely fragile, and my economic advisors had warned me that the immediate bankruptcy of the Big Three would cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion, and set back the country’s GDP by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Stipulations attached to the billions in Bush Administration “bridge loans” ultimately cost GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner his job, despite the fact many have “blamed” the next President.

Bush refrained from getting involved in the current politics other than to say “he understands the immense pressures of the job, and that it would be counter-productive for him to weigh in.” Despite the occasional malapropism, he conducted himself with class and grace with a large dose of Texas one-liner humor. While history may judge him harshly on some issues, it seems clear that the decisive action he authorized saved the economy, and in particular the auto industry, from a catastrophic meltdown.

David Ruggles

Comment by Mike Smitka: Certainly Wall Street got drunk, but it was policy that supplied the hooch. Greed on Wall Street isn't new; the ability to indulge however was. Both historic checks were removed. The first was that of regulation, which limited the ability of bankers to gamble with other peoples money (bankers have long demonstrated an ability to keep winnings for themselves while sticking others with losses). The second was monetary policy, which historically kept the supply of funds roughly commensurate with normal loan demand. Here Bush also leaned on outside advisors, Greenspan in particular but also Paulson and to some extent Bernanke -- though Bernanke was in subordinate positions as a Fed governor and then chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, as he was not named Fed chairman until 2006, by which point real estate prices had largely peaked.

Bob Lutz, the VOLT, and the Right Wing

The recent media coverage of so-called “Chevrolet Volt fires,” especially by the conservative talk shows and Fox News, has attracted my attention and ire. Let’s set out the facts (and feel free to check them yourself):

1. Not one Chevrolet Volt has ever caught fire in normal use or in accidents. Not a single one.
2. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, even after the highly artificial crash test (placing the car on its back, even though it did not roll over in the test) nevertheless awarded the Volt NHTSA’s highest crash-safety rating: 5 stars. Volt is supremely safe.
3. The crashed Volt, its battery shorted by coolant from the period unjustifiably spent “feet up,” caught fire three weeks after said test. (I submit that this would provide adequate time for surviving passengers to exit the vehicle.)
4. On average, 278,000 cars with gasoline engines caught fire in the U.S. each year between 2003 and 2007, according to the National Fire Protection Association.
5. No factory-produced electric vehicle has ever caught fire, to the best of my knowledge.
6. The Volt, the most technologically advanced car on the planet, was conceived by me and my team well before any federal bailout of GM.

These are the bedrock facts.

Now, how did the U.S. right-wing media choose to report this admittedly headline-tempting news? A nationally syndicated editorial three-panel cartoon stated (I believe I remember the sequence): “Thomas Edison discovered electricity;” then, “Alexander Graham Bell discovered the telephone;” and, in the third panel, “But it took the US Government to discover fire!” (accompanied by a drawing of a burning Chevy Volt).

Meanwhile, my fellow cigar-aficionado and erstwhile friend Rush Limbaugh launched the usual outraged, breathless tirades, denouncing the Volt as a typical failed President Obama initiative, on a par, grosso modo, with the dreaded Obama Care. The screen regularly depicted an exploding Chevrolet Volt.

But the Oscar for totally irresponsible journalism has to go to The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, with, as its key guest, Lou Dobbs. Amid much jocular yukking, the Volt was depicted as a typical federal failure. In attempting to explain why Chevy has sold fewer than 8,000 Volts, Dobbs states, flatly, “It doesn’t work.” He elaborates, “It doesn’t go fast and go far on electricity. What happens is it catches fire,” adding that Chevy has recalled some 8,000 Volts. Bill O’Reilly, nodding approvingly, helpfully interjects: “So they’ve recalled cars that haven’t been sold.” Boiled down to the subtext, Dobbs’ message was this: “All Volts catch fire, and therefore all Volts have been recalled.” That simply isn’t the case.

Much air time was spent on the $50 billion-plus bailout, which, the audience was left to assume, “funded” the Volt, doubtlessly at the whim of Obama’s known army of evil enviro-Nazis, intent on forcing vehicle electrification on a good-ole’-boy, V8-lovin’ populace. To top it off, these two media pros lamented the fact that the same government that had forced GM to produce the Volt was now extending $7,500 tax credits towards its purchase, thus squandering even more of “our taxpayer” dollars on this failed Socialist-collectivist flop. Truth? The $7,500 tax credit was enacted under the Bush administration!

But who the hell cares about facts when you’re in O’Reilly’s self-described “No Spin Zone?” (The fine print might as well read, “We said ‘no spin,’ not ‘no deliberate misstatement of facts.’ ”) What on Earth is wrong with the conservative media movement that it feels it’s OK to spread false information, OK to damage the reputation of perhaps the finest piece of mechanical technology our country has produced since the space shuttle, OK to hurt an iconic American company that is roaring back to global pre-eminence, OK to hurt American employment in Hamtramck, Mich., as long as it damages the Obama administration’s reputation?

While as a conservative Republican I may well share the goal, I deplore the means employed to attain it. The conservative cause damages itself, destroys its credibility through the expedient spreading of untruths. The public will figure it out. The right-wing “talking heads”, O’Reilly and Limbaugh at the forefront, have managed to make me embarrassed to describe myself as a conservative.

Come on, you guys. Shape up! There’s plenty of legitimate fodder out there. Let’s leave the “invention of facts” to the left-wing climate-change alarmists.

Published in Forbes

Auto Bailout Redux and Mitt Romney

See the post on my parallel blog, US and Economics on Mitt Romney's puzzling statements on the government-led bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler. First, as I discuss there, Romney knows finance and so must know he's wrong. Second, and not discussed there, from my end it's not a bright strategy to take this stance in Michigan. After all, the UAW membership in my experience is strongly Republican in leaning -- it's the leadership who support the Democratics. So he's not exactly helping his cause, though I don't follow the ins and outs of campaign strategy and presume I am missing something.

Readers of this blog likely remember that it was Bush who bailed out the industry, with $17 billion or so in loans (the figure is from memory) with no strings attached except for providing a "plan". Obama would have none such, and let these firms file for bankruptcy. In the absence of a functioning financial market, the US government provided the DIP financing that is a normal and necessary part of Chapter 11, and took an equity stake when firms exited, again normal bankruptcy practice -- but the whole thing was extraordinarily well done, as large-scale bankruptcies normally take many years, not 90 days.

Now Rick Santorum is saying similar things -- see the following -- but we have no illusions that he knows anything about finance or economics. He seems to think that the normal "private market" Chapter 11 bankruptcy is quick, that recovery after one is prompt, and that in early 2009 private equity markets would have lent $50 billion to the industry. All three parts of this sort of claim are incorrect.

From Automotive News (link here):

GM and Chrysler would be "alive and equally as well, or better off, than they are now," Santorum told about 300 people at a Detroit Economic Club luncheon today. "The markets would have reacted to restructure it to be more competitive."

Read similar coverage on Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-17/auto-recovery-defines-terms-of-engagement-for-michigan-primary.html

Mike Smitka

It's a big, bad world...

...will 2012 ring in the red?...

It's a big world...but everyone is aiming to expand for a bigger world. Toyota of course intends to get back on track. Hyundai/Kia will hit 7 million units (see the Bloomberg story). GM will stay on top, with VW close behind, or maybe a bit ahead. Honda is simply hoping to recover, and awaits the performance of new models. Nissan is doing well, Chrysler is helping Fiat stay afloat. PSA (Peugeot) – well, because they're neither in the US nor in Japan, I tend not to hear much about them. Of course Mazda and Mitsubishi, dependent on exports from Japan, will be lucky to stay afloat in the face of a strong yen. Suzuki looks more and more like an Indian company, not important globally.

Of course the global market will expand in 2012 – we hope. Europe however is likely to see full-fledged recession, and I think it's optimistic that NAFTA won't feel a cold wind. (New England: brace yourselves for a nor'easter of historic proportions.) Japan – well, the economy will be slow and the number of licensed drivers continues to decline. China's growth will surely be slower than in 2011, while India remains small and (unlike India) has done little to improve the infrastructure that helps make car ownership functional. Brazil may do OK. All this means that the major markets will on the whole be stagnant or, in the case of China, slower but with much greater supply and hence softer pricing. (For the major economies in 2012, I find the December 15, 2011 prognosis of Morgan Stanley's Global Economic Forum thoughtful, particularly in its effort to integrate the projections for individual countries to provide a globally consistent story reflecting the integrating effects of trade and capital markets.)

Now we're not looking at a repeat of 2009. Indeed, on a total unit basis there will be growth.

I think the industry may face another shock, lower energy prices. After all, while emerging markets continue to emerge, if more slowly than in 2011, the developed markets will be moribund, depressing demand in what in the aggregate remains the biggest market for energy. Meanwhile, a period of high prices boosts investment in exploration and extraction / recovery. The output of those efforts takes a few years to start showing up in the market. Upon completion financial imperatives mean those projects will be hungry for revenue and will produce even if they face a soft market. Well, it's now been four years. That may be good news to the Detroit Three in the US, but it will mean that overall the market for energy-efficient vehicles will soften. Yet that's where the industry's players have poured their R&D. Sure, R&D is a long-run strategy that isn't expected to generate much of a short-term pay-back. However, it has short-run profit implications when it doesn't generate any up-front return.

It's hard for me to see 2012 bringing in more black; I can't tell a consistent upside story for the industry on a global basis. Single markets are less and less capable of driving results; we have entered an era where firms need more than their home market to generate profits. (A caution: for years the effective home market for Toyota and Honda has been the US, not Japan. That may also be the case for BMW.) However, I'm not (quite) pessimistic enough to say that 2012 will ring in the red.

Mike Smitka

More TrueCar

TrueCar.Com Truly Infuriates Many Dealers

by David Ruggles
WardsAuto.com, Dec 19, 2011 8:58 AM

Scott Painter says he wants to help dealers sell more cars. So why is the founder of TrueCar.com under attack by auto-retail people on social-network blogs and elsewhere?

Painter contends he is the dealer's friend when selling them his Zag/TrueCar lead-generation program. Then he says he is the consumer's friend in their price battles with dealers. Is it possible to take both sides of the same issue at the same time? He also says he wants to transform the industry by "commoditizing" new vehicles, which eliminates the need for salespeople and marginalizes losses. Have we been down this road before?

TrueCar has grown dramatically, making enough inroads to raise $200 million from venture-capital investors with which the firm promptly purchased Automotive Leasing Guide, the industry's highest-profile residual value predictor.

In a nutshell, TrueCar as an online lead provider offers dealers a deal that seems hard to refuse. They only pay for online leads that are closed as sales.

In the fine print is an agreement to give TrueCar access to information in dealership management systems. After all, how will TrueCar know how much to bill at the end of the month for the closed and delivered leads without verification?

But the firm also harvests data, in particular transaction-pricing information that TrueCar shares with car consumers visiting its website. After seeing what other people paid for the same vehicles they are interested in, they can make an offer.

Painter says that pricing data does not come from DMS units. Even if it doesn't, it puts additional pressure on dealers under the guise of providing "a public service." Is there another industry where consumers feel they have the right to know a seller's actual true costs?

Scott Painter under fire from dealers.

Eventually dealership people, led by Jeff Kershner, figured out what was going on.< Now, an industry movement is swelling against TrueCar. There is plenty of information on industry social-network blogs, with more being added by the minute. Hundreds of people have weighed in. Jim Ziegler's blog has had more than 12,000 views.

"There really is only one way to stop this nonsense with vendors," says dealer Tamara Darvish of the Darcars Automotive Group in Maryland. That requires "a gentleman's agreement" among dealers not to exchange DMS data for leads, she says. "Unfortunately, greed and ignorance often take priority with some, rather than logic and long-term planning."

TrueCar's Devin LaCrosse provides the other side of the story. By enabling participating dealers to provide upfront, no-haggle price quotes, TrueCar has helped over 5,500 dealers nationwide sell over 400,000 new and used vehicles, he says. TrueCar lowers dealership selling costs "by providing high-quality customers and no need for haggling, and provides free transaction-based pricing data to help dealers price vehicles scientifically."

Some would say TrueCar is not incrementally increasing vehicle-sales volume, just lowering dealers' gross profits. Some dealers are doing more volume at the expense of others, but there is no evidence more vehicles are sold. Kershner, Ziegler and others think dealers unwittingly are enabling Painter to transform the auto business based on his perception of how it should operate.

Why are dealers going along with what seems like a self-defeating initiative? Many were caught unaware. They need to thoroughly read their contract with TrueCar. Dealers who have just learned what is happening are up in arms. Many are as angry at themselves as they are with Painter and his firm.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions. But some people are taking it very seriously. Ziegler calls it "the Battle of Armageddon for car dealers."

WardsAuto Dealer Business columnist David Ruggles is a former dealership general manager.

The War with TrueCar

Open Letter to the Automotive Industry from Scott Painter, Founder & CEO of TrueCar, Inc.

Responses by Ruggles

Monday, December 12, 2011 12:01 am

Painter: Our world is changing. Unprecedented access to information and a massive shift in consumer behavior has resulted in a challenging new automotive retail landscape. It has also enabled a consumer appetite for data transparency. To hide from evolving consumer behavior is to deny change. At TrueCar, we embrace this opportunity. We also believe that transparency is the centerpiece of trusting relationships. Some in the industry disagree. We would like to make our position clear.

Ruggles:Transparency is NOT the objective of auto dealers. Survival is, followed by net profit. It takes gross profit to have some net profit left over at month end. Is there another industry where consumers feel they have the right to know a seller's actual true costs? What gives consumers the right to that information in the first place? Providing transparency is NOT your only aim – making money in the doing is! The behaviour by consumers wanting to know a car dealer's bare costs is NOT something new. In 1970 credit unions would arm their members with "dealer cost." There were books available on every news stand. The delivery of the information is what is different.

If you want total transparency, give consumers actual bare cost down to net net net. Then allow the negotiation to be based on the gross profit, say a thousand or two. Do you really think consumers understand gross profit? Do they understand the expenses that are paid out of gross profit? More importantly, do they care?

Over the course of time car dealers have had their margins trimmed dramatically by their OEMs. When I started in the business the margin on large cars was 22.5% with a 2.5% hold back. "Trunk money" was available only for special promotions, but it was nowhere near as prevalent as today. The profit a dealer makes these days has moved to "trunk money," as the dramatically narrowed margin and increased availability of information to consumers has dictated it. And you are looking to disclose this information as if consumers have some kind of inherent right to it.

The auto business is a business of negotiation. AND consumers can shop. Consumers aren't bound by the same rules that auto dealers are. You seem to be saying that you would like to remove the negotiation aspect of the business while making money for your own company in the doing. It's not like you are performing some needed public service. You think an "efficient" market for new vehicles is good for everyone? How does that jive with the dealer, who has made substantial investment, making a reasonable return? If they don't, who will be around to provide other essential services to the consumer? The factory?

You're a business man and have closed some deals where negotiation has been required to reach agreement. You also know that in negotiation if neither party gets their feathers ruffled at some point, money has been left on the table. I suspect that in your very best negotiations, you negotiated without appearing to negotiate at all. I suspect that is how you have gotten so many dealers to sign on initially. That might even be how you gathered in $200 million in venture capital. I take my cap off to you for being such an artful negotiator. But don't in the same breath talk about transparency. Your objective is to make your deal while adopting the APPEARANCE of transparency as a negotiating tactic. How do you expect to make money in a negotiating business like the auto business with true transparency? You call it transparency to share transaction data, where ever you happen to get it and however the consumer interprets it. Real transparency is when only the margin is negotiated because the consumer knows our costs as well as we do, but of course they lack the knowledge of what has to be paid out of that margin. To repeat - you are selling the illusion and perception of transparency, but in the doing you are feathering your own nest by portraying yourself as the "good guy" to the consumer who readily accepts the dealer as the "bad guy." The amazing thing is that any dealer has cooperated with you.

And what of the sales people you intend to replace? Or do you deny that that is one of your aims? It seems you are on record about that.

Painter: Our goal at TrueCar is to foster healthier relationships between manufacturers, dealers and consumers through data transparency.

Ruggles: Forget about healthier relationships. Profitable business relationships that are also "healthy" are the kinds of relationships to have. The euphemism "data transparency" means disseminating propriety information to consumers, information that is none of their business. They can shop at the touch and click of a mouse. What more are they entitled to?

Painter: To deliver on this promise, we require a high standard from our 5,800 dealer partners – an upfront competitive price and a commitment to a great customer experience.

Ruggles: Where does the great customer experience come from in a race to the bottom on price? Where does the money come from to accomplish that?

Painter: A discoverable upfront price is the cost of getting noticed. Contrary to popular concerns this does not create a “race to the bottom.” The lowest price only secures the sale 19.2% of the time within the TrueCar network. The sale is still won by location, selection and good old-fashioned customer service.

Ruggles: No race to the bottom? Easy for you to say! If only 19.2% buy based on the lowest price, why would you even try to provide consumers with the lowest price? The cynic in me tells me that your motive is not public service, but your own profit. Let's tell it like it is. That being the case, how on earth would you expect dealers to be your allies in the endeavor? Well, that's easy. A host of dealers with their heads up their asses have already signed on providing initial validity to your premise. In case you haven't noticed, there is a burgeoning group looking to enlighten our fellow dealers.

Painter: At TrueCar, we believe that upfront price is at the core of a good buying experience for dealer and consumer. Informed consumers buy more confidently and are more satisfied. At TrueCar, we publish the most accurate reflection of the retail market that has ever been available. The goal is to establish an objective, credible and transparent baseline for fairness – both for the customer and the dealer. That being said, TrueCar does not set this market. Our dealer partners set their own prices 100% of the time.

Ruggles: Its great that you believe that "upfront price" is at the core of a good buying experience. In our mind, a good buying experience is where the dealer makes a substantial but reasonable profit, the consumer is happy, and a long term profitable relationship is formed. The price is negotiated. Trades are taken. Consumers can shop if they feel they aren't getting what they want.

Whose definition of fairness are we using? Yours? The consumers? As previously mentioned, ask a consumer what they think a fair margin is on a new car and the answers will be all over the map. Most aren't business people. It doesn't even occur to most of them that there are substantial costs that have to be paid from gross profit.

Bottom Line: You are trying to create a system based on wildly variable consumer perceptions, while destroying the system that has worked for years, and to make a few million in the doing.

AND after you have taken down sales people and the dealer network, do you then turn you program on manufacturers? Where does it end? Dealers don't need any more downward pressure on gross profit. And those who help you provide additional pressure on their own gross profits just haven't woke up to that fact yet.

Painter: Dealers earn their business every day and we believe that their marketing programs should too. TrueCar is the only fully accountable source of new business where our dealer partners only pay when they sell a car. Gone are the days when dealers have to assume all of the marketing risk and pay for advertising and for leads as a primary way to secure new customers.

Ruggles: I suspect that more and more dealers will be opting to take their "risk" back in return for not being complicit in their own demise.

Painter: TrueCar requires DMS integration for tracking of this accountable model, the core of what makes us unique. We use DMS feeds from our dealer partners for tracking and optimization of introductions made to the dealership. We don’t use our dealer partners’ information to populate the TrueCar pricing curve. That information comes from entirely separate sources of anonymized data that represent nearly 90% of all vehicle transactions in the U.S.

At TrueCar, data integrity, security and privacy are job #1. Our policies, systems and technology have passed the scrutiny of partners like USAA, Consumer Reports, American Express, AAA and many others. TrueCar has never, and will never, sell or repurpose DMS data for any reason.

Ruggles: IF security and privacy are job #1, you have failed miserably. The credibility gap between TrueCar and dealers is growing. Even if it is true that your access to a dealer's DMS doesn't provide actual transaction data, the fact remains that your company is making money by putting additional pricing pressure on dealers under the guise of providing a "public service."

Painter: In spite of all this, we recognize that change is threatening for some. Ours will always be a high-touch industry. The service of our dealer partners and highly-trained sales professionals becomes increasingly important the more consumers know. At TrueCar, our commitment is to relieve those professionals from needing to resort to high-pressure sales tactics or misdirection. These tactics have been an albatross for our industry and they are at the heart of why consumers have become generally mistrustful of the car shopping experience in the first place.

Ruggles: Change? This isn't change. TrueCar simply puts the dissemination of proprietary dealer information on steroids. Do us a favor and let dealers return to their high-pressure and misdirection tactics of days gone by when we delivered 17,000,000 new vehicles a year. The only way most consumers will be satisfied is to be guaranteed to win the negotiation. And they can't even define what it would mean for them to win. You say consumers have become "generally distrustful of the car shopping experience?" Please tell me, is this some kind of new phenomenon that recently arose so TrueCar could come to the rescue?

Painter: Is TrueCar good for all dealers? There will always be those that resist change. To our dealer partners, we applaud your understanding that truth, transparency, and customer service is at the center of success in our changing market. And, to those that still have questions, we invite an open dialogue. One of the great virtues of transparency is that we have nothing to hide.

Ruggles: The change dealers want to resist is further downward pressure on their gross profits, at a time when their manufacturers are pushing them to spend more and more money on their facilities, thereby further increasing their costs. As a 40 year industry veteran retired from the day-to-day of retail, I can speak my mind. I hope others will do the same.

David Ruggles