Google Encrypts Searches By Default – Cripples Google Analytics

Posted on October 21, 2011 by Arnold Tijerina

On October 18, 2011, Google announced via its blog that it is setting the default search settings for all people signed into their Google accounts to an encrypted search.

What does this mean for you? It means that your Google Analytics will no longer tell you keyword data on any person which clicked through to your site while logged into their Google account. This is very crippling from an SEO standpoint as keyword data is vital in your SEO and conversion efforts. Knowing what people were searching for that lead them to the link that they clicked on which brought them to your sight is valuable information to any company’s marketing efforts.

Keep in mind that Google has offered the encrypted search setting for a while now. The key difference is that consumers would have had to go into their setting and manually change this to an encrypted search and, really, who would really do this? Now, it’s encrypted by default, and, using the same logic, which consumers are going to go into their setting and change it to unencrypted? I believe most people would choose to give out less information than more given the option (which they’ve always had). However, I also believe, just like with Facebook privacy settings, that most people will not go into the settings and change them or learn them for that matter. The average consumer lives by default and if the default is now encrypted, it just means that your Google Analytics reports will contain less key information in them.

There is only one exception to this withholding of keyword conversion data. Encrypted keyword data will still be provided to Google Adword advertisers. That’s certainly a value add to entice more businesses to use Google Adwords and a way to leverage and monetize information for Google.

What are your thoughts?

(Originally published October 20, 2011 on Dealer magazine)

Industry Summit: A Peek into the World of F&I

Posted on October 17, 2011 by Arnold Tijerina

This week, I had the privilege of attending the Industry Summit – which includes 3 conferences — the F&I Conference, the Special Finance conference and the VSCAC conference. These conferences focus mainly on F&I and special finance topics. In this age of internet shopping, however, credit-challenged shoppers are also researching on the internet – whether it’s typical online car research or they’re searching for financing assistance online – so I wanted to see what advice and tips I could learn to share with our audience.

I was quite surprised to find that finance companies are interested in penetrating the franchise dealer market with hybrid “Buy Here, Pay Here” programs. Dealers lose many car deals each month due to the inability to secure financing for their customers. The idea is that the dealer would carry the note for 90 days, then these companies would purchase the notes for $.60 on the dollar. If structured correctly, and with the right program guarantees and commitments to buy these loans from these companies, a dealer could potentially pick up a decent amount of deals they otherwise wouldn’t be able to keep on the road (or put there in the first place).

An example given to me was of a franchise dealer who amassed a $22 million portfolio which he could cash out at any time while making a $5 million net profit. I could see this as an alternative method of financing – a last case scenario – for franchise dealers who are selective in whom they carry notes for or a new way for dealers with a high demographic of these customers to gain more deals and market share. Whether they choose to carry the note past the 90 day period is entirely up to them and, if structured properly, could mean extra profit and deals each month. Many stereotypical “Buy Here, Pay Here” lots went under during the hard times we’re just emerging from and this is a great way to capture market share quickly. I could see many customers who would feel more comfortable and willing to participate in a program like this offered by a franchise dealer versus the small used car lot that these programs typically exist at.

One of the most popular and well attended sessions was a Marketing and Advertising Dealer Panel regarding special finance with Scott Falcone, dealer, World Hyundai Matteson and Tom White Jr., general manager, Suzuki of Wichita. Many of the dealers in the audience wanted advice on how best to operate a special finance department including how to handle & identify those customers early in the process. Scott Falcone said that instead of treating special finance customers differently, they handle all customers as if they were special finance from an investigative standpoint. Tom White agreed saying that the most important question they ask on the meet & greet is regarding source and that usually helps identify those customers who may need special financing assistance.

Scott addressed another question regarding what to do to keep that special finance customer distracted while you are waiting for a call back or bank approval. He strongly suggested that dealers test drive those customers who can’t buy cars. By doing that, they get excited and are more likely to work with you with a co-signer, etc. and they get excited.

Both dealers do spot-deliveries and an audience member asked: “What’s an acceptable take back percentage?” Tom White said that his goal is an 8% take back on spot deliveries. If it’s more than 8%, then they are being too aggressive. If it’s less than 8%, they are not being aggressive enough. Tom White went on to share that their BDC only makes outbound calls on credit leads. Once they started that program, special finance sales went from 12 per month to 39. The retail sales department works all other leads. He went on to say that “the days of being able to take a credit app or look at a credit report are over. Computers are doing the underwriting. Send the deals in. Don’t think or guess.”

The exhibit hall was mostly filled with F&I product companies although I did see a few familiar faces.

Now a couple of fun things…

The coolest “interaction activity” in the hall was, by far, the large game of Jenga constantly being played in the ETE REMANbooth. I “almost” won that darn game. We ended up standing on chairs just to place the next piece on top but, in the end, the employees won. I still smile when I think how brilliant that game was for them. Everytime a game was lost, a ton of 2×4 planks came crashing down causing a lot of noise which could be heard in the whole hall and attracted a lot of attention.

And the coolest swag:

… a sweet car from our friends at DealerTrack! Thanks again for the car! My 5-year old has been playing with it NON-STOP since I got home.

Thank you to all of the people involved in inviting me to the conference – Ed Bobit, Dave Gesualdo and Greg Goebel – it was a privilege to attend and get an insight into the world of F&I and special finance.

(Originally published September 30, 2011 by Dealer magazine)

Facebook Firings Cost Employer $200,000+

Posted on September 19, 2011 by Arnold Tijerina

I’ve been following closely, and reporting on, the recent uptick in activity being taken by the National Labor Relations Board in pursuing complaints related to employee terminations due to social media use. All of the previous articles, including thebreaking news story I wrote regarding a BMW dealership who fired an employee due to Facebook posts, were only complaints that the NLRB were pursuing, but no decisions had been made by a judge. All of the similar previous cases had been settled so no precedents existed.

That’s all changed now.

In a press release from the NLRB dated Sept, 7, 2011, it reported that an Administrative Law Judge has ruled in favor of the five plaintiffs who were discharged by their employer over Facebook posts in which they complained about their employer and co-worker stating that the posts were “protected concerted activity.” In the ruling, the judge ordered the company to immediately reinstate all five employees and back pay all five workers – in full – with interest compounded daily, including compensation for all lost benefits.

These employees were “domestic violence advocates.” The average salary for this position is $41,000 according to SimplyHired.com. Using that figure, the employer had to pay just short of $188,000 not including interest and lost benefits, which easily equates to over $200,000.

As I reported, there are many similar cases still pending, including the one involving the BMW dealership.

This ruling is precedent setting and will with no doubt effect the other pending cases as well as any future complaints.

It is now more important than ever that your dealership immediately institute an appropriate social media policy that is specific and that excludes protected activities or review the one you already have to insure compliance with the suggestions made by the NLRB in their earlier issued report.

(Originally published September 14, 2011 on Dealer magazine)

What Does The Government Think About Your Social Media Policy?

Posted on September 9, 2011 by Arnold Tijerina

Back in June, I broke news on a case that involved a BMW dealership firing a salesperson for posting critical comments about the dealership and pictures of an accident that occurred on a nearby dealership’s lot (that happened to be owned by the same people).

Due to the huge increase in social media use by the general population as a form of communication, The National Labor Relation Board is aggressively going after companies that terminate employees for issues in regards to social media use. Until now, there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to which cases they were supporting and which they weren’t. The information was there, but unless you were actively seeking these cases, chances are you wouldn’t find them.

In an effort to coordinate the prosecution of cases involving social media, Anne Purcell, Associate General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, wrote and released a 24 page report on August 18, 2011 summarizing cases involving social media and explaining why they have chosen to prosecute (or not) these cases. In doing so, they’ve given insight into what you can and can’t do as an employer including what they believe your social media policy should (or shouldn’t) say.

Keep in mind that this is a summary of the cases and issues that they’ve determined merit prosecution. While some of the cases have been settled, many of these cases have trials pending. In no way are these laws or precedents…yet. However, in knowing what they do and don’t consider valid complaints, it can help any employer construct a more solid social media policy that would, at the very least, withstand the scrutiny of the National Labor Relations Board. It also gives insight into what, if any, disciplinary action you can take against an employee in regards to social media use.

In summary, based on the collective summaries of the cases, here are some guidelines I’ve extrapolated from the report for your social media policies and disciplinary considerations:

They’re huge on protected concerted activity. Employees can discuss and criticize their employer, supervisors and co-workers as long as they don’t stand alone in their criticisms. Your employees can call you a “scumbag”, an “a-hole”, a “super mega puta” or whatever else as long as they have co-workers that share their opinion. They have the right to discuss working conditions and their employer anywhere, including via social media. The keyword here is that it must be a discussion. Personal gripes don’t count.

You can’t have overly-broad social media policies. Things you can’t include in your social media policies:

Prohibit employees from making negative comments about the company, their supervisors or their co-workers.
Posting pictures of themselves which depict the company in any way (ie. in uniform, on the job, etc.)
Prohibit them from using inappropriate, offensive or rude language in regards to a coworker, the company, or a customer.
Prohibit inappropriate discussions via blogs.
Prohibit employees from discussing company business on their own time on their personal accounts.
Prohibit employees from disclosing inappropriate or sensitive information about the company.
Prohibit employees from posting pictures or comments involving the company or its employees that would be considered inappropriate.
Prohibit employees from using the company name, address, or other company information on their personal profiles.
Prohibit employees from using the company’s logo or photographs of the company’s store.

How many of these does your company have in its social media policy?

I bet quite a few. You’re probably thinking “Holy Cow” about now. Seems as if employees can do anything they want! That’s not true. What IS true is this: these company’s social media policies (when they had them) contained restrictions that were overly broad and encompassing. Employees have a right to bitch about their workplace, bosses and company, whether it’s aloud or via any type of social media, including Facebook, Twitter or blogging. It doesn’t matter whether you have an “At-Will Employment Agreement”.

So how do you restrict your employee’s social media use through policy without it being considered overly-broad? I mean, come on, you can’t account for EVERY possible situation in a written policy.

The answer is actually quite simple. Your policy is overly broad and/or unlawful if it does not contain verbiage that excludes protected concerted activity as defined by Sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. Simply putting a phrase similar to that into your social media policy should protect you in most instances (unless, of course, the activity IS protected).

In addition, when considering whether you can or can’t terminate an employee because of something they posted on social media, you need to ask yourself these questions:

Is this comment posted relating to any form of work conditions?
Is it a shared opinion and/or being discussed with fellow co-workers?

If the answer is yes, I would think twice before disciplining the employee. If the answer is no, you’re probably safe.

This has nothing to do with free speech. It has everything to do with creating policies that would INCLUDE protected concerted activities. To make it short (and provide an example of their reasoning), you can’t tell an employee they can’t post photos or use the company logo on social media without permission because that would include prohibiting the employees from posting photos of them on a picket line in front of your dealership. You can’t simply tell them they cannot talk about the company via social media because that would prohibit them from lawfully discussing working conditions with their co-workers.

Moral of the story: If you’re an employer, make sure your policy excludes protected activity. If you’re an employee, make sure your co-workers agree with you (and chime in).

Disclaimer: The author of this post is not an attorney and in no way should this be considered legal advice.

(Originally published on Dealer magazine)