Tag Archives: drivingsales

NADA 2012: Day Four Recap – Final Day

Posted on by

By Day 4 of NADA, I was totally wiped. Between walking the exhibit hall, networking, and night-time adventures, I didn’t have a lot of gas left.

Day 4 in the exhibit hall had me looking for some cool swag for my daughter. Not many booths had “kid” swag (lighty-blinky things, etc. A lot of footballs but not much else). In my treasure hunt, I managed to get a caricature done courtesy of Jack Behar and the VisuallyLinked booth, a DealerTrack 1/24 scale die-cast car, some autographs with Playmates at the Aspen Marketing booth and more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I managed to make it until I won this huge bear from the CUDL booth:

Won me a big bear at the CUDL booth at NADA

Walking around the exhibit hall with that huge bear got me a mixture of strange looks, smiles, queries as to how I was getting it home (I drove) and monetary offers but I was taking this home to my 5-year old daughter. (Man, was I a hero when I got home.) In the end, at about 2:30, I had to go back to my hotel room just to drop this off. I took a load off my feet and **BAM** I was out. I woke up right as former President George W. Bush was speaking. I was bummed to miss that.

I was invited to dinner with 3Birds Marketing that evening and we went to a delicious Thai restaurant. Afterwards, I needed to make a stop at the Caesars Palace Forum Shops. As the store closed its doors, they allowed someone in to shop privately. It happened to be Floyd Mayweather Jr.!! It was him and I, the store employees and his bodyguards (although I dont know why he needs bodyguards). Got to say “Hi” to him but I succeeded in restraining myself in asking for a picture with him.

After that, it was off to the Imperial Palace Karaoke Club. I typically visit at least once every time I’m in Vegas and it so happened that, earlier that day, Shaun Raines of DrivingSales tweeted out an impromptu industry karaoke party. Some of the 3Birds Marketing crew were there as were some ReachLocal people. It was a blast, as always. Rob Fontano KILLED the songs he sang. Dude even had a freakin’ harmonica in his pocket and played it during his songs. Are you kidding me?!?! I’ve NEVER seen someone whip out a harmonica during karaoke. Check it out:

Then, Shaun stepped up and did a duet with the DJ:

Great people. Good times.

To summarize, this NADA was the best experience I’ve had at a conference and the first major industry event in the last couple of years in which I wasn’t working in some way or another. Between all the celebrities, events, parties, swag, gifts from heaven, networking, and sessions…. I sincerely felt charmed the whole time. Thank  you to NADA, God, the Lucky Charms leprechaun, and all those that made this convention so wonderful for me.

If you’d like to see some of the pictures I took (102 on display), you can view them HERE.

Oh, and remember that eBay Motors party I told you about in my Day Two Recap? I’ll leave you with some ice, ice, baby.

 

 

The Ethics of Online Reviews

Posted on by

This article started as an investigation into a company providing services to the automotive industry,Review Boost. I didn’t know much about the company, only that it had received some negative press and accusations of gaming online reviews. In fact, it even had a local San Antonio television station, KSAT, run a news segment regarding a dealership who used their services. There have been blog articles written questioning the authenticity of the reviews as well as articles written in both Automotive News and F&I Magazine.

The importance of reputation management has been increasingly on dealers’ minds, being, from the dealers I spoke with and interviewed for DrivingSalesTV, the hot topic of this year’s NADA convention. The FTC is cracking down on companies engaging in posting misleading reviews, legislators are pushing for stricter laws regarding this practice, legal advisors are reporting that a company exposes themselves tolegal risks by engaging in this act, and a California law went into effect Jan 1, 2011 making it a criminal activity. Add to these variables the fact that search engines are starting to increase the importance of online reviews in their algorithms and incorporating them into search results, naturally, when they popped up on my radar again after partnering up with an industry vendor, I was curious as to why the partnership happened and I started asking questions and doing some homework.

[Edit: After sharing my article with representatives from Review Boost, they informed me that they decided not to move forward with the partnership I referred to above.]

I spoke with William, the owner of Review Boost, at length. We spoke for upwards of an hour and he walked me through what his company does. First, to be clear, they deny all accusations of gaming reviews and/or writing the reviews themselves. William was very pleasant, if understandably nervous during our conversation but, in my opinion, sincerely wanted to clear the air regarding what his company does. Without revealing too many of his proprietary practices, which he shared with me, I didn’t get the impression that he is doing anything wrong at all. Now, given that there were already a ton of articles investigating and breaking down why other people feel that they are, I didn’t feel the need to rehash what others have already done and I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.

See, William isn’t in the car business. Review Boost began assisting local businesses like dentists, doctors, and such. It ended up that dealers account for about 30% of their current client base but this wasn’t by design. The crux of their strategy, which is what surprised me the most, is that they administer a website called myreviewboost.com in which they post reviews collected from clients of their dealers. These reviews are then syndicated across about 40 online review directories through partnerships with them. I was surprised that such a syndication was allowed but I did some investigating and, not only is it allowed, but it is encouraged. Judysbook.com, in example, promotes review sharing partnerships openly.

I reached out to Google themselves. The fact that they syndicate reviews is telling about their policies but they did point out within their Review Posting Guidelines that conflicts of interest, including misrepresentation and/or posting reviews on behalf of others is not allowed.

In essence, William’s company is soliciting reviews only from the customers which the dealer provides contact information to them. They do not edit the reviews – whether positive or negative. They will moderate a negative review, if received, allowing the dealer a chance to resolve the problem and then, when the dealer reports that the problem has been resolved, resurveying the customer to get an updated review. In my mind, this absolutely explains why almost every review is positive.

If I were a dealer who needed to increase my online reputation, I certainly wouldn’t hand over an unhappy customer’s e-mail address to be reviewed. In fact, I know many dealers that will occassionally RDR cars to the factory with incorrect information to avoid a potential negative CSI survey and/or “buy” surveys from their customers through offers of free oil changes or something to encourage their consumers to return the surveys to THEM and not mail them in to their OEM unscreened.

William’s strategy made perfect sense to me and the syndication accounted for the reason for the same review appearing on multiple sites. So while this practice may be viewed by some to be unethical, it’s not illegal or in violation of these directories terms of service. They’re simply taking advantage of existing online directories willingness to crawl their review site to maximize the SEO value of each review they collected from their client’s customers.

So, is this article about Review Boost? No. The real story is what is ethical in the online reputation management arena.

I’m sure that we would all agree that posting fake reviews is unethical and, in some cases, illegal.

What about these practices?

Posting REAL reviews, verbatim, by your customers on their behalf with their permission.

Screening WHO gets reviewed to avoid negative reviews.

Choosing which reviews get displayed (ie. avoiding sites in which negative reviews exist)

The fact is that online reputation management, and the process in which dealers are utilizing, are becoming more and more important for the many reasons I described above.

How do you feel about this? What’s ethical or unethical regarding online reputation management?

(Originally published on DrivingSales)

The Ethics of Online Reviews

Posted on by

This article started as an investigation into a company providing services to the automotive industry,Review Boost. I didn’t know much about the company, only that it had received some negative press and accusations of gaming online reviews. In fact, it even had a local San Antonio television station, KSAT, run a news segment regarding a dealership who used their services. There have been blog articles written questioning the authenticity of the reviews as well as articles written in both Automotive News and F&I Magazine.

The importance of reputation management has been increasingly on dealers’ minds, being, from the dealers I spoke with and interviewed for DrivingSalesTV, the hot topic of this year’s NADA convention. The FTC is cracking down on companies engaging in posting misleading reviews, legislators are pushing for stricter laws regarding this practice, legal advisors are reporting that a company exposes themselves tolegal risks by engaging in this act, and a California law went into effect Jan 1, 2011 making it a criminal activity. Add to these variables the fact that search engines are starting to increase the importance of online reviews in their algorithms and incorporating them into search results, naturally, when they popped up on my radar again after partnering up with an industry vendor, I was curious as to why the partnership happened and I started asking questions and doing some homework.

[Edit: After sharing my article with representatives from Review Boost, they informed me that they decided not to move forward with the partnership I referred to above.]

I spoke with William, the owner of Review Boost, at length. We spoke for upwards of an hour and he walked me through what his company does. First, to be clear, they deny all accusations of gaming reviews and/or writing the reviews themselves. William was very pleasant, if understandably nervous during our conversation but, in my opinion, sincerely wanted to clear the air regarding what his company does. Without revealing too many of his proprietary practices, which he shared with me, I didn’t get the impression that he is doing anything wrong at all. Now, given that there were already a ton of articles investigating and breaking down why other people feel that they are, I didn’t feel the need to rehash what others have already done and I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.

See, William isn’t in the car business. Review Boost began assisting local businesses like dentists, doctors, and such. It ended up that dealers account for about 30% of their current client base but this wasn’t by design. The crux of their strategy, which is what surprised me the most, is that they administer a website called myreviewboost.com in which they post reviews collected from clients of their dealers. These reviews are then syndicated across about 40 online review directories through partnerships with them. I was surprised that such a syndication was allowed but I did some investigating and, not only is it allowed, but it is encouraged. Judysbook.com, in example, promotes review sharing partnerships openly.

I reached out to Google themselves. The fact that they syndicate reviews is telling about their policies but they did point out within their Review Posting Guidelines that conflicts of interest, including misrepresentation and/or posting reviews on behalf of others is not allowed.

In essence, William’s company is soliciting reviews only from the customers which the dealer provides contact information to them. They do not edit the reviews – whether positive or negative. They will moderate a negative review, if received, allowing the dealer a chance to resolve the problem and then, when the dealer reports that the problem has been resolved, resurveying the customer to get an updated review. In my mind, this absolutely explains why almost every review is positive.

If I were a dealer who needed to increase my online reputation, I certainly wouldn’t hand over an unhappy customer’s e-mail address to be reviewed. In fact, I know many dealers that will occassionally RDR cars to the factory with incorrect information to avoid a potential negative CSI survey and/or “buy” surveys from their customers through offers of free oil changes or something to encourage their consumers to return the surveys to THEM and not mail them in to their OEM unscreened.

William’s strategy made perfect sense to me and the syndication accounted for the reason for the same review appearing on multiple sites. So while this practice may be viewed by some to be unethical, it’s not illegal or in violation of these directories terms of service. They’re simply taking advantage of existing online directories willingness to crawl their review site to maximize the SEO value of each review they collected from their client’s customers.

So, is this article about Review Boost? No. The real story is what is ethical in the online reputation management arena.

I’m sure that we would all agree that posting fake reviews is unethical and, in some cases, illegal.

What about these practices?

  • Posting REAL reviews, verbatim, by your customers on their behalf with their permission.
  • Screening WHO gets reviewed to avoid negative reviews.
  • Choosing which reviews get displayed (ie. avoiding sites in which negative reviews exist)

The fact is that online reputation management, and the process in which dealers are utilizing, are becoming more and more important for the many reasons I described above.

How do you feel about this? What’s ethical or unethical regarding online reputation management?

Originally published on DrivingSales.com

Can You Be A Packer Fan in Bear-Town at Work?

Posted on by

Yesterday, a good friend of mine, Joe Webb, President of DealerKnows Consulting, posted a news article on his Facebook wall that got all sorts of comments from his friends.

In summary, the article involved a car dealership in Chicago who, on the day after their loss to the Green Bay Packers in the NFC Championship game, fired a salesperson for wearing to work, and refusing to remove, a Green Bay Packers tie.

Article: Packer Backer fired for wearing Green Bay Tie

Most of the discussion centered around whether it was legal to fire this employee for refusing to remove the tie. Some of it questioned this salesperson’s right to wear it.

Was the employer justified in firing him?

Did the employee have the right to wear it at work?

What do you think?

Originally published on DrivingSales.com

GM creates more jobs.. in Mexico

Posted on by

I don’t know about everyone else but it seems to me that GM’s decision to create more jobs in Mexico is absolutely bad business. Without the U.S. taxpayer, GM may not have a business at this point.

This seems like a complete snub to Americans, who, last I heard, needed jobs. As of December 2010, thenational unemployment rate was 9.1%.

It may be cheaper to have factories in Mexico and employ Mexicans. Being of Hispanic origin, I have nothing against Mexicans.

The United States still owns about a third of General Motors and is the largest shareholder.

What are your thoughts on this matter? Does GM have any obligation to the taxpayers? Should the United States government intervene – which is its right as a shareholder?

[This post is in response to this article from 1/20/2011]

Originally published on DrivingSales.com