Why do dealers ignore their markets?

[DFeger]

I am an economist who, until a few years ago, had never been involved in any part of the automotive industry. But, after doing a research project for a dealer group, I became fascinated with the industry.

Until that first “experience” with dealerships, I had never encountered an industry that dealt in such a technologically advanced product and yet seemed to fiercely hang on to traditional mindsets and paper based business processes. I don’t pretend to be an expert in the automotive industry but, having spent nearly 20 years as a professional working with the Fortune 500 corporate world, I think that I’m reasonably qualified to make that statement.

And one of the contradictions that have left me dumbfounded is the fact that most dealership organizations pay little if any attention to their markets.

Nearly all professionals in the retail automotive industry will gladly engage in lengthy discussions about both the industry and “the market”. But, as these discussions roll out, it becomes very clear that many, if not most, professionals base their knowledge of the market on little more than personal experience, sales clichés and general rules of thumb that they’ve learned over the years.

For these professionals, the market is largely irrelevant to the success of their organization. This business philosophy is actually somewhat understandable. Since they can’t control the market, they tend to ignore it and focus on those things that they can control. For them, the market is like the weather.

Sales managers, for example, often boast about their team being able to generate the same numbers in any market. They believe that they can sell sand in the Sahara. The question is, why would anyone want to? Wouldn’t it be so much more effective to pay attention to the market and send them out to sell, oh I don’t know, umbrellas? Or, better yet, ice water?

What little attention dealership managers do pay to the market is limited to advertising and is typically outsourced to the LMG and/or some ad agency. Dealership managers are primarily focused on internal sales incentive programs, maximizing F&I profits, cutting costs in fixed operations, etc. All of which are worthwhile and profitable objectives. But, all of these efforts assume that there is a steady volume of customers coming across the curb.

Despite the fact that dealerships receive market reports that businesses in other industries would kill for, they seem to ignore them. They have access to market data from sources like AutoCounts and CrossSell and franchise dealers get more data from both the LMG and the manufacturer. But nobody in the dealership really seems to pay much attention to it. It sits in a stack on the corner of the desk until, on some slow day, they clean their desk and throw the bottom half of the stack into the trashcan.

Can anyone help me understand this situation?

[btk]

Dfeger, I feel your pain, being a fixed operations director for a dealer group in Cali., I preach to all my service managers about marketshare-retention. It is my single focus at a dealership.I think some of the reasons for what appears to be ignorance is probably lack of knowledge and the need for immediate results. I think the majority of decision makers at dealerships still come from the sales background and have that sales mentality. I think what makes these guys good at selling-can also hinder them in other areas. For example, how many times has a parts manager moved into service management and been successful? I bet, as I generalize, that most of the time that doesnt happen successfully because a parts manager has a different personality then a service manager, they may be great at numbers and inventory but lack the people skills to handle the service drive.

I think if you look at any dealership that is struggling right now, a big part of that struggle is lack of marketshare from parts and service. The benchmark for dealership service retention is about 30-40 % as a industry- that should speak volumes but it doesnt seem to truly drive anyones ambition to change what you do on a daily basis.

I know my view is a little skewed- but I feel I can speak from personal success- My previous employer and current employer I increased their service retention-marketshare to 80 % over the course of several years and everytime we saw our sales department experience a similiar growth pattern-stange how that happens.

I think the solution is we need to stop managing by benchmarks and understand the buying cycle and put a huge emphasis on service department operations- I will bet any successful dealer has a strong fixed ops department.

This is my first post -glad I found the site- I will stop typing now so I can go to work,
Thanks for whoever listened

[DFeger]

I had to smile when I saw you referring to market share. As an economist, I am glad to see someone using the right metric for decisions. When it comes to market analysis, using the raw counts and averages just doesn’t work. Market share is the only number that really works.

It is also the only number that can be used as an intelligent business goal for an organization. Telling the sales team that they have to move 75 vehicles per week isn’t a realistic challenge. If the total market declines, they can’t make the goal no matter how hard they try. If the total market increases, the target is too easily accomplished. Market share is the only “objective” metric.

A recent conversation with a Ford dealership brought that point out very vividly. When the conversation began, I had already reviewed this dealerships market performance over the previous 12 months. So, I knew that the dealership had gone from being 1st in their market and two full percentage points ahead of their nearest competitor to a struggle to stay in the top five.

To my surprise, the managers immediately began to brag about their sales growth over the past year and how well the dealership was doing. They were looking at raw sales counts. Yes, their raw counts had gone up by a few percent, but the total market had gone up by much more. Their market share had dropped from nearly 8% of licensed dealer sales to less than 6%. At the same time, the Chevy dealer that was a distant 2nd one year ago was now the top dealer with almost 9% of the market. Followed closely by the local Toyota dealer.

They also brought up the fact that their average weekly sales count had gone up. I don’t use averages very much. They are too deceptive. If Bill Gates becomes a member of this forum, on average all of us instantly become multi-millionaires. That sounds nice but don’t start spending the money.

A better metric is the median. The median weekly sales count is the point at which half of the weeks have sales greater than that number and half have sales less than that number. If Bill Gates becomes a member of this forum, our median wealth wouldn’t change much at all.

But, to go back to the topic of the thread, the reason I was at the dealership is because the owner wasn’t happy with the used sales. The cause was simple. The lot was full of vehicles that were way down the list when it came to market share. The sales manager had assumed that $3.00/gallon gas would kill the trucks and the SUV’s so the lot was stocked with small and lower-mid cars. While sales for small cars had picked up, the full-size trucks and compact SUV’s had barely missed a step. They continued to take more than 25% of the total near new market (5 years old or less). Go figure.

It was a classic mistake. Never assume that you “understand” the market. Never try to second-guess it. More than one hundred years ago, a very famous economist said, “The markets can remain irrational far longer than you can remain solvent.” And that statement is even truer today than it was 100 years ago.

I understand that the AutoCount and Cross Sell reports aren’t the best tools in the world but, if a manager is going to do their job, they have to put in the hours and pay attention to what is going on in their markets. But, here we are in 2007 still managing dealerships the same way that we were in 1977, as if the dealership’s nameplates still had a 30% market share.

I just can’t figure out why. How do you get through to this industry? Why is it so stuck in the fantasy world of the weekly sales meetings? It’s like watching an airliner go down in flames while the Captain runs up the aisle high-5’ing the cabin crew and telling them it’s going to be a great flight and bragging about the fact that they are about to land ahead of schedule.

On a side note, BTK, what do you think of the possibility (probability?) that the manufacturers will adopt the EU model here in the US and begin to break warranty parts and service franchises out from the dealership network?

[btk]

In some cases, the manufacturer has had satellite service facilities in major metropolitan markets. One example that comes to mind is Honda and they have a satellite service facility in Orange County, Ca. The facility is owned by a dealer in another market but operated as an independent service only facility with the ability to perform waranty repairs.
I think these cases are probably not going to be the norm in the future, I think that with all the large dealer groups owning many dealerships in numerous markets, it would probably be a tough sell to many groups and the manufacturer wouldnt want to upset the dealer body as a whole.
It kind of reminds me of a story of the Honda EV ( electric vehicle) I was involved in being 1 of 2 dealerships in California to sell and service these vehicles and in some of the training we had , we learned that Honda actually had to pay the gas/oil companies to basically allow them to operate these vehicles. I do not know the exact reason that was done, but it came across that it was to " not rock the boat" with a powerful allie.

[Topshop]

Can anyone help me understand this situation?

In a word....arrogance (which has been solidly taught over the years and is still taught today).

The idea of "stooping to the level" required to learn from the rest of the automotive industry is simply too distasteful for most dealers. The dealers have a minority of the market once you remove new car sales from the equation and most have no intention of taking the competition seriously. So, the indies, quick lubes and other franchises continue to take the majority of the business.

Tom Ham
AutomotiveManagementNetwork.com

[DFeger]

Brian, you may be right about the leverage that the large dealer groups can exert on the manufacturers. If Republic, AutoNation, Asbury and a few others were to “band together”, they could bring the weight of perhaps a thousand dealerships to bear. But how many dealerships are there in the US? What percentage of the manufacturer’s dealership base does that come to?

Certainly all of the dealerships will object, but we have to look at the money that is involved. For the manufacturers, breaking out service would create a big jump in competition for that market. Economics being what it is, competition drives prices down; namely labor prices. In the UK, for example, they saw a drop in their warranty labor prices of 10% or more within the first 24 months of having their service franchise laws changed.

How much would the manufacturers save if they could reduce the price of their warranty labor by at least 10% over 24 months? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? What kind of motivation would that sort of money give to the manufacturers?

And, if the manufacturers want it, they will get it. NADA has NEVER been invited to private meetings with the President of the US. The changes will come in the form of laws, ostensibly justified by concerns for fairness and protection of the consumer. Once it is painted as a “pro-consumer” change, any dealerships that oppose it will do so at their own risk.

I hate to sound like a harbinger of bad news, but money is money and the golden rule isn’t just a proverb. On the other hand, as with all changes, those who pay attention and anticipate these changes will put themselves in a perfect position to make huge fortunes. When these changes do happen, someone in your position could wake up one day and realize that they are actually in the right place at the right time. Large independent service organizations will be falling over themselves to pay top dollar for good experienced service managers with manufacturer warranty experience.

[DFeger]

“Arrogance”, an interesting choice of terms, TopShop. Unfortunately, I have to agree completely. It’s not just a question of intelligence; it is as much an attitude. And, having had a great deal of experience trying to talk to dealership and group managers about the market, I have found that “arrogance” describes their attitude very well.

The question I have is, “Is this arrogance temporary or terminal?”

Change is inevitable. Not just in products but in channels as well.

Technology is making the dealership network, as it exists today, increasingly obsolete. The percentage of new car prices that are consumed by "distribution" costs ranges from 15% to nearly 30%.

By marketing vehicles directly to the consumer, manufacturers could eliminate a substantial part of those costs. The net result would be a slight decrease in the prices of new vehicles and a large increase in the marginal profit to manufacturers who are desperate to achieve that exact objective.

Add to that situation the fact that average mileage at time of scrap has gone from about 90,000 miles to 160,000 miles and is headed even higher. That means far fewer sales of new cars. The old ones are lasting longer. That's not a theory, just a simple fact of life.

As the volume of new car sales drops, each point of sale must cover a much larger geographic area in order to aggregate the same sales volume that previously could be achieved in a single city. A fixed location dealership is going to be hard pressed to meet that challenge.

The bottom line is that the market is changing and dealerships seem to have no interest in it. They don’t seem to care who is buying cars in their local market or what cars they are buying. They seem to feel that "the market" is the manufacturers' problem, not the dealers'.

So, what do you think, TopShop? Is this arrogance terminal? Are dealerships dead?

[btk]

To expand on my initial response and in fairness to alot of dealership managers, I think that alot of questions need to be answered when talking about your market-some of which may be hard to get a good answer.
1-Who is selling in your market-example-chevy and ford dealerships? Toyota dealerships, rental car company sales? etc..-I would think that could change your market dramatically as far as cross sell reports.

2-Did the manufacturers have some sort of rebates on SUVS that made them more attractive to buyers at that Chevy or Ford dealer or special financing on used certified cars that made it hard to compete against and could skew that cross sell report?

3- Is there a big special finance department or buy here pay here program that is prevelent is your market-that you may not want to associate your store with the risk?

I am sure there is 15 other questions that need to be answered to get a true picture of your market. Although my position hasnt changed that it should be looked at by dealership managers, maybe a better reporting system that answers more questions will inspire dealers to care more

[DFeger]

"...maybe a better reporting system that answers more questions will inspire dealers to care more." - BTK

Good point. Market reporting services haven't changed in the 10 years that they have been operating. AutoCount is just a re-sorted version of the same spreadsheet that they originally produced for the banking industry. It was designed for accountants, not dealership sales managers.

Others, such as CrossSell, don't do any better job at conveying who is buying, what they are buying or why. The "why" is understandable since that is something pretty unique to each customer, but the "who" and "what" should get some serious attention and improvements.

Thanks again for your comments, BTK. You are demonstrating that at least some people in the retail end of the industry don't have their head stuck firmly in the sand.

[Miccara]

Dealers, like the manufacturers have one concern. Move the product. Not just any product, NEW product. Without going into a lengthy rant the main concern is since there is a flood of product on the floor how do they accomplish this? Especially since the cost of vehicles is so out of reach for most families (Canadian figures are what I'm using here). Most families can at best, can put down a thousand or two dollars on a vehicle. With 30, 40, 50 thosand dollar vehicle being the norm, this makes the average loan unmanagable. Not many families have $900-$1200 to spend every month on a car. This has provided quite a boost to leasing. With the manufacturers focusing on establishing the highest residual value instead of the RIGHT residual value. A lot of people are burned in this process. Not just the consumer but the manufacturer, the RVI insurers, leasing companies etc.

Henry Ford use to be concerned where Ford will be in a hundred years. That's how he prepared his strategy. Today most of the CEO's, Presidents and other exec's just care about the millions in stock options dumped in their lap if they can "increase market share" and this they do at any expense. They know they have maybe a 5 year run at the top. After that, they could care less.

There are no historic records showing how the industry is affected long term, by the kind of incentives being thrown at the consumer over the last few years. Combined with changes in the Canadian economy, I believe the market values will decline while used vehicle sales will increase.

New Car Dealers are having a difficult time making money on new product. With higher margins in the used sector, the push for the quality used vehicle is going to increase - but the ease with which a consumer can get into a new product is going to keep the cost of used, depressed. We're already seeing this trend. Because it's so easy to get a new car lease, the distance between the monthly payment for a used car vs. new car has to be substancial. If used is going to cost me $400 a month and brand new is going to cost $500, well, new is going to win most of the time.

Another consideration is the possibility of a continued rise (significantly), in the leasing business. Canadians are generally not big risk takers. If they are concerned about the (disposal) value of their vehicle, walk-away leasing is going to benefit and a lot of manufacturers are going to continue to be swamped with off-lease product.

[DFeger]

Miccara, your concerns regarding the financing aspect of the automobile industry are well founded. Although a surprising number of customers actually do pay cash for a new car (up to 20% of sales in some markets), the vast majority of customers cannot purchase a new vehicle without some form of financing. Financing is, in fact, the “unseen” side of pricing.

Whether it was a Machiavellian strategy or not, the explosion of franchises generated by manufacturers did dramatically increase the competition among dealers and had the obvious effect of keeping retail prices down while the manufacturers’ invoice prices continued to rise. The “margin squeeze” that you referred to began a shift in the dealers’ focus from sales to financing. Virtually all of the dealers recognized and exploited the opportunity to make up for that lost pricing margin through the “back-end” profits (financing arrangements).

Dealers began to refuse to discuss “price” and instead insisted on talking about “payments” exclusively. Financing services, another shortsighted industry, went along with this new strategy and bumped loan terms up to 48 and then 60 months. As a result, one of the major problems that franchise and independent dealers alike are facing today are customers that are so far “upside down” on their current vehicles that they cannot afford to purchase a different car (new or used). Many customers are dragging around negative equity that has been building up over their last two or even three purchases and ten years.

Rolling that negative equity into a new loan makes the total price too high for the prime lenders to accept. Lending $30,000 on a $16,000 (wholesale) vehicle is simply too much of a risk. In many cases, dealers simply began to push customers that actually had good credit into sub-prime loans at ridiculous interest rates for those same 48 to 60 month terms. Like a train wreck in very slow motion, that tactic provided short-term relief to their profits but was suicidal in the long term. Sub prime loans serve to multiply the “upside down” situation for the customer and effectively take that customer out of the market for many more years.

Leasing, like sub-prime loans, might provide a very short-term relief but how do you roll substantial negative equity into a lease? If you try to bump the total amount of the lease, you run into the same situation. If guessing at the residual value is tough now, imagine how prime lenders will be react when you try to tack on thousands in negative equity to the lease amount. Lenders would have no choice but to add a “negative equity loan payment” onto the normal lease payment and spread it out over a multi-year lease. If the customer defaults on that lease, the lender is well and truly hosed.

Ironically, the push for “new” customers is largely necessary because the traditional dealership network has financially abused their “old” customers to the point that they are no longer viable customers. Leasing isn’t going to save the dealership network from the negative equity storm. Besides, what happens if you move the majority of your customers from a financing arrangement that generated too little equity to a financing arrangement that generates zero equity?

[Blade]

DFeger ~ The short answer is that the auto business is not a market driven business. It is much more a manufacturer driven business than a market driven one.

The number of vehicles sales is inflated as a result of the continuing incentives driving the market. Many of the new vehicle buyers are really used car buyers but the incentives make buying a used vehicle less attractive. Much of all this is driven by the need to keep the factories churning out of necessity. This is a domestic issue and is why they are struggling today.

Retailers are just along for the ride to a great extent. Were it market driven, the vehicles you see on the road would be much different.

Some believe the market [the customers] drove the truck and SUV craze. Truth be told that too was manufacturer driven. Trucks and SUVs have been around forever. The domestics woke up and discovered that was where the real profits were for them. GM, Ford and Chrysler created the market and drove that ship pushing sales up and up. They could have easily done it with other more fuel efficient vehicles but the profits would not have been as great.

[DFeger]

In the world of franchise dealerships, I would agree with your opinion to some extent. For franchise dealers, manufacturers have the ability to heavily impact the supply and, perhaps more importantly, the pricing of various product categories and specific models. But, you also have to keep in mind that, in most markets, new car sales only account for about one-third of all vehicle sales in any given month.

It is not simply a question of supply, the public's demand for various vehicles is equally important. And all of the various segments of the market, young and old, rich and poor, commercial and private, are constantly telling us what they want and what they can afford as of right now.

As I mentioned earlier, I have documented hundreds, if not thousands, of situations in which the messages that the market is sending have shifted quickly and dramatically in response to gasoline prices, local economic conditions, manufacturer/dealer advertising campaigns and other factors. Often these situations only last for a few months, after which the market shifts to an entirely new situation or sometimes back to a previous situation.

In the highly competitive world of automobile sales, those dealers that recognize and respond to those short-term shifts reap the profits and prosper, while those who ignore the shifts see their profits go flat or fall and, in the longer run, tend to fail.

The key to maintaining an inventory that includes the right vehicles and advertising those vehicles to the right customers is paying attention to the market. Market analysis is much more than a monthly report on the “league standings” and who gets to say, “we’re the biggest dealer in town.”

Today’s automobile sales industry is a business, not a sport. And the market is absolutely relevant. For franchise and independent dealers alike, continuous market analysis makes the difference between the dealers that thrive and the dealers that slowly whither away.

[Blade]

Retailers have less control over inventory than you apparently believe. The manufacturers shove cars all the time and if retailers want the hot sellers, they must take the crap [typically well over-built] as the factories see fit not the retailer. I have spent over 15 years on the commercial finance side of the business and the market is not the key driver.

Even a total DA should be able to figure out that a fuel efficient vehicle is better than a gas hog. Yet, customer have for a long time lined up for gas hogs. Why? Because the manufacturers built them, promoted them and drove the market rather than the market driving them. It's that simple.

Maybe with high fuel prices, if they are sustained, people will come around and stay around and the market can begin driving the manufacturers. But don't bet on it.

Part of what you are missing is that for every customer that goes away there is another five waiting in line. This approach has started to kick the domestics in the crotch. Maybe the final demise of the domestics will allow the market to drive the business rather than the other way around because the Euros and Asian imports tend to have their focus there.

In the end, it is still about the product. The one who has it has sales and the one that doesn't has depressed sales. Each company has gone through highs and lows in that respect.

Another aspect that you may miss is that as it relates to domestics especially, they are over dealerized. Too many retailers are in the marketplace and even if those retailers are doing it right there is only so much business out there and with shrinking market share for the likes of Ford that is a recipe for disaster for both the factory and the retailers.

[DFeger]

As I said, Blade, I agree that manufacturers control a franchise dealer’s new car inventory – but not their used inventory. In fact, a franchise dealer is a prisoner of the manufacturer in far more ways than just the product inventory. Manufacturers’ franchise contracts generally give them a huge degree of control over everything the franchise dealer does, from facilities to advertising to accounting procedures.

I’m just saying that it is the market that ultimately decides (drives) whether that product is going to sell or sit on the lot. It isn’t just a question of fuel efficiency, even though that is the current hot topic. Remember that the first hits to domestic market share came from poor product quality. Whatever the reason, if this model year’s product isn’t generating new car sales, then you have to capture as much used car, aftermarket and service sales as possible.

Regardless of what happens at the manufacturer level, the objective is to ensure the survival of this specific dealership, your dealership. The best way to accomplish that objective is to focus on the market and put the dealership in a position to sell whatever products and services the market is buying.

Your final point about the manufacturers’ dealership saturation is well taken. If you go back to earlier posts, I mentioned the same issue. Depending on whether you’re spinning it from the manufacturers’ point of view or the dealers’ point of view, it was either a justifiable business decision or a Machiavellian strategy by the manufacturers. Either way, the dealers’ new car front-end profit margins took a real beating.

Which means that the owners are putting even more pressure on professionals like you to make up for it on the back-end. Personally, I think that is a very shortsighted and simplistic solution for an owner to adopt. It would be much more productive to put the extra effort into giving the dealership staff the tools and resources they need to generate profits from all operational areas, not just lean on Finance.

But, I generally find myself preaching that strategy to deaf ears. New car sales operations tend to politically control franchise dealers and they really don’t want to hear about, much less invest in, tools and resources designed to increase sales in other operational areas. Since many new car sales managers (and GM’s) feel that the market is irrelevant to new car sales, they automatically consider it irrelevant to all operational areas of the dealership. Apparently, their preferred strategy is to sell new cars at a near loss and demand that F&I generate the profits on the back-end.

That’s just my opinion, of course. What are your thoughts on that subject?

[Blade]

Just to clarify, I do not work in a dealership's finance department. My background is with the captive finance company on the commercial side of the business [i.e.: inventory, capital, construction and mortgage loans].

Something you are missing as it relates to new vehicles sales is the factory support that does not show up on the invoice. What you believe may be the dealership sell a new vehicle at or near a loss isn't necessarily what it appears. As it relates to invoice, the cars are being sold below "dealer cost". However, the backdoor money coming from the factory makes the real end result something different. The factories have squeezed margins, attempted to take that money away and yet it still remains but just in different forms.

Another issue and one many owners complain about is that finance companies [captives included] funnel money to F&I Managers to direct the paper. How would you like someone else paying your employees?

As far as falling on deaf ears, that's the nature of the auto industry and its retailers as well. You need to understand the history of dealerships to fully realize it is a slow to change business. The original car dealers were originally wagon dealers.

The advent of the publically owned operations has had some impact on the business. However, some good yet some bad have come out of it.

The factories aren't all that keen on their retailers cranking out used cars. As crazy as that really is, it is the way it is. Factories view that as a lost or stolen new sale. Unfortunately, factories for the most part don't see the dealership's full range of business nor do they care by and large. It's a sell that new car mentality on their part and that's why the business suffers and never lives up to its real potential.

Despite the backdoor money, many retailers complain about the low profits on new car sales. Yet whenever a factory has mentioned taking over the front end, the retailers go crazy. That tells you a little something.

Big money exists in parts and service and used vehicles provided the game with the latter is played correctly.

Quality is an issue but all the quality reports have less impact than personal experience. The domestics have had quality issues and now you see Toyota having a bit of it themselves. Truth be told, quality is partially impacted by volumes. The domestics quality is up but no one is sold on it just yet. That goes back to the personal experience.

As much as quality may matter, passion for the styling and the deal itself drives sales. It's a product business but it's also largely a monthly payment business at certain levels.

At the end of the day, anyone studying, researching or opining on the auto business needs to understand that it is like no other and like no other it does not necessarily do things that are business smart. The domestics are constantly shooting themselves in their own feet at a much higher rate than the imports. Seemingly, the domestics can't learn from their own mistakes. The question now is has that began to catch up to them or is there so much volume out there [manufactured or not] that they can continue to get away with that behavior?

Personally, I believe they have one more cycle to get it right or they will find themselves extinct.

[DFeger]

Thanks for the thoughts, Blade. For someone who works the "commercial finance side of the business" you have some valid insights into the dealership mentality. I'm not exactly sure what you do, but I can't argue with many of your points.

Your comment about "factories view [used cars] as a lost or stolen new sale" was something I hadn't considered before. That doesn't make any economic sense but I don't doubt for a moment that you are probably right about the attitude. This business constantly surprises me.

[Blade]

That view on used vehicles does make economic sense for the factories or at least from their viewpoint on the world. It makes no sense from the retailer's perspective because they look to tap revenue and profits from all departments of the retail operation. Factories are in the business of selling new product.

Computer, electronics, cameras and a myriad of other consumer goods do not face the same used product market as automotive. By and large, those selling new products in those consumer markets are not also selling used product. Used computer or electronic sales do not have the same impact to new sales as is the case with autos.

The automotive business is unique in many different ways. However, to your being surprised there are many things that do not make sense in the auto business. If factories took a different view of the world and became less volume driven, the business would be better for it and people with your background would have a better understanding because it would come back more to center.

As senseless as it seems at times, that is the very thing that makes it an interesting business and difficult for joe blow business person to follow because it doesn't follow the "book".