I'm Angry and Need to GRIPE!

AutoBMWMINI asks for recommendations on Local Search Group's PPC advertising service, and keithorr provides a positive endorsement, praising their ability to drive traffic to non-core used inventory while keeping costs controlled. The key insight is that Local Search Group differentiates itself by understanding automotive business metrics (gross profit, advertising expense per unit) and focusing on improving net profitability rather than simply increasing ad spend.

A BMW/MINI dealer asks peers where they're investing advertising budgets across TV, radio, internet, print, and direct mail channels. Respondents overwhelmingly favor digital and internet marketing over traditional media, with one dealer having completely eliminated print advertising, while another combines targeted TV in specific markets with heavy digital spending and grassroots community engagement—suggesting a shift away from traditional broadcast and print toward data-driven digital strategies.

Dealers debate allegations that Yelp manipulates review visibility based on advertising spend, with one attorney claiming a "one-to-one correlation between money and having a good rating." Responders are skeptical of the claim as systematic practice, suggesting it was likely an isolated rogue employee action, though they acknowledge concerns about Yelp's policies and moderation practices in the automotive vertical. The broader consensus seems to be that while individual misconduct is possible, there's insufficient evidence this represents Yelp's standard operating procedure.

Multiple dealers report receiving significant rate increases from Cars.com's Online Advertising Package, with one dealer hit with a 35% increase ($750) starting May 1st. While Cars.com justifies the increases by citing substantial growth in market searches and shopper activity (24-102% increases depending on metric), dealers question whether this growth is genuine platform performance or artificially inflated by Cars.com's practice of syndicating their inventory to competing sites like TrueCar and CarGurus. The key insight is that dealers are skeptical of paying premium rates for traffic metrics that may not reflect actual Cars.com-driven business.

Canadian dealer Mitch Gallant expresses frustration over AutoTrader Canada's acquisition and rebranding of Dealer.com, criticizing their new inventory-based pricing model and concerns about domain ownership control. The discussion reveals AutoTrader's monopoly position in the Canadian market with limited competition, leading some dealers to explore legal action and alternative platforms like Kijiji. The key insight is that dealers feel trapped by a lack of competitive alternatives and are frustrated by pricing structures they view as exploitative.

A dealer's carefully organized Google Places listings were disrupted when Scion corporate launched a Reach Local campaign without notifying the dealership, creating duplicate listings with tracking phone numbers and URLs that undermined months of work separating franchises. After a conference call with Reach Local and Scion, the issue resolved when the 30-day trial ended, and the key takeaway was that Scion learned to coordinate brand-promotion campaigns with dealer operations to avoid cannibalizing parent brand (Toyota) visibility. The thread also highlights broader frustrations with Google Places' usability and the challenge of managing multiple location/franchise listings.

Joe Pistell argues that dealers waste time on social media when they should focus on properly merchandising their inventory listings, illustrating his point with examples of poorly presented vehicles that lack proper feature descriptions and have inconsistent information. While other forum members offer mild pushback (including a data point that social media influences less than 1% of recent purchases), the thread's key insight is that solid fundamentals in online vehicle presentation—highlighting trim-level differences, accurate photos, and feature descriptions—likely drive more sales than social media engagement efforts.

Dave Erickson vents about slow support from Cobalt for implementing a chat widget and installing Google Analytics (taking 14 days), prompting discussion about website vendor performance and strategy. The thread evolves into a broader debate about whether dealers should invest in a second website for testing and leverage—with key counterarguments about the costs of cheap sites and how multiple domains don't build domain authority for SEO. The consensus suggests that vendor responsiveness varies significantly, and dealers should prioritize website performance over low costs while being strategic about multi-site approaches.

Dealers complain extensively about City Twist's aggressive and relentless phone solicitation tactics, with multiple users reporting 5+ calls per day from different sales representatives despite requesting to be removed from their list. While one user found success calling City Twist's dealer line to stop the calls, another user who actually uses the service reports disappointing ROI and questions the effectiveness of their email marketing approach. The thread reveals that City Twist's invasive sales methodology has damaged their reputation among dealers, overshadowing whatever potential value their product may offer.

A new Lexus Internet Manager vents frustration about Cobalt's website editor requiring HTML coding knowledge to perform basic tasks like inserting images, then asks if this is common across the industry. Responses confirm the limitations are primarily due to Lexus's restrictive policies rather than Cobalt's capabilities, and experienced users advise either learning the code or calling Cobalt support to handle edits rather than struggling with the backend editor. The consensus conclusion is that while the system isn't ideal, dealers working with Cobalt-powered Lexus sites need to either develop technical skills or rely on vendor support to get things done.

A dealer raises concerns about review spamming on Google+, pointing to a suspicious account that posted 12 perfect 5-star reviews across unrelated businesses (dealerships, hotels, orthodontists, etc.) in one week with no other profile activity. While one commenter argues the activity could theoretically be legitimate, the original poster and others provide evidence of coordinated fake review networks using multiple profiles to boost ratings, which Google+ users are encouraged to report. The thread concludes that the pattern is almost certainly fraudulent and represents a systemic problem dealers should help Google identify.

Dealers debate the best customer loyalty strategies, with opinions split between offering tangible rewards like free oil changes and discounts versus emphasizing superior service quality and relationship-building as the real differentiator. Key tension emerges between sales staff wanting to offer perks and service directors concerned about eroded margins, though several contributors advocate for flexible, gamified reward programs (like percentage-back cards or service tokens) tied to activities rather than outright freebies. The consensus leans toward manufacturer-backed loyalty programs combined with genuine customer care and competitive differentiation as the most sustainable approach to driving repeat business.

GM dealers who maintained their own websites alongside mandatory Cobalt sites discovered that Google Places listings were being automatically linked to their Cobalt sites instead, even when the Places pages were claimed and verified by the dealership. After investigation, it was revealed that Cobalt had mass-edited Places listings (including phone numbers, potentially changing them to tracking numbers) on January 25, 2012 overnight, and the issue persisted even after dealers corrected it through Google support. The dealers' primary frustration was that Cobalt made these changes without authorization to claimed listings, directing potential customers to what many viewed as inferior Cobalt-hosted sites rather than their own dealer websites.

A dealer asks colleagues to identify the three most important marketing focus areas for both B2C and B2B customers. Responses reveal two perspectives: one emphasizing dealership performance metrics (Volume, Gross, CSI), and another grounding the answer in timeless marketing fundamentals (the Four P's: Product, Price, Place, Promotion). The thread illustrates a divide between outcome-focused and strategy-focused approaches to dealership marketing.

A smartphone app vendor asks dealers why they haven't adopted mobile engagement apps as marketing tools, initially framed as a question but later revealed as market research for his company. Dealers push back, arguing that apps lack sufficient value since car shoppers only purchase every few years and won't download an app just for marketing, and that any successful dealer app would need to be tied to a loyalty or service retention program to justify ongoing use. The key insight is that dealers see one-time purchase cycles and multi-dealership shopping as fundamental barriers to app adoption unless the tool provides persistent post-sale value.

A dealer vents frustration about "consumer advocates" in internet sales departments who he believes prioritize customer satisfaction over dealership profitability, using examples like apologizing for minor wear on used cars or transmission types rather than reframing these as normal aspects of used vehicle sales. The poster's core complaint is that these advocates undermine sales by emphasizing vehicle imperfections instead of presenting vehicles positively to customers.

A dealer raises concerns about "perpetual" data licensing clauses in EverCarListed's contract that grant SuperMedia and DMi unlimited, lifetime rights to use dealer data for any lawful purpose, sparking discussion about whether vendors are overreaching in their data access terms. The thread explores similar practices across other vendors like VinSolutions and Edmunds, with dealers debating whether surrendering transactional data is an acceptable trade-off for competitive advantage. The consensus suggests that while EverCarListed's contract language sounds ominous, the company may not actually need or request DMS data in practice—and the problematic wording may simply be boilerplate language copied from other SuperMedia contracts.

Stefan warns dealers about predatory SEO contract terms that allow vendors to retain ownership of custom content and remove it upon cancellation unless the dealer pays additional fees—a practice he experienced firsthand. The discussion reveals tension between vendor business models and dealer expectations, with community members overwhelmingly supporting Stefan's position that dealers should own content they've paid for, and vendors should structure agreements to allow easy content portability. The thread ultimately reinforces the critical importance of carefully reading service contracts, with Stefan's situation fortunately resolved when the vendor restored his removed content.

A dealer reports that Google's Panda 3.3 update caused his site to drop off page one for key search terms, with classified sites like Cars.com and CarGurus taking over dealer positions. After investigation, he discovers the ranking loss was caused by technical problems from a recent server migration by his hosting provider HomeNet, not the algorithm update itself—once fixed, his rankings recovered. The thread underscores the importance of distinguishing between actual algorithm changes and site technical issues when diagnosing search ranking drops.

A dealer's social media vendor is holding the dealership's Facebook page hostage by refusing to return admin credentials after the dealer cancelled the contract mid-term due to poor performance and an unauthorized employee signature. While responses suggest legal action or contacting Facebook directly could resolve the issue, the thread reveals broader industry frustration about contract terms and vendor practices, with participants debating whether the dealer or vendor bears more responsibility for the situation.

A dealer questions whether the $100k annual spend on AutoTrader and Cars.com is worthwhile when they generate minimal trackable results, and considers redirecting that budget to KBB or digital marketing alternatives. Responses reveal mixed opinions: some dealers report these platforms work well if inventory is optimized and competitively positioned, while others have dropped them with no noticeable sales impact, instead investing in SEO and PPC. The consensus suggests that effectiveness depends heavily on dealer execution, market conditions, and whether the dealership operates with a velocity-focused business model.

Jerry Thibeau documents evidence that TrueCar appears to be selling consumer leads to third-party lead providers (Autobytel, Dealix, Edmunds, KBB) after initially submitting them to TrueCar dealers, with leads sometimes being mismatched to different vehicle types and competitors. The thread reveals that TrueCar dealers are receiving non-exclusive leads while the company simultaneously funnels the same customer data to competing lead generation services, particularly in markets where TrueCar has no dealer partners. Multiple dealers confirm experiencing the same issue, with one user receiving a call from an out-of-state dealer and then immediately getting contacted by a Dealix lead from his own dealership for the same inquiry.