Tag: analytics

Workflow for Online Car Buying

A few years ago, I published a precedence diagram for the key operations of online car buying.  I was arguing against a linear process, and calling attention to some deadlocks.  Since then, I have been following the industry’s experiments with new process models, and coming to realize that these deadlocks are the great, unanalyzed, obstacle to process reform.

Practices that seem unfair, deceptive, or abusive may actually be crude attempts to solve the deadlock problem.

One example of a deadlock is that you can’t quote an accurate payment until you know the buy rate, and for that you need to submit a credit application.  This is usually solved by iteration.  You do a pre-approval or quote the floor rate, and then change it later.

Likewise, you can’t price protection products until you know the vehicle, but the customer wants to shop by payment.  Protection products are also priced by term, and you don’t know the desired term until you finish structuring the deal.

In fact, even the customer’s choice of vehicle depends on the monthly payment, which is downstream of everything else.  Virtually the only operation that’s not blocked by another operation is valuing the trade.Like an interlocking puzzle, “we don’t know anything until we know everything.”  Choosing any one item to lock first, without iteration, will result in a suboptimal deal – buying too much car, for too long a term, or overlooking the protection products.

Practices that seem unfair, deceptive, or abusive may actually be crude attempts to solve the deadlock problem.  For instance, quoting a payment with some leg in it, or goal-seeking the full approval amount.

Can you see how this ties into current debates about the hybrid sales model?  F&I presents a menu with a six-month term bump, which might not be optimal, just to compensate for too tight a payment from the desk.

Fortunately, in the world of online car buying, the customer is free to resolve deadlocks through iteration.  This means:

  1. Set up the deal one way
  2. Change any feature, like the term
  3. The change “cascades,” undoing other features
  4. Revisit those other features
  5. Repeat until all features look good together

The in-store process does not support iteration well, and probably never will, but an online process can.  All you need is the well-known concept of a “dirty” flag, to keep track of the cascading changes, along with navigation and a completeness gauge to guide the customer through steps #4 and 5.

You could analyze step #3 at the level of a dozen individual features.  I made that chart, too, but I believe it’s more useful to collect them into the canonical five pages shown here.

By the way, I have previously described the products page in some detail, along with the analytics to drive it.  Discussion of the “random survey question” is here.  Today’s diagram contemplates a mobile app, as do my recent posts, but the same approach will work for a web site.

Analytics for Menu Presentation

Last week, I presented a single-column format for menu selling on an iPhone, with the glib recommendation to let analytics determine the sort order.  Today, I will expand on that.  Our task is to sort the list of products in descending order of their relevance to the current deal, which includes vehicle data, consumer preferences, and financing terms.

This sorting task is the same whether we are flipping through web pages or scrolling down the mobile display.  The framework I present here is generalized and abstract, making the task better suited to automation, but ignoring the specific F&I knowledge we all take for granted.  I’ll come back to that later.

For now, let’s assume we have six products to present, called “Product One,” and so on, and four questions that will drive the sorting.  Assume these are the usual questions, like, “how long do you plan on keeping the car?”

That answer will be in months or years, and the next one might be in miles, but we are going to place them all on a common scale from zero to one (I warned you this would be abstract).  Think of using a slider control for each input, where the labels can be anything but the range is always 0.0 to 1.0.

Next, assign four weights to each product, representing how relevant each question is for that product.  The weights do not have to be zero to one, but I recommend keeping them all around the same starting magnitude, say 1 to 5.  Weights can also be negative.

For example, if there’s a question about loan-to-value, that’s important for GAP.  High LTV will correlate positively with GAP sales.  If you word that question the other way, the correlation will still be strong, but negative.  So, now you have a decision matrix that looks something like this:

Yes, we are doing weighted factor analysis.  Let’s say that, for a given deal, the answers to our four questions are, in order:

[0.3, 0.7, 0.1, 1.0]

To rank the products for this deal we simply multiply the decision matrix by the deal vector.  I have previously confessed my weak vector math skills, but I am certain that Python has an elegant way to do this:

Product Two ranks first, because of its affinity for high-scoring Question Four.  Product Four takes second place, thanks to the customer’s response to Question Two – whatever that may be.  By now, you may have noticed that this is the setup for machine learning.

If you are blessed with “big data,” you can use it to train this system.  In a machine learning context, you may have hundreds of data points.  In addition to deal data and interview questions, you can use clickstream data, DMS data, contact history, driving patterns (?) and social media.

If not, you will have to use your F&I savvy to set the weights, and then adjust them every thousand deals by manually running the numbers.

For example, we ask “how long will you keep the car?” because we know when the OEM warranty expires.  Given make, model, and ten thousand training deals, an AI will dope out this relationship on its own.  We will do it by setting one year past the warranty as 0.1, two as 0.2, etc.  We can also set a variable indicating how complete the manufacturer’s coverage is.

Same story with GAP.  Give the machine a loan amount and a selling price, and it will “discover” the correlation with GAP sales.  If setting the weights manually, set one for LTV and then calculate the ratio for each deal.

Lease-end protection, obviously, we only want to present on a lease deal.  But we don’t want it to crowd out, say, wearables.  So, weight it appropriately on the other factors, but give it big negative weights for cash and finance deals.

I hope this gives some clarity to the analytics approach.  In a consumer context, there is no F&I manager to carefully craft a presentation, so some kind of automation is required.

Predictive Selling in F&I

We have all seen how Amazon uses predictive selling, and now this approach is finding its way into our industry.  In this article I compare and contrast different implementations, and discuss how the technique may be better suited to online than to the F&I suite.

If you read Tom Clancy, you might like Lee Childs.  If you bought a circular saw, you might need safety goggles.  To draw these inferences, Amazon scans for products that frequently occur together in the order histories of its customers.  You can imagine that given their volume of business, Amazon can fine-tune the results by timeframe, department, price, and so on.

The effectiveness of predictive selling depends on two things: the strength of your algorithms, and the depth of your database.  Automotive Mastermind claims to use “thousands of data points,” mined from the DMS, social media, and credit bureaus.  An online auto retailer or platform site (see my taxonomy here) will also have data about which web pages the customer viewed.  Your typical F&I menu is lucky if it can read data from the DMS.

The face of predictive selling in F&I is the automated interview.  We all know the standard questions:

  • How long do you plan on keeping the car?
  • How far do you drive to work?
  • Do you park the car in a garage?
  • Do you drive on a gravel road?
  • Do you transport children or pets?

A system that emulates the behavior of an expert interviewer is called, appropriately, an “expert system.”  I alluded to expert systems for F&I here, in 2015, having proposed one for a client around the same time.  This is where we can begin to make some distinctions.

Rather than a set of canned questions, a proper expert system includes a “rules editor” wherein the administrator can add new questions, and an “inference engine” that collates the results.  Of course, the best questions are those you can answer from deal data, and not have to impose on the customer.

A data scientist may mine the data for buying patterns, an approach known as “analytics,” or she may have a system to mine the data automatically, an approach known as “machine learning.”  You know you have good analytics when the system turns up an original and unanticipated buying pattern.  Maybe, for example, customers are more or less likely to buy appearance protection based on the color of their vehicle.

At the most basic level, predictive selling is about statistical inference.  Let’s say your data mining tells you that, of customers planning to keep the car more than five years, 75% have bought a service contract.  You may infer that the next such customer is 75% likely to follow suit, which makes the service contract a better pitch than some other product with a 60% track record.  One statistic per product hardly rises to the level of “analytics,” but it’s better than nothing.

Another thing to look at is the size of the database.  If our 75% rule for service contract is based on hundreds of deals, it’s probably pretty accurate.  If it’s based on thousands of deals, that’s better.  Our humble data scientist won’t see many used, leased, beige minivans unless she has “big data.”  Here is where a dealer group that can pool data across many stores, or an online selling site, has an advantage.

If you are implementing such a system, you not only have a challenge getting enough data, you also have to worry about contaminating the data you’ve got.  You see, pace Werner Heisenberg, using the data also changes the data.  Customers don’t arrive in F&I already familiar with the products, according to research from IHS.

Consider our service contract example.  Your statistics tell you to present it only for customers keeping their vehicle more than five years.  That now becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Going forward, your database will fill up with service contract customers who meet that criterion because you never show it to anyone else.

You can never know when a customer is going to buy some random product.  This is why F&I trainers tell you to “present every product to every customer, every time.”  There is a technical fix, which is to segregate your sample data (also known as “training data” for machine learning) from your result data.  The system must flag deals where prediction was used to restrict the presentation, and never use these deals for statistics.

Doesn’t that mean you’ll run out of raw data?  It might, if you don’t have a rich supply.  One way to maintain fresh training data is periodically to abandon prediction, show all products, let the F&I manager do his job, and then put that deal into the pool of training data.

Customers complete a thinly disguised “survey” while they’re waiting on F&I, which their software uses to discern which products to offer and which ones the customer is most likely to buy based upon their responses.

Regulatory compliance is another reason F&I trainers tell you to present every product every time.  Try telling the CFPB that “my statistics told me not to present GAP on this deal.”  There’s not a technical fix for that.

One motivation for the interview approach, versus a four-column menu, is that it’s better suited to form factors like mobile and chat.  This is a strong inducement for the online selling sites.  In the F&I suite, however, the arguments are not as strong.  Trainers are uniformly against the idea that you can simply hand over the iPad and let it do the job for you.

No, I have not gone over to the Luddites.  This article offers advice to people developing (or evaluating) predictive selling systems, and most of the advantages accrue to the online people.  The “home court advantage” in the F&I suite is that you can do a four-column menu, and there is a professional there to present it.