Tag: Dealertrack

Spinoff Startups in F&I

The popular notion of a startup is two guys in a garage, like Hewlett and Packard, but this is not always the case.  Sometimes a mature company will give birth to a new business unit.  I did some foundational work for Dealertrack and, at that time, it was the eCommerce department of Chase Auto Finance.  In fact, a number of the startups I’ve worked with have been F&I spinoffs like Dealertrack.  Today we’ll explore these for common themes and lessons learned.

One common theme is the role of outsourcing.  You can begin with a core team, plus service providers, and then insource the functions systematically over time.  I was an early employee of BMW Financial Services, which began as a department of the sales company and all functions outsourced to GE Capital.  The head of this department, Kevin Westfall, had a plan to bring the operation under his control as a new entity with a new service provider.

I was recruited from Coopers & Lybrand, which was tasked with selection and contract administration for the service provider – outsourcing the outsourcing, so to speak.  After a few years at BMW, I followed Kevin to AutoNation and the same strategy.  We outsourced Funding, Customer Service, and Collections to World Omni, but kept staff functions and the Credit department in house.

You have a lot more autonomy managing a service provider than you do with permanent staff on the parent company’s org chart. 

Outsourcing isn’t magic, though.  If you can’t manage the function in house, then you probably can’t manage contracts and SLAs either.  On the other hand, this is a great way to get around the parent company’s hiring restrictions.  They may not be willing to hire the requisite staff for, say, a Collections department, but will sign a flexible contract with a service provider.  Also, to be frank, you have a lot more autonomy managing a service provider than you do with permanent staff on the parent company’s org chart.

McKinsey’s Meffert and Swaminathan write about “breaking the gravitational pull of the legacy organization,” and this is such an apt metaphor.  Many at BMW viewed the breakaway department with suspicion.  There was political pressure to keep Kevin under control of the Finance department, an obvious misalignment, and passive resistance from some of the others.  It was important in this case to set up our own HR department, and move it out of town.

It was the same story at AutoNation Financial Services.  We had our own IT, Finance, Ops, and Marketing plus dotted lines to the respective “real” departments of the parent company.  This gravitational pull is normal organizational behavior.  Managers are always starved for headcount and, since the new initiative is hiring, they want their piece of it.

When your army has crossed the border, you should burn your boats and bridges, in order to make it clear that you have no hankering after home.

When ANFS was shuttered in 2002, most of our crew was absorbed back into the parent company.  Obviously, having an escape route like this is not conducive to the kind of commitment required by a startup.  Insert Sun Tzu quote here.

There was no such option for two of my consulting accounts, Route One and Provider Exchange Network.  Route One, for example, was manned by senior managers from various captives.  There was not much chance of these guys going back to their old jobs if Route One were to fail.  I am thinking in particular of the founding CEO and CIO, Mike Jurecki and Joel Gruber.

Joel retained me as a subject matter expert in online credit systems, to work on the outsourced (there’s that word again) development of Route One’s core system.  I called on Joel a few years after the project and we talked about the career risk he had taken.  By that time, I was involved in a startup of my own, with no small amount of risk.

Paradoxical though it may sound, we believe companies need to take more risk, not less.

McKinsey cites the top ten ways to fail at digital transformation, and “excessive caution” tops the list.  It’s my personal belief that you can never achieve anything unless you’re willing to take a risk for it.  In any case, a big, risk-averse corporate parent is certainly going to impede the new unit.

Provider Exchange Network, likewise, was staffed by people hired for the purpose.  We had, from the outset, our own IT, Finance, and Marketing.  We did, however, run our hiring through the excellent HR department of Reynolds and Reynolds, and this is maybe the counterpoint to my arguments about autonomy.

The parent company is unlikely to have functional expertise useful to the new venture but, where it does, you should use it.  BMW had zero expertise in consumer finance, but they had a terrific Legal department.  At AutoNation Finance, we made good use of our parent’s FP&A capability.  Also, the spinoff may be designed specifically to exploit some asset of the parent company, like its dealer network or OEM relationships.

So, my takeaways on this topic are:

Group Cohesion – The new unit should be united around a common purpose, with people hired for the purpose or as a breakaway department.

Cutting the Cord – The spinoff will have to win some turf battles with parent company managers who refuse to let go.

Leverage Legacy Assets – On the other hand, take advantage of the parent’s core competencies, especially those that are hard to duplicate.

Outsourcing – Find partners.  Rent to own.  McKinsey and others have stressed the importance of thriving in an entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Take Risks – Fortune favors the bold.  No shortage of clichés here but, seriously, all of the literature talks about new initiatives that move too slowly and become roadkill.

I recognize that these points are open to some interpretation.  They’re based, as you see, on my firsthand experience.  That’s some good experience, though, so if you’re doing an F&I spinoff maybe you can profit from it.  Best of luck.

The Automotive eCommerce Ecosystem

Around the turn of the century, I was helping RouteOne to build their now-ubiquitous credit system.  Then, I moved on to aggregation models for the “I” side of F&I.  It was a lot of work.

We had to develop scores of unique interfaces for lenders and product providers.  We had to develop deal calculation engines, and then reverse engineer each DMS so our payments would match.  There were no automated sources for finance or product rates.  We had to walk ten miles in the snow …

Today’s eCommerce startups have it easy.  All of the key tasks are supported by readily available services, leaving the entrepreneur to focus on user experience and dealer support.

When I started writing about this space, the key challenges were price negotiation and trade valuation (and the test drive, but I’ll cover that in a later piece).  Today, you have reliable online trade valuation from Kelley, Trade Pending, and others.  Price negotiation can be handled through chat or one-price, generally on used vehicles.

You can have payment calculations, including incentives, from MarketScan, provider networks from PEN or F&I Express, and finance networks from RouteOne or Dealertrack.  Everything in this paragraph is an API, not to mention passing data from your eCommerce platform into the corresponding dealer system. Finally, even the old faithful DMS now exposes a variety of databases, like inventory.

A few months ago, I described the role of venture capital in driving process change.  I think this eCommerce ecosystem is equally important.  Entrepreneurs can enter the space at a very low cost, relative to ten years ago, and meet most of their requirements through interfaces.

Cox Strategy Redux

It has been a few months since I posted my lighthearted Cox Automotive home strategy game.  In that time, four new projects have been announced linking members of the conglomerate.

Cox Game2

I am still watching for some extension of auction functionality into the used-car department, maybe leveraging vAuto.  No word yet on the development of COXML.

Cox Automotive Home Game

After Dealertrack, I started noticing how many other companies Cox Automotive has acquired. Many of my old friends are now Cox employees. I wondered if Cox would be able to find synergies among the subs. Acquirers always talk about synergy, which means that the combined entity should make more money than the subs could on their own. For example, listings on MakeMyDeal come from Autotrader, which benefits both.

There are other examples that I am not at liberty to disclose. Strategy buffs can play along using the exhibit below. Click the thumbnail for a larger image, print it out, and then draw lines connecting subs where synergies are possible. Look for cross selling, channel sharing, vertical integration, etc.

Cox Game

Be creative, but don’t be vague. You must be able to identify a project that will exploit each synergy. Extra points for stringing subs together in workflow sequence. Here is one that I spotted while making the chart. Any resemblance to an actual project is purely coincidental.

  • AiM snaps a photo of an off-lease vehicle. This photo, plus some data, is uploaded to Manheim, then forwarded to HomeNet and advertised for resale on Dealer.com … all using a proprietary message format which we’ll call, playfully, COXML.

You can see that Cox tiles our function space pretty thoroughly (not to mention the Chinese holdings) so there is plenty of opportunity. Enjoy the game, and feel free to share your results.

Presenting Products on Shopping Sites

I asked what seemed to be an unexpected question at the F&I conference. Every provider I have spoken with is keen to meet consumers earlier in the shopping process, but few seem to have engaged their technology partners.

All of you are working with technology partners, like menu systems and provider networks, and I would like to know what discussions you have had with them about presenting your products to online consumers.

This is what I had in mind when I wrote that system vendors should be aligning their B2C plans with product providers. I imagine that some network or menu system, somewhere, is soliciting input from its provider council, but I have not found any evidence of it.

Protection_DriverI did see one demonstration of a consumer experience designed to dovetail with an in-store menu presentation. It was impressive, but still the design was driven by the system vendor. I have to believe that providers have some untapped insights. I know that was the case with finance sources when I formed a committee to tackle online credit, back in the era before Dealer Track.

Providers Say No to Aggregation

My latest article is out in F&I Magazine, just in time for the VSCAC conference.  Thanks to Greg Arroyo for his fine editing.  The original “history and development of e-contracting” was not so pithy.  My thesis is that, while Dealer Track succeeded in driving dealers to a totally new process for online credit, this will not happen for F&I products.  With today’s technology, product providers do not need to participate in an aggregation portal.  Even the providers’ own portals are suboptimal, because they impose process change on the dealer.  The article gives additional reasons why providers won’t follow the Dealer Track model.

As I have written here before, the best place to present products is in a system that the dealer is already using.  Ideally, this means the DMS, but it could also include a menu or desking system.

Internet Car Buying

Dealer Track CEO Mark O’Neil gave an insightful keynote, ending with the topic of Internet car shopping.  He described several features of a business-to-consumer (B2C) buying process, including online F&I.  Since Dealer Track offers all of these features today, I wonder if Mark is planning a move into the B2C space.