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:
- Set up the deal one way
- Change any feature, like the term
- The change “cascades,” undoing other features
- Revisit those other features
- 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.