Blog Home | Contributors | Media | Contact Us |  Subscribe

As a CEO, there are few things more threatening to your business than running out of cash or, even worse, experiencing an interruption in cash flow. That’s the point at which the ability to control strategic direction becomes limited, if not lost, and the company will experience a potentially irreversible downward spiral. That’s kind of what will happen on Wall Street if the $700B bailout is not passed. This may explain the fear we’ve been seeing in the eyes of Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

They have a delicate position. On one hand, they need to communicate the gravity of the situation to get the support needed to turn things around. On the other hand, if they were to brutally, honestly, and completely reveal the ramifications of no action or slow action, the entire world economy would likely come to its knees.

I don’t know much about Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke. However, I can tell you the speed at which they are moving and their dedication to the responsibility bestowed upon them should be an example for the likes of the head of FEMA and many other government agencies.

The current crisis was certainly avoidable and should never happen again. I hope that what we have experienced will be a lesson to financial institutions and consumers alike. Institutions should better understand the fact that providing loans to consumers—a euphemism for selling the use of money—to those without the capacity to repay the principle, much less the interest, is beyond bad business.  And consumers should understand that under normal conditions loans, despite initially attractive terms, always come at a price and are rarely readily available to those with difficult credit histories.

Hopefully, we’ll soon start to see progress in the efforts being made to get us out of this mess. I, for one, have much more confidence knowing that Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke are working on our behalf. I think the extent of their roles in preventing a complete meltdown will become much clearer in years to come, and I look forward to reading many of the books that will, no doubt, be written on this subject.

Tough times continue to hit car dealers nationwide.  According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Heard, the nation’s largest Chevrolet dealer, closed operations and 3,500 employees may lose their jobs.  The company operated 13 dealerships in Tennessee, Georgia, Arizona, and Florida, including locations in Plant City and Sanford.  According to the Atlanta Journal, their customers report cars locked in closed shops and missing down payments.

Customers have a reason to be concerned—everything from new car titles to car loans can end up frozen amid their bankruptcy procedures.   According to MSNBC, “there is a risk that some customers may find out a dealership has never paid off the loan on their trade-ins, leaving them with two loan payments—one for their new car, one for the old car they didn’t have anymore. … Bankruptcy process can take months, as federal courts sort out the order of whom to pay and in what portions: taxes, banks, lawyers, owners, and car customers.”

Contact Information

Dealership: www.billheard.com [click on "Customer Hotline"]

General Motors/Chevrolet: www.chevrolet.com

Chevrolet Customer Assistance Center: (800) 222-1020

State of Florida’s Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles [this agency regulates new car dealers]: (850)617-2000

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services [this office has no formal jurisdiction over dealers, but often advocates for customers]: (800) Help-FLA

Autobytel announced this morning a 35% workforce reduction as part of a company-wide cost-cutting initiative started last year.  The company also announced that it has retained the investment bank  RBC Capital Markets Corporation as to assist the company in exploring alternatives to maximize shareholder value.

The full release can be found here.

On Monday, Google announced changes to their AdWords quality score algorithm, the technology used to determine sponsored search engine rankings for each keyword. Google’s goal is to improve the quality of AdWords, but the enhancements they’ve introduced may come at a cost to advertisers.

The three main changes announced on Monday are as follows:

  1. The AdWords quality score for a keyword is now evaluated at the time of each search query. Google notes that landing page quality is “evaluated less frequently.”
  2. Google has abandoned the minimum cost-per-click (CPC). Because all keywords are evaluated at the time of each search query, they are all considered active.
  3. In lieu of the minimum CPC, AdWords now displays the cost for an ad to be placed on the first page of search results.

Why do advertisers think costs may rise?

Most advertisers are happy to see the first two changes above.  By allowing all keywords to remain active and more frequently measuring a keyword’s quality score, an advertiser may be able to gain incremental traffic from keywords that were previously banned from search results. More search engine impressions will always be welcomed by advertisers.

The third change has received a different response from AdWords clients. Many advertisers fear the transparency of costs introduced by the “first-page bid estimate” could lead to price wars on the AdWords battlegrounds. If advertisers frequently increase bids to reach first-page placement, the cost for top rankings will rise as advertisers outbid each other. The amount of the potential price increase will depend on the degree of value advertisers place on first-page rankings.

Being on the first page of search results drastically increases search volume for our top keywords, causing us to place a high value on top placement. First-page rankings are also important to us because better position results in higher click-through rates, which factors into the AdWords quality score for each keyword.

Certain situations will tempt us to increase keyword bids based on the first-page bid estimate, and if other advertisers are thinking the same thing, AdWords click prices may quickly increase. As we reported earlier, Yahoo will begin serving Google AdWords ads in their search results, which could cause a spike in costs across both search engines. It looks like paid search will soon become more expensive for advertisers, and we’re estimating a 4-7% spike in our costs.

We’ll keep you posted on our reaction to these changes.

TARGUSinfo Online Lead Quality SummitReply!’s COO, Sean Fox, is speaking at the TARGUSInfo Online Lead Quality Summit this week in Las Vegas. Guy Kawasaki and over 300 lead buyers and sellers will convene at the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino on September 17th & 18th to examine what’s next in the online lead generation world.

The conference will bring together leaders in the lead generation industry and serve as an opportunity for Reply! to highlight its performance-based marketing platform and its lead exchange/marketplace.  Sean will be co-presenting an auto case study, “Unleash the Maximum Value of Each and Every Lead,” with Ray Fenster, E-Commerce Director, Lindsay Automotive Group.

We analyze tremendous amounts of online consumer behavioral data, and we often stumble upon trends that surprise us. Car buyers who compare multiple vehicles during the research phase serve as a perfect example.

Reply.com allows consumers to request price quotes on multiple vehicles, providing insight into the various makes and models that are most frequently compared by car buyers. Examining a consumer’s comparative vehicle choices versus their primary choice exposes clear trends across buyers of American and Asian brands.

I’ve heard the expression “Chevy Man,” and I understand consumers often remain loyal to their favorite brands. The vehicles that “Chevy Men” commonly compare to Chevrolet vehicles quickly caught my attention. Our data has uncovered two distinct types of car buyers in the United States.

August 2008 Consumer Data

Here’s what I’m getting at: A consumer who chooses Chevrolet as a primary vehicle is most likely to request additional price quotes on Ford, GMC, and Dodge vehicles—all of which are American brands. Similarly, Ford buyers almost always compare prices to Chevrolet, GMC, and Dodge. You see the pattern – people who are interested in American vehicles seem to limit the selection process to American vehicles.

Conversely, a consumer who chooses Honda as their primary vehicle almost always compares prices to similar Toyota and Nissan vehicles—both of which are Asian brands. What about Toyota and Nissan buyers? You guessed it—they remain loyal to the other Asian manufacturers during the research process.

An argument can be made that Honda is more similar to Toyota than it is to Ford, which would explain our data to an extent. However, with the breadth of vehicles offered by each manufacturer, almost every brand can be compared on an “apples to apples” basis. Every American brand produces a sedan to compete with the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry, yet these vehicles are very rarely introduced into comparisons.

Toyota is the lone manufacturer that is regularly compared to both foreign and domestic brands. Even a “Chevy Man” often inquires about pricing for a comparable Toyota. The source of this “traitor” mentality is evident in the sales of new vehicles in the U.S.—Toyota is increasing their market share by winning sales that have long-belonged to American manufacturers.

Growing up, my dad always bought American cars, and his dad did, too. They were raised to buy American. When my dad bought a Honda in 2002, I was convinced that even the most brand-loyal car buyers were abandoning their nationalistic mentality and leaning towards fuel efficiency and lower costs in the decision-making process. I hate being wrong.

My question to you: Will brand and national loyalties remain prevalent if the gap in vehicle quality and efficiency widens among manufacturers?

GooHoo!Reuters reported yesterday that the U.S. Justice Department has hired Sandy Litvak (former antitrust chief & Disney former Vice Chairman) to consult on Yahoo’s proposed search outsourcing deal with Google.

On the surface, this may seem like the normal process of evaluating near monopolies—but consider Yahoo’s strategic planning/blunders for a moment:

  • Plan A – Panama (aka the Google paid search killer): The company pulled the best and brighest minds from around the company and culled them into a super-search team to quickly rollout a platform capable of competing with Google.  The result: they created a better platform than Overture’s first rev, but they have continued to lose search share and search revenue despite the investment.  As someone that deals with Yahoo’s search team on a weekly basis, I am always shocked how frequently I have to speak to a “human” to get work done.  In contrast, Google has built a highly-scalable system, Adwords editor, and a process for computer-to-computer interaction that has significantly streamlined buying clicks. Layer on top of that the Google website optimizer, and we get to learn how to spend more money, more efficiently, with Google for free.
  • Plan B – Sell to Microsoft for $34/share: We all know how that ended: $20 billion in eroded market cap and, as of this morning, they are trading below $18/share.
  • Plan C – Outsource Paid Search to Google: We will see how this plays out.  Reply! spends millions in paid search across all the major search engines, and I can tell you that Yahoo has less reach, with lower CPCs, than Google.  The rumors are that the GooHoo deal (Google serving ads on Yahoo) starts in October.  Advertisers I have spoken with are concerned that minimum CPCs will increase 15-20% on Yahoo, getting closer to Google levels.  Then the Justice Department hires Sandy, and maybe the deal gets blocked.  After all, I am not sure if 90% ownership is a monopoly, but we could always ask Microsoft for their input.
  • Plan D – Sell to Microsoft for $25/share: I have no data, knowledge, or insight into this possibility; I would just find it painfully ironic if the Google search deal falls through and Yahoo has to jump back into Microsoft’s arms to create a viable alternative to Google’s search dominance.

Search is critical to those of us in online acquisition and it remains to be seen if GooHoo is a good or bad thing.

Payam was interviewed by Mortgage Online Blog (Owen Raun and Bill Rice) to discuss his professional background, Reply’s business, his perspective on Lead Exchanges and the future of lead generation.  The interview goes into detail on why Reply! launched a lead marketplace, how our system works and why Lead Generation 2.0 will overtake traditional lead gen.

Click here to listen on the WebClick here to subscribe and listen in iTunes

Search



Reply.com Links

Reply! Jobs

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogs We Read

Archives

Admin

Grab this swicki from eurekster.com