DealersEdge Professional Forums

Today, I recieved the November 15th Dollars and Sense. Traditionally, I agree with Rob most of the time. However, page 6, Rob had a discussion on reimbursing customers who pay for a job at retail rates, complain to GM, then you goodwill the customer because C.O and the customer requested assistance after the fact. Rob feels you should refund the customer the full amount, and eat the difference between warranty, and retail. I feel this is penalizing the dealer significantly (assuming the dealer is not abusing the reimbursement). Why should we have to eat the difference for doing our job?? If the customer broke down on a trip, and was overcharged and seeking reimbursement, should I have to pay the difference?? Obviously not, however, it is the same principle. Most times, our DSM would have OK'd reimbursement, even at the overcharged level. It is not our job to solicit goodwill, GM has made this quite clear.The fact the customer complains to GM customer relations does not change anything, other than documenting the case. If a customer requests assistance, and you tell them to call customer relations after you did the job, then Rob has a point. But if the customer never asks you for assistance, or you turn them down, then they call customer relations and they want the customer to be given help, I am not going to give up my profit for them. Then you face a bullet. I have observed trends with goodwill adjustments where customer's pay a $100 deduct, and they are annoyed and indicate this on their CSI report. This is even after discussing them that we will not do any goodwill unless it will make the customer 100% happy. If it was up to customer relations, almost everyone will get a reimbursment. That is their job. So in instances like Rob indicated, I would reimburse the customer only what GM will reimburse us for, and the difference is considered his deductable. That is assuming there is not a pushy central office employee championing his cause.

I am actually quite annoyed with GM's customer relations. There was a customer who came in with 55,000 plus miles and his 1997 Sonoma, and had a sagging spring. After reviewing the file, the customer never spends money with us, plus if you do not get a 5 hour job done in 15 minutes for him, he will blast you on his CSI. So I refused to help him becasue I did not want to give him the opportunity to give us another bad CSI report, plus suspension repairs were alittle high on my warranty cost report. . He called customer relations and they talked to me 5 times about it. I told them he is a CSI risk and is not a loyal customer and did not buy the car from us. Without even calling me to give me a heads up, they told the customer they will replace the front springs and shocks for a $100 deduct. The customer calls me and tells me this in a gloating manner.
They are not even employees of GM. They do not have the right to spend my warranty money just because a customer does not want to pay for something. If I did a goodwill adjustment and wrote on the hard copy " goodwill because customer did not want to pay", how would an auditer respond to this??

I know there are 2 distinct issues here, but they are related. It is annoying doing a goodwill gesture and getting the "tail end" of the gesture.

Mike

I love when people disagree with me Thank goodness it means they are still reading!!

For issue one, I just wanted to clarify that in that article I did also write, "However, since the policy is vague, if you feel strongly the other way theres not much I can point to that would say your doing anything wrong." So I kind of knew going in that this wasn't going to be the most welcome tip I ever wrote. Also, keep in mind (as I do everyday) that it's not my money - so I am sensitive to shops that don't want to give it away.

Your second issue is much more touchy, because I had these smug customers in the shop as well. (However, I was in Michigan and it was even worse because everyone is apparently related to senior GM managment based on their claims. -- "well my second cousin's uncle is on the GM Board and he said they'd pay for this." "Great, have him send a check payable to us at...")

Personally, it took a long time before I realized that GM could override me at anytime and in the process make me look like a chump. I did a lot of things, like make the customer wait weeks before I could get to the repair, or in a situation like yours, tell GM that I suspected that they ran the truck overloaded, etc. ... but in the end that just reflected even worse on me. Plus, it was increasing my bar tab. Like almost everything in service, it's just part of the job - especially with GM. This stuff will kill you if let it get to you - we all know that.

So, I decided that I'd just feel like - hey good for him, he beat the system. Moreover, I began to ask how he did it so I could coach people I really wanted to help. So, I'd deny assistance, explain my reasons and then just say, "The only one I think that can help is the General. If you can talk them into buying it, we'll do it. Otherwise, this is my only decision."

As far as the CSI risk - has anyone tried holding back submission for 30-days? I understand that the rule is that GM does not send out CSI surveys on repairs greater than 30-days because (1)they don't believe customers can remember that far back, and (2)the delay in repair probably already ticked off the customer so they know they'll be negative. I am not positive this still works, so I am wondering if anyone has experimented with it.



------------------
** Rob, Editor WD&S **
Help is only a message post away!
robc@dealersedge.com

MICHAEL
VW DOES IT THE RIGHT WAY. IF A CUSTOMER CALLS AND COMPLAINS AFTER THE WORK WAS DONE THEN CUSTOMER RELATIONS SEND THEM A CHECK. WE ARE NOT PENALIZED IN THIS CASE AT ALL. ALSO IN REGARDS TO THEIR WORKING WITH YOU, VW ALSO IS PRETTY GOOD. THEY TEND TO STAND BEHIND A DEALERS DECISION TO HELP OR NOT TO HELP. ONCE IN A WHILE ONE GET'S BY BUT GENERALLY THEY WORK WITH THE DEALERS VERY WELL.

Chrysler has a great system for this. It's called a dealer alert message. We can "alert" Customer Relations with 1 phone call, before the customer even leaves our store, in regard to a denied or partially assisted repair offer. I must admit, they're pretty good at reinforcing what you already have offered.

My feeling is if a customer has had work done outside the dealership and is looking for reimbursement, if the work was done during our regular business hours then why should I reimburese them? Too many times a customer will go to a chain or independent and then feel the manufacturer should for some reason pay for their repair?? I don't think so! I also beleive customers should not be reimbursed for more than what the manufacturer would have paid us in the first place.

As far as CAC forcing the issue, I have noticed a trend of poor recommendations lately coming from CAC (GM), but maybe that is another topic.

I have to agree that GM is the worst for making the dealer and the service staff look bad in the eyes of the customer. Way too many times a cut and dried denial of goodwill to a second owner, who was sent to us from the used car lot he bought the car from was overturned with the comment " We want them to be GM customers in the future". Than, as was said earlier, the customers literally rub your nose in it.

The bigger concern with goodwill and reimbursements for out of warranty issues is the effect it has on the technical staff that is already leary of the warranty process. We estimate the job at labor time guide rates, we sell the job, the tech starts the job and inevitably the CAC calls halfway through to tell us they made a goodwill decision. That's a tough conversation to have with your techs.

The goodwill situation is unfortunately here to stay, what with each of the manufacturers trying to maintain their customer base. My plan has always been to make a token decision on the borderline cases and make a pro-active contact to the manufacturer. This eliminates most of the problems as I can get my side of the story on the record first. One other thing I do is strictly forbid anyone from giving the CAC number to a customer. All requests for the CAC number are directed to me exclusively. Most times I can get it handled to everyones satisfaction.

Thanks again,

Rolfe

[This message has been edited by ROLFE (edited 11-28-2001).]