April 2006

WELCOME to the April Commentary Box. Although this month's edition contains, what I hope, is it's usual share of thought provoking comment, I'd like to begin by mentioning the changes planned for next month. Starting in May, I shall be inviting a series of interesting accident repair industry personalities into the Commentary Box to talk through their specific involvements. 

First into the Commentary Box will be the former chief engineer, of a major Insurance Company, who now operates a very successful business specialising in Bodyshop Marketing. As a fact; because bodyshops exist to sell time; marketing must be an essential, on going exercise and not just something that has to be done when business goes a bit slack. As bodyshops only have a limited number of hours to sell, each week; financial survival depends upon "selling" these hours to the best payer. Only through continual marketing can any bodyshop achieve this.

Sadly; while dependency of work is an admirable concept for any bodyshop to pursue; placing dependency of work, above maximising it's value with the best payers, can be the "road to ruin". In fact it's the forerunner of the famous industry lament; "busy fools". Therefore, as my first guest has a successful track record in bodyshop marketing, his comments will contain the weight of proven evidence. Then, with an eye on the future, invitations are already being sent to other key players; in areas such as bodyshop consumables, accident management, health and safety and human resources, to name but some.

Hopefully you will find these additions to the Commentary Box, interesting and informative.

THE RIGHT IMPRESSION: As someone who spends some considerable time looking at websites, I never cease to be amazed by the way in which some Dealerships, and large Groups, handle accident repairs on their websites.

While accidents (like illness), are an inevitable part of motoring life; it's sad to see the way in which many dealership websites fail to recognise this issue. It seems to me that quite a few website designers seem to ignore the fact that customers can, and do, have accidents. Whilst such sites eagerly promote vehicle sales, little thought seems have been given to owners seeking repairs to their "accident damaged" vehicles.

Although many dealerships have seen fit to axe their bodyshops, the needs of "accident victim" customers should still be catered for. As I believe that most of the manufactures expect their dealerships, without an in house bodyshop, to have a locally approved repairer; such information must be worthy of website inclusion. Do such dealerships simply expect their customers, "post accident", to let the insurance company dictate the repair route? 

Taking this a stage further, never forget that once customers are directed elsewhere, they will be exposed to other product awareness; suddenly finding themselves in alternative transport. Think how easily the "four", or "five day", use of a courtesy car can be a pretty convincing test drive! Added to this, how many people change their car shortly after suffering an accident?

YOURS CONFUSED: Sometimes, when trying to get a clear picture of a certain issue; it can be helpful to read two or three different newspaper reports. Yet, being cynical, a little "green man emerging from a flying saucer", and trying to make sense of life down here on earth, by reading the papers, would probably beat a hasty retreat. 

Strangely enough; having recently devoured the content of a mainstream accident repair industry trade magazine, I have quite a bit of sympathy for any "little green men" trying to understand the inner workings of our particular industry. 

Allow me to explain. While one article, in the trade magazine, sought reader sympathy for the insurance companies, earlier pages confirmed the record levels of profit being made by the "said" insurance companies. While I'm always ready to express admiration for "profitable" companies, being asked to sympathise with them does not come so easily. Yes, I accept that Insurance Company profitability does not all come from the automotive side; but surely business cannot be that bad, if their current spate of "price orientated advertising" is anything to go by.

Further on; confirmation was given to the point I raised, in an earlier Commentary Box, regarding the huge sum paid out, annually, to cover the activities of uninsured drivers. Unlike the magazine author I have no faith that cameras, and electronic detection devices, will have any impact upon this at all. 

As an alternative, consider that if "Tesco" can give me a plastic loyalty card, to use every time I buy petrol; why can't Insurers issue similar cards that prove the validity of driver insurance every time they filled up. At a stroke this would probably eliminate uninsured driving, and virtually do away with auto theft as well, since no one can go far on an empty tank. By admitting that every policy-holder already subsidises non insured driver activity, to the tune of £30, I'd guess that insurers already have the money to set up a swipe card scheme If successful, it needs doing once and, in my view, beats the £250 million pounds they pay out every year. In turn, this is a figure that can only rise unless preventative action is taken now.

Finally it was encouraging to receive confirmation, in another article, that the UK accident repairers worked under just about the toughest conditions to be found anywhere. Conditions that, as we know, produce some of the best "pound for pound" quality workmanship one could probably wish for. Reassured by this I then read further lines on the bodyshop Kitemark debate. Of course Insurers like the scheme, but will they make it a mandatory requirement for every repairer? Understandably I have no argument with uniformity but, as bodyshops will doubtless incur compliance costs; can they anticipate a higher labour rate for meeting defined standards?