Posts Tagged glassBYTES.com

An Encounter with Jack Welch

This past Friday, while attending an automotive aftermarket conference (Auto Glass Week 2015); the keynote speaker was business icon Jack Welch. Instead of giving a speech, he answered questions from the audience for almost an hour and a half. Jack Welch in person is what I expected him to be. He’s certainly not afraid to answer any question asked and I found myself nodding and/or clapping to each of his answers. In a world of political correctness it was refreshing to know exactly what Jack’s position was on any question that he was asked.

Jack and Deb 10-2-2015

Photo Courtesy Auto Glass Week™ 2015

It didn’t matter whether the question was related to business, education or politics; he answered every question without hesitation. Jack’s view on business is all about winning. All about transparency. All about honesty. Telling those that worked for him when he was the CEO of General Electric for 84 consecutive quarters that the business they worked at needed to be either number one or number two in the world or figure out quickly how to become number one or two or the consequence would be that the business wouldn’t be a part of GE.

Jack isn’t big on tenure in education either. He believes that the customer should determine whether a professor or teacher is good or bad and whether they should stay or go. With the cost of education so high there is no room for mediocrity at Jack Welch Management Institute.

In politics Jack is a Republican.

After he took questions from the audience I had the opportunity to sit on an industry panel consisting of him, along with panelists from the automotive industry:

     Paul Heinauer, President of Glasspro Inc.

     Troy Mason, President of Technaglass

     Michael Schuch, president of XLNT Window Film Tinting

     Donna Wells, Vice President of Signature Shutters

     Ed Golda, president of Michigan Glass Coatings

Suzy Welch, renowned bestselling author, television commentator, Harvard Business School graduate and who also is Jack’s wife, was the moderator of the panel. It was an amazing experience where the panel answered questions posed by Suzy and the audience. Everyone answered questions including Jack and then he provided further commentary on the answers that were given.

Suzy Jack and panel

Photo Courtesy Auto Glass Week™ 2015

There isn’t much you can say about Jack Welch and Suzy Welch that hasn’t already been written so I won’t try. I can only say that the two of them make one heck of a team and are about as down to earth as you can be. In this day it was refreshing to see two people who didn’t hold back in answering questions.

It was an honor meeting them both and sitting on a panel with them was certainly an experience that I will never forget. Thanks to them both for the chance to spend a few hours with them last Friday. And thanks to Deb Levy for inviting me to join the panel.

Jack David and Suzy 10-2-2015

Just sayin’.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

What’s Your Formula for Success?

Is there a formula that you use to measure success in your career or to measure the performance of employees of your company that determines the success you achieve? What are the metrics or goals that you follow to measure success (or failure) that drives (inhibits) sales and profits for you company? Having metrics is obviously critical to ensure that employees know what is required of them allowing companies to be successful.

Sports are another example of the importance of metrics and formulas managers and coaches use to ensure success. If you like basketball you’ll know who Rick Majerus was (he passed away in 2012). He attempted to be a walk-on college basketball player for the Marquette Golden Eagles in 1967, but didn’t get a chance to play. Instead he became a student assistant at Marquette. After being an assistant coach to Al McGuire for 11 years; Majerus went on to become a head coach at Marquette, then to Ball State, Utah State and ending his coaching career at Saint Louis. Majerus had a short stint as an assistant coach with the Milwaukee Bucks in the late 1980’s.

During his coaching career he developed a statistics formula he believed a college basketball team needed to achieve in order to be successful. Majerus developed a metric he called the “165 Formula”. It combined three key game statistics that were added together for each individual player on the team. He totaled each player’s shooting percentage during the season for field goals, 3 pointers and free throws; believing that a successful team needed at least one of his players have these three stats add up to a total of 165. Over his coaching career Majerus won over 70% of his games, so he must have found players that he felt could hit his magical 165.

There are a lot of ways to achieve success on the basketball court. Just take a look at men’s college basketball’s current AP number one ranked team the University of Kentucky Wildcat’s. How many players does Coach John Calipari (Coach Cal) have that meet Majerus’ formula? Take a look at the graph below and you’ll see how many.

Now let’s take a look at the team that I follow, the University of Illinois Fighting Illini men’s basketball team to see how they compare against The 165 Formula. As you will see in the picture below (from the game versus the Hampton University Pirates  on 12/17/2014), the Illini have four players that beat the formula. Great!

165 Formula

After last Saturday’s game versus the Ohio State Buckeye’s, the season statistics for the Fighting Illini’s six leading players show that Rice, Hill, Eguw and Nunn continue to exceed the formula target of 165.

Fighting Illini
Name FG % FT % 3-PT % Total
Rayvonte Rice 49.7 79.7 45.5 174.9
Malcolm Hill 53.2 73.3 41.7 168.2
Nnanna Egwu 50.0 87.5 36.8 174.3
Kendrick Nunn 44.2 90.9 42.9 178.0
Ahmad Starks 36.1 88.9 32.2 157.2
Aaron Crosby 30.1 84.0 33.3 147.4
Average as of 1/3/2015 166.7

U of I Fighting Illini Statistics for 104-2015 Season

So the Fighting Illini has a record of 10 wins versus 4 losses for the year and they are not currently ranked in the AP Top 25 and they’ve lost their first two Big 10 Conference games. You’d think they’d either be ranked or winning conference games with four starters with numbers that exceed 165 as per The 165 Formula Rick Majerus felt was needed for success. Perhaps Illini Head Coach John Groce thinks that they are successful? I’m guessing not as much as he’d like.

Now let’s compare the Fighting Illini to the number one ranked team in men’s college basketball, the Kentucky Wildcats. How many players do the Wildcat’s have that meet the Majerus 165 Formula? Well…..just one.

Kentucky Wildcats
Name FG % FT % 3-PT % Total
Aaron Harrison 37.0 66.7 27.3 131.0
Andrew Harrison 36.7 77.8 32.1 146.6
Karl-Anthony Towns 51.9 74.3 20.0 146.2
Willie Cauley-Stein 60.7 60.5 0.0 121.2
Tyler Ulis 51.1 80.0 52.2 183.3
Dakari Johnson 60.5 56.7 0.0 117.2
Average of 1/3/2015 140.9

University of Kentucky Wildcats Statistics for 2014-2015

As you can see the one player on the Wildcats that scored a 165 using the Majerus formula is Tyler Ulis. He became a starter after Alex Poythress was injured after the 10th game of the season so his stats may be an outlier. The Wildcat’s had already found phenomenal success prior to Ulis getting more playing time. With the Wildcat’s averaging 140.9 points (110.4 if you take out Ulis) to the formula and the Illini averaging 166.7 points there must be more to achieving success. Besides the entire team of players performing at a level it also takes the head coach, assistant coaches, trainers and doctors to achieve success. You can add to the mix scouts, recruiters, training facilities, athletic director, along with support from students and alumni. So Coach Cal has obviously found his formula to achieve success at the University of Kentucky. He’s surrounded himself with the best players, along with the all the best people and resources needed to support the team.

So John Calipari (along with Rick Majerus) obviously found a formula that he has used to find success in his career. It’s the same in business isn’t it? Don’t we all want to be Coach Cal? To achieve a consistent level of success you need to develop your own formula. But a key ingredient is the need to surround yourself with the best people, the best team you can find to help you find great success for your organization. It doesn’t really matter what your business is, if you don’t have great people it’s going to be more challenging for you to find success against those you compete with in the marketplace.

Just sayin’.

Previous blogs on the importance of assembling a great team:

                What’s Your Line-up? – December 26, 2012

                What’s Your Line-up? – “Updated” – January 17, 2014

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Future in the Automotive Aftermarket Industry

For me, listening to keynote speaker Tony Aquila, CEO of Solera Holdings, Inc. at Auto Glass Week in Baltimore was most interesting. He led Solera’s purchase of LYNX Services, GTS and GLAXIS from owners Pittsburgh Glass Works LLC and PPG Industries, Inc. earlier this year. Tony’s accomplishments are considerable, especially considering that he grew up sweeping floors working in his uncle’s body shop and he has a 9th grade education. You have to be incredibly impressed by the guy.

The “Strategic Focus” web page for the company states, “Solera is the world’s leading provider of software and services to the automobile insurance claims processing industry.” (Link to corporate history) Solera will certainly be changing the world of auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) with innovative software solutions that will simplify the claims handling process surrounding glass repair and replacement. The organization has the potential to affect the way all consumers and influencers ultimately buy AGRR products and services dramatically. Depending upon the vision and direction Solera heads automotive aftermarket parts and service providers, including the auto glass repair and replacement industry (along with the collision repair industry and parts distribution industry) could be in for some big changes. It’s all about taking out market inefficiencies and reducing costs associated with those inefficiencies.

Just look at the AGRR industry. To ensure that service level expectations of the consumer is ultimately met, any software program would need to have access to the real-time inventory level of any supplier or distributor warehouses in the area, the inventory levels of any AGRR shop or technician in the vicinity vying for repairs or replacements, along with the schedules of all technicians available to properly repair or replace the part.

Imagine when an auto glass replacement is required, if it would be possible for the software program to instantly search for the part determining which supplier(s), distributor(s) or AGRR shop(s) has (have) the part in stock; perhaps ranked by cost for the part while finding the best auto glass replacement technician suited to properly install the part; when and where the consumer wants it installed. With that capability you then have to start asking some questions like:

Once the software program has all of the information required to start processing an auto glass replacement, who or what company is directly buying and paying for the part(s) required?

It could be:

  1. The AGRR shop or technician facilitating the replacement or
  2. Maybe the customer’s insurance company or
  3. If it’s a cash job the consumer could pay.

Which of the three above pays for any part required is important to determine the all-in price to be paid for replacement parts, along with the price paid for required installation supplies and labor.

So which organization determines the pricing level for the various scenarios outlined above?

Who is buying and paying for the part and installation supplies required?

Who is paying for the technician to install the part?

Answers to these and many other questions will give you an idea as to where the industry could be heading. There will be changes coming and margins are probably going to change in the AGRR industry in the near future. And probably not for the better.

What is it you’re doing to be prepared for the future?

Just sayin’.

140707.safeisrisky

Courtesy of TomFishburne.com – Marketoonist.com©

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Help Wanted: Writer Wanted for Social Media Conversation Page on Auto Glass Repair & Replacement

Hashtags

 

An interesting email hit my inbox on Monday from a company representing Service AutoGlass, a part of Safelite Group, Inc. The email came from Fun Online Corporation which is headquartered in New York, New York. Mike Schoenback  (and his partner Ron Luks) sent the email and it started with,

“Hi David,

I came across your contact information through Glassbytes.com.  Our company (Fun Online Corp) is working with Service AutoGlass®, a national provider of wholesale vehicle glass products and installation materials, to launch a social media conversation page in the fall of 2014.”

So the wholesale division of Safelite wants to interact with its customers via social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, YouTube, along with numerous other social media sites? The email went on to say,

“We are interested in connecting with a person with good writing skills who has technical experience with auto glass repair and replacement and a familiarity with the industry. We are looking to hire such a person on an ongoing (freelance) basis to respond to posts on the social media page and work with us to develop conversation starters. Experience as a blogger is a big plus. This is a paid position.”

I guess I tick a couple of the boxes they’re looking for. I’ve spent my career in the auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) industry, I am on some social media sites so I’m familiar with how those work and I blog. Even though it looks like the opportunity is being “outsourced” to Fun Online, the fact that it is a paid position is also great to know. The email ended with,

“I’m writing to see if you may be interested or if you have a colleague who may be interested in this opportunity.  We’re happy to have a phone or email conversation if you’d like more information about this.

Thanks very much!

Mike Schoenbach

Ron Luks”

Their email didn’t mention Safelite, just Service AutoGlass. I replied to let them know that I really appreciated the email letting me know about the opportunity, but I didn’t think I would be an appropriate person for the role they were looking at for a variety of reasons and I guess they didn’t look at some of my blog posts. I replied to Mr. Schoenback explaining that I was pretty sure that Safelite wouldn’t want me to fill the role even if I was interested. That being said I was once a part of Safelite filling a number of positions in the mid to late 1980’s leaving as the regional vice president of New England in late 1989; so I do have some familiarity with the company. I just didn’t think I’d be a good person to help “develop conversation starters” for them at this point in time. I’m sure that I could come up with a few “conversation starters” though. Here are some possibilities:

“If an auto glass replacement somehow slips through the hands of Safelite and you’re lucky enough that the opportunity comes to your company would you consider giving us a call so that we could sell you the part?”

“Here at Service AutoGlass we’re your all-in-one source for products and service, even if Safelite is spending countless millions on television and radio ads and is your biggest competitor. Come on…..give us a call. Won’t you?”

“We know that Pilkington, PGW, Mygrant and other wholesale distributors aren’t in the retail AGRR space installing auto glass in competition with you, but that shouldn’t stop you from giving us a call should it?”

I’m sure that you can come up with a few of your own. I asked a friend in the industry for a social media conversation starter for them and he suggested,

“They say you get what you pay for…. What did you get from us?”

I wished Fun Online success in finding someone to fill the social media role for Safelite…  er’ I meant Service AutoGlass. I found out that they sent the same email to a few other people in the AGRR industry as well. Imagine my disappointment hearing that. Perhaps they contacted you to see if you were interested? If not and you’re interested in the freelance position you can contact Mike and Ron to find out more. The Fun Online web site states:

“At Fun Online Corp. we’re your eyes and ears during business hours, evenings, weekends and holidays. A round-the-clock business infrastructure is expensive and can be a logistical nightmare. We can create a social media team or expand your current team and save you money. You’ll have 100 percent full coverage.”

It seems like a great opportunity.

Just sayin’.

 

 

* Cartoon courtesy of TomFishburne.com/Cartoons

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Comments

Just Sayin’ Blog – Becoming Somewhat Extraneous

Let’s face it, the National Auto Glass Specifications (NAGS) List Price™ used in the auto glass replacement (AGR) industry for decades that has a pricing (and parts numbering) mechanism seems to have become extraneous.

Glasslinks.com has information that was detailed on a NAGS™ web site from 1998 that provides the following historical information on the company:

From N.A.G.S. Website of 1998:

National Auto Glass Specifications was founded in 1927 by Madison Tracey who made patterns to cut flat glass for automobiles. He assigned part numbers for these patterns to ‘catalog’ them for his inventory purposes. NAGS Part Numbers were soon adopted as the industry standard to identify glass.

  • The first NAGS glass pattern (#1) was for a 1926 Model K, Series 5, Touring and Roadster Chevrolet.
  • The oldest car for which NAGS has a pattern is a 1915 Touring and Roadster Ford; Pattern #49 is a 2-part (upper and lower) windshield pattern.
  • NAGS first “bent” glass Part Number was #XXX1 for the back glass on a 1940 Lincoln Zephyr
  • The first curved windshield for which there is a NAGS Part Number is #XX22, for a 1941-42 Chrysler.

In the 1940s, curved glass appeared and the pattern business declined. NAGS continued to assign Part Numbers to catalog curved and flat glass and published the ‘NAGS Catalog.’ NAGS also published a chart to ‘calculate’ the price of flat glass.

In the 1950s, manufacturers were in conflict over their published list prices. As a neutral party, NAGS was asked to assign list prices to NAGS part numbers, establishing the NAGS List Price. These list prices reflected the industry practice of discounting and were based on manufacturers’ truckload prices. NAGS started publishing the part numbers with prices, establishing the ‘NAGS Calculator’.

Through the 1980s, NAGS information was available exclusively in print form. There was little change in the industry business practices. In the late 1980s, change started happening quickly as advances in technology produced more curved, tinted and coated parts. Networks began operations and electronic commerce was introduced to the industry.

In 1991, NAGS joined the global information marketplace through its acquisition by Thomson International, a world-wide publishing and information services company, and began development of the GlassMate® Database. Today, this database is used in many ways in support of the Auto Replacement Glass industry; e.g., part identification, inventory management, purchasing, invoicing/billing, EDI, auditing, etc. The vehicle configurations in the database have been adopted as Code Source #474 by the X12 Accredited Standards Committee of the American National Standards Institute.

 

* In 1991 NAGS™ was sold to Mitchell International and Mitchell International was acquired in 2013 by KKR and Co. L.P., a large global private equity investment firm.

When I first entered the AGR industry in the 1970’s the NAGS™ list price was factored by the auto glass truckload discount listing produced by the then leading industry auto glass original equipment and replacement manufacturer. The NAGS™ formula for computing the suggested NAGS™ list price was easily understood by everyone in the industry. As a retailer you could calculate a new NAGS™ list price by using the truckload pricing list that manufacturers provided to retail customers. There was always a lag period between the time the manufacturer provided its current truckload price list and when NAGS™ then published a updated list price schedule making it available to the AGR industry. Life was certainly much simpler then.

With the rise of the “global economy” over the past several decades, the subsequent improvement in quality (certainly debatable) of auto glass manufactured from countries with lower cost from around the world, along with cost cutting achieved by domestic manufacturers; many auto glass parts have become a commodity at the wholesale level. With the mix of manufacturers the long-used NAGS™ formula to determine the list price of NAGS™ parts may have become somewhat outdated. The vaunted formula for determining the NAGS™ list must have greatly changed over the years. It was once a very open and transparent pricing mechanism.

I found an article on glasslinks.com from December 1998 titled “NAGS™ Announces Benchmark Pricing for 1999”. It’s a great article that in detail describes the “Benchmark Pricing” model NAGS™ used when the company reevaluated the list price for auto glass parts (and at the same time made changes to NAGS™ labor hours). According to the article, the revaluation that NAGS™ made reduced the list price for windshields by 68% and tempered by 53%, with NAGS™ labor hours reduced by 20%. The reduction in NAGS™ list price was intended to eliminate the large discounts that retailers were offering to insurance, commercial and cash customers off previous NAGS™ list price schedules. Discounts at the time ran as high as 65+% off the NAGS™ list price schedule with the thought that the revaluation and new re-engineered NAGS™ list price schedule would become the actual price charged by retailers to the retail customer base. That was the idea anyway…. We all know how well that worked out for retailers.

When NAGS™ was sold in 1991 to Mitchell International there was a concern raised by many retailers at the time that the treasured independence of NAGS™ pricing, that was sought out by manufacturers’ in the 1950’s, would be at risk. A major customer of Mitchell International was the insurance industry.

It’s difficult enough to fully understand pricing offered from AGR manufacturers and suppliers to retailers. Pricing is rather fluid, meaning that you receive whatever pricing you can negotiate with manufacturers and/or suppliers and there is no consistency upon what pricing is being offered to retailers. So how does or can NAGS™ have a formula today to determine suggested NAGS™ list price for auto glass parts which can be consistently used across the industry?

In an “open letter” dated May 5, 2014 written to Mitchell International/NAGS and signed by Independent Glass Association President Matt Bailey, the company was asked,

“What are the specific sources that you have collected data from since independent glass retailers and the referenced suppliers have all confirmed wholesale price increases?”

I haven’t heard if Matt received a reply to his question.

The question was a reasonable one and was related to an industry wide 5% +/- price increase put in place by a number of AGR manufacturers/suppliers to retail customers instituted on April 1, 2014. It is difficult to understand how a 5% +/- price increase from AGR manufacturers/suppliers could result in a reported .7% increase in the NAGS™ list price for the top 100 NAGS™ parts as detailed in a glassBYTEs.com™ article titled “NAGS Spring Calculator Released, Average Price Increase of Top 100 is 0.7 Percent” written by Jenna Reed. The article stated,

“The Spring 2014 National Auto Glass Specifications (NAGS) International Benchmark Calculator has been released and shows the average price change of top 100 most popular parts was a 0.7 percent increase since the last catalog. The total average price change of top 10 parts was an increase of 0.4 percent.

To view the top 100 parts, click here.

In a comparison from the Winter NAGS Calculator 2014 to the Spring NAGS Calculator 2014, the largest price increase by percentage was on the 2005 Honda Civic windshield (FW02184GGYN), which increased 4.5 percent. To view this analysis of largest price increases by parts among the top 100, click here.

In the same comparison from Winter to Spring, the largest price reduction was on 2012 Ford Escape windshield (DW01684GTYN), which is down 3.07 percent. To view an analysis of the biggest price reduction among the top 100 parts, click here.”

It seems odd doesn’t it that prices from suppliers would go up 5%+/- and the top parts would rise less than 1%.

There are countless retailers that use either a cost plus, flat or tiered pricing models to consumer and commercial/fleet customers adding a “mark-up” to their actual cost of the glass being replaced. Often those prices include both the labor and kit charge required to complete the installation. This provides those that use these models comfort that they have a consistent profit margin to operate under. Networks and TPA’s still use a discount to NAGS™ pricing model to most of their clients.

A group of industry leaders formed The Chicago Auto Glass Group over 10 years ago to address industry pricing. The group worked hard at developing a “white paper” on benchmark pricing and suggested that the AGR industry move to a pricing model they detailed as follows,

“This Guide is intended to serve solely as a recommendation for establishing benchmarks and is in no manner intended to set or determine actual prices for auto glass replacement or to reduce open competition in the local, regional, or national market place.”

You can click on this glassBYTEs.com link to read the entire Chicago Auto Glass Group proposal. The Chicago Auto Glass Group wasn’t successful in pushing the benchmark pricing proposal, but many in the industry viewed the proposal as a positive step in making industry pricing fair to all stakeholders.

AGR industry stakeholders should, on occasion, evaluate the pricing model(s) that they use, discard old or outdated ones and replace them with ones that are relevant. What do you think?

Just Sayin’.

 

 

Reference materials:

   http://www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/nagsbnch.htm

   http://www.usglassmag.com/AGRR/Backissues/2003/0305/future.htm

   http://www.glassbytes.com/newsNAGSWinter20130114.htm

   http://www.glassbytes.com/2014/05/nags-spring-calculator-released-average-price-increase-of-top-100-is-0-7-percent/

   http://www.glassbytes.com/2013/09/mitchell-international-owner-of-nags-purchased-by-kkr/

   http://www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/nags_history.htm

   http://www.usglassmag.com/AGRR/Backissues/supplement/NAGSNOTES.htm

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Just Sayin’ Blog – A Matter of Self-Interest or Consumer Choice

Dominos

 

Last June 3, 2013 Dannel Malloy, Governor of the State of Connecticut signed a bill that was passed by Connecticut’s House and Senate the previous month into law. This link to the summary of the act that was first introduced in the Insurance and Real Estate Committee of the Connecticut House states,

“The act requires that a glass claims representative for an insurance company or its third-party claims administrator, in the initial contact with an insured about automotive glass repair services or glass products, tell the insured something substantially similar to: “You have the right to choose a licensed glass shop where the damage to your motor vehicle will be repaired. If you have a preference, please let us know. ” By law, appraisals and estimates for physical damage claims written on behalf of insurers must have a written notice telling the insured that he or she has the right to choose the shop where the damage will be repaired (CGS § 38a-354).”

This law seems to be a reasonable approach to provide and ensure consumer choice to the residents of Connecticut.

As it appears on the State of Connecticut’s General Assembly bill tracking web site the law – Public Act Number 13-67 – states,

 “AN ACT CONCERNING AUTOMOTIVE GLASS WORK.

To require an insurance company doing business in this state, or agent, adjuster or third-party claims administrator for such company to provide additional disclosures to an insured regarding such insured’s right to choose a licensed repair shop or glass shop where such insured’s motor vehicle physical damage or automotive glass work will be performed.”

Again, this language also seems to be a reasonable expectation for residents of the state. Everyone believes that consumer choice is a good thing right?

The signing of the law was reported by number of industry publications (glassBYTEs.com, Autobody News, Automotive Fleet) due to the dramatic effect that it would have when fully enforced on insurance companies claims management programs, as well as automotive glass repair and replacement (AGRR) industry players (Harmon Solutions Group, NCS/Netcost Claim Services, TeleGlass/Strategic Claims Services, Gerber National Glass Services, PGW Lynx Services, Safelite Solutions)  that provide network and/or Third Party Administrator (TPA) services to the insurance industry. AGRR networks and/or TPA’s tend to steer business to either company owned stores and/or to affiliated network repair or glass shops that conform to the pricing or service requirements of the network and/or TPA. That has been a long standing business practice of networks and TPA’s and it’s not hard to understand the financial benefit to these companies to continue doing so. The passing and subsequent enforcement of this law requires a pivot away from the long-standing AGRR industry practice of placing the decision of which company provides the repair or replacement into the hands of the consumer needing service and out of the hands of a network and/or TPA that has always been heavily involved in the decision. This also seems to be a positive for consumer choice. Again, everyone believes that consumer choice is a good thing right?

In order to protect its network and TPA business Safelite Group, Inc. and Safelite Solutions LLC (the Plaintiffs-Appellants) have gone to court against GEORGE JEPSEN, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Connecticut and THOMAS LEONARDI, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Connecticut Insurance Department (the Defendants-Apelles) in hopes of overturning the law. The law clearly prohibits the steering of Connecticut consumers to specific repair shops by TPA’s and/or auto damage appraisers so one can understand the self-interest involved. Connecticut’s “Department of Consumer Protection” web page states that:

“Ensuring a Fair Marketplace and Safe Products and Services for Consumers”

The purpose of this government department is pretty obvious by its title. Public Act Number 13-67 protects the interests of consumers in the state and their “right to choose”; and the State of Connecticut unquestionably is within its rights to enact such a law, right?

If the State of Connecticut prevails in its defense of the constitutionality of Public Act Number 13-67 through the appeal process, as Safelite continues to fight to overturn the law, the future landscape of networks and/or TPA’s that provide AGRR services to consumers in the state will forever be changed. And if this law stands it will have an effect on the landscape of the AGRR industry in the entire United States. You can be sure that similar consumer protection bills will be introduced in state assembly’s’ across the country. Is that why Safelite is so strongly fighting this law duly enacted by the State of Connecticut?

If you visit the Safelite web site you will find that the company describes Safelite Solutions LLC as providing:

“….complete claims management solutions for the nation’s leading fleet and insurance companies.

The company currently serves as a third-party administrator of auto glass claims for more than 175 insurance and fleet companies, including 19 of the top 30 property and casualty insurance companies. Safelite® Solutions manages a network of approximately 9,000 affiliate providers and operates two national contact centers in Columbus, Ohio and one in Chandler, Arizona.”

The Connecticut law could serve to undermine a business practice that has existed in the AGRR industry since the late 1970’s. The genesis of call centers (a.k.a. a network or TPA) was when Joe Kellman, former owner of Globe Glass & Mirror, visited an auto glass call center facility in Bedford, England operated by Belron’s Autoglass and brought the idea back to the United States starting the U.S. Auto Glass Network. Since then, the impact, influence and control of consumer auto glass losses by networks and/or TPA’s operating in the AGRR industry has continued to grow each and every day. The networks and/or TPA’s obviously work hard to control and steer auto glass repairs and replacements to either company owned stores or to glass companies that agree to join and follow pricing arrangements that benefit the goals of the network and/or TPA. A business practice worth fighting for right?

The State of Connecticut is interested in protecting consumers in the state, who are in need of auto glass repairs or replacements, from being steered by a network and/or TPA. This law seems like a reasonable next step action in a state where those that are engaged in the AGRR industry are required to be licensed by the state (in my last blog I wrote about “Is it Time for Licensing?” in the AGRR industry). The Department of Consumer Protection oversees the licensing flat glass and automotive glass work.

We will have to wait for the appeal process to work its way through the courts to find out if this law stands, is amended or falls. But whether you believe that the law is a positive development for Connecticut consumers or you believe that the law violates free speech in commerce, the fight will continue as the stakes are too high. If the law passes through the appeal process and stands, it could be the tipping of the first domino and could be the beginning of big changes for the AGRR industry.

So where do you stand on Public Act Number 13-67? Are you on the side of consumer choice or on the side of the networks and/or TPA’s? Perhaps it depends on your own self interest.

Just sayin’.

 

Dominos

 

 

Associated Articles and Reference Material:

Zauderer’s Scope (page 589) https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1566-keighley15upajconstl5392012pdf

http://www.autobodynews.com/news/regional-news/northeastern-news/item/7277-connecticut-governor-signs-anti-steering-bill-into-law.html

http://www.nldhlaw.com/content/uploads/2013/07/UpToSpeed_July2013A.pdf

http://www.glassbytes.com/2014/04/connecticut-officials-file-brief-in-support-of-anti-steering-law-in-appellate-court/

http://www.glassbytes.com/newsConnAutoGlassBillGoestoGov20130523

http://www.glassbytes.com/newsConnecticutSteeringPasses20130606

http://www.glassbytes.com/documents/03192014SafeliteSecondCircuitBrief.pdf

http://www.glassbytes.com/documents/04232014SupplementalIndex.pdf

http://www.glassbytes.com/documents/04232014JepsenBrief.pdf

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5072&which_year=2013

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Comments

Just Sayin’ Blog – Now and in the Future

Last Tuesday, February 4, 2014 there were two items in glassBYTEs.com™ e-Newsletter that I read with great interest. The two articles got me to wondering about how technology could be developed to increase passenger safety in the auto glass replacement (AGR) industry by alerting passengers of potential problems.

The first article I enjoyed reading was the “View From The Trenches” blog post by Neil Duffy. His blog post titled “Nightmare on Stevens Creek” pointed out those in the auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) industry who are portrayed as “hacks” in the article; those who lower the quality of installations and how our industry is viewed. Many of these “hacks” don’t follow or worse are even aware (an even scarier nightmare) of the Auto Glass Replacement Safety Standard® and what is required, on their part, to ensure that those they install auto glass for are safe in an accident. The second article was an Associated Press article that appeared on TribLive.com titled “Feds want cars to be able to talk to each other“. Seems like a great way for the cars we drive not to run into cars that others drive. This technology will have to be in full use when we move to driverless cars, but in the meantime it could greatly reduce collisions today if rolled out in new cars.

jetson

Everyone in the auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) industry across the country has seen someone who isn’t following proper installation standards and put drivers at risk when auto glass is replaced. There are those in the industry who think the drums are beat too loud about this topic, but it is an issue and Neil rightly points to the concern that he sees with the acts of some lowering the standards which could bring us all down at some point in the future. As Neil wrote,

“This drains the resources and profitability of shops who value quality. By allowing hacks to contaminate our industry we are putting both the public at risk and our own livelihoods. The sad fact is that there is an unwillingness to seek regulatory constraints or to somehow cull the worst offenders in the AGRR industry. Why would a glass manufacturer or wholesaler try to cut the number of sales they could make by calling for the removal of incompetent or illegal customers? Why would a third-party administrator (TPA) demand stringent certification and high-limit liability insurance over negotiating deeper discounts from the same vendors? Furthermore, we, in AGR, play into the hands of our largest competitor who promotes its technician’s training and employee character via the media over smaller companies – the local unknown local glass purveyors – that may prey upon potential clients. That alone can create a bad dream or two.”

Are there auto glass suppliers or urethane suppliers that would walk away from a sale if the supplier is aware of bad behavior on the part of a customer? I for one would like to believe that there are. But would some suppliers step in and provide the products versus losing a sale? Sadly probably yes.

I appreciate Neil Duffy pointing out that there are those in the industry who shouldn’t be installing auto glass in any vehicle because they either don’t know how to properly do a replacement or they don’t care that they are installing a part in an unsafe manner. Bad apples that exist in our industry can lower the value that the vast majority of us in the industry who are doing it right receive as Neil suggests. Consumers believe they are getting a quality product regardless of what company they use. When a company that is doing everything right competes against those who don’t, how could a consumer know that they could be choosing a company that delivers the service and/or products in an unsafe manner which could ultimately cause serious safety issues? They don’t.

The second article that I referenced that appeared on the glassBYTEs.com™ web site on February 4th dealt with the United States government push to require automakers to equip vehicles with technology that will reduce accidents by having vehicles “talk with each other”.

The Associated Press article details the work that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been doing in cooperation with automobile and truck manufacturers since the early 2000’s to prevent accidents via new technology.

The article quotes David Friedman, the head of the safety administration saying that NHTSA “estimates vehicle-to-vehicle communications could prevent up to 80 percent of accidents that don’t involve drunken drivers or mechanical failure”. Imagine the lives that will be saved with the implementation of new technology. Mr. Friedman goes on to say the goal is “to prevent crashes in the first place”. Historically the government’s focus has been on passengers surviving accidents. On the NHTSA web site the department’s mission reads:

“NHTSA was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970 and is dedicated to achieving the highest standards of excellence in motor vehicle and highway safety. It works daily to help prevent crashes and their attendant costs, both human and financial.”

The technology that is being developed and installed on vehicles today across the globe is pretty amazing and has been a dream going back over 50 years.

In 1956 General Motors showcased their cars with a traveling show featuring the company’s fleet at events in major cities across the country. The first “Motorama Show” was held at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City. This “Key to the Future” video was a “featured film at the exhibit that looked into the far distant future of 1976 which predicted a jet age future with electronic digital displays and an On Star like central command that would guide us along our uncrowded path to adventures.”   

The view of the cars of the future from 1956 obviously wasn’t reality in 1976, but we will be seeing more and more technology installed in all types of vehicles. This CarScoops.com article talks about an “Augmented Reality System (that) Allows Drivers to See Through Large Vehicles”. The ‘See-Through’ developed by a team from the University of Porto, in Portugal, is directed by Professor Michel Ferreira. The technology is a great advancement in driving safety and will undoubtedly save life’s’. Imagine being able to “see-through” a large vehicle such as a bus in front of you in order to safely pass on a two lane highway.

Virtually every car on the road today has on-board technology that informs drivers of mechanical issues that have been detected.  Additionally, mobile telephone hands free devices and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) technologies are available for most vehicles further helping to improve driver safety. Government authorities, driving safety advocates and organizations in cooperation with automobile manufacturers continue to build on technology that improves passenger safety. The ever changing availability of new safety technologies being developed for vehicles is rapidly changing how we interact with vehicles, how the vehicles we drive interact with us and even how the vehicle interacts with everything near the vehicle. A Bloomberg.com article titled “Talking-Car Systems to Be Required as U.S. Weighs Rules” briefly discussed future technologies being developed by CISCO Systems and others for connected cars, along with companies such as Google and Telsa Motors working to employ that technology in driverless vehicles.

So, after reading both of the articles that appeared on the same glassBYTEs.com™ e-Newsletter I began wondering if future technology could be developed to let auto and truck drivers know if the auto glass in the car they are driving or are passengers has been properly replaced. Perhaps a farfetched idea you’d say, but since we all know that a windshield that is being replaced has to be properly installed to ensure that the passenger side air bag deploys correctly to protect occupants and to also maintain structural integrity of the roof; maybe not. As I’ve heard a number of people say over the years, “It’s going to take some politician’s family member or someone important to be killed for something to be done to ensure the safe installation of auto glass.” Certainly no one wants that to happen. As Neil so aptly wrote:

“This writer is truly tired of having nightmares that “Freddy the hack” is becoming the ugly face of today’s automotive glass industry. I see it more and more each day and most worrisome is the complete lack of concern by many within our industry. How can we police ourselves or be policed is the $ 64,000 question that has to be addressed and answered some day, hopefully sooner rather than later. If we continue to bury our collective heads in the sand, it will be our own necks that get hacked, as well as more unfortunate windshields.”

I know of countless AGRR professionals who strive to ensure that auto glass is installed properly and spare no expense to do so. But without either the industry as a whole taking a more active interest or governmental authorities taking a regulatory role in the AGRR industry maybe someone can develop a technology to alerts drivers and passengers alike that the car they are riding in is indeed safe to drive, or not.

Just sayin’.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments