#Dealership

The Colorado House’s passage of HB-1049 [ PDF here], a bill requiring restitution for dealers culled during the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, has drawn a $60,000 “no” campaign from General Motors. The Denver Post reports that GM’s ad campaign, which features lines like “we must keep driving forward to repay our government loans,” and “don’t let special interests stick taxpayers in reverse,” has riled up local lawmakers more than ever, drawing such timeless put-downs as: “they must be spending tax dollars on Botox to say that with a straight face.” The bill would require OEMs compensate culled dealers for signs, parts, dealer upgrades and more, as well as offer them the right of first refusal for any new area dealerships.

GM’s newly-permanent Chairman/CEO Ed Whitacre balked visibly when asked following his self-coronation if the dealer cull arbitration process would hurt GM’s chances of success this year. “I’m not sure it will weaken us,” was his half-hearted response. Whitacre’s hesitation was a bit of a surprise, considering that GM is taking a far more tolerant attitude to the arbitration process than Chrysler. But, as Automotive News [sub] reveals, GM’s downsizing was highly focused on its Cadillac brand, and if arbitration results in widespread reinstatement, Cadillac could find itself stuck with a number of small-town dealers it doesn’t want.

Even with a government-mandated arbitration process in place, the battle between Chrysler and its 789 culled dealers is a low-down, dirty dogfight. Last week, Chrysler sent out letters to all of its rejected dealers, in its attempt to comply with the arbitration law’s disclosure requirements. But, dealers tell Automotive News [sub], those letters are justifications, but not explanations. Absent concrete evidence for why their franchises were closed (something GM has provided to its culled dealers), lawyers for some 65 rejected dealers are fighting back.

The prospect of US launches by Chinese and Indian auto brands like Tata and BYD have at least one of the established US-market players in a paranoid froth. Honda VP John Mendel revealed a few of the nightmare scenarios that keep him up at night to USA Today [UPDATE: more on Mendel’s fears at Automotive News [sub]]. One, inspired by BYD’s plans for a 2010 US launch without a distribution channel in place, is that newcomers could skip the dealer model altogether. Mendel worries that “warehouse stores or electronics stores” ( sound familiar?) could be used to cut dealers out of the loop, “blowing up” business-as-usual for US distribution strategy.

When CEO Chung Mong-Koo told his employees to make Hyundai’s quality world class, their competitors all had a collective laugh. Well, we all know how that ended, so when Chung told his employee to increase sales, the competition should probably heed his words as a warning. The Korea Times reports that Chung Mong-Koo wants the Hyundai-Kia group to increase sales by 17% in 2010, from 4.63 million (2009) to 5.4 million. “Our teamwork helped turn a crisis into an opportunity when the global auto industry was at its darkest,” said Chung Mong-Koo. “Based on our achievements last year, let’s work together to make 2010 a year of writing a new history.” Analysts like Sohn Myung-woo of Woori Investment & Securities sees the goal as achievable, saying “Hyundai will continue its sales momentum in the U.S. and emerging markets such as China and India.” But besides expanding volume, Hyundai wants to use its momentum to continually improve its brand image in mature markets like the US. To that end, it’s paying more attention to how it markets its Genesis luxury semi-sub-brand.

You’d have to be a fairly trusting GM dealer to participate in what The General calls its Essential Brand Elements program. After all, it’s just the kind of dealership re-branding exercise that HUMMER dealers were forced into shortly before the brand was consigned to the ash heap of history. And once again, GM is asking dealers to create ideal showcases for its brands while keeping compensation for the renovations on a highly trust-dependent basis. GM wants brand-specific dealership rebrandings complete within three years, but will only pay for them over the next five to ten years reports Automotive News [sub]. And the payments won’t be fixed either, but will rather be tied to the dealer’s annual vehicle shipments using “a seasonally adjusted formula that takes into account the price of the vehicles sold.” According to Chevy’s Sales Manager Kurt McNeil, those payments could “conceivably” cover the recommended changes over the ten-year period. Are you feeling the trust yet?

Here’s a question: You want to do something, but it’s against the law, what do you do? Abandon the idea? No, if you’re Chrysler you sue the government. Detroit News reports that Chrysler LLC are suing officials from Oregon, Maine, North Carolina and Illnois for laws which “unduly burden New Chrysler with the obligation to provide the rejected dealers with rights that this court determined that the rejected dealers do not have,” as lawyers for Chrysler wrote.

If you haven’t been following the drama surrounding the effort to restore dealers culled during GM and Chrysler’s bankruptcy, you might need to be brought up to speed. In essence both the cut dealers and the automakers have agreed to send create an arbitration process by which dealers could have the decision to cut their franchise reviewed by a neutral third party. The remaining conflict is over the criteria arbitrators should use to judge dealer viability, as the GM and Chrysler proposition would have forced arbitrators to use the same criteria GM and Chrysler did in the initial cuts. That would obviously have yielded the same results as the initial cull, so the dealers pushed for a set of criteria that is more favorable to their interests. Automotive News [sub] reports that a compromise has been reached in conference committee that would allow dealers to present “any relevant information” to make their case. That bill is now been approved by the House [sub] and is headed to the Senate, where its passage is “virtually assured.” But despite having all but guaranteed an independent review, culled dealers still aren’t happy.

As soon as GM and Chrysler agreed to review their dealer cull decisions, the culled dealers in question began complaining that the review would not improve their situations. According to the aggrieved dealers, the new review would be based on the same allegedly flawed data as the initial cull, meaning nothing would be changed. By GM’s own admission, only 39-51 of the over 1,000 dealers cut would even stand a chance at reinstatement. Now, Automotive News [sub] reports that a new measure has passed the House of Representatives which would allow dealers to “present any kind of relevant information during the arbitration.” The measure comes in the form of an amendment to the House Financial Services bill, which is headed to a conference committee in which House and Senate leaders must arrive at a compromise in order to send the bill to President Obama.

Bowing to legislative pressure, GM and Chrysler have announced today that they will initiate reviews of the dealer cull undertaken during bankruptcy. GM is announcing a “Comprehensive Plan To Address Dealer Concerns,” while Chrysler characterizes its agreement as a “Binding Independent Review Process for Discontinued Dealers.” Both firms take pains to thank Senator Dick Durban and Rep Steny Hoyer for their leadership in preparing the non-legislative conclusion of months of bitter acrimony. Culled GM and Chrysler dealers, you know who to make your campaign donations to… unless you’re a member of the dissident group the Committee To Restore Dealer Rights. According to Automotive News [sub], the group says the new plans will only allow “between 39 and 51” culled GM dealers to be reinstated. “The GM proposal guarantees that they would win every arbitration,” says one member of the committee, who alleges that the new process is based on the same allegedly flawed data the initial cull was based on. Hit the jump for the plan outlines.

While other brands are busy closing down dealers, Volkswagen is buying them. They buy the big ones, to be exact. The smaller ones have been eliminated ever since yours truly has been working for VW.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: if you want proof that Ford’s water-walking CEO doesn’t “get” automotive branding, look at Lincoln. The Blue Oval Boyz’ upmarket marque is in total disarray. Lincoln lacks anything approaching an effective brand proposition; it’s burning through tag lines almost as quickly and ineffectively as the industry standard for pitiful performance (Buick). Does it even matter? Lincoln’s line of lackluster products simply aren’t good enough to make it in The Bigs. And then there’s the Medusa-class disaster known as the MKT: a poorly-built, misbegotten machine constructed on Big Al’s watch. Automotive News [sub] deployed no less than three writers to talk to Mulally about languid old Lincoln, AND they spotted him the lazy journalist’s and persnickety PR person’s best friend: the Q&A format. Even so, the result is an extraordinary non-outburst from an executive who believes that combining Ford and Lincoln Mercury dealers is a good thing. Check out this exchange:

The recent revelation that congresspeople have been successful in coercing GM to rescind dealer closures in their districts, has the rest of our elected representatives (not to mention GM itself) sitting up and taking notice. In a conference call with Michigan’s congressional delegation, Fritz Henderson said GM was close to a deal which would restore a number of “mistakenly” closed dealerships. But GM hasn’t met with rejected dealers in weeks, and the Committee To Restore Dealer Rights is unaware of any such agreement. “[Henderson] was very vague, and the plan sounded inadequate to me,” Michigan Republican Hoekstra tells Automotive News [sub]. “He explained, for instance, that they might reopen some franchises if they found errors, but he didn’t say what those errors might be.” Henderson also rejected the dealer demand for compensation of $3,000 per vehicle sold in 2006, 2007 and 2008, further supporting suspicions that GM doesn’t have a deal at all. So what is happening?