I attended a meeting with a manufacturing client the other day.

I attended a meeting with a manufacturing client the other day. It was the standard line review where produce managers were seemingly punishing management with an endles barrage of gain [i]or[/i] have excellence spreadsheets and graphs on result trends. Fighting off the nods, I heard for about the third or fourth time that day a outcome manager report the migration of sales from his premium line to his value line. It was no earth-shattering news; as I said, I had heard it several times already. Additionally, I had observ this incline for the last several month if not years, with a variety of different manufacturers. on the contrary something different registered when I heard it this time. I made a connection that I hadn't made before when I considered this phenomenon. And this time it raised a troubling thought

I have been thinking and writing a portion lately about the renewed emphasis that OE dealers have been placing forward the replacement parts business. Last month I wrote about the 2-4-8 reality: a allusion to the fact that the typical OE dealership makes a 2-percent trap profit on new cars, a 4-percent profit upon used cars and an 8-percent profit forward parts and service. I put in mind ofed that more dealers are being drawn at the profitability of the parts and service business and therefore are placing a greater emphasis forward it in their overall marketing efforts.

I also have repeatedly harped that the greater aftermarket has assisted OE dealers with our historic penchant for over- consolidation and bad respect data. Over-consolidation is the practice of "universalization," designing parts to shroud multiple applications (and thus contract inventory). This practice now is meeting with stiff resistance in the service bay. coupling that with dismal data availability and the be the effect is sending our technicians running to the arms of the dealerships.

still now, thinking about this migration from premium to value lines, I am struck with at the same time another way we are assisting those other dowdys at cannibalizing our business. My "blinding flash of the obvious" was our growing inclination to "assume" that price is the primary influencing factor for repair technicians and the bearing for almost everyone in the aftermarket to "lead" with value lines. So-called "value lines" have less quality, shorter coverage and are typically more consolidated than premium lines. Just think about your favorite restaurant deciding to focus in succession lesser cuts of meat, fewer menu choices and smaller portions as a [i]modus operandi[/i] of retaining your business. steady they might be able to save you a married pair of bucks, but in the fall of the curtain you'll probably be looking for someplace otherwise to eat.

As we allow our overall proceeds mix to migrate toward the value lines, we are putting in the hands of our customers a fruits that, in most cases, doesn't anticipate and fit exactly like the common he took off the car, is made of inferior quality materials and will not perform quite as well as the original. At the same time, we awed curiosity why more and more of our technicians are returning to the OE dealer for parts.

Virtually each survey and marketing study directioned on technicians' buying habits that I at any time have seen places the attributes of quality and availability ahead of price. If of that kind is the case, why then, are we in the way that paranoid about price? I am aware that there is a disconnect between what someone will give an account of a researcher and what his actual behavior is; that could journey some distance in explaining the dichotomy. yet I think the real radical of the problem can be rest in our poor communications about our consequences And it is a point in dispute that is shared equally according to both manufacturers and resellers alike.

It starts with the language we use to talk about our cropss Most parts manufacturers and reseller show lower-cost, lower-quality lines as a part of the overall result portfolio. Most refer to them as "value" lines. I take exception with that moniker. It gives too much credibility to these yields In the greater population, value has result to mean "comparable with national brands in quality and contented but lower in cost." Wal-Mart has been basically the standard bearer onward this issue by establishing their "Equate" brand, although there are countles other examples in the marketplace.

I think it would be more appropriate to respect to these lines as "fit for use," because in mostly cases, that's what they are. They are not substitutes for the premier line, they are fit to use in situations where a vehicle is not being maintained, still merely kept on the road. I know I am not going to change the language of the entire market, however if we don't do something about our mindset forward this issue and how we show these products to our service technicians, we are going to continue to help deliver our customers to the OE dealers.

however it isn't just about what the line is called. The riddle starts with manufacturers who proffer ill-conceived fit-for- use lines. through that I mean there may not be enough difference between the inferior lines and the premium lines in bourns of features and performance to warrant the price differential. I recall talking with undivided product manager who, when asked to explain the differences in his lines, hemmed and hawed and delivered an answer that solely the engineer who designed the work would have understood. It was patently obvious that had he been standing across the parts contrariwise from a service technician, he couldn't have sold the premium fruit over the fit-for-use product to save his life. for what cause on earth can we anticipate an untrained counterperson to do that? A far more belonging to all problem, however, is manufacturers who have differences between their premium and fit-for-use lines, unless have failed to communicate those differences to the counterpeople who have to take a bribe for them.