Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Analyst Note February 2014
Similar to Analyst Note February 2014 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Analyst Note February 2014
- 1. Canada February 2014 Here’s the Deal on Delivery As a result, dealers have employed differing strategies when it comes to the final vehicle delivery process, in order to maximize both customer satisfaction as well the bottom line. But among the strategies most often in place (salesperson led delivery, employing a delivery specialist, or a second delivery) which of these is most effective? The 2013 Canadian Consumer Retail Experience Study sheds light on this critical process and provides the industry’s first look at a leading practice in this area. SATISFACTION WITH DELIVERY IS HIGHEST WHEN CONDUCTED BY A SPECIALIST Delivery Process Index Score (1,000-point scale) jd.ney@jdpa.com 416-507-3254 For many dealership salespeople, delivery of a new vehicle is a delicate balance. While it’s clear that the delivery process significantly impacts customer satisfaction with the sales process, it can mean spending premium time away from the sales floor. 900 880 860 881 873 840 840 820 800 Delivery Specialist Salesperson Returned for Second Delivery Source: J.D. Power 2013 Canadian Consumer Retail Experience StudySM Behind the Numbers According to the study, customers who had their vehicle delivered by a delivery specialist had the highest overall satisfaction with that process, with an average score of 881 on a 1,000 point scale. That said, adoption rates across the industry remain relatively low. On average, 12% of new vehicle purchasers said their vehicle delivery was handled by a specialist as opposed to the salesperson. However, the concept of delivery specialists is gaining traction. Both on the non-luxury and luxury side of the coin, top manufacturers in terms of specialist adoption are either at, or very close to one-in-five new vehicle deliveries conducted by a specialist. These OEs also perform very well in the overall CRES study. A critical finding from the 2013 study is the negative impact on delivery process satisfaction in the event of a second delivery. Although some dealers and manufacturers utilize this as a satisfaction strategy, study data shows that this is a sub-optimal process. Interestingly, in the Non-Luxury segment, when a specialist is involved in the initial delivery, the need for a second delivery drops to 13% from 24%. As many dealers and OEs now realize, the importance of the new vehicle delivery has implications not just for the overall satisfaction with the sales process for its own sake, but for much broader strategic reasons such as overall product satisfaction as well as the customer’s intent to return for service. Among purchasers who rated their purchase experience as a 10 on a 10 point scale, 76% say they will definitely return for service work that they have to pay for. When that purchase experience dips to 7 out of 10, only 27% say they will definitely return. The new-vehicle delivery is also a critical function in terms of limiting perceived quality problems, particularly regarding the types of problems that can be classified as “Difficult to Use” as opposed to actual manufacturing defects. Among owners who said their delivery was rushed, 31% said they experienced at least one problem in the first 90 days of ownership. When the delivery took the “right amount of time”, however, only 13% experienced a problem, cutting the rate by more than half. J.D. Power does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information contained in this publication and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from use of such information. Advertising claims cannot be based on information published in this publication. Reproduction of any material contained in this publication, including photocopying in part or in whole, is prohibited without the express written permission of J.D. Power . Any material quoted from this publication must be attributed to J.D. Power. © 2013 J.D. Power and Associates, McGraw Hill Financial. All Rights Reserved. 1
- 2. Brian Murphy 416-507-3253 ▪ brian.murphy1@jdpa.com February, 2014 DAYS TO TURN VEHICLE PURCHASE TYPE Percent of Total Transactions (Past 12 Months) New Vehicles New Used Vehicles Used 70 66 3 62 20 19 61 58 49 48 54 Jan-14 Dec-13 Nov-13 Oct-13 Sep-13 Jul-13 Jun-13 Apr-13 Aug-13 Loan May-13 Lease Mar-13 Cash Feb-13 Jan-13 50 MONTHLY PAYMENTS VEHICLE PRICE VS. CUSTOMER FACING PRICE Average per Customer Data from JDPA PIN Incentive Spending Report (ISR) New Lease New Loan Vehicle Price Transaction Price Jan-14 Dec-13 Nov-13 Oct-13 Sep-13 Aug-13 Jul-13 Jun-13 May-13 Apr-13 Mar-13 Feb-13 Jan-13 Jan-14 Dec-13 Nov-13 Oct-13 Sep-13 Aug-13 Jul-13 Jun-13 May-13 Apr-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 $34,000 $33,000 $32,000 $31,000 $30,000 $29,000 $28,000 $27,000 Jan-13 $590 $570 $550 $530 $510 $490 $470 PERCENT NEW-VEHICLE LOAN TERM PERCENT NEGATIVE EQUITY & TRADE-IN 72 Months and Greater Percentage of negative equity vehicles at trade-in % Negative Equity 70% 57% 60% Trade-In % 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 10% J.D. Power and Associates does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information contained in this publication and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from use of such information. Advertising claims cannot be based on informati on published in this publication. Reproduction of any material contained in this publication, including photocopying in part or in whole, is prohibited without the express written permission of J .D. Power and Associates. Any material quoted from this publication must be attributed to J.D. Power and Associates. ©2014 J.D. Power and Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Jan-14 Dec-13 Nov-13 Oct-13 Sep-13 Aug-13 Jul-13 Jun-13 May-13 Apr-13 Mar-13 Feb-13 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Jan-13 20% 0% 2