Analyst Note June 2013

550 views

Published on

From JD Power the Analyst Note for June 2013

Published in: Automotive
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
550
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
135
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Analyst Note June 2013

  1. 1. 1J.D. Power & Associates does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information contained in this publication and is not responsible for any errors or omissionsor 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 thispublication, including photocopying in part or in whole, is prohibited without the express written permission of J.D. Power & Associates. Any material quoted from this publication mustbe attributed to J.D. Power & Associates.© 2013 J.D. Power & Associates, McGraw Hill Financial. All Rights Reserved.CanadaJune 18, 2013Behind the NumbersWebsite Visitors Want Tools, Not Toysvirginia.connell@jdpa.com(416) 507-3247AFTER VISITING THE OEM WEBSITE,A TOP BOX FUNCTIONALITY RATING INCREASESLIKELIHOOD TO TEST DRIVE MORE OFTENSource: J.D. Power & Associates 2013 Manufacturer Website Evaluation StudySM72%66%62646668707274%incidenceLikelihoodtoTestDriveIncreasedTop box rating (10 out of 10) for functionalityTop box rating (10 out of 10) for appearanceNew-vehicle shoppers want OEM websites that enablethem to accomplish their goal of researching a vehicle.When new-vehicle shoppers are asked what is best aboutthe site and what needs improvement, this ability is citedmore frequently than the OEM’s brand image, a particularvehicle model, or the aesthetics of the website. Forshoppers to accomplish their goal, OEM websites need tobe functional as a tool and not just a pillar of graphicdesign or a lifestyle vignette.Nearly three-quarters (71%) of the open-ended surveyresponses in the 2013 Manufacturer Website EvaluationStudySMrelate to using the site as a research tool. By far,new-vehicle shoppers using manufacturer websites focuson the ease with which they can use the site. In quantifying this concept, shoppers were asked torate the website’s ability to help them perform thefollowing six tasks (on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being“Unacceptable” and 10 being “Outstanding”): Determine the estimated monthly payment Find a dealer Compare a vehicle against another vehicle Research all of the vehicle information importantto you Equip the vehicle and determine price Browse the pictures, videos, and other images ofa vehicle Among shoppers who rate the site 10 for its abilityto help them perform these tasks, 72% indicate anincrease in their likelihood to test drive a vehiclefrom that manufacturer. In contrast, among thosewho rate the site 10 for appearance, only 66%indicate an increase in their likelihood to test drive avehicle from that OEM. So, how can manufacturersincrease their vehicle sales by leveraging theirwebsite? The answer is by developing and enhancingresearch tools instead of aesthetics. One of the themes to emerge from the study is thatnew-vehicle shoppers in Canada want OEM sites toaddress the appropriate audience in terms ofcontent, including Canadian-specific content overall,content specific to Canadian regions, and improvedquality in material presented in the French language.A website’s quality and reliability as a research tooldiminishes when shoppers are able to identifymissing or inadequate information. One shopper’sresponse to the survey’s open-ended questionregarding what website improvements were neededstated, “[the] Canadian site should have the sameamount of information as the American site.” Tailored content that exceeds shoppers’expectations is paramount, as disappointmentrelated to the lack of information and functionalitymay have significant repercussions for the vehiclebrand. Arriving at a website to find that littleattention has been paid to displaying the mostrelevant information from the shopper’s perspectivewill likely impact the attention they pay to themanufacturer’s brands.
  2. 2. 2Brian Murphy416-507-3253 ▪ brian.murphy1@jdpa.comJune 18, 2013J.D. Power & Associates does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information contained in this publication and is not responsible for any errors or omissionsor 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 thispublication, including photocopying in part or in whole, is prohibited without the express written permission of J.D. Power & Associates. Any material quoted from this publication mustbe attributed to J.D. Power & Associates.© 2013 J.D. Power & Associates, McGraw Hill Financial. All Rights Reserved.61201948493New Vehicles Used VehiclesCash Lease Loan4853586368May-12Jun-12Jul-12Aug-12Sep-12Oct-12Nov-12Dec-12Jan-13Feb-13Mar-13Apr-13May-13New Used$465$485$505$525$545$565May-12Jun-12Jul-12Aug-12Sep-12Oct-12Nov-12Dec-12Jan-13Feb-13Mar-13Apr-13May-13New Lease New LoanPercent of Total Transactions (Past 12 Months)Average per Customer72 Months and Greater62%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%200820092010201120122013Data from JDPA PIN Incentive Spending Report (ISR)20%30%40%50%May-12Jun-12Jul-12Aug-12Sep-12Oct-12Nov-12Dec-12Jan-13Feb-13Mar-13Apr-13May-13% Negative Equity Trade-In %Percentage of negative equity vehicles at trade-in$27,000$28,000$29,000$30,000$31,000$32,000May-12Jun-12Jul-12Aug-12Sep-12Oct-12Nov-12Dec-12Jan-13Feb-13Mar-13Apr-13May-13Vehicle Price Transaction Price

×