Well, it just wouldn’t be the holiday season unless we got more of those professional faxes from our friends in Columbus. The spirit of the Grinch is alive indeed. This time it is another pricing structure advisory from the “National Glass Program” on behalf of another insurer. And naturally, the prices contained herein are not the “lowest available” to the insurer. No, they may not be, but, in my opinion, are just low enough to encourage the use of substandard glass and substandard installation procedures.
The notice goes on to advise that, “Our policyholders have the right of personal choice and preference in their selection of an automotive glass shop.” Is that really accurate? In my opinion, there is not a shop among us that does not participate in this network that is not familiar with the tactics that are used by this particular network. And labeling it harassment would be too complimentary.
This advisory, which once again lacks any hint of professionalism, proclaims that the insurer represented “does not consent to any assignment of proceeds of glass claims.” Excuse me, but Mr. Columbus Network, does not every single dispatch that you forward to the shop require our customer to sign your acknowledgement? Perhaps a little refresher is necessary.
“I authorize my insurance, fleet, or leasing company to pay XXXXXXX directly for this claim.” Isn’t that an assignment of proceeds? Is it instructing the glass shop that they better collect upfront, to make certain that they get paid? Or is this another modification intended purely to promote the best interests of the network/insurance company thereby shortchanging the policyholder? Believe me, I would much rather have my customer pay our shop for its services directly and have the insurance company reimburse its customer, the way it should be.
I have to admit, for a publicly traded company and the continued lack of professionalism, you sure keep me laughing like my stomach is a bowl full of jelly. A jolly old elf, indeed.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
New Policy?
Just as I was ready to leave the office the other night, one of those infamous faxes was coming over the fax machine—you know, the one that originates in the Midwest with no corporate letterhead, but appears to be an "official" policy statement from an insurance company. Its contents were the same nonsense that usually comes on any fax that originates out of this Midwestern call center and said something to the effect that if you start to repair a vehicle without the insured or the agent officially reporting the claim to the network, you will not get paid. If you haven't had the opportunity to read this "official" policy statement, please take the time to do so. After you are able to contain your laughter, try to decipher what the underlying motive might be.
You first might begin by asking yourself, are these people for real? Is this what you would expect from an "official" policy statement released by a major insurance company?
Since this document lacks any hint of professionalism, would anyone accept that this is an "official" document originating from the insurance company? An insurance company surely has the right to require any procedure to insure compliance with the product it sells, but issue the directive to the policyholder. After all, you have no business relationship with the shop.
Now, let's use some reasoning and see if we can dissect the real motive here. I believe that the TPA behind forwarding this fax has really stepped up its poaching of claims. You do not need to look too far—there are examples all over the Internet. Just the other day, we had two customers who were called back on at least two attempts to sway them to use the services of another shop. And guess what shop? I ask you Mr. CEO, is this educating the customer like the insurance companies supposedly ask you to do? I ask you Mr. CEO, in light of your company’s proclamation that so few policyholders have a shop in mind when they call in the first notice of loss, why two and three follow-up calls in an attempt to get them to change their minds after they insist on our shops? I ask you, Mr. CEO, why must your company do this when you have publicly proclaimed that your company is not our competition?
So just what is the real reason behind this document? Sorry, time is up. This procedural bulletin is nothing more than an opportunity to steal more of our business. If you haven't performed or started the work, guess what? They have more time on the clock to "educate" the customer. But in my humble opinion, I would rather replace the phrase "educate" with harass. After all, does it make any sense? If our customer has the glass addendum on their policy, they have the right to choose the service provider of their choice—a right protected by laws in many of the fifty states. Technically, all that our customer is doing is using a product, insurance, that they purchased for this very purpose—to indemnify them in the case of an accident. Mr. TPA, I assure you. One way or another we will get paid for our services.
And another thought. Now that we have dispelled the proclamation that "we are not your competition" as nonsense, I challenge you to compete with the independent shops fairly, and let us see who ultimately earns more business. Many independents are giving you more, quality glass and installs according to standards. Unfortunately, independents shops do not have the luxury of an "average guaranteed invoice."
You first might begin by asking yourself, are these people for real? Is this what you would expect from an "official" policy statement released by a major insurance company?
Since this document lacks any hint of professionalism, would anyone accept that this is an "official" document originating from the insurance company? An insurance company surely has the right to require any procedure to insure compliance with the product it sells, but issue the directive to the policyholder. After all, you have no business relationship with the shop.
Now, let's use some reasoning and see if we can dissect the real motive here. I believe that the TPA behind forwarding this fax has really stepped up its poaching of claims. You do not need to look too far—there are examples all over the Internet. Just the other day, we had two customers who were called back on at least two attempts to sway them to use the services of another shop. And guess what shop? I ask you Mr. CEO, is this educating the customer like the insurance companies supposedly ask you to do? I ask you Mr. CEO, in light of your company’s proclamation that so few policyholders have a shop in mind when they call in the first notice of loss, why two and three follow-up calls in an attempt to get them to change their minds after they insist on our shops? I ask you, Mr. CEO, why must your company do this when you have publicly proclaimed that your company is not our competition?
So just what is the real reason behind this document? Sorry, time is up. This procedural bulletin is nothing more than an opportunity to steal more of our business. If you haven't performed or started the work, guess what? They have more time on the clock to "educate" the customer. But in my humble opinion, I would rather replace the phrase "educate" with harass. After all, does it make any sense? If our customer has the glass addendum on their policy, they have the right to choose the service provider of their choice—a right protected by laws in many of the fifty states. Technically, all that our customer is doing is using a product, insurance, that they purchased for this very purpose—to indemnify them in the case of an accident. Mr. TPA, I assure you. One way or another we will get paid for our services.
And another thought. Now that we have dispelled the proclamation that "we are not your competition" as nonsense, I challenge you to compete with the independent shops fairly, and let us see who ultimately earns more business. Many independents are giving you more, quality glass and installs according to standards. Unfortunately, independents shops do not have the luxury of an "average guaranteed invoice."
Monday, November 16, 2009
Competitive Pricing?
Recently, in response to a request for a short payment that I had initiated, the insurance company representative responded that the company already pays a “competitive price” for auto glass replacement and could not justify paying any more. I thought to myself, “Interesting, the insurer pays a competitive price.”
But just what is that “competitive price” to which he refers and how is it determined? Does “competitive price” mean paying the lowest price for “like kind and quality?” In other words, there is no apparent difference in the quality of the glass and the level of service provided by Shop A and Shop B, but Shop A charges less, so Shop A has set the “competitive price.” Well, I guess I could swallow that as being reasonable. But we certainly know this not to be the case.
And then another question comes to mind: why is the “competitive price” established by this particular insurance company so much less than the “competitive price” established by other companies? Are they operating within a different marketplace? Do they use different variables in calculating this “competitive price?” Throw standardized pricing and standardized labor hours for each job into this mix. Does a certain percentage off a list price allow us to conclude that there is any industry confidence in the established list price? Does a certain figure per labor hour allow us to conclude that there is any confidence in the book times established for each installation? All valid questions, don’t you agree?
On November 3, glassBYTEs reported that a shop’s AGRSS registration absolved it for removing a windshield and not reinstalling a new one because it would not be safe to do so. The article reported that the windshield that was removed was installed with bathtub caulking. Imagine that, installed with bathtub caulk. And if this was an insurance job, just how much do you think this shop was paid? Without a doubt, and let’s say it together, the prevailing “COMPETITIVE PRICE.” So it was not only a creative install, but in the eyes of the insurance company, a competitive install. I will go one step further and bet that this shop has its own certification program and is subject to self audit.
Folks, let’s get real. This is not an isolated incident. This happens frequently. However, we operate in an industry that is loosely regulated and subjected to arbitrary numbers. Include in this equation third-party administrators with major conflicts and we get shops that install windshields with bathtub caulk.
So I feel it is my professional responsibility to offer a solution. In my estimation, we need tiered pricing. First, we should have a “competitive price.” And then we should have a “creative price.” I think we can all agree that at the very least, insurers should not be paying a competitive price to shops using bathtub caulk. A shop using bathtub caulk should be paid a “creative price.” After all, the standardized price on bathtub caulk should be less than urethane, allowing insurance companies to pad their bottom lines even more.
But just what is that “competitive price” to which he refers and how is it determined? Does “competitive price” mean paying the lowest price for “like kind and quality?” In other words, there is no apparent difference in the quality of the glass and the level of service provided by Shop A and Shop B, but Shop A charges less, so Shop A has set the “competitive price.” Well, I guess I could swallow that as being reasonable. But we certainly know this not to be the case.
And then another question comes to mind: why is the “competitive price” established by this particular insurance company so much less than the “competitive price” established by other companies? Are they operating within a different marketplace? Do they use different variables in calculating this “competitive price?” Throw standardized pricing and standardized labor hours for each job into this mix. Does a certain percentage off a list price allow us to conclude that there is any industry confidence in the established list price? Does a certain figure per labor hour allow us to conclude that there is any confidence in the book times established for each installation? All valid questions, don’t you agree?
On November 3, glassBYTEs reported that a shop’s AGRSS registration absolved it for removing a windshield and not reinstalling a new one because it would not be safe to do so. The article reported that the windshield that was removed was installed with bathtub caulking. Imagine that, installed with bathtub caulk. And if this was an insurance job, just how much do you think this shop was paid? Without a doubt, and let’s say it together, the prevailing “COMPETITIVE PRICE.” So it was not only a creative install, but in the eyes of the insurance company, a competitive install. I will go one step further and bet that this shop has its own certification program and is subject to self audit.
Folks, let’s get real. This is not an isolated incident. This happens frequently. However, we operate in an industry that is loosely regulated and subjected to arbitrary numbers. Include in this equation third-party administrators with major conflicts and we get shops that install windshields with bathtub caulk.
So I feel it is my professional responsibility to offer a solution. In my estimation, we need tiered pricing. First, we should have a “competitive price.” And then we should have a “creative price.” I think we can all agree that at the very least, insurers should not be paying a competitive price to shops using bathtub caulk. A shop using bathtub caulk should be paid a “creative price.” After all, the standardized price on bathtub caulk should be less than urethane, allowing insurance companies to pad their bottom lines even more.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This
I was overcome with emotion when the “good hands people” notified our shop that we had attained “Distinguished Performer” status. With tears of joy streaming down my face, I continued to read on that with all the glass shops out there, we have been elevated. The hard work of our technicians, support staff and commitment to customer service was finally paying off. To the “good hands people” we were now ranked with the best of the best. And like they say in that well known beer commercial, “It doesn’t get any better than this.”
I had to re-read the short e-mail, received by our company’s president, because it was almost too good to be true. I have never considered myself to be a skeptic, but given the nature of the auto glass industry, an insurance company just doesn’t congratulate you without a hitch. It just doesn’t happen. So I reread the email and guess what? I was right, there was a catch. Imagine that. Not only were we now considered among the best, but on the date that we would be formally recognized as the best, we would have to continue to outperform, for less money. You just can’t beat that. And to top it off, there was no action required on our part. The transition to this “elite” status would be seamless.
In all honesty, we didn’t even have to think twice. Without hesitation, we will be cooperative and take care of our mutual customer, making you look good while you enhance your bottom line and we can sacrifice ours. It would be an honor. After all, these opportunities do not come by everyday. We wouldn’t think of using inferior glass or compromising our service. After all, we aren’t in business to make money. Rather, we are in business to serve the insurance companies. Who wouldn’t jump at that chance? Actually, we thrive on the challenge. Watch our profit margins erode and see how long we can stay in business.
To the executives at the helm and those with the creativity to develop these generous programs, I hope that you will take the time out of your hectic schedules, when your bonus checks are distributed, to take a moment and reflect. And maybe, just maybe, please consider sending out another congratulatory note, including thanks, to those of us who are most grateful that you had the dignity to throw us a few crumbs from the table.
I had to re-read the short e-mail, received by our company’s president, because it was almost too good to be true. I have never considered myself to be a skeptic, but given the nature of the auto glass industry, an insurance company just doesn’t congratulate you without a hitch. It just doesn’t happen. So I reread the email and guess what? I was right, there was a catch. Imagine that. Not only were we now considered among the best, but on the date that we would be formally recognized as the best, we would have to continue to outperform, for less money. You just can’t beat that. And to top it off, there was no action required on our part. The transition to this “elite” status would be seamless.
In all honesty, we didn’t even have to think twice. Without hesitation, we will be cooperative and take care of our mutual customer, making you look good while you enhance your bottom line and we can sacrifice ours. It would be an honor. After all, these opportunities do not come by everyday. We wouldn’t think of using inferior glass or compromising our service. After all, we aren’t in business to make money. Rather, we are in business to serve the insurance companies. Who wouldn’t jump at that chance? Actually, we thrive on the challenge. Watch our profit margins erode and see how long we can stay in business.
To the executives at the helm and those with the creativity to develop these generous programs, I hope that you will take the time out of your hectic schedules, when your bonus checks are distributed, to take a moment and reflect. And maybe, just maybe, please consider sending out another congratulatory note, including thanks, to those of us who are most grateful that you had the dignity to throw us a few crumbs from the table.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Repair Awareness
As promised, the barrage of television commercials, promoting windshield repair has begun. Without a doubt, they are creating a public awareness about windshield repair. They certainly have been a boon for our business. Our windshield repair service has definitely seen a spike. But where the rubber meets the road, are these ads accomplishing what they are intended to for the competition? Customers coming through our doors admit they have seen the ads, but many still do not pronounce the host company’s name right. So, the jury is out on the impact they are having on branding and probably will be for sometime.
In the face of this barrage, and coming on the heels of the radio ads, and the other adverse conditions we must confront in this industry, like steering, what can independent glass shops do? I have been employed by a shop that has served our market since 1957. While a neophyte to this industry, I have witnessed a variety of obstacles that we have to overcome on a daily basis to serve our customers. And believe me, we all can concede that it is not getting any easier. But in the face of these challenges, there is one thing that I learned during my presence in this service industry.
That is that you must continue to do what you have been doing that made your shop a success in the first place. You must rise above the adversity and make your customers your number one priority. In other words, offer a service that is second to none. While I understand that this may be easier said than done, but if you take care of your customer, success will follow. Again, easier said than done. But just take a moment and sit back and assess the state of affairs in this industry, and you may come around to my way of thinking.
In many installs, the quality of glass is poor and as the imported glass continues to increase, that quality is sure to deteriorate further. And I am certain you have serviced vehicles that have had their windshields replaced before and in many cases you will see firsthand the shoddy workmanship that is out there. In most cases, you can tell by the brand of glass where the job was done. Use this knowledge to educate your customers and let them know. Continue to educate them as to what insurance companies and their third-party administrators are doing. And whenever you can, get your customers involved. Remind them of the cost of their vehicles and the importance of proper and safe windshield installation. And then follow through with the best service that you can provide. Believe me, the word of mouth by your customers of a pleasant experience at your shop is your best friend. And please don’t get me wrong. There are many people working in this industry to eliminate the unfair trade practices that we all confront on a daily basis. In the end, we must all compete on our merits and nothing else. In this effort, we must be successful and we will be successful.
In the face of this barrage, and coming on the heels of the radio ads, and the other adverse conditions we must confront in this industry, like steering, what can independent glass shops do? I have been employed by a shop that has served our market since 1957. While a neophyte to this industry, I have witnessed a variety of obstacles that we have to overcome on a daily basis to serve our customers. And believe me, we all can concede that it is not getting any easier. But in the face of these challenges, there is one thing that I learned during my presence in this service industry.
That is that you must continue to do what you have been doing that made your shop a success in the first place. You must rise above the adversity and make your customers your number one priority. In other words, offer a service that is second to none. While I understand that this may be easier said than done, but if you take care of your customer, success will follow. Again, easier said than done. But just take a moment and sit back and assess the state of affairs in this industry, and you may come around to my way of thinking.
In many installs, the quality of glass is poor and as the imported glass continues to increase, that quality is sure to deteriorate further. And I am certain you have serviced vehicles that have had their windshields replaced before and in many cases you will see firsthand the shoddy workmanship that is out there. In most cases, you can tell by the brand of glass where the job was done. Use this knowledge to educate your customers and let them know. Continue to educate them as to what insurance companies and their third-party administrators are doing. And whenever you can, get your customers involved. Remind them of the cost of their vehicles and the importance of proper and safe windshield installation. And then follow through with the best service that you can provide. Believe me, the word of mouth by your customers of a pleasant experience at your shop is your best friend. And please don’t get me wrong. There are many people working in this industry to eliminate the unfair trade practices that we all confront on a daily basis. In the end, we must all compete on our merits and nothing else. In this effort, we must be successful and we will be successful.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
It's About Time
On September 1, 2009, Mr. Paul Magaril, regional manager for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI), issued a statement reacting to the Connecticut Attorney General’s request for federal oversight in auto body repairs. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate and ultimately force insurers to stop practices that inhibit consumer choice. While I understand that he was addressing the auto body repair industry, as a member of the auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) industry, the only thing I can say is, “It is about time.” Yes, it is about time that someone in an authoritative position has taken the insurance industry to task for what they have been doing for years and that is suppressing competition to enhance their bottom lines.
In his statement, responding to Blumenthal’s call for an investigation, Mr. Magaril had the audacity to label the allegations as “patently false.” He goes on to proclaim that the investigation would harm and not help the consumer. To use a non-professional phrase, what is this man smoking? Obviously, Magaril is either oblivious to what is going on within the auto body repair and AGRR industries or he is getting paid very well to spew nonsense. I suggest the latter.
In Magaril’s statement, he argues that Blumenthal is proposing that the U.S. Attorney General pursue action that will suppress competition. Then he goes on to say that direct repair programs offer consumers additional options, but he doesn’t disclose that insurers use a variety of tactics to virtually force consumers to use these direct repair programs. And their tactics deviate far from providing consumers with information that will allow them to make an informed decision. Within the AGRR industry, I can assure you that the tactics used by the third-party administrators to sway consumers to “preferred” shops are blatant and the Independent Glass Association has initiated a campaign to capture these incidences of steering. Yes, steering is a major problem within the AGRR industry, as well, and, yes, Mr. Magaril, these actions are suppressing competition.
Fortunately, trade associations within both industries are working diligently to level the playing field and offer consumers a choice. Yes, Mr. Magaril, competition is about “free” choice—that is, giving consumers the uninhibited right to choose the repair shop of their choice. And let me ask you this: who is lining their own pockets at the expense of consumers? You may want to rethink that statement because it certainly is not the hard-working shop owners and employees serving these industries. Currently, I am of the opinion that many of those 1,000-member companies are selling consumers a product and they are not getting what they are paying for. And they must be taken to task. Thank you, Attorney General Blumenthal.
In his statement, responding to Blumenthal’s call for an investigation, Mr. Magaril had the audacity to label the allegations as “patently false.” He goes on to proclaim that the investigation would harm and not help the consumer. To use a non-professional phrase, what is this man smoking? Obviously, Magaril is either oblivious to what is going on within the auto body repair and AGRR industries or he is getting paid very well to spew nonsense. I suggest the latter.
In Magaril’s statement, he argues that Blumenthal is proposing that the U.S. Attorney General pursue action that will suppress competition. Then he goes on to say that direct repair programs offer consumers additional options, but he doesn’t disclose that insurers use a variety of tactics to virtually force consumers to use these direct repair programs. And their tactics deviate far from providing consumers with information that will allow them to make an informed decision. Within the AGRR industry, I can assure you that the tactics used by the third-party administrators to sway consumers to “preferred” shops are blatant and the Independent Glass Association has initiated a campaign to capture these incidences of steering. Yes, steering is a major problem within the AGRR industry, as well, and, yes, Mr. Magaril, these actions are suppressing competition.
Fortunately, trade associations within both industries are working diligently to level the playing field and offer consumers a choice. Yes, Mr. Magaril, competition is about “free” choice—that is, giving consumers the uninhibited right to choose the repair shop of their choice. And let me ask you this: who is lining their own pockets at the expense of consumers? You may want to rethink that statement because it certainly is not the hard-working shop owners and employees serving these industries. Currently, I am of the opinion that many of those 1,000-member companies are selling consumers a product and they are not getting what they are paying for. And they must be taken to task. Thank you, Attorney General Blumenthal.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
An Unusual Dream
Friday afternoon, I took the afternoon off for some R and R. I was lounging by my pool and I fell asleep. While napping I had a very unusual dream.
I dreamt that after the Obama administration passed its healthcare legislation, the President decided that he wanted every citizen that was of legal driving age to own an automobile. Of course, it had to get the required mileage, etc. In addition, he wanted every automobile to be covered by insurance that included comprehensive coverage with an auto glass endorsement and no deductible.
There would be no restrictions such as pricing caps, etc. You would have the freedom to have your vehicle serviced by any collision or auto glass shop that you desired. What was very interesting was that unlike the healthcare policies that covered the President and members of the Congress, the very people that would pass this legislation wanted the ability to opt out and be able to subscribe to the same policy offered to the general public at large. You see, they were on some policy underwritten by some company whose ad prop was a green lizard type and they wanted to have the ability to have their auto glass replaced by a quality shop, using quality materials and employing quality technicians.
They did not want to be subjected to harassment by some third-party when calling in their claims. They simply wanted the freedom to have their cars serviced where they could trust that the job would be done correctly and safely. What was ironic was that everyone who attended the town hall meetings held by their representatives were adamant about having this program enacted. They actually wanted the government to legislate this new program. There was no concern for the cost of the program or the fact that the government would be involved.
People were tired about having to listen to some customer service representative for 20 minutes trying to talk them into taking their car to some box store styled repair and replacement shop. They were exhausted after simply trying to make an appointment with a shop of their choosing and getting railroaded by some individual located at some call center in the Midwest.
Well, after months of debate and public outcry, the bill was finally reconciled in a joint committee of both houses and the day finally came for it to come up for a vote. A short time after the voting began, I woke up after being licked across the face by my 140-pound black lab, Otis. Unfortunately, we will never know how the vote would turn out.
What a dream. In the course of a short, eventful half-hour snooze, the ills of the automotive glass repair and replacement industry were almost fixed. Back to the nightmare.
I dreamt that after the Obama administration passed its healthcare legislation, the President decided that he wanted every citizen that was of legal driving age to own an automobile. Of course, it had to get the required mileage, etc. In addition, he wanted every automobile to be covered by insurance that included comprehensive coverage with an auto glass endorsement and no deductible.
There would be no restrictions such as pricing caps, etc. You would have the freedom to have your vehicle serviced by any collision or auto glass shop that you desired. What was very interesting was that unlike the healthcare policies that covered the President and members of the Congress, the very people that would pass this legislation wanted the ability to opt out and be able to subscribe to the same policy offered to the general public at large. You see, they were on some policy underwritten by some company whose ad prop was a green lizard type and they wanted to have the ability to have their auto glass replaced by a quality shop, using quality materials and employing quality technicians.
They did not want to be subjected to harassment by some third-party when calling in their claims. They simply wanted the freedom to have their cars serviced where they could trust that the job would be done correctly and safely. What was ironic was that everyone who attended the town hall meetings held by their representatives were adamant about having this program enacted. They actually wanted the government to legislate this new program. There was no concern for the cost of the program or the fact that the government would be involved.
People were tired about having to listen to some customer service representative for 20 minutes trying to talk them into taking their car to some box store styled repair and replacement shop. They were exhausted after simply trying to make an appointment with a shop of their choosing and getting railroaded by some individual located at some call center in the Midwest.
Well, after months of debate and public outcry, the bill was finally reconciled in a joint committee of both houses and the day finally came for it to come up for a vote. A short time after the voting began, I woke up after being licked across the face by my 140-pound black lab, Otis. Unfortunately, we will never know how the vote would turn out.
What a dream. In the course of a short, eventful half-hour snooze, the ills of the automotive glass repair and replacement industry were almost fixed. Back to the nightmare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)