“Do you have a moment for a brief survey?”
How many times have you been assaulted with that question?
It sounds innocuous enough at first: “Do you have a moment?”
Who doesn’t have at least one moment to spare for a brief survey, especially when that “brief survey” is positioned as a means to better serve the aftermarket and especially when the operative expression is “brief”?
We are assaulted with requests like these daily, and I can tell you with absolute certainty those brief moments can really begin to add up. And yet they are, nevertheless, somehow irresistible: especially when chained to the promise of better serving the industry.
Well, this is the story of just such a survey and my fear that it will not benefit anyone other than the giant international financial institution that created it. Worse, I fear there is more to fear.
I fear the accuracy and efficacy of any automotive survey whose authors can’t spell Camaro correctly (spelled Camero in the survey). They say the “devil is in the details.” If it is, this devil was in the proofread, and its result leaves you wondering where the other faults and inadequacies might be hiding.
Admittedly, my fears may be without cause – the product of an overworked and overactive imagination. But my concern is real nonetheless, fueled by a number of other problems I see with this particular survey and the many others like it.
It could be my own lack of knowledge – I’ll admit to that too. I didn’t graduate from a prestigious university. I don’t have an MBA from one of the better business schools. All I have to base my concerns on is a lifetime of experience, a modicum of common sense and the realization that when things don’t fit well together, there is a good chance they’re not meant to be together. This survey may be a pretty good example of just that.
You see, it compares the performance of four different companies supplying parts to the aftermarket, called out as “national chains” throughout the questionnaire. I have no problem with the fact that all are, in fact, national. However, I do have a problem with the “chains’’ they chose as a basis for their research. But as difficult as it is for me to reconcile the choices they included – one truly national, wholesale-oriented, traditional aftermarket supplier; one traditional aftermarket supplier with its roots deep in the repair community but with an almost equal mix of wholesale and retail sales; and two “traditional” retailers desperately fighting for a foothold in the repair community (my segment of the industry) – it’s the comparison itself that’s giving me trouble: an apple, an orange and a couple of mangos. They’re all fruit, but each has its own distinct texture and taste. The authors’ premise was that the “national chains” they chose would have a deeper inventory available than “local stores” might. Believe it or not, I don’t have a problem with that assumption. However, I do have a problem with the fact that they failed to consider or chose to ignore the thousands of “local stores” throughout the country affiliated with the many marketing groups that have an equally deep inventory and availability.
Please don’t misunderstand – I really believe their assessment of the companies they looked at is spot on. However, it’s the companies they didn’t look at that have me wondering. It may be that I just don’t understand what they were trying to accomplish – that is, after all, more than possible.
Maybe I should call them or, better yet, create a survey of my own. That way, when I do call, I can begin with, “Excuse me, do you have a moment for a brief survey?”
