8 Advertising Potholes Auto Dealers Should Avoid

In a drive to encourage truth in auto advertising, the FTC has announced Operation Steer Clear – a coast-to-coast law enforcement sweep focusing on deceptive TV, newspaper, and online claims about sales, financing, and leasing. If you have clients in the auto industry, the lessons of Operation Steer Clear can help keep them on the right track.

The companies named in the 10 lawsuits include four California dealers: Casino Auto Sales in La Puente, Rainbow Auto Sales in South Gate, Honda of Hollywood in Los Angeles, and Norm Reeves Honda in Cerritos. Also the subject of law enforcement action are Fowlerville Ford in Fowlerville, Michigan; Nissan of South Atlanta in Morrow, Georgia; Infiniti of Clarendon Hills in Clarendon Hills, Illinois; and Paramount Kia in Hickory, North Carolina. In addition, the FTC took action against Texas-based Southwest Kia companies, including New World Auto Imports in Dallas, New World Auto Imports in Rockwall, and Hampton Two Auto Corporations in Mesquite. A lawsuit against Courtesy Auto Group in Attleboro, Massachusetts is heading to trial before an Administrative Law Judge.

You’ll want to review the complaints to see the allegations in each particular case, but busy dealers can supplement their TO DO lists with these TO DON’TS, ad-related practices the FTC challenged as illegal in one of more of the cases:

Deceptive pricing. Some dealers lured prospective buyers onto the lot by advertising vehicles at a specific low price. But the real price was $5,000 more. (The complaint mentions that some of these ads involved a mix of English and Spanish.)

Deceptive teaser payments. In some cases, dealers advertised attention-grabbing low monthly payments. What they didn’t explain up front was that those were temporary teaser payments that would get jacked up after a short period. The FTC says dealers didn’t state the number of payments and how much they would be after those first few low monthly payments.
Undisclosed balloon payments. Another dealer advertised low monthly payments without clearly disclosing that buyers would owe a final balloon payment. What’s more, the FTC says the dealer didn’t disclose the amount of that balloon – in this case, over $10,000.

False $0 up-front leasing claims. Some companies advertised that consumers wouldn’t have to pay anything up front to lease a car. Not true, says the FTC. In fact, lurking behind those goose eggs were hefty fees and other amounts due up front.

Undisclosed lease terms. The FTC says some companies touted low up-front amounts and low monthly payments in their ads without clearly explaining that the transaction was actually a lease and involved substantial hidden fees.
Hidden rates. In one case, the FTC charged that the dealer claimed to offer 0% for 60 months. But as it turned out, the rate applied only if people bought a new car for up to a certain dollar amount – in one instance $12,000. If the car of a consumer’s dreams was, say, $18,000, the buyer would have to pay a higher rate, and that rate wasn’t clearly stated.

Bogus prize promotions. One dealership used a mailer to get folks in the door, falsely claiming the consumer had won a sweepstakes prize.
Credit and leasing violations. In many of the cases, the FTC charged that companies violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Reg Z, the Consumer Leasing Act, and Reg M – long-standing laws that any dealer should be familiar with. One common thread: the failure to disclose key credit- or lease-related terms in ads.

To settle the FTC lawsuits, the companies have signed proposed orders that will change how they do business in the future. Notable terms in these legally binding settlements: a ban on ads that misrepresent the cost to buy, lease, or finance a vehicle and a prohibition on other deceptive claims about pricing, sale, leasing, or financing. When charged in the complaint, the orders mandate that dealers abide by TILA and the Consumer Leasing Act.

Also forbidden: bogus claims about sweepstakes, prizes, or other incentives.
The FTC is accepting comments about the proposed settlements by the February 10, 2014, deadline.

• By Lesley Fair


3 Reasons Why “Big Data” Isn’t Really All THAT Big

Quality Payday Leads

Over the last couple of years, Big Data has been unavoidable. It’s not just big, it’s massive. If you throw a stone down the streets of London or New York, you’ve got as much a chance of hitting a big data guru as you do a social media guru.

Undoubtedly, there is great power in data, but is Big Data all it’s cracked up to be?

50% of my brain thinks Big Data is great, and 50% of me thinks it’s a neologism. I’ve found it difficult to reconcile all of the varying information out there about it.

So join me for the first part of a two-part series looking at Big Data. In part one, I’ll look at Three reasons why Big Data is a big load of baloney. And next week in part two, I’ll look at Three reasons why Big Data is awesome.

1. Big trends are trendy

My pet rock still hasn’t moved, and my Tickle-Me-Elmo still won’t shut up. And also, Big Data is big, at least according to Google Trends:

Targeted Data

Some other terms once synonymous with the inter-web were pretty trendy too. Remember this one?

Auto Finance Leads

The adoption curve of the term “web 2.0” looks quite similar to where we are now with Big Data. And yet, if you still use the term “web 2.0” in your job, then you probably think the Fresh Prince still lives in West Philadelphia. (He doesn’t.)

The thing about Big Data is that it really isn’t anything new. Cluster analyses, propensity modelling, neural networks and the like have been in use in the marketing sphere for quite some time.

The phrase used a few years ago for this sort of stuff was ‘business intelligence’


But now, we don’t care about business intelligence anymore. Who needs intelligence? It’s over-rated. Like Goethe said, “All intelligent thoughts have already been thought”.

And yet, Big Data is everywhere. Why shouldn’t it be? It’s BIG. However, you ask 10 people what Big Data means, you’ll get 10 answers, none of which make much sense.

Maybe it’s because of this:


We’ve all seen Moneyball and read Nate Silver’s blog. There are people out there who are better at statistics than you. And this is scary.

So what’s the solution? Throw a bunch of money at Big Data, whatever it is, and sleep soundly knowing that you’ve gainfully employed a math graduate.

And therefore, Big Data is a big load of baloney.

2. Missing one V

Gartner defines Big Data as requiring Three V’s: Volume, Velocity, and Variety. So let’s look at this a bit deeper.

Volume of data: for sure, there’s loads of data out there. Huge amounts. Check.

Velocity of data: yep, data is moved around in large quantities faster than ever before. Check.

Variety of data: in most digital marketing ecosystems, there are the following types of data (yes, I know there are more, but for the sake of argument bear with me):

  • Site stats.
  • Email engagement stats.
  • Mobile/SMS stats.
  • Past purchases.
  • Demographics, preferences etc.

And within each of these, the options are finite. For example, in email, most people measure (at the very least) opens, clicks and conversions. That’s three types of data.

And for all of the other areas above it’s the same. For the sake of argument, let’s say that we’ve got 30 types of data in total.

This is the thing. 30 types of structured data. Processing this data doesn’t require a super-computer, it simply requires robust statistical methodology.

So, if you’re a digital marketer, what you actually have is ‘a few sets of structured, small data’, not ‘Big Data’.

And therefore, Big Data is a big load of baloney.

3. You can perfectly predict the past

With the beginning of the National Hockey League’s 2013-14 season fast approaching, I’ve been spending a lot of time lately trying to determine the best bets to place on the eventual winner.

And of course, it seems Big Data is the best route to my next million dollars. (Btw if anyone is interested in joining my hockey pool then drop me a line – go-live is 1st October!)

I downloaded as many team statistics as I could from last season and embedded them into a spreadsheet. It included rudimentary statistics such as Goals For and Goals Against, right through to Winning % when trailing after two periods, CORSI 5v5, and defensive zone exit rate.

Then I ran a multiple regression and removed non-causal variables. I perfected the model such that the formula spat out expected point totals that were on average within 0.5 points of the actual result.

When I plugged in the raw data from the previous season, the outputted expected results weren’t even close to the actual results.

This is a perfect case of what is called ‘over-fitting’.

When you have a lot of data, the urge is to use all of it and create an uber-complex, bullet-proof formula. Take all of your data points and find the trendline that touches everything. But there’s an inherent problem with this – all you’ve done is create a formula to perfectly predict the past.

The risks that come with an over-fitted model are twofold:

  1. You are assuming that the future will      be the same as the past.
  2. Adding or removing variables becomes      extremely difficult and risky.

So despite there being lots of data out there, the dominant strategy is to focus on the causal variables. In the hockey allegory above, while I won’t reveal my secrets, two of the stronger predictors of eventual success are goal differential and shot differential.

Not rocket science, I know – if you take more shots than your opponents you’ll generally score more goals than your opponents. However, I did learn to remove strictly correlative variables (such as Faceoff Win %, PDO and punches thrown).

Instead of focusing on Big Data and its billions of variables, I’m instead focusing on a small amount of variables that actually matter.

Within your organisation, what are your causal variables? By looking at all the Big Data available to you, you run the risk of the truly valuable signals being obfuscated by irrelevant correlates.

And therefore, Big Data is a big load of baloney.


I do too. Well, 50% of me does. Feel free to elaborate on your point of view in the comments section below.

Parry Malm is Account Director at Adestra and a guest blogger on Econsultancy. Connect with him on LinkedIn or Google+.

Topics:Data & Analytics

by caesararum

WWW.APEXDM.NET  “Your Turnkey Solution to Leads & Data”