While at a recent distributor show, I met a dealer from Montana who told me of a really interesting new program he has implemented regarding company uniforms at his shop.

The dealer contacted a variety of aftermarket companies and asked them to sponsor a particular day of the week by supplying employee shirts for that day. Each day’s shirt features both the aftermarket company’s logo and the dealership’s logo embroidered on the shirt. Each week day a different colored shirt with a different aftermarket logo is worn by employees. A weekly schedule was given to the employees to explain what shirt should be worn on what day to ensure everyone matches.

Not only do the employees look professional with an ever-changing but matching uniform, but the dealer saves on the expense of providing uniforms. The aftermarket companies that supply the shirts get high-value advertising at a next-to-nothing price. It appears to be a win/win situation for everybody.

There is a whole host of shops out there with company uniforms but this is the first time I have heard of this done with the aftermarket. Can you image walking up to an shop employee to ask a question about tonneaus and prominently seeing a “Penda,” “Truck Covers USA” or “Leer” logo on his, and every other employee at the dealership’s shirt? Would that influence your buying decision? What about the employees? Would they be more apt to steer customers to a particular brand if they were wearing that brand on their clothing? I think so. It would be hard to recommend “Brand A” when “Brand B” is on your left front shirt pocket.

Customers would naturally ask questions about the brand and employees would learn a great deal of product knowledge about that company merely out of necessity. Expert product knowledge would equate to increased sales and more profit for the shop.

My question for shops is do you see this as a positive and innovative idea or are there downsides to it? Would wearing the logo of a single company cause problems with distributors that offer competing brands? Would having more than one brand on a single shirt be appropriate? They sure don’t seem to have a problem with it in NASCAR. What are the pros and cons of a program like this?

With new truck and SUV sales in a double digit slump this year, I’m guessing there are a number of shops out there who are feeling a little like the Maytag repair man. Are you sitting waiting for new unit sales to increase so you can sell accessories and bolster your bottom line? If so, you may be waiting awhile. It seems that the “new” truck and SUV segment may continue to be slow for awhile. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t an active market out there for aftermarket products.

As trucks and SUVs get traded in for hybrids, the ole’ used car lots are going to be chuck full of these types of vehicles. I believe this will present tremendous opportunity as these vehicles become more affordable and the prices on them drop. The consumers buying them will be people who either need the utility they provide, or people looking for a toy. Both groups are prime aftermarket targets. Partnering with used car lots before and after the sale of used vehicles could turn into a gold mine. I know many of you do this already, so I wanted to see if any of you could share successful marketing ideas you have tried in regard to the used market. If we can get the creative juices flowing, maybe all of us can take a few good ideas away to try. Besides, it’s better than sitting around playing solitaire like the Maytag repair man.

We experienced a revolution in products and vehicles in the late 1980s and 1990s when GM redesigned their pickups. The other manufacturers followed suit and the result to date has been more advanced, safer, lighter, user-friendly and significantly more economical vehicles. Now it is projected that the 2009 models are following this formula.

The only way we are going to transcend the difficulty and “challenges” we face is to match these changes with innovation, modernization and the desire to create a new climate to supply new and improved products and to find advanced ways to communicate these changes to the public. I recently had a discussion with a supplier who was prototyping a new product specifically geared to addressing the problem of better fuel economy for the outdoor market; it will also have impact in the light truck market. It is this enterprising innovation that we will again need to call upon from our industry. One of the challenges he stated was, “How do I get the word out?”

I am optimistic that we are creating and witnessing a revolution of sorts, not only in the materials, processes and improvements used to manufacture vehicles and aftermarket accessories, but also in our methods of marketing, selling, advertising and communication to both consumers and business-to-business clientele. It is to this particular aspect of change that I propose a new paradigm for the marketing and communication aspect of our industry. If we are asking the manufacturers and dealers to transform their approach then we must also be a part of the solution to these “challenging times.”

Please share your thoughts on your own of revolution of sorts.

Peters proposed that cars and light trucks increase by 4.5 percent each year starting in 2010 through 2015 — overall equating to an additional 25 percent total increase. This is in addition to the 3.3 percent base increase proposed last year by Congress.

According to Peters the proposal will save an estimated 55 billion gallons of fuel. “Another benefit according to Peters is a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions estimated at 521 million metric tons.” She says the plan will save America’s drivers more than $100 billion in fuel costs over the lifetimes of the vehicles covered by the rule.

One organization, 40mpg.org, feels that this additional step is not enough and that the government should shoot for an even higher standard.

They say, “Why is Washington shooting so low on mpg? We already know that much higher levels of fuel economy are possible faster, and others agree that the time for half solutions has passed … With gas prices continuing to rise each week to historical records across the country, including $4 gas in California, we need to push for the maximum achievable fuel efficiency ASAP.”

With fuel prices rising, I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want increased gas mileage. The question though is at what price? Will the fuel economy upgrades come at the expense of aftermarket sales? Will performance shops’ bread and butter become standard equipment on cars and trucks to meet these guidelines if Congress adopts Peters’ recommendations? Another option might involve attaining the mpg standard at the expense of horsepower or durability. Will trucks be made with less horsepower to meet the standard or potentially made with lighter-weight materials? There may be other ways to meet the standard as well that I haven’t thought of. Post your opinions and thoughts today.

That is exactly where big oil is currently. With capitalism governing the price of a barrel of oil, there may be little we can do about the price we pay at the pump. Some people complain that the government should do more to lower the price but I am not sure if that is even possible because there are other countries in line to buy that oil for the inflated prices if the U.S. doesn’t.

Another thing to consider is just two weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that there are gasoline shortages in China and when oil companies offer oil for sale, that oil is going to go to the highest bidder. Sadly, if China is willing to pay $110 a barrel, then unless we are willing to do the same, the oil goes to China. The last thing we need are oil shortages like we saw in the 80s.

I guess the government could lower taxes tagged on gasoline but that would come at the expense of the quality of our bridges and roads. In the last year, we’ve seen news reports that the nation’s bridges are in a terrible state of disrepair, so that doesn’t seem a viable option.

The oil-producing companies have learned that they can produce the same amount of product despite increased demand from developing countries and get paid far more for the same amount of effort they have historically produced. Realistically, they call this working smarter instead of harder. We would do the same if we could, but that doesn’t mean we have to like it. It appears high gasoline is here to stay.

The real grind is the $18 million in tax breaks oil companies currently enjoy. Senior executives from five of the major oil companies went before a congressional committee last week to explain why they still need these tax breaks. Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips, will testify. The Associated Press reports these companies earned a total of $123 billion last year from soaring oil and gasoline prices. Do they really need those tax breaks?

The House of Representatives has approved legislation two times in the last year to end the tax breaks. The revenue was supposed to instead go to booster renewable fuels, wind and solar power. Unfortunately, neither of the House initiatives passed the senate.

I wonder if the tax breaks are taken away, will the oil companies merely pass this additional cost on to consumers driving prices up even higher. The saying, “nothing comes for free” comes to mind.

The CEOs for Ford and Chrysler both said this week that they have prepared their companies for a lengthy downturn in the auto industry in 2008. They believe the credit crisis and the rising price of gas will continue to impact sales in the first two quarters.

While new trucks sales may take a dip with $4-per-gallon gasoline, I think this may present real opportunities for shops who market performance upgrades—especially in markets where competition is fierce. Let’s face it, many people will not only need that truck during their average workday, but will also need that truck to get to and from work each day.

When things get a little tougher, many businesses cut their advertising. That means less competition for competitive advertising for those companies that continue to try to reach consumers with an advertising message.

There are plenty of people out there who can afford and need the aftermarket products we sell. When it comes time for those customers who are still buying, despite the economy, who do you think they will go to when it comes time to make a purchase? The company that has dropped off the radar, or the company with the funny radio commercials they hear on the way to and from work?

I’d really like to hear how all of you are doing this year on performance-related product sales. When you get a moment, feel free to post on the blog who you are, where you’re located, and if these types of sales have increased in your area.

Thanks for reading Light Truck & SUV magazine!

In the past, I have heard from different shop owners that there is no longer any innovation in the aftermarket business. Any new products, one owner observed, are just copies of existing products. “There just aren’t any new and innovative products” he said.

That seems to be changing. Our current economic situation is forcing a shift in the industry. As truck and SUV sales continue to decline, aftermarket dealers are looking for ways to evolve their businesses. And it seems like manufacturers are lining up help them.

Light Truck and SUV publisher Bob Carnahan shares, “I have been to a lot of SEMA shows and SEMA Spring Expos. I was impressed at last week’s show with the amount of innovative products to be seen.”

Here is a list of the LTAA award winners from the SEMA Spring Expo:

Best New Product Over $500 – Roll N Lock for the Roll N Lock E Series 

Best new Product Under $500   –  UnderCover for the Swingcase 

Best Point of Purchase Display  – Agricover for the EZ Retriever / Stocking Display 

2008 Ford Styling Award: Best Use of Accessories on a Ford Truck or SUV - (2 awards) Kelderman Air Suspension and Westin Automive Products 

LTAA Retailer of the Year - John Chamberlain, Action Group of Companies 

LTAA Hall of Fame - Anne Johnson   LTAA Chairman’s Award - Todd Yeoman   

On another note, according to various news sources, it seems we could be seeing a major shift in consumer new vehicle purchasing trends towards crossover vehicles. Several different news stories point to this trend.  

Is it too early for our industry to start making a shift towards more crossover products? Will new product innovation help offset declining truck and SUV sales? What do you think?

Thanks for reading, and we welcome your feedback.

Joe Escobar

I must confess my family is a truck and SUV family. We have a Ford Ranger, a Ford F-150, a Ford Explorer and as of last week, a new (to us) GMC Yukon Denali.

Living in Wisconsin, I want to protect the Denali’s interior from the salty slush associated with driving in the Midwest in the winter time. Lund’s Nifty Catch-All floor mats seemed to be the perfect solution (I had seen them at SEMA). They are custom-fit to form to the vehicle with a large lip to contain water, snow and maybe the occasional cup of coffee.

So, I started my research on the World Wide Web (Al Gore’s invention, you know). Lund has a good website. Within a minute or two, I found out that the company does manufacture Nifty Catch-All mats for my model year Denali. Its website also has a tool to locate the nearest dealer, so I punched in my zip code and low and behold, up came a list of nearby authorized dealers.

Since retail prices aren’t listed on Lund’s site, I decided to call one of the nearby Lund dealers to get some more information. When the gentleman answered, I said, “I would like to order some Lund Nifty Catch-All floor mats for my GMC Denali.” I then gave him information on my Denali and asked, ”How much would the mats for my vehicle retail for?”

His first response was, “We carry several different floor mats. They fit most trucks and SUV’s. I would suggest coming into the store to look at them and see if they will work for you. They average about $8.00 a piece.”

“No,” I said. “I don’t want generic mats. I am looking for Lund Nifty Catch-All floor mats. The Lund site lists you as an authorized dealer. Can you order some for me?”

“Oh,” he said. “I do have a Lund catalog. Let me go grab it and see what you need.”

To make a long story short, he wasn’t able to help me out. He couldn’t figure out what part number I needed. His final words of advice were, ”Maybe you should come into the store and look through the Lund catalog yourself.”

Oh, and the price? He didn’t have that either. He said he would have to call Michigan to find out (once I knew which mats I needed for my Denali, of course).

I understand it is difficult to keep up with all the parts available for all the vehicles on the road. But even I told this dealer exactly what product I needed for my Denali, I was somewhat surprised that he was not able to help me out.

The gentleman who “helped” me was friendly enough. But if I was anyone else, and I wasn’t determined to order those particular mats, I might have settled for some generic mats. And that would have meant less profit for his company and for Lund.

Instead, I guess I’ll head over to his shop and browse through the Lund catalog to let him know which mats he needs to order for me.

Thanks for reading,

Joe Escobar

The Times says the court rejected the standards because they were not tough enough because regulators had failed to thoroughly assess the economic impact of tailpipe emissions that contribute to climate change.

The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San francisco voided the new regulations for 2008-2011 model year vehicles and told the Transportation Department to produce new rules taking into account the value of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It seems the courts are now looking at climate change and how current and future regulations contribute to it. As Patrick A. Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School told the Times, “Climate change has ushered in a whole new era of judicial review.”

Should regulators (and the courts) leave light trucks and SUVs alone? If the government were to demand ridiculously high MPG standards on trucks and SUV’s, wouldn’t we lose the utility that drives consumers to purchase them in the first place?

When it comes to mileage standards for light trucks and SUV’s, should it be government regulated or driven by consumer demand?

What are your thoughts?