Securosis

Research

Incite 9/4/2012: Dealing with Dealers

Back in March I mentioned it was about time for a new set of wheels. Of course nothing happens quickly in my world, so it wasn’t until mid-June that I got serious about a new car. You’d figure a guy like me would relish the opportunity to sit across from a car salesperson and beat them into submission to get the best deal. I’m not the kind of guy to blink, and I’d just as soon walk out if I don’t get what I want. Turns out I’ve been there and done that, and despite living to tell the tale, I have learned there is a better way to skin this specific cat. Of course, not everyone gets this or is willing to listen to a different approach. I remember 8 years ago when my in-laws told me they were going to test drive a new car. I told them not to buy the car that day. Just go in and test drive it. That I’d help them and save them some money. Sure enough they had to drive over to show me their spanking new generic car that they bought right off the lot. From the first dealer they visited. They got a good deal. That was their story and they were sticking to it. But they pretty much got raped. Hard. I just shook my head. But you know, they felt good about it, so I wasn’t about to piss in their oatmeal. But going into a car dealership and buying a car is a pretty stupid way to do things. Regardless of how good a negotiator you are, if you go into a dealership to negotiate for a car you’re doing it wrong. About 10 years ago I was introduced to a service called Fighting Chance. It’s pretty much a research service for car buyers. I get the power of research and tracking trends and leveraging other folks’ experiences to save time and money. That’s what I do for a living, after all. The fine folks at Fighting Chance teach you how to buy the car based on what’s really happening in the field, give you information about promotions and deals, help you figure out the data you need to compare apples to apples, and provide target values for recent sales for the model you are looking for. The service is awesome. It costs something like $40 and has saved me thousands. Their idea is that a car is a commodity. If you live in a typical metropolitan area, each car brand has 10-25 dealers within a short drive who will be happy to sell you a car. The exact same car. It’s not like Dealer A has a different Honda than Dealer B. You don’t buy a commodity by dealing with one seller. Not if you’re smart, anyway. You buy a commodity by getting dealers to compete with each other. I won’t give away the exact process (you should buy the service), but it involves getting dealers to bid against each other. I was able to buy a brand new current model Honda CR-V substantially under invoice by getting bids from 5 local dealers. I handled the process via email and a few phone calls, and it took me a couple hours. By the way, most car dealers hate this approach. They prey on folks who don’t know what they are doing. But it turns out that smart dealers focus on volume and make it up on the back end through incentives and other payments from the manufacturers, with far higher margins on services and trade-ins. These folks love guys like me, since I know exactly what I want and can get the transaction done in an hour. Notice I said CR-V, not Prius V, my preference back in March. Both the Boss and the dealer pointed out to that driving only about 7,000 miles a year means negligible savings in gas, and for 10% less I could get the fully decked-out CR-V instead of a mid-level Prius V. And they were right. Who said I’m inflexible and rock-headed? –Mike Photo credits: USED CAR SALESMAN KITTY originally uploaded by victoriafee Heavy Research We’re back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Pragmatic WAF Management Securing the WAF Application Lifecycle Integration Policy Management Incite 4 U Showing your true colors: Great post by Conrad Constantine about maintaining your sanity when dealing with a high profile incident. He should know – he was at ground zero for a pretty serious one. He points out that you’ll get to meet some pretty big wheels in your organization, and they will want answers and direction. Even if you don’t have any. He starts by telling you to keep a timeline of exactly what happened. Even if that information never sees the light of day (and likely it won’t) you need it. Conrad provides tips for playing above your pay grade and living to tell about it, and talks about the reality behind the PR spin machine. His point that it always ends at some point, and things go back to the new normal, are exactly right. But the best idea in the post is the reality of how people behave under duress: “Before anything else, no matter what field you work in during times of crisis you will see everyone’s true colors brought forth – not least of which – your own.” What he said. – MR Security Bypass: It’s not that IT users thumb their noses at IT security, as claimed by the author of this analysis of the iPass Mobile Workforce Report. But users sidestep anything that makes work more difficult. If the impediment is security controls on applications or data usage, users find ways around it. Mobile

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.