Shhhh. What’s that you hear? Sounds like a low-key, quiet celebration by the OEMs. Strangely, or perhaps predictably, they may not be all that unhappy about losing the 12-year old Right to Repair battle with the aftermarket over the access of their intellectual property.
Intellectually, the OEMs know they can never cut consumers off from a choice as to where they have their vehicles repaired because in the final analysis the data belongs to the people who buy their vehicles. And from a practical point of view, the OEMs know their dealers don’t have the bay capacity to repair every vehicle they sell.
So, if the OEMs know this, why the vehement stance against the aftermarket in sharing their repair data? Well, gaining a competitive edge certainly comes to mind. In the first few years of the R2R battle, this was easily accomplished by disrupting their competitors’ businesses by withholding or restricting vital data and tools needed to maintain and repair vehicles. When pressured by the aftermarket, which was led by the AutoCare Association, the OEMs’ strategy turned to monetizing their authoritative position to the max. In other words, if shops want the data, they have to pay for it. When you’re talking about tens of thousands of shops and the amount of data needed to run those shops, it’s easy to see what a windfall this is for the OEMs.
Although I’ll admit this may sound a bit paranoid, or maybe it’s giving the OEMs more credit than they deserve, there is the possibility that the OEMs orchestrated the entire data battle from the start knowing what the outcome would be. After all, they had pulled similar stunts on the aftermarket with emissions-related repair information prior to R2R. Just look at the stages R2R went through — a blanket withholding of data and tools, followed by heavy restrictions that were softened over time. For more than a decade, the OEMs negotiated from a position of strength because it was always up to them to loosen the strings on their data. Realistically, at every step of the way, they were in control of the R2R narrative. And in the end, they accepted the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) agreement, not because they had to, but because they are the originator of content and, if push comes to shove, they can always change their minds. Moreover, the agreement is for making the data available, not for making it affordable.
Affordability aside, a Cold War that has always existed between the OEMs and aftermarket will continue as the OEMs develop new technologies that the aftermarket must handle. So far, the aftermarket has met every technological threat that they have faced, but there is one that has many aftermarketers on their heels…and you know what it is: telematics. In effect, telematics is the next battleground where aftermarket casualties may be great if the industry as a whole doesn’t shore up its front line.
In its infancy, telematics concentrated on safety attributes. Break down or crash your car and someone will come to the rescue. Although this valuable service was reason enough for the aftermarket to pursue telematics, it has taken on a critical role concerning the care of vehicles. Essentially, telematics can control the service of vehicles and in the process control the sale of parts. A telematics ready vehicle — factory-installed or aftermarket-installed— can alert drivers to needed maintenance, schedule an appointment and provide the specific trouble codes to a driver’s preferred shop. Needless to say, vehicle connectivity is crucial to the aftermarket’s future.
If telematics isn’t enough to cause concern, the aftermarket should be concerned about the superb marketing mystique that some of the OEMs and their dealerships have perfected. Toyota and Honda have been particularly good at this by convincing their customers that their service provided by factory-trained technicians and their OE parts are superior to anything they will find from the independent repairers. The implication is if the consumer doesn't have his car repaired at the dealership, he is compromising the long-term reliability of his car. Predictably, customers who buy into this are likely to continue to maintain their vehicles at the dealerships even after their warranties expire.
Combine dealership loyalty with the benefits that telematics offers and you can see the aftermarket is at a competitive disadvantage. But all is not lost as long as independent shops do four things: 1) offer quality service; 2) offer that service at a competitive rate; 3) relate to their customers on an individual basis; and 4) stay current on all technological advancements by tapping the appropriate OEM data.
Concerning the last point, shops need to subscribe to information providers who are not only keeping pace with technological advancements, but also are anticipating them and are prepared to launch new services to meet shops’ needs. There are several that are doing a good job in keeping up but one in particular seems to understand that the delivery of OEM data needs to be provided precisely as the OEMs deliver to their dealerships. It’s called MotoLOGIC (motologic.com) and is worth checking out if you haven’t already done so.
There is strength in numbers, perseverance and creativity. If the aftermarket has any hope to meet the OEMs head on so that it can truly control its own destiny, it will need every aftermarketer’s support, their tenacity and their ideas. The coexistence between the aftermarket and OEMs has always been good for consumers. There is no reason for that to change now or in the future but it is something that the aftermarket can no longer take for granted.
