Name Match is Back For 2023 Bronco Orders!

[flip]

thanks to everyone who is contributing Ford info on this thread - makes for a really interesting read.

After reading all this, if I was Ford CEO I would have a team overhauling the order system. This launch maybe a perfect storm of "once in a lifetime" variables combining to be a shit show(or maybe its always like this), but I would be dam sure my company would not be embarrassed again. Even if it takes years to sort, it should be done.

Sounds like the other issue is how to get the shady dealers inline - not sure how that gets resolved but at the end of the day the customers should not be the ones that lose out

It sure is interesting to read some behind the scenes details, makes me I feel fortunate I had a good dealer and was not exposed to the shenanigan's

There are legitimate reasons for name match violations which is why they have an appeals process we can use. I ordered my bronco in my name but my company actually owns it (my demo). Had to do appeals for mine and my brothers, give them a ton of docs and got approved so it wasn't a strike against us. If someone backs out, not much you can do there unless you have emails from the customer that stated they no longer want the vehicle after it's already been built or shipped. Have done one of these where customer decided not to take and we offered it to another person that had a similar reservation. I appealed, uploaded email screen shots, showed we canceled the order of the person that took the unit and our appeal was approved.

Until the program has teeth and the known abusers are nailed, the status quo will be maintained. The biggest fix I can see is Ford directly contacting the customer to verify the reason they didn't take the order and use that information to count it against the dealer or pass it under one of the approved reasons. There will always be fringe cases that would need to be looked at but the dealer that are actively finding ways around COVP or the name match need to be called out and get some sort of bronco inventory "time out".

Sponsored

 

[Billy Goat]

Unfortunately I couldn't get my foot in the door for a Bronco build (with the exception of a Raptor that a dealer wanted 30k over sticker when delivered )so I had to buy a used Wildtrac with 300 mi on it and pay over sticker to play

 

[huey]

There are legitimate reasons for name match violations which is why they have an appeals process we can use. I ordered my bronco in my name but my company actually owns it (my demo). Had to do appeals for mine and my brothers, give them a ton of docs and got approved so it wasn't a strike against us. If someone backs out, not much you can do there unless you have emails from the customer that stated they no longer want the vehicle after it's already been built or shipped. Have done one of these where customer decided not to take and we offered it to another person that had a similar reservation. I appealed, uploaded email screen shots, showed we canceled the order of the person that took the unit and our appeal was approved.

Until the program has teeth and the known abusers are nailed, the status quo will be maintained. The biggest fix I can see is Ford directly contacting the customer to verify the reason they didn't take the order and use that information to count it against the dealer or pass it under one of the approved reasons. There will always be fringe cases that would need to be looked at but the dealer that are actively finding ways around COVP or the name match need to be called out and get some sort of bronco inventory "time out".

@flip To be clear I'm not saying name match is a bad thing, just the order process in general seems flawed

- funny how when systems are implemented the originators(system designer) likely never thought of scenarios how the system ends up being used. Like you said you go thru the appeals process for such examples that are legit, but creating a system to ward of those who have a sole purpose to beat the system is tough.

In engineering we use a PFMEA( Process Failure Mode Effects Analysis ) which is just a document used to identify possible ways a process can fail. Primarily I use it on our frame assembly lines to show how a team member could load a part incorrectly. One of the best ways to validate the document is to have team members purposely try to do the wrong thing and find the weakness(in a controlled test lol). I am sure Ford is always evaluating their systems, but hopefully they do a deep hard dive as the best teacher is always real life experience

 

[flip]

@flip To be clear I'm not saying name match is a bad thing, just the order process in general seems flawed

- funny how when systems are implemented the originators(system designer) likely never thought of scenarios how the system ends up being used. Like you said you go thru the appeals process for such examples that are legit, but creating a system to ward of those who have a sole purpose to beat the system is tough.

In engineering we use a PFMEA( Process Failure Mode Effects Analysis ) which is just a document used to identify possible ways a process can fail. Primarily I use it on our frame assembly lines to show how a team member could load a part incorrectly. One of the best ways to validate the document is to have team members purposely try to do the wrong thing and find the weakness(in a controlled test lol). I am sure Ford is always evaluating their systems, but hopefully they do a deep hard dive as the best teacher is always real life experience

I think it's a good thing considering the problems Ford is having building high demand vehicles. It was instituted because some dealers were gaming the system and Ford wanted to make sure what was in the system were legitimate customer orders. Should've had some teeth before now to help get more retail orders built but I've yet to hear of a dealer get reprimanded or allocation cut because the name match % was low.

If things every get back to some form of normal, both in demand and Ford's ability to keep up with it, COVP will likely go away or change into something that drives the original intentions of matching production to retail orders.

 

[huey]

I think it's a good thing considering the problems Ford is having building high demand vehicles. It was instituted because some dealers were gaming the system

agreed it is a good thing
always seems to be a smaller group manipulating things for their own benefit which in turn impacts everyone else

 

[bloominguez]

Having to go to a customer order verification process (name match) is a band-aid, a second-best, after-the-fact "solution." The root cause is that a reservation system is not compatible with a dealer allocation model, which, as I understand it, is a contractual commitment Ford has with its dealers. Ford knew this and made promises it couldn't keep.

Ford took way too many reservations AND didn't charge enough for those reservations. By charging too little and allowing reservations to continue way too long (sure, they were surprised, but they had months after they saw how popular the Bronco was), they created the mess. There was no reason for individuals not to put in multiple orders, no serious consequences for customers that reserved and didn't take delivery or for dealers that "stole" reservations. Either make the refundable deposit larger ($500 or $1000) or make the $100 non-refundable, and ensure that if you have a reservation you have the right to buy that Bronco.

Obviously, Ford was trying to have it both ways: They wanted to be able to brag about how many reservations they had (boost stock price) and still reward big dealerships with a hot seller, all the while knowing they weren't going to honor the intent of a reservation system (build roughly in reservation order).

All this talk about commodity constraints is just a smokescreen. While it may be true that if Ford had no constraints the problems with "reservations versus allocations" would be less noticeable, make no mistake, the underlying incompatibility is still there. Ford wrote a bad check, essentially, thinking they'd get the money in the account in time. Even if they did pull it off, it doesn't mean it was an ethical thing to do. The "constraints" and "Covid" situations meant that they weren't able to cover their bad check in time

End customers initially thought they were "in line" (based on Ford's own words, in writing) but, as it turns out, they never were. Now dealers are caught in the middle. Cancel orders they can't verify, but possibly piss off legitimate customers who are unaware? Get dinged by Ford metrics if a customer cancels last minute, which looks a lot like the dealership sold the car out from that customer?

Another possibility would be to add transparency to the process, show which dealers have allocations (like Chrysler did) and let people move their reservations more freely. But Ford is again protecting *their* customers, and reminding us, the end customers, that we are NOT Ford's customers and never were.
https://jalopnik.com/dodge-challenger-charger-last-call-horsepower-locator-1850077064

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I think it's a good thing considering the problems Ford is having building high demand vehicles. It was instituted because some dealers were gaming the system and Ford wanted to make sure what was in the system were legitimate customer orders. Should've had some teeth before now to help get more retail orders built but I've yet to hear of a dealer get reprimanded or allocation cut because the name match % was low.

If things every get back to some form of normal, both in demand and Ford's ability to keep up with it, COVP will likely go away or change into something that drives the original intentions of matching production to retail orders.

Having to go to a customer order verification process (name match) is a band-aid, a second-best, after-the-fact "solution." The root cause is that a reservation system is not compatible with a dealer allocation model, which, as I understand it, is a contractual commitment Ford has with its dealers. Ford knew this and made promises it couldn't keep.

Ford took way too many reservations AND didn't charge enough for those reservations. By charging too little and allowing reservations to continue way too long (sure, they were surprised, but they had months after they saw how popular the Bronco was), they created the mess. There was no reason for individuals not to put in multiple orders, no serious consequences for customers that reserved and didn't take delivery or for dealers that "stole" reservations. Either make the refundable deposit larger ($500 or $1000) or make the $100 non-refundable, and ensure that if you have a reservation you have the right to buy that Bronco.

Obviously, Ford was trying to have it both ways: They wanted to be able to brag about how many reservations they had (boost stock price) and still reward big dealerships with a hot seller, all the while knowing they weren't going to honor the intent of a reservation system (build roughly in reservation order).

All this talk about commodity constraints is just a smokescreen. While it may be true that if Ford had no constraints the problems with "reservations versus allocations" would be less noticeable, make no mistake, the underlying incompatibility is still there. Ford wrote a bad check, essentially, thinking they'd get the money in the account in time. Even if they did pull it off, it doesn't mean it was an ethical thing to do. The "constraints" and "Covid" situations meant that they weren't able to cover their bad check in time

End customers initially thought they were "in line" (based on Ford's own words, in writing) but, as it turns out, they never were. Now dealers are caught in the middle. Cancel orders they can't verify, but possibly piss off legitimate customers who are unaware? Get dinged by Ford metrics if a customer cancels last minute, which looks a lot like the dealership sold the car out from that customer?

Another possibility would be to add transparency to the process, show which dealers have allocations (like Chrysler did) and let people move their reservations more freely. But Ford is again protecting *their* customers, and reminding us, the end customers, that we are NOT Ford's customers and never were.
https://jalopnik.com/dodge-challenger-charger-last-call-horsepower-locator-1850077064

I could swear a few years ago, pre-shit-storm, Ford (Farley?) had made a direct statement about needing to get customer (custom) orders built much sooner than they were currently doing ... and that was during "normal times".
So, even back then they knew they had issues.
The dealership mafia must really have some juice, to the point of crippling the mothership.

 

[BroncoJoerg]

I could swear a few years ago, pre-shit-storm, Ford (Farley?) had made a direct statement about needing to get customer (custom) orders built much sooner than they were currently doing ... and that was during "normal times".
So, even back then they knew they had issues.
The dealership mafia must really have some juice, to the point of crippling the mothership.

They do, especially the mega dealers. As someone said above, it's the dealers that are Ford's customer, not the end customer who ends up with a Bronco in their garage. Another thing to note is that the entire dealer system is not only based on contracts with Ford, but in some states it's actually codified in law. There are some states in which is is actually illegal for an auto manufacturer to sell directly to the end customer (i.e. it protects the dealership system). Tesla has been fighting against this for years. For example, Michigan is one of those states. After much negotiations/law suits has finally come to an agreement with the state. There are two important terms to the settlement: (1) the state will not contest Tesla's right to operate service centers in Michigan through a subsidiary; and (2) the state will not contest Tesla's right to market cars to consumers in Michigan through a “gallery” model. You still can't BUY the car in MI, but at least you can now buy your car, have it delivered to another state, and then bring it home to MI. Previously, you also had to get your Tesla serviced out of state, and now you can get it serviced at a "local" service center.

 

[flip]

I could swear a few years ago, pre-shit-storm, Ford (Farley?) had made a direct statement about needing to get customer (custom) orders built much sooner than they were currently doing ... and that was during "normal times".
So, even back then they knew they had issues.
The dealership mafia must really have some juice, to the point of crippling the mothership.

Well, Ford was in a pickle so they tried the threat knowing they couldn't do anything to the dealers that ADM'd customers out of their orders because state regulations with pricing of goods. If they would've taken action the dealer could've argued it wasn't their fault the customer walked away (even if it was due to predatory pricing on the dealers part). If Ford would've followed up with the customer and based compliance off of their answers, no reason they couldn't have cracked some nuts. Even if they cracked nuts and pulled allocation, who would that hurt? Yea, all of the people that still had outstanding reservations at that point which made this a lose-lose and the dealer knew that. They hoped the threat was enough but now that the old orders are clearing out and demand tapering some, they have the space to take enforcement action on future orders.

 

[MLRey]

End customers initially thought they were "in line" (based on Ford's own words, in writing) but, as it turns out, they never were. Now dealers are caught in the middle. Cancel orders they can't verify, but possibly piss off legitimate customers who are unaware? Get dinged by Ford metrics if a customer cancels last minute, which looks a lot like the dealership sold the car out from that customer?


https://jalopnik.com/dodge-challenger-charger-last-call-horsepower-locator-1850077064

My view is that if customers are unaware and unengaged at this point they are totally clueless and should have their orders cancelled. It's been two years for most people and it's not reasonable to keep these ghost orders in the system. Sure a few people might be upset but let's face it there are always clueless idiots who are going to be upset.

 

[bloominguez]

They do, especially the mega dealers. As someone said above, it's the dealers that are Ford's customer, not the end customer who ends up with a Bronco in their garage. Another thing to note is that the entire dealer system is not only based on contracts with Ford, but in some states it's actually codified in law. There are some states in which is is actually illegal for an auto manufacturer to sell directly to the end customer (i.e. it protects the dealership system). Tesla has been fighting against this for years. For example, Michigan is one of those states. After much negotiations/law suits has finally come to an agreement with the state. There are two important terms to the settlement: (1) the state will not contest Tesla's right to operate service centers in Michigan through a subsidiary; and (2) the state will not contest Tesla's right to market cars to consumers in Michigan through a “gallery” model. You still can't BUY the car in MI, but at least you can now buy your car, have it delivered to another state, and then bring it home to MI. Previously, you also had to get your Tesla serviced out of state, and now you can get it serviced at a "local" service center.

Just to show how political this whole process is...
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/21/state-of-georgia-to-rivian-you-cans-sell-your-evs-here/

Even in states where Tesla is allowed to sell direct to end customers, the dealership sales channel laws are still in place. Tesla is allowed to sell only because of selective exemptions. One would think that if Tesla can sell direct, others should be allowed to do so as well. Not the case, not even for other similar companies (Rivian, Lucid, etc.), much less traditional automakers. Not an accident--it's all about special treatment and political favors (for dealer organizations or for Elon, as the case may be), not fairness.

 

[BroncoJoerg]

Just to show how political this whole process is...
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/21/state-of-georgia-to-rivian-you-cans-sell-your-evs-here/

Even in states where Tesla is allowed to sell direct to end customers, the dealership sales channel laws are still in place. Tesla is allowed to sell only because of selective exemptions. One would think that if Tesla can sell direct, others should be allowed to do so as well. Not the case, not even for other similar companies (Rivian, Lucid, etc.), much less traditional automakers. Not an accident--it's all about special treatment and political favors (for dealer organizations or for Elon, as the case may be), not fairness.

Yup, this is a great example of something that was, originally, something that was put into place to protect the consumer, which over time has become the opposite but where the political clout of the dealerships has kept it in place well past it's expiration date.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

but let's face it there are always clueless idiots who are going to be upset.

But why do they all have to come here to B6G to do it?

 

[MLRey]

But why do they all have to come here to B6G to do it?

Yep, will no doubt see next month some people with brand new accounts whining "dealer/Ford canceled my order"!

 

[TrailRaider]

Is this separate from what had to be done by November '22? Or is this just a reminder to those who have not reordered for '23 already?

Sponsored