View From The Trenches

There is an art to public relations. Some say it is “putting the best face” on a subject. Look at business, politics and law and one sees how a message is framed and presented to the public. Detractors say it can be like “dressing up a pig.” Well folks, there is a battle shaping up that may involve Porky Pig’s choice in clothes that is being fought in some halls of state legislatures concerning glass claims management. Be very aware and in some cases be very afraid.

Michigan is in the process of enacting a law that limits TPAs. The Detroit News wrote an editorial on Feb. 2 in support of that proposed legislation. On Feb 7, Pete Pearson, a Safelite VP responded in a letter published in the paper defending his company.

What he wrote is basically the company-wide defense of its practices. Mr. Pearson tells of how Safelite Solutions has “streamlined auto glass reporting, removed unnecessary delays and lowered consumer costs.” Gosh darn, I may put this man up for a Nobel Prize. The way it sounds Safelite/Belron has become the Ben and Jerry of auto glass (Well in some cases they do have the wavy part down). When I read his letter, I was overcome with true emotion (I believe I began to choke).

Can I ask a few questions, Mr. Pearson? If Safelite performed 80 percent of Nationwide glass claims in just South Carolinaover that state’s other 280 local shops would that be considered unusual? Normal? Shucks, just lucky? 

What is your penetration level in other states where Safelite Solutions handles any insurer’s account? Yes, what I would like to know is, based on the number of calls that are recorded to open a glass claim, how many of those calls does Safelite retain for a repair or replacement from every insurer?  If that number is around 30 percent, one could ascertain that the “free market” is at work and that Safelite is “getting their fair share.”  I could see if that number was far higher, that what was said about “unnecessary delays” part of your letter would be very true because there would be no delay on Safelite’s part to set up an appointment from new claimants with their sister store. Then again perhaps Safelite has done its part by speeding up claims by being partially responsible for the demise of smaller shops. The fewer choices a consumer has, the faster the claimant can “choose” Safelite.

I did appreciate being given Safelite’s business model for success via “exceptional service?”  Did you just mean exceptional phone service that involved the use of an assumptive script? Or one that just pandered to fear?

You wrote that “two government agencies have validated your practices.”  Is this the same government that couldn’t detect banks and other financial service companies from committing overt mortgage fraud which crashed our economy and other economies in other countries a few years back?

Safelite is indeed a job creator. After all, you were able to absorb some of the jobs lost when insurers dropped CSRs and claim processors. Also it should be stated that in some cases, Safelite hired glass technicians from the shops they put out of business. Never let us forget while Safelite paid $1 million in payroll and local property taxes in Michigan alone, how much non-taxed, therefore unpaid, corporate profit did they generate and shift across state and national borders?

I would partially agree that Safelite has done its part about reducing consumer costs. However one should perhaps substitute the word “insurer” for consumer. The consumer indirectly may benefit via lower rates but certainly not dollar for dollar. Safelite’s sales tool of having guaranteed average invoicing for its glass claims allows client insurers greater actuarial leeway for predicting and paying out glass claims. Then again Belron/Safelite is the poster child for lower priced aftermarket glass. I can’t seem to recall an auto manufacturer that has ever used a SGC product as an OE branded vendor. Same goes for its earlier brandLSI. I just suppose that it was a corporate decision to “build preference for their service” elsewhere.

I am not disgruntled (but I am grumpy). I simply believe that the gatekeeper for a particular service should not be the corporate cousin of a main provider of that service, which then has access to all sorts of trade secrets and data mining of its competitors. The canard of “high prices, delays in service and increased red tape” is exactly that—a fabrication which is being spoon-fed to both legislators and to the media in order to deflect criticism and attempt to reshape the debate in their favor. One can hear the very same code words used in any state that is trying to limit what many independent glass shops feel are very real abuses that corporate glass-owned TPAs inflict upon both the retailer and the consumer.

Pearson ‘s letter is pure Public Relations 101. Whether he actually wrote it or had it delegated is immaterial. The contents reveal the line of defense, or should it be said, the amount of spin that will be employed to defend its virtual monopoly position in the insurer glass claims management sector. Take it for what it is … dressing ol’ Porky in a tux to class up a sty. Thaaats aall Folks!!