The Aftermarket eForum has become the single “must not miss” aftermarket event for me. It consistently serves up the most thoughtful, progressive and relevant insights into the aftermarket — and not just about technology, but about new and emerging trends. Perhaps that is because the nature of so many emerging trends is inexorably tied to technology, and as such, so is most of the subject matter. This year was no different. 

However, the most provocative insight that I gleaned didn’t actually come from the formal agenda of the eForum, per se. Rather, it came from juxtaposing the comments and insights of presenters with the attitudes of some of the attendees during informal, sidebar conversations. As one of my rather cynical friends observes, the “cocktail conversation” at many industry gatherings is the source of more substance than the event itself. While the content from the podium at the eForum was profound, more insight into the status of technology in the aftermarket was gained from the dissonance between the presentations and the behavior of some of the attendees.

Carl Gardner from the Department of Defense gave a conversational and insightful perspective on the subject of radio frequency identification (RFID), the technology that enables more proactive and comprehensive product data tracking. His characterization of “bar codes on steroids” helped position his message of how RFID can allow the aftermarket to move what we have been doing with graphic codification (bar codes) to the next level. To make the point of how the acceptance of new technology can often be intimidating, Gardner shared a comment made by a Midwestern grocery chain executive discussing the potential of the bar code in 1975. That quote, which I’m certain said executive would like to take back, went, “I think the industry has sold itself on a program that offers so little return that it simply won’t be worth the trouble and expense.”

Gardner’s recounting of that story and quote reminded me of something said by a senior executive of an aftermarket manufacturing company in the early 1980s. He contended that just printing UPC codes on auto parts boxes “would put jobbers out of business because only Kmart and Sears would then be selling auto parts.” At the time I was a 26-year-old kid and, from my perspective, this industry icon making the prediction had to be right. After all, the guy was wearing a suit that cost more than my car; how could he be wrong?

In my own personal “Twilight Zone” moment after Gardner’s speech, I heard comments from two people wearing suits that also cost more than the car I was driving back in the ’80s. Both were about RFID, and both were nearly mirror images of the “insight” of 25 years before. The first was, “I think RFID is really slick, but I just can’t see it ever being worth the investment.” And it was followed by, “It’s for the big retailers, not us.” I looked around to see if Rod Serling was standing in the corner with a lit cigarette ready to declare this is how things are in the “Twilight Zone.” The lesson of history that Carl Gardner had just shared was lost on this pair. 

Scott Luckett and Chris Gardner, the technology mavens for AAIA and MEMA, respectively, updated the assembly on the status of a variety of industry technology undertakings, including the Aftermarket Data Trust (ADT) initiative. The ADT is an industry initiative that is trying to develop a standardized method to distribute application and product data from manufacturers (data creators) to resellers (data users) and to accommodate much-needed data synchronization utilities. 

They made it clear how those who are steering the ADT are making every effort to move slowly and build consensus for an initiative that is designed to promote the adoption and spread of ACES and PIES data standards. The purpose is to assure that everyone competes on his or her unique business abilities and not on access to data.

Again, the “street talk” on this subject was disturbingly laced with misconceptions, half-truths and wild speculation. I heard a large reseller contend that the ADT is an effort by big manufacturers to keep those resellers with sophisticated technology capabilities from becoming “too powerful.” He claimed it was their way of trying to “prop up” the smaller guys to keep them from losing additional market share to the more technology-capable firms like his.

In another conversation, a manufacturer said he thought the ADT is an effort by resellers to “wrest control” of data from manufacturers. He went on to build the conspiracy theory that their (the evil resellers) motivation was to make it easy to get everyone’s data in ACES and PIES standards. That, then, would enable the resellers to buy from the smaller suppliers who were more willing to deal on price. 

Has history taught us nothing? Is it always an “us and them” scenario? Distributors against manufacturers? Retailers against vendors? Somebody trying to take what is rightfully mine and use it to improve their lot in life? 

Thinking now about those two conflicting theories, I recalled a political column by Kathleen Parker about the reactions to Supreme Count nominee John Roberts. Based on the cries of foul from both the extreme left and the far right, who seem to find Roberts equally as offensive, she concluded that he must be the right man for the job. In much the same way, with both sides claiming that the ADT is a tool the “other side” is using to subjugate “my side” probably means that it is the right thing to do. 

Is there anyone who thinks or would argue that the way we share and distribute data today is perfect? That there isn’t a way to do it faster, cheaper or better? That we are “on top” of new part number introductions and keeping pace with getting new coverage into the hands of technicians as quickly as our OE brethren are? That our data files are in complete synchronization up and down the supply chain with few or no errors resulting from data disconnects? I can’t imagine that there is a right thinking person who believes so. 

Yet, the undeniable reality of our data problems isn’t stopping some from putting up roadblocks for the ADT wherever they can. Again, I believe it is fear of what they don’t understand. It’s like thinking that putting bar codes on boxes would tip the aftermarket scales toward Sears and Kmart.

The other “off the agenda” item that stirred quite a lot of conversation was the presence of a very large and established Internet seller. While this was not its first appearance at the eForum, its presence this year was different given the addition of a traditional aftermarket executive. He recently joined the company to lead their aftermarket efforts, and he was using his contacts to make inquiries for possible vendors. 

I found myself engaged in a couple of conversations with manufacturers who were “conflicted” about how to deal with this Internet retailer, to say the least. They weren’t so much talking about selling to the Internet retailer as they were having dialog with themselves on the subject. 

After getting a bit weary of listening to one such discussion, I asked a question: “Your company made the decision in the ’70s to recognize program groups and sell them. In the ’80s, you made the decision to sell two-steppers. In the ’90s, you made the decision to sell national retail chains. Isn’t this the same as any of those decisions?”

Quickly and without thought the answer was, “This is different.” I asked in what way it was different, as it appeared to me that we were looking at a large established retailer with huge consumer awareness: one that operates its own distribution system and is committed to stocking and selling its products at fair market prices.

I must confess even I was shocked at the response. “This is different because it’s the Internet.” 

Again, the lesson of history was lost. The decision for his company to sell those three new business models I mentioned was the right decision at the time. They met all the criteria and litmus tests to become customers, yet some people elected not to sell them, at least at first. Later, after their more forward-thinking competitors had established relations with these new upstarts, they were on the outside looking in.

But this situation is complicated by the presence of technology. And for some almost mystical reason, anything involving technology gets misconstrued and misunderstood. Of course, throughout history, human nature has caused us to react to that which we don’t understand with fear. Fear leads to exaggeration and overreaction. And that has to be what was happening in all of these instances. 

Only through the clear dissemination and consideration of facts can we understand that which is new and subsequently not fear it. That is why the eForum is so important. It is a great opportunity to “demystify” technology — to look at coming trends and the facts associated with them. Not to mention all that interesting “cocktail conversation.”

If you didn’t attend the eForum, I want to make sure that you have a few items straight before someone taints your thinking:

The creation of an industry nonprofit data distribution service is not an orchestrated conspiracy designed to put either vendors or resellers out of business. The ADT effort really is “for the good of the entire industry.”

The decision to sell a product line (either by your company or one of your vendors) to an established, reputable, stocking Internet retailer won’t cause any traditional providers to go out of business.

A decision to implement RFID won’t tip the scales of aftermarket power to Wal-Mart and cause the collapse of the traditional aftermarket.

In the aftermarket, we are a pretty complacent lot. We like things to be “as they are” or maybe even “as they were.” We are uncomfortable, if not intimidated, by change, which is not unusual. One of my neighbors has a bumper sticker that captures our situation perfectly: “Change is inevitable, acceptance is optional.”

The marketplace, not individuals, drives the need for change. People can gang up and resist change, but only for a very short while. The power of the marketplace is far greater than anyone in it.

The automotive aftermarket has survived many changes and will continue to survive many more to come. The market accepts change, adapts and evolves.

Wouldn’t it be nice if people did too?