Pioneering UBI provider Progressive has changed up its messaging around the Snapshot usage-based insurance offering with a new ad campaign in the U.S. built upon the concept of Rate Suckers. The campaign shifts the UBI angle from being a simple means to achieving a discount, to an aspirational model capable of creating an elite group of drivers rewarded with lower insurance rates.

According to a recent Progressive blog, Rate Suckers are the poor drivers forcing up insurance rates for good drivers. And Progressive’s SnapShot is intended to free drivers from the burden of supporting Rate Suckers.

(Link to Rate Suckers ad: http://tinyurl.com/bocbmbk)

Progressive’s blog states: “Rate Suckers are real, and only Snapshot can stop them.

“You might not know it (63% of those we surveyed didn’t), but you’re paying more for car insurance because of others’ bad driving habits.

They’re called Rate Suckers, and they’re everywhere:
Behind the wheel for breakfast, lunch and dinner. 
Out to play at the strangest hours.
Slamming. On. Their. Brakes. Constantly.
Only Snapshot saves you! It sets you apart, so you can take back the savings you deserve.”

The message from Progressive could not be much clearer and clarity is useful in conveying the Snapshot UBI value proposition. But it is also possible that Progressive is over-simplifying.

The three driving behavior factors most frequently used as part of UBI programs generally are hard braking, harsh acceleration, the amount of driving and time of day. Progressive not only emphasizes hard braking in its blog but also in the functioning of the Snapshot module, which audibly and annoyingly beeps during hard braking.

Progressive’s model emphasizes the avoidance of hard braking and also focuses on taking a “snapshot” of a driver’s behavior – about a month’s worth of driving data – to establish A) whether the driver will benefit and, therefore, qualify for the program and B) the relevant discount.

Progressive is to be admired for its attempt at transparency and simplicity. The Rate Sucker advertising program is clearly intended to discourage drivers who drive a lot, drivers who drive between midnight and 4 a.m., and drivers that accelerate rapidly or brake hard.

Drivers may not agree with Progressive’s definition of the factors that determine safe driving or that lead to lower claims exposure, but at least the company is spelling out the objectives of the program. Drivers that fit the profile can self-select into the Snapshot program and those that do not ought not to even apply – unless they intend to change their driving behavior.

Interestingly, the Snapshot program’s safe driving criteria are antithetical to both the marketing and safety system strategies of car makers. Car makers routinely advertise the handling characteristics of their cars emphasizing both rapid acceleration and deceleration – both of which are shown in ads as the means to avoid hazardous circumstances rather than creating them.

Car makers also use advertising to demonstrate how safety systems can step in and assist drivers who may be distracted. Whether activating emergency braking in proximity to slowing or stopped vehicles or providing lane departure or blind spot warnings for inattentive drivers, the safety systems provide a more forgiving sensor cocoon in the car, with no penalty for the driver.

So all the things that car makers promote – acceleration, harsh braking or even frequent or late night driving - are likely to negatively impact a driver’s insurance rate, particularly if that driver uses Progressive’s Snapshot.  This raises the question as to whether Progressive’s criteria are too simplistic (ie. hard braking and harsh acceleration are not universally negative driving characteristics) or are OEMs promoting bad driving behavior either via their advertising or via the implementation of forgiving safety systems.

A driver who brakes harshly to avoid a collision with another driver that has made a driving error will want to be rewarded, not penalized. Similarly, a driver that accelerates to bypass a dangerous driving circumstance will also expect positive, not negative, feedback.

Progressive benefits from a simplistic message and a simplistic approach to UBI, but there is nothing simple about driving a car.  Progressive’s approach over-simplifies the proposition and ignores the fundamental nature of UBI in particular and telematics in general vis-à-vis auto insurance.

Progressive is adding thousands of Snapshot users every month, suggesting a respectable degree of success with the simplistic approach.  But the opportunity remains for competitors to deliver a more nuanced offering recognizing real-world driving behavior and leveraging, more broadly, the vehicle connection.

State Farm’s In-Drive offering, for example, delivers a broader functional portfolio including vehicle diagnostics, hazardous driving alerts, and a wider array of real-time vehicle and driving information. In fact, among the many UBI programs on the market Progressive stands out for the lack of added-value customer engagement.

Telematics has the ability to alter key aspects of the insured/insurer relationship around such issues as first notice of loss, timely claims processing and value-added services. If insurance telematics solely focuses on lower rates it is unlikely to have a lasting disruptive impact on the industry.

Usage-based insurance is a consumer deception. It is a shell game being foisted on consumers to lure them into allowing their car insurance company to glance over their shoulder as they drive and determine their insurance rate based on direct observation of their driving behavior.

UBI programs will no doubt be the focus of the upcoming Insurance Telematics Europe 2013 event in London May 7-8. The focus on UBI at this event is appropriate as the UK remains a source of critical leadership in bringing UBI to the mass market, something that has eluded all other geographies, including the U.S.

The failure of UBI programs to capture the imagination of the consumer lies in its deceptive quality.  The deception lies in the assumption that insurance companies know anything about what constitutes safe driving. But it is actually worse than that, because insurance companies are only allowed to use a limited set of data, depending on the regulatory jurisdiction, to draw their underwriting conclusions.

The attraction of usage-based insurance, or UBI, is that it is a potentially superior tool for determining rates than the existing models derived from driving history, credit scores, and demographic data.  UBI is also attractive to insurance companies trapped in a low growth increasingly low margin industry, because it allows them to draw away the lowest risk drivers from competitors while giving longer term customers a reason not to change.

Regulatory authorities and governments also like UBI programs because the participants tend to drive less, reducing congestion, carbon emissions and the potential for collisions and expensive claims. For young drivers or drivers with poor driving histories UBI programs, allowing remote tracking or monitoring, may be the only means of obtaining affordable insurance.

Strategy Analytics' own research has shown the highest level of interest in UBI programs among younger demographic segments in Europe and the U.S.  (Consumer Interest in Usage-based Insurance - http://tinyurl.com/blfq84q)

In Europe, where regulators have banned gender bias in car insurance underwriting, UBI may be an attractive work-around. And pay-as-you-drive programs based almost entirely on mileage, have also emerged for drivers who simply don’t drive much and, therefore, shouldn’t have to pay the same rates as those who drive more.

But the shortcomings of UBI programs are many and those shortcomings have limited the adoption of the technology to a few million users globally. At the core of consumer resistance is the surrender of privacy inherent in allowing the tracking of driving behavior. For the customer, UBI can be a crap-shoot – a 50-50 proposition that participation will actually produce a meaningful discount.

The offered discounts range from 5% just for the initial participation to as much as 40% based on the results of the tracking analysis. But some drivers will not qualify for any discount which can create a quandary in the event of a program using a tracking device that has been permanently installed (as opposed to an easily removed OBDII plug in), or in the case of a dealer or car OEM brokered offer that produces no discount. In the event of the former case the device may have to be uninstalled at a cost to the consumer, and in the latter case the customer may harbor bitterness toward the car maker or dealer.

But the basis for the discounting is specious. The most commonly cited factors are mileage, acceleration and hard braking. Some country and state regulators have banned the use of speed information for rating and we have already noted the restrictions on gender in Europe.

A recent conversation with a BMW executive had me questioning the entire UBI proposition. BMW will never participate in UBI offers, he said, because penalizing drivers for hard braking or acceleration is antithetical to BMW’s vaunted “ultimate driving” experience.  If BMW drivers participate in UBI programs and are, therefore, discouraged from hard braking or acceleration by their insurance companies, it undermines many of the pleasurable principals of driving a BMW in the first place.

But this is not just a BMW issue. An executive for a large multinational insurer recently questioned – in a personal conversation – the relevance of “hard braking” as an underwriting criterion.  Sometimes hard braking is a life-saving decision or an effective or appropriate reaction to an urgent or dangerous driving situation.

Many drivers have described to me the potentially harmful result of being forced to think twice or three times about accelerating or braking because of the presence of the tracking device on their car.  And I have yet to find a driver that is fond of the annoying beeping sound emitted by Progressive Insurance’s SnapShot device during what the device determines to be a hard-braking moment.

The Solution

My brother was visiting me recently and I told him about the tracking device I had installed in the OBDII port of my car for the purpose of qualifying for a lower insurance rate. His immediate response was: “Why don’t they just use your phone?” With those words my brother captured the very crux of the barrier between a potentially user friendly solution capable of empowering the customer and an annoying and invasive offering fraught with frustration and built to produce disappointment.

The most prevalent UBI offerings around the world require an OBDII plug in that attaches to the diagnostic port available on most, though not all, cars around the world. While the device and the port into which it is to be inserted are relatively simple to understand, the process is not user friendly.

Getting the device to the consumer generally requires the delivery of a product that has been programmed to work with the specific brand, model and year of vehicle to be insured. The hardware may be the same, but the software is not.

The process also assumes that the consumer will be able to locate the OBDII port, also a relatively simple exercise, but not very user friendly given the normal requirement of peering around under the driver’s side of the dashboard. OBDII ports were conceived to enable service technicians to attached diagnostic devices, not for insurance companies to track driving behavior and vehicle performance.

But that is just the hardware side of the proposition. Getting to the delivery and installation of the hardware device assumes that the consumer has accepted the proposition of sharing his or her data with the insurance company and, for that matter, any marketing partners with whom the insurance company may have hooked up.

Actual ownership of the data in most cases appears to lie with the insurance company. And the legal implications of that data ownership are less than clear in the event of an accident. As my disclosure statement states: “You release (the provider of the UBI device and service) and (the insurance company) from any liability associated with the disclosure of information gathered through (the UBI program).”

The problem at the core of the UBI value proposition is twofold: privacy and data portability and ownership. Many consumers have discovered that staying with a single insurer for too long – with a clean driving record and a related low rate – can make switching difficult. The new insurer won’t have access to the claims (or lack of claims) history that has produced such a low rate and will be, therefore, unlikely to match that rate.  This is different in the UK where claims history is centrally available. (Lesson #1 – you ought to switch your car insurance occasionally – or often? – to ensure you obtain the best rate.)

Carriers in the UK have been creating apps to enable consumers to get a preview of their potential UBI discount, but these apps do not solve the problem of complete consumer data ownership.  The very concept of consumer ownership of driving history data has yet to be seriously presented as a value proposition by either insurers or wireless carriers.  Perhaps with data ownership individual consumers could specify which driving attributes they care to share.

Data portability is the proposition that is actually being enabled by UBI programs but it is a concept that few insurers are embracing. In an ideal world, a customer that has gone to the trouble of installing a tracking device on his or her car ought to have ownership of the resulting data and the ability to take that data to another carrier for a competitive quote.

Here, the UK is taking the lead. Just as UK car insurers have led the way in UBI programs intended to defeat rampant fraud, and just as Norwich Union in the UK was one of the first insurance companies to use the Progressive approach to UBI insurance, an emerging insurance industry service provider in the UK, Ingenin, is poised to disrupt the entire insurance industry, not just car insurance.

Perhaps not surprisingly Ingenin’s plan revolves around leveraging the smartphone and all of its sensing capability for determining driving behavior along with a lot of other usage information that may be relevant for other forms of insurance as well. In fact, Ingenin’s proposition not only provides a platform for tracking driving behavior it enables the capture and delivery of information for roadside assistance or crash investigations.  And the Ingenin vision also calls for alerting drivers to known hazardous conditions or accident hotzones in real-time via the smartphone.

Even more significant, Ingenin is seeking to leverage voice and facial recognition to tie the insurance to a particular driver not just to the vehicle. Ingenin has yet to announce a major partner. In the meantime, the company is continuing work on bringing its vision to life.

In the end, it may take the use of the driver’s smartphone to deliver a personalized, empowering, and portable insurance proposition capable of transforming UBI insurance into a mass market phenomenon. Consumers are much more comfortable with and accepting of sharing their personal information via their phone – something they are consciously or unconsciously doing every day.

Nothing about current UBI programs is user friendly. In fact, everything from the hardware and software to the disclosure statements and privacy surrender are fairly hostile and opaque.  The use of smartphones as in the case of Ingenin can change all that.

Telematics systems can do a lot of things these days, but one thing they cannot do is see to it that family members of unconscious crash victims are contacted in a timely manner after a crash.  Car makers are fond of touting Twitter and Facebook integrations in the car, but nearly two decades of work have failed to solve the problem of next of kin notification.

Good news is arriving from the West Coast of the United States.  Legislation has been introduced in the California legislature by Senator Curren Price and Assemblyman Steve Fox to ensure law enforcement personnel can notify next of kin quickly in the event of a traffic incident in which victims are incapacitated.  Action is expected in April.

It is wise for consumers, auto makers, emergency responders and law enforcement representatives in the U.S. and around the world to take heed.  Given the influence of past legislation in California on automotive-related issues such as vehicle emissions, it may well be that California finally resolves for the global auto industry an issue that has plagued crash responders for decades – crash victim identification and notification of next of kin.

The California Motor Vehicle Emergency Contact Locator Act of 2013 (AB 397) solves this problem.  Its passage will create the nation’s first VIN Emergency Contact Locator (VIN ECON) database which will be accessible to authorized law enforcement agencies nationwide.  Such a database will serve as a model to be emulated around the world.

The legislation arrives at a time in the automotive telematics marketplace when car makers have all but moved on from the focus on safety and automatic crash notification that gave rise to embedded vehicle connections in the first place.  Car makers today are distracted with smartphone app integrations and vehicle relationship management.  The life-saving capabilities of telematics systems have been all but forgotten or at least taken for granted.

Each telematics service provider collects emergency contact information linked to the VIN at customer provisioning.  They store the emergency contact information in a database silo which is only accessible by the TSP. 

The TSP safety innovation of the California legislation is that it established a centralized emergency contact information database (VIN ECON) at a national law enforcement  telecommunication center that will aggregate and link the silo-ed databases so that law enforcement representatives will have immediate access to the data.  In fact, the database will backstop the telematics system in case the system fails to contact the TSP.

Some in the industry assume that once the embedded modem is connected to a call center, the well-being of crash victims is assured.  And there are touching stories of OnStar call center representatives contacting family members and connecting them with crash victims at the scene of the event. 

But these stories obscure the reality of an unconscious crash victim at the scene of the crash unable to communicate his or her identity or desires at the scene of the collision.  Valuable time and, sometimes, lives are lost as a result.  Without a nationwide database to aid responders, there is little that can be done to reach out for help and certainly not in a timely manner.

The idea for AB 397 was originated by L.A. Councilmember Dennis Zine in response to a 2007 car crash in the San Fernando Valley involving the death of a 72-year-old mother from Paso Robles.  The bill is co-sponsored by the City of Los Angeles and the non-profit organization We Save Lives, founded by Candace Lightner (also the founder of MADD).

Additional support for the creation of the database has come in writing from such organizations as the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), the National Association of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO), and the National eHealth Collaborative (NeHC), which specifically supports AB 397.

Instead of taking hours, or even days, the bill will ensure the swift notification of family members who can then better assist law enforcement officials in identifying incapacitated crash victims and aid health care representatives in the care of their loved ones.  “This is a targeted, common sense approach to an important public safety issue,” in the words of Lightner.  “It is unacceptable for families and crash victims to suffer because of lack of adequate or seriously delayed notification.  We must ensure that law enforcement officials have the resource necessary to quickly access a motor vehicle owner’s emergency contact information that will help save lives and alert family members in the event of a tragic crash.”

Lightner’s sentiments echo those of GM’s former vice chairman, Harry Pearce,  at the conception of Project Beacon, which went on to become OnStar.  He asked, at the time, how many crashes would have to occur with no timely emergency response before GM would recognize the obligation it had to provide for automotic crash notification. 

It was only later that OnStar stumbled on the challenge of identifying crash victims and the need to notify next of kin.  OnStar executives quickly discovered they had a real problem on their hands in the event of unresponsive crash victims – a problem that the OnStar service could not solve.

Telematics service providers generally gather motor vehicle owner emergency contact information at the dealership during the service registration process, but there is no means for sharing the information with law enforcement without the customer’s consent – which can’t be given if the customer is unconscious.  More importantly, the information is not stored in a centralized law enforcement-accessible database.

In a similar vein, eight states in the U.S. have next of kin databases based on driver’s license information, but each of these databases is silo-ed and not nationally accessible.  Furthermore, these driver's license systems require law enforcement officers to physically locate the driver's license at the scene of a crash, which is typically not possible in the most horrific of crashes.

In the words of one of the bill’s sponsors, Steve Fox: “The Motor Vehicle Emergency Contact Locator Act is important to drivers and emergency medical care providers.  The fact that this law can assist doctors by allowing them to have timely access to family members and to obtain additional information such as the victim’s medical records and medical directives will save lives.”

Fellow sponsor Curren Price added:  “The agony of not knowing if a missing relative is injured or alive or dead cannot be overstated.  This bill will go a long way to addressing the heart-wrenching issue.”

Research has produced advances in telematics such as enhanced automatic crash notification – capable of alerting first responders to the severity and nature of a crash to determine the appropriate emergency response.  But responders face a real challenge in identifying victims who have been incapacitated.

The simple process of creating a centralized VIN ECON next of kin database capable of closing this loophole will save lives and give family members much-needed peace of mind.  Equally important, it will save time and effort on the part of emergency responders, which in itself may save lives.

The best news of all is the fact that the database will be created and maintained by public authorities.  There is no burden on the automotive industry or automotive dealers, since dealers are already gathering the information.  The gathering of next of kin notification information will, now, no longer be a pointless activity.  With passage of the bill and creation of the database the consumer – and the dealer and the auto maker and emergency responders – can rest assured that law enforcement personnel on the scene of a crash will be able to more quickly determine the identities of drivers and passengers and notify relatives.

In the end, the VIN ECON is really a low-tech, low-cost solution to an urgent challenge.  It requires no hardware or software to be created by car makers or dealers, it simply ties together existing information resources and makes that information accessible to the appropriate persons under specific and restricted circumstances.

“Gentlemen… We have the technology…” paraphrasing Richard Anderson in character as Oscar Goldman in the opening sequence of “The Six Million Dollar Man.”

In the U.S., three times as many people are killed in accidents that occur at intersections than are killed as a result of distracted driving. The technological remedies for this highway holocaust exist, but traffic authorities continue to be distracted by short-term fixes of dubious efficacy (red-light cameras) and daunting budget barriers.

This issue has particular resonance now that U.S. Dept. of Transportation Director Ray LaHood has announced his departure.  A new director will be resetting the agenda of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and intersection accidents ought to be high on the priority list. 

The issue of intersection safety has implications for fuel efficient driving and the coordination of urban traffic grids.  Some of the key applications for NHTSA’s proposed vehicle-to-infrastructure communication (using dedicated short-range communications – DSRC – technology) are built around the timing of traffic lights to ensure the smooth movement of traffic, the reduction of congestion and emissions, and the prevention of accidents.

Two innovative solutions (and a Federal study), take quite different approaches to meeting these challenges and highlight the use of smartphones and existing wireless technology, while also raising questions about the ability to transition the current fragmented traffic light infrastructure in the U.S. and elsewhere to DSRC technology.  (A more detailed discussion of this issue is available to Strategy Analytics clients at: http://bit.ly/VWQEBx - Vehicle Safety at the Crossroads – Literally.) 

The two solutions come from Global Mobile Alert and Green Driver.  The Federal study is being conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

Global Mobile Alert has patented (http://bit.ly/XfZCdQ) the use of either an on-board or off-board map accessed by a mobile phone to alert drivers who are using the phone to hazardous conditions ahead including intersections, railroad crossings and school zones.  Alerts and messages to the driver can be tailored to the nature of the hazard. 

Global Mobile Alert has further patented the use of wireless communication between the traffic light and a mobile device to determine the phase of the light in relation to the speed of the car in order to alert the driver, particularly in the event of the mobile phone being in use.  Global Mobile Alert executives envision a variety of scenarios and applications of this patent - but – the fundamental functionality revolves around cellular communication and location technology.

Green Driver, on the other hand, taps into an Internet feed from local municipalities to access signal light timing data which can be fed to smartphones for the purpose of enabling more fuel efficient driving by letting drivers avoid red lights.  But the Green Driver approach can also alert users to red-light runners, as long as those drivers have the app downloaded to an operating phone. 

Meanwhile, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the U.S. is in the midst of a two-year project to reduce traffic delays by enabling communication between vehicles and traffic lights.  (BMW is a sponsor of the research along with two universities.)  The FHWA estimates that “poor traffic signal timing accounts for 10 percent of all traffic delays – about 300M vehicle-hours – on major roadways alone.”

The FHWA’s objective is to use probe data associated with the deployment of vehicle-to-infrastructure communication to achieve a transformational change in how traffic is controlled.  To quote the study abstract: 

“This part of the study looks at the development of algorithm sequences for a connected vehicle to inform only relevant traffic signals about the vehicle’s proximity, velocity and signal request.  Information is sent from a traffic signal to a cloud-based data center, and then communicated over a 3G/4G network to in-car applications.

“With this data, the car is able to display signal phase and timing (SPAT) information to a driver and, if required, adapt the cruise control in real-time, according to the vehicle trajectory, to get through a signal corridor without stopping.  The technology, called ‘smart cruising’ also allows a driver to choose between reduced travel time or increased fuel efficiency.  Using ‘motor stops automatically’ technology, the vehicle can drive while the engine is switched off, effectively sailing along a corridor.” 

The FHWA’s use of the 3G/4G cellular network for its study reflects the fact that the only intersections equipped, today, with DSRC transponders are associated with a handful of pilots, such as the UMTRI V2I pilot in Michigan.  Global Mobile Alert takes the map-as-a-sensor approach to alerting drivers to intersections, but has also provided for RF communication between the car and infrastructure to support intersection alerts to drivers via the smartphone.

Green Driver’s work in connecting with the IP-based SPAT information of local municipalities (the company is currently operating in Eugene and Portland, Oregon; across the entire state of Utah; in the Dallas suburb of Garland; and in San Jose), has revealed a significant degree of fragmentation in traffic light systems and infrastructure around the U.S.  Some cities are online and able to “play ball” with Green Driver – sharing their SPAT info.  Other cities are able to share, but decline to do so.  Still other cities simply do not have the capability due to the limitations of the back-end systems or the physical roadside infrastructure. 

All three approaches – each targeted at different problems – are built around existing wireless technology.  Both Global Mobile Alert and Green Driver are essentially using the map as a sensor.  Green Driver obtains the SPAT data via the Internet while GMA proposes the use of cellular communication from the traffic light to obtain the timing info.

The new leadership at NHTSA has an opportunity to prioritize the reduction of intersection crashes and fatalities around a market-based approach based on existing technology.  Smartphones, map data, the cellular network and Internet connectivity ought to be leveraged to put into the dashboards of drivers the traffic light location and phase status necessary to improve the efficient management of traffic, reduce congestion and polluting emissions, and prevent fatal accidents. 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) continues to advocate for the efficacy of red light cameras to reduce red-light running and related accidents citing its latest research on installations in Virginia.  Not only do the IIHS findings conflict with more rigorous studies conducted by traffic authorities and universities everywhere from California and New Mexico to Virginia and New Jersey, it is by now clear that red-light cameras are nothing more than a revenue producing distraction and an invasion of privacy.

Red-light cameras do not even put additional officers on the street better able to focus on more important law enforcement matters.  In most deployments, officers must review and approve the citations – shifting the burden rather than conserving resources. 

We, indeed, have the technology to save lives, reduce congestion and emissions, and enable the safe, smooth flow of traffic through intersections.  And the best news of all, we can achieve all these objectives with market-oriented implementations of existing technology. 

“Most maps, including Google Maps, have not yet mapped the area.” – The Huffingtonpost (Sept. 2012) describing the Angelika Film Center in the Mosaic District of Merrifield, Va.

Can automakers, dealers, Tier One suppliers, and automotive app developers afford to continue requiring customers to pay ($199!) for annual map updates? My latest navigation adventure highlights the fact that the time has arrived both for “free” lifetime map updates in the car and more creative means for delivering monthly, weekly, DAILY! map updates for on-board navigation systems.

The map in the car has become the spinal cord for safety, powertrain, security, infotainment, and navigation systems.  Nearly every advanced system in the car requires access to location information – preferably on-board.

Increasingly, the on-board map is becoming a shared resource both for advanced driver assist systems and contextually aware infotainment systems.  For both of these cases context is determined, in part, by location along with weather, traffic and driver status among other things.

But there is an even more urgent issue, that I will return to, and that is the danger inherent in a driver following navigation instructions with an out of date map.  Few things are more distracting or disturbing than being told to make turns onto roads that don’t exist to enter freeways that have been bypassed.

All of these elements were brought home to me this past weekend.

My wife and I were trying to get to the relatively new Angelika Film Center in the Mosaic District of Merrifield, Va. last Sunday.  It was our first trip to this theater, so I was confident that neither the address nor the name of the Theater would be available in the on-board navigation system in my 2013 BMW 3 Series.  (This assumption would later prove to be accurate.)

To get to the theater I used Fullpower’s MotionX GPS navigation app on my iPhone 4.  MotionX is one of the most popular navigation apps on the iPhone.  Unfortunately, on this occasion, it insisted on directing my wife and I to a destination five miles away from the theater’s actual location.  (UPDATE: This was due to the fact that the Nokia map data was missing the information for my destination, according to Philippe Kahn, CEO of Fullpower.)

My wife then proceeded to look up the theater in the on-board POIs, with no success.  We then obtained the address online and attempted to enter it directly into the navigation system – ignoring the fact that the system in the car will not accept addresses that are not yet in the system.  So, in this case, we entered the street number closest to the actual address of the film center.

Half an hour after the movie’s start time we arrived at the cinema.  We accepted our fate and settled into a round of shopping and dinner and went to the next show – making for a later evening than originally planned.  (At least the toney establishment had toasted caramel popcorn!)

It was a minor event at the close of an otherwise uneventful weekend, but it highlights a huge problem that remains unsolved – on-board map updates.  (Yes, there are a few ways this unfortunate incident might have been avoided such as: a) using the Sendtocar function, which for some reason has not been working for my car; b) use the on-board Google Local Search to obtain the address – just checked and this would have indeed worked; c) ring up the BMW Assist Concierge service and have them download the address; or d) try a different mobile navigation app.)

Anyone who has been through a similar experience will appreciate the minor nightmare of not being able to find a simple destination.  You can imagine my wife and I pulling over into parking lots and side streets to double-check the entry and the results and to try a different approach.  I shudder to think about the amount of eyes-off-road time that was required before we found a solution and reached our destination.

But my minor nightmare is a terrifying reality.  Not only is the out-of-date map situation a nuisance, it is a driving hazard and a customer satisfaction failure.  It is no surprise, then, that JD Power identifies navigation systems as a source of ongoing and mounting complaints for car owners.

While JD Power is focused primarily on the user interface, it is time for the industry to confront the fact that every car being sold is going out the door with an obsolete map.  An obsolete map on board is an invitation to catastrophe for the car dealer, the manufacturer and the customer.  Yet no one seems especially worried or concerned.

The problem is most obvious in emerging markets where new cities and roads are proliferating on an almost-daily basis highlighting the limitations of digitized map in the car.  It is no wonder that Strategy Analytics’ research with navigation users in China has found the typical driver using multiple navigation systems - phone, on-board and portable navigation device – to get from point A to point B.

The good news is that the leading map makers – TomTom and Nokia – have progressed their map-building processes to enable daily if not real-time map updates on a global scale.  Nokia has even taken steps to put more of its surveying vehicles on the road while also providing for crowdsourcing of map data, something TomTom initiated many years earlier.  The problem lies in delivering those updates to the on-board system.

Most consumers these days will use their mobile phones to navigate if a destination is in a new or unusual location.  I will not delve into the shortcomings of mobile phone navigation in a car, but suffice it to say it is popular based on the findings of multiple Strategy Analytics surveys.

Car makers Ford, GM and Toyota Motor Europe have tried with varying success to enable display in the car of smartphone-based navigation instructions.  Ford was first with this approach and has had the most success.

But smartphone-based navigation defeats the integration of the map – the application spinal cord of the car – into advanced safety, powertrain and infotainment systems.  While smartphones can, indeed, deliver a contextual experience to the driver, the on-board map is necessary to properly anticipate workload demands on the driver based on the integration of on-board sensors with map-based and other inputs.

So, smartphone integration, while attractive and a useful car-selling proposition falls short of a fully integrated experience.  But that doesn’t mean the smartphone can’t provide another means to solving this dilemma.

At the recent North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Johnson Controls showed a solution from NNG using the smartphone as a map updating tool.  While the details were not clear – including whether the entire map or just portions of the map will be updated or, indeed, what the cost will be – the concept is spectacular.

Any driver getting into a car ought to be able to update the on-board maps on demand as needed.  Given current connectivity options, the smartphone is the smartest and best solution to this problem.

The fact that Johnson Controls is the first to show this approach publicly reflects the power of a newcomer entering the market.  While NNG works closely with other Tier Ones, such as Harman, it is Johnson Controls that put the concept front and center in its booth in Detroit, although no press release was published.

Based on conversations with competing navigation software providers, the likelihood is that competing systems and solutions will soon be on display.  The bottom line is that, once again, the smartphone represents the solution to a hazardous driving condition, not the source.  At stake is the mitigation of driver distraction, enhancing the driving experience and assuring the highest level of customer satisfaction.

2012 will be remembered as the year of usage-based insurance. But in retrospect it is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Is usage-based insurance the silver bullet to simultaneously reduce traffic congestion, carbon emissions and highway fatalities?

The ultimate objective of UBI programs is to modify driving behavior or reward existing good driving behavior. (Yes, I know, insurance companies are looking to reduce churn by rewarding their best customers and stealing their competitors' best customers, but let's look at it from the consumer's perspective.) Some progress was made in 2012, but there is ample room for improvement in the area of on-board/embedded systems, OBDII plug-ins, aftermarket systems and smartphone apps.

So where do we stand at the outset of 2013? 

First, it is important to understand the key objectives of driver behavior modification: 

1.  Increased safety
2. Reduced emissions
3. Increased fuel efficiency
4. Lower insurance premiums

I start the year off in a new 2013 BMW 3 Series with a remarkably distracting BMW Apps iPhone integration (not reviewed here).  In trading up from my 2011 BMW 3 Series I have pleased my wife by moving to remote keyless entry, but disappointed her with a car that has no seat warmers – unlike its predecessor.  Like its predecessor, it also lacks a backup camera or sensors.  (Clearly out of step with the impending U.S. mandate.)

Still, the new car does come with a turbo-charged four cylinder engine and start-stop technology significantly reducing fuel consumption while increasing horse power.  There are multiple sources of feedback around green driving in the car and there is a toggle near the shifter to select driving style – Sport or ECO PRO.

With ECO PRO, the driver can extend the range of the vehicle by adjusting driving style according to cues in the instrument cluster.  It is no surprise that a German car company offers such a function since an hour-long drive on the Autobahn can produce dramatically different fuel consumption – and, hence, range – results based on speed.

A system for discouraging speeding in a BMW is a stroke of genius, particularly for me, given the fact that my record of violations spiked following the acquisition of my first BMW.  (There is no app – not even Coyote or Trapster – that would have saved me.)

The ECO PRO driving mode introduces a series of instrument cluster symbols and signals making very subtle (it IS a BMW after all) suggestions primarily based on reducing acceleration.  ECO PRO also ties into the operation of climate control systems for maximum fuel savings.  The system is even able to calculate and display for the driver the estimated percentage of fuel savings based on the settings selected.  The driver can also control the timing and nature of the driving tips offered by the car.

This system can provide a history of fuel consumption including energy recovery.  And, yes, it can also control the rate of cabin heating or cooling and the output of the seat heater – if there were one.  Similar systems are available from other car makers, but I am most familiar with the BMW offering and it is emblematic of an industry trend.

In contrast to this system of buttons, settings, alerts, icons and statistical analysis, my wife’s Toyota Sienna is equipped with an aftermarket Pioneer Aha Radio which periodically provides an “ECO Graph” of her driving performance.  I personally think my wife is something of a lead foot, but she thinks she is performing pretty well in this report.

Unfortunately, the report appears at random intervals and fails to explain what, if anything, my wife is doing well or how she can improve.  For her, the driving feedback is simultaneously interesting, intriguing and frustrating.  She thinks there should be rewards – anything from gold stars to insurance discounts – associated with her good driving.

There is no doubt that she is correct.  Her driving experiences in 2012 included a brief stint testing Progressive Insurance’s SnapShot usage-based insurance OBDII plug in.  The device annoyed her with loud beeping during hard braking, but wirelessly delivered a graphical presentation of her driving behavior to a Website. (There are a wide range of third-party offerings with Website dashboards charting driving behavior and providing driving tips.)

Progressive offers SnapShot in Virginia, where my wife and I live, but after mailing the device back to the company, the insurer never responded with an evaluation or offer of coverage.  SnapShot claims customers can save up to 30% in the program. 

Whether that is actually true or not depends on how much you trust an insurance company.  Progressive more or less discourages drivers the company determines will not benefit from the program.

My wife briefly tested another OBDII plug-in from a company called GridLoyalty.  Founded by a former Intelligent Mechatronics executive, GridLoyalty promised a range of affinity offers based on driving behavior.  Unfortunately, most of the affinity offers were associated with organizations – such as convenience stores – in the Las Vegas area.  While the device provided wireless feedback to a Website – a la Progressive – there were no offers in Virginia.

In the year past, insurance companies and their third-party partners, crowed about the wonders of usage-based insurance.  Even government regulators embraced usage-based insurance as a tool for reducing driving and, therefore, congestion and emissions.  Studies show that drivers in UBI programs tend to drive less in general and after joining the programs.

In spite of the enthusiasm and publicity surrounding UBI programs and more than five years of market availability there are still fewer than 2.5M users of these systems around the world.  There is good reason for this lackluster consumer response.  The programs offer minimal savings and require a significant surrender of privacy.

The daily relevance of an insurance discount is less a benefit than a sword of Damocles swinging over the head of the driver in case that driver deviates from his or her previously safe pattern of driving.  What is missing are daily rewards and/or penalties.

MetroMile, an insurance startup, is introducing a pay-per-mile based offering that the company hopes to expand to other value propositions such as vehicle service and warranty offers.  The MetroMile offer is a step in the right direction, but falls short.  What is really missing is a more comprehensive affinity program tying vehicle use to offers and discounts for driving-relevant products and services such as fuel, parking, restaurants and tolls.

The MetroMile offer (Company Website: http://bit.ly/ZRHooE) is attractive for its simplicity relative to offerings from insurance companies.  But what is necessary is for local governments, tolling authorities, roadside franchise operators and such to coalesce around wireless payment systems to enable a more broad-based program of driver rewards and, yes, penalties – ie. drive less, save more.

Implications:

Car makers, such as BMW, are already delivering on in-vehicle systems designed to modify driving behavior.  The next step is actually rewarding that good behavior with more than just insurance discounts based on intrusive tracking systems. 

A free cup of coffee, tank of gas, parking space, hamburger or oil change ought to be enough to convince nearly any driver to be willing to share their location information and vehicle data.  Though distracting, BMW Apps does provide smartphone-based vehicle information feedback while also enabling some limited remote operation of the vehicle - illustrating the fact that there is a role for the smartphone in this new value proposition.

And what about traffic management authorities able to reward drivers - from specific neighborhoods and/or on short notice via smartphone apps or other alerts! - for NOT driving on days when high levels of congestion or pollution are anticipated?  Or maybe specific drivers are granted HOV lane access or other driving privileges on demand or for a particular time of day - or for a premium as in the Washington, DC area.  There are clear opportunities for public-private collaboration and/or direct consumer engagement.

Is there a future for usage-based insurance?  Yes, there will always be consumers who will do anything for a discount of any kind.  But usage-based insurance is likely to remain a niche application for the foreseeable future.  That niche role will be a disappointment to governments hoping for UBI programs to provide a market-based means for reducing emissions and traffic.

But if car makers are able to build more effective affinity programs, then UBI programs will benefit from the expansion of vehicle data sharing.  The question is which marketing partners and OEMs will lead the way in 2013 and what will these programs look like.  And, finally, is it possible to retrofit a 2013 3 Series with seat warmers?

Just picked up my wife's Toyota Sienna from the local Toyota dealer where I bought the car and heard a familiar tale of woe.  Seems a customer had a bad accident and took his vehicle to an independent repair shop as per direction from his insurance company.  The independent shop patched the car back together except that the car was no longer functioning properly.  As a result, after spending $10,000+ with an independent, the customer had to bring his car back to the Toyota dealer to try to figure out what was wrong.

The scenario is more familiar than you may think and it highlights a multi-billion dollar opportunity currently overlooked by the automotive industry.  Drivers who get into accidents - big ones or fender benders - nearly always call the insurance company first to file a claim or to get assistance and advice.  The insurance company almost always directs the customer to its network of preferred independent shops to repair the car.  There are a lot of things the insurance company is NOT telling its customer and using genuine OEM parts is just the beginning.

By going to an independent shop the customer risks his car:

-> Being rapaired with unauthorized, third-party parts which will void the warranty.  This includes everything from sensors to windshields.

-> Being repaired by a company that may not even have access to specific parts - either from the OEM or third parties - in the event the car is a new model.

-> Being repaired poorly and incorrectly - particularly with regard to electronic systems.  While independents have some protection to access repair information from OEMs, the information is expensive and independents usually can't afford to repair all makes and models.

-> Being repaired unsafely.

In the worst case, if the customer is leasing the vehicle he or she may be liable for any or all third-party replacement parts being removed and replaced by genuine OEM parts at the customer's expense.

It is for this reason that dealers in the United Kingdom have mounted a now two-year-old campaign to convince customers to call their dealers first, not the insurance company.  Using this approach, the dealer becomes an advocate for the customer to ensure a proper repair occurs, regardless of whether the repair is performed by the dealer or an independent.

As for Customer X at my local Toyota dealer, hours of labor will now go into a forensic exercise to diagnose the problem before the repair of the repair can begin.  It won't be long before dealers in the U.S. are spreading the same message.  Customers should call the dealer first before the insurance company - or at least make sure the dealer has a chance to bid on the repair.

The dealer has a much bigger stake in ensuring the proper repair is made and the customer made happy.  The insurance company is solely interested in mitigating its expense.  The well-being of the customer or the car is a lower priority.

What's at stake for dealers and OEMs?  According to the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, the collison repair business in the U.S. is worth $40B - and new car dealers have about a 15% market share.  That's what is at stake.  To say nothing of the opportunity to sell the customer a new car and, generally, to provide an enhanced customer care experience which is likely to produce higher customer satisfaction scores.

For additional insight:  Insurance Telematics: Path to Profit through Accident Aftercare - bit.ly/XVVYua

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released its 2013 “Most Wanted List” of solutions for transportation hazards including everything from enhanced pipeline safety to improved safety for airport surface operations. Near the bottom of the list were three items relevant to the automotive industry: reducing distracted driving in all environments, reducing impaired driving and mandating collision avoidance technologies.

The announcement from the NTSB is reminiscent of what Abraham Maslow said in 1966: “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” I believe this statement accurately characterizes the NTSB’s position - replace "hammer" with "mandate" - but it only hints at the potential negative consequences from mandating safety technologies.

The concerns of the NTSB are significant and worthy of note.  While annual highway fatalities have been in a steady decline for the past decade, the U.S. still sees approximately 100 fatalities per day on its roads.  This is clearly not acceptable.  According to NTSB estimates 10,000 lives are lost annually to impaired drivers – the single greatest source of death and injury on the road. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed a much quoted figure of 3,000 annual fatalities from distracted driving most often ascribed to the use of smartphones.  NHTSA representatives have stated publicly they are seeking better metrics for this phenomenon, but executives at the NTSB have already voiced their preference for a ban on mobile phones in cars – something which is opposed by the automotive industry and the Consumer Electronics Association among other interested parties.

The NTSB further estimates that run-off-road, rear-end, and lane change maneuvers account for 23%, 28%, and 9% of highway accidents, respectively. The agency says collision avoidance technologies can prevent these types of accidents - or 60% of the total.

NTSB cites data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for its claims that mandating collision avoidance technologies will prevent crashes and save lives.  NTSB says the IIHS “estimates that forward collision warning can prevent 879 fatal crashes annually for passenger vehicles and 115 fatal crashes annually for large trucks. The (IIHS) estimates that lane departure warning can prevent 247 fatal crashes annually, and electronic stability control, 439 fatal crashes annually.

There are a host of issues raised by this call for a mandate and I have an alternative proposal.  First, the problems.

1)      The NTSB’s call to mandate collision avoidance technologies has immediately put automotive industry lobbyists on the defensive, although some have actually already gone into attack mode.  Unfortunately, the predictable path of resistance lies in decrying the high cost of fulfilling technology mandates, which will translate as more expensive vehicles.  The agency has responded that the industry cost estimates are too high and they will decline over time anyway.  The real problem here is that it puts the automotive industry in the awkward position of arguing indirectly or directly over the value of saved lives.  This is unproductive and corrosive to the regulatory process while introducing an undue level of emotion and exposing, inaccurately,  the auto industry as possessed of a callous disregard for human life.

2)      The IIHS as a source of statistical validation is hardly a disinterested party, funded as it is by the insurance industry.  In spite of the IIHS findings regarding the efficacy of certain safety systems, consumers have seen little reward from their insurers in the form of lower insurance rates for cars equipped with these systems.  And the IIHS was not nearly as sanguine as the NTSB regarding lane departure warning, which the IIHS said, earlier this year, can harm rather help avoid accidents, in the organizaton’s own words.

3)      The mandate process itself will require years of testing to determine the efficacy of these systems for preventing crashes and fatalities.  Even if the NTSB and the industry could agree that something should be done, each technology will require extensive testing and review virtually halting existing development in the industry - which is currently moving at a rapid pace - for fear of selecting the “wrong” solution.

4)      NHTSA has already set out a target of crash avoidance and is rewarding car makers with higher safety ratings.

Here are my modest proposals for resolving this scenario.  My ideas are market driven although they will benefit from

endorsement or implementation within the existing regulatory framework.

1)      Require insurers to offer discounts for vehicles equipped with the very safety systems for which the agency is seeking “robust” industry adoption.  It’s almost impossible – if not actually impossible – to find an insurer willing to offer a discount on a Volvo equipped with City Safety collision avoidance.  If this is a life-saving technology, it is time for the insurance industry to put its money on what its data has validated and it may also be time for the NTSB or some other regulator to compel such action.

2)      We are currently at the outset of the World Health Organization’s Decade of Action for Road Safety.  There couldn’t possibly be a better time for the NTSB, perhaps in concert with NHTSA, to set forth a set of targets along the lines of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.  The automotive industry howled when the 54.5 mpg standard was first proposed, but has now agreed to go along.  Could the U.S. put together individual car maker targets for lives saved/deaths prevented?  Could the NTSB and or NHTSA build a database intended to identify best practices in vehicle safety system design?  Could auto makers be forced to take more responsibility for the actions and behaviors of their drivers?

3)      How about tax credits for new cars equipped with specific qualifying safety systems?

4)      It is worth noting that car makers are already bringing a wider portfolio of safety systems to more and more of their cars at lower price ranges.  Market conditions suggest that mandates at this time are almost completely unnecessary and, if anything, will only slow adoption and deployment.

There are a lot of ways to save lives and there are a lot of lives to be saved.  Mandates aren’t the only path to less motor vehicle bloodshed.  The government and insurers should recognize and reward those car makers that have made the greatest progress in ending highway mayhem.  And drivers, too, should be rewarded for choosing safety.

OnStar announces its next global launch today as Mexico in 2013, validating Strategy Analytics' analysis when OnStar announced Telefonica as its partner for global expansion earlier this year (http://bit.ly/ORVLii - OnStar Reveals Regional Priorities with Telefonica Selection). Details regarding cars, services, partners and pricing have not yet been announced, but the move will likely serve as a proving ground for faster future market introductions anticipated for larger more strategic markets including Brazil and Europe.

Mexico is GM's fifth largest global market with slightly more than 160,000 units sold in 2011.  Brazil represents approximately four times the volume in Mexico, but given the government's Contran 245 mandate (http://bit.ly/ORYR5S - Brazil: The Embrace of Wireless Technologies Transforms the Telematics Market) for vehicle tracking and immobilization - which has been delayed for the 10th time until January 2013 - it makes sense for GM to proceed with caution. (The rollout in Mexico also allows GM to give its new ATOMS telematics platform a dry run with a GSM network.)

The same is true for Europe, where the eCall mandate has frozen many telematics deployment plans while legal and privacy issues are resolved along with logistical issues related to equipping public service access points with required technology. (http://bit.ly/tunyIL - European eCall Mandate Aims Low, Falls Short) In the end, it is highly likely that OnStar, when it arrives on European shores, will do so as a private solution working in parallel with the public eCall - unfortunately.

General Motors, meanwhile, is on a roll, posting steady sales increases throughout the world, according to the latest sales press release reported by the GMAuthority newsletter (graphic below). No doubt OnStar wants to join and add to that momentum with its value-added vehicle connectivity platform.

The launch of the ATOMS telematics infrastructure platform earlier this year by GM/OnStar has set the stage for rapid global deployment and growth for the service. (http://bit.ly/IpSRmf - OnStar Looks to Unify Connectivity Strategy) Mexico will clearly represent the acid test, serving as a dry run for country rollouts to come as well as a proving ground for the switch to GSM technology.

The automotive collision repair business in the U.S. grew 3.3% in 2011 to $38.7B, in spite of a decline in miles driven and the number of collisions, according to the latest report from the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association. Cars are lasting longer, being driven less and getting in fewer accidents, the report notes, citing multiple insurance and automotive industry sources.

The 2012 edition of the AAIA’s Digital Collision Repair Trends: Industry Statistics & Analysis arrives just a week before Telematics Update’s Insurance Telematics event in Chicago. Insurance and automotive industry executives will convene next week to discuss usage-based insurance and the insurance implications of car sharing and EVs, among other topics.

The AAIA is most focused on the concerns of the independent car repair shop industry, of which there were 40,279 as of 2011, down from 46,700 in 2001, according to the report. Insurers and independent car repair shops generally share the same objectives.

Not all car dealers embrace the collision repair business, but for most it is an essential element in their revenue portfolio. Every OEM wants to see its cars repaired with genuine OEM parts. The accident aftercare business is a strategic one for both new car dealers and OEMs and telematics – a topic not covered in the AAIA report – can serve as a lead generating device for the dealer channel.

The study reports that the average number of vehicle miles driven declined in 2008 for the first time in two decades. The total was 2.96 trillion miles in 2011, down 1.2% from 2010. Roadway congestion has also leveled off, according to the report.

The declining rate of vehicle usage has likely contributed to declining collision rates and declining insurance claims, both of which are cause for concern to both insurers and repair shops. Most of this decline is coming in the developed world where more well-equipped cars are available with better educated drivers. In developing markets around the world rising levels of vehicle ownership have brought to the fore issues of security, theft and rising accident rates setting the stage for very different insurance priorities. (Preventing fraud has also emerged as a core issue throughout Europe.)

The proliferation of collision avoidance technologies including adaptive cruise control, blindspot detection, back-up cameras and lane departure warning have certainly contributed to the decline in collisions in the developed world. But the U.S. saw a slight uptick in vehicle ownership last year after a leveling off between 2008 and 2010 – rising slightly to 240.5M vehicles in 2011, according to data from Polk, which was a contributor to the report. More cars usually translates to more miles driven and more accidents.

Polk also contributed average vehicle age data to the study. Polk reports that the average car on the road in the U.S. is 11.1 years old, continuing a steady unbroken yearly rise from 8.4 years in 1995. Polk analysts say that the U.S. can expect to see the overall rate of vehicle ownership to resume its climb as the economy recovers and that the average age of a car will peak.

Vehicle age is a critical factor in determining the repair destination. AAIA says that slightly more than one in three (36.9%) of vehicles in the one year-old category have its collision repair work performed at new car dealerships. The percentage drops substantially after the first year as consumers seek independent repair channels to fulfill their collision repair needs.

So the megatrends represent a mixed bag of good news and bad news for independent repair shops. Cars that last longer are more likely to be brought to an independent repair shop for repairs, but not if there are fewer accidents.

AAIA says that in 2010, independent repair shops contributed 86.3 percent of total sales in the collision repair industry, with dealership body shops making up only 13.7% of total sales. “Previous experience” and “convenience” were the most important factors in selecting an outlet for collision repair work, the study states.

Insurers and independent repair shops have a common cause in capturing a larger chunk of the collision aftercare market. For new car dealers, the best opportunity lies in leveraging vehicle connectivity technology to better identify, respond to and capture post-collision opportunities.

Telematics has a role to play in this scenario, but no car maker has found the solution to this challenge yet. Until OEMs can solve this problem their aftersales divisions will continue to miss out on billions of dollars in revenue while dealers battle insurers and independent shops for profitable collision repair opportunities.