A badge of honor
As new model year units start appearing on dealer lots, some dealers get anxious about stale units from the previous model year. Often manufacturers will discount a unit to help the dealer move it off the lot. But, apparently, some OEMs take a more desperate approach when things get more desperate.
About a month ago, a manufacturer’s rep alerted me to a problem he believes is highly unscrupulous. I researched the topic and quietly asked a few other sources about the likelihood such a “transaction” could take place. Although it would be highly illegal for an RV dealer to attempt the same trick, apparently manufacturers are able to get it done. And that’s the concept of “rebadging” units.
Here’s how it works. A dealer in Texas receives a 2007 model in the fall of 2006. The manufacturer’s 2008 models come out mid-year. But, in September when the Texas dealer still can’t sell the 2007 model, he triggers a buy back under the terms of his dealer agreement. The 2007 model winds up back on the manufacturer’s lot.
Unable to move the model to anyone else and unwilling to discount it further, the manufacturer eventually brings the unit into the shop, pulls off the VIN, reissues the number and presto, a new 2008 model is born. New paperwork is issued and the unit shipped to an unsuspecting dealer.
My source said he has only seen this happen a handful of times in the past three or four years, so I suspect it’s not a widespread problem. However, if most of the units arriving on a dealer’s lot from a particular manufacturer come with X miles on it, and one suddenly shows up with double or triple that number, dealers have every right to question the unit’s validity, especially if the paint schemes, floorplans and interior colors have not changed significantly from the previous year.
The OEM source said that when dealers question the manufacturer about the higher-than-normal mileage, they are told the unit was driven to some RV shows before it was shipped to the dealer lot.
I googled the concept of vehicle manufacturers rebadging units, converting VIN numbers and the like. There is little information out there about the practice, so I don’t believe it happens that often. Or it simply means that nobody has been caught, yet.
The deception of such a maneuver bothers me. Not only are dealers being deceived, so are the unsuspecting customers. It makes me wonder how such a trick affects warranty issues for interior components. And if a manufacturer is willing to go to that level to sell a unit, what else is the company doing to cut corners?
I can understand why a manufacturer would take such a measure to retain profitability, especially if the OEM has had a tough year or two. But other options also remain including selling it at an auction or online, donating it to charity and writing off the entire cost, or lending it to RVIA for the vehicle loan program for a year, then selling it as a used unit and writing off the depreciation.
My OEM source said he was having a hard time sleeping knowing that this type of deceptive practice was taking place in our industry and in his company. He said the operation to change VIN numbers is done quietly and with the knowledge of senior managers, but the officials harbored a “what they don’t know won’t hurt them” attitude toward the dealers who receive the units and must sell them to others.
It’s a particularly sneaky maneuver if the new dealer’s business is in a state that doesn’t have a buy back rule. Should he be unable to sell the unit due to a defect or whatever, then the dealer must bear the full brunt of writing down the unit just to get it off the lot.
Manufacturers should police themselves against this kind of deception. Doing so would ensure their VIN numbers remain badges of honor, not devices of deception.
October 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
If the coach was built in June 2005 on a 2005 Ford, from what I’m reading, it could be legally considered a 2006 model since new models can come out 6 months prior to the year the coach is labeled.
BUT it is LISTED in a brochure for 2005 models and the 2006 brochure has the same coach size with a model number one digit higher than the 2005 model.
Obviously the manufacturer meant to sell it as a 2005 but when that didn’t work, they switched it to 2006.
Their LITERATURE says it is a 2005 and definitely not a 2006.
I’d appreciate opinions about this proving deception.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Read the article again folks, this is not about title or registeration, or even any manipulation from the dealer, this is about the MANUFACTURER commiting fraud. the dealer in this case may have never known or may have turned a blind eye due to the lower wholesale cost of the unit.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Here’s the Agreement among most states: Just an FYI - I agree that rebadging a motorhome, if it actually happens, is improper, but the issue of the Split Year Title of a motorhome has been addressed and is legal in the right circumstances. The Model Year of a Motorhome is obtained from the Final Stage (motorhome) Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MCO) — Not the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). The practice of titling RVs based on the year of manufacture of the coach part of the motorhome and not the chassis was confirmed by resolution of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) in 1979. They state in part, “To convey ownership of a new motor home, the assignment will be made on the multi-stage Certificate of Origin.” ” The Model year of a new complete vehicle shall be the only year recorded in the motor vehicle agency files and on the registration and title.” Resolutions 18C, 19C and 20 of the AAMVA apply. Source: AAMVA Policy Positions and Bylaws, 1997.
SIMILARLY, the FTC has been asked this question in the past, and a in a letter responding to a request, dated January 6, 1999, from D. Reed Freeman - partly stated that, “It would not likely be considered an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a motor vehicle manufacturer to designate the model year of a multi-stage motor home or recreational vehicle to designate the model year of a multi-stage motor home or recreational vehicle as that of the completed motor home or recreational vehicle, even when that model year is different from that of the vehicle’s chassis.”
October 4th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
We bought a 2006 RV and found out it is on a 2005 Ford E450 chassis. The dealer said the coach was a 2006 even though a 2005 chassis was used. The vin number says it is a 2005. The dealer could not find a 2006 brochure so gave us a 2007 booklet for the features. The manufacturer sent me a 2006 brochure at my request and there is a later model than we have, but not ours. I finally found our model in a 2005 brochure about another model ! So did they just retag the coach as a year older than it is?
This is our first RV so we didn’t know about these kind of shady manuverings. The mileage was close to 4000 but we were told that is not unusual from driving across country plus a few local RV shows. We got some off for a year old (sic) model, but not enough to make up for this dishonesty.
I wonder if we are dealing with the same manufacturer and/or dealer as Eramaled.
I would like to do something about this, but don’t want to have this backfire by me naming names. I’m going to check with authorities and see if I can do anything about this.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:09 am
I’m a commercial equipment / trailer dealer. In my experience RV dealers are about the worst in the business. Almost all RV salesmen I’ve encountered are the “seen it all” types. Claim to know everything, but in reality have exceedingly limited product technical knowledge. They wouldn’t stand a chance in my market, where the customer is actually educated about what they are buying.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Please explain WHY or HOW any manufacturer would allow a buyback in the Franchise agreement. If you singled out Texas, my interpretation of the Texas Buy Back ( Texas Dealer franchise for RV) only kicks in IF YOU TERMINATE the Franchise, not because you cannot sell a certain model. Besides in 1982, there were still 1982 models with 1979 Dodge Class A chassis as 1979 was the last year for Dodge and there was a tremendous backlog. IF you have knowledge of re doing VIN numbers, then YOU are just as guilty for not reporting them. To write an article and quote sources and then just sit back is wrong. Contac the appropriate authorities and let THEM decide if the law is being broken.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Why does the industry associations (RVIA and RVDA)not step in and set guidelines in such areas? That could alleviate alot of problems in the industry such as this. As far as new model year release both OEMS I deal with moved their model year release to May 1st of this year. Have the new models come out in November before the Louisville show. No Exceptions. That should help to keep everybody honest.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:03 am
In your response from Eramaled about split year chassis on Class A’s and C’s it is apparent we have retail customers on the Web-site who do not understand manufacturing registration policies. Now you bring up rebadging and that really makes us look like crooks.
I have been a sales manager, director of marketing and plant manager in this industry for 39 years and both rebadging and split year dating have gone on since day one.
Split year models has to happen as we never know when a chassis manufacturer while change model year and we build the final body and must met the industry requirements.
September 14th, 2007 at 8:30 am
I know this happens as a very large mfg. sent me new msos’ on a load of pop up campers I had just bought. The new model years were coming out right after my load arrived but they failed to tell me that. When questioned, they said the new ones were the same as last years just different year models on the MSO. They sent new MSO and paperwork so they would be titled as the more current model year. We have since dissolved our relationship with this mfg. and do not sell any of their products. I’ve heard other companies have been doing this also. This was as long as 8-10 years ago and I understand they are still doing it. SHAME on THEM! That’s why we need new model years change at the Louisville show.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:27 am
No time was wasted in naming the person/dealer in California who is going on trial for his devious deeds, if your going take issue with a problem we all should be aware of, then at least name the manufacture so we can take the appropriate steps to protect ourselves and our customers.
Any manufacture found guilty of this practice should be hung out to dry and not allowed RVIA Certification…
September 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Most business owners know to try and make a profit and alleviate a loss is what is about. We also know that when approaching a customer we have a chance to give them “a smokin deal”. What does the average customer care about color? If it was a good color last year and they don’t own one then they will probably like the color this year. As far as miles and year of Chassis that is why they get “a smokin deal”. But, the problem here is Disclosure. Up front honesty on the whole situtation. Manufacturers should offer this to all of its dealer network and now the problem has turned into an opportunity for someone. Disclosure is the key…Remember we are all in this together..
September 13th, 2007 at 8:56 am
We just happen to have an RV dealership that also sells marine products and here’s whats happening in that industry. Mercury Motors (owned by Brunswick) decided that the motors will no longer have a model year associated with them. They will only have a model number that does not reflect the year. The dealers are now supposed to sell by model number and never discuss the year. This allows the manufacturer to dump all the old stuff out their warehouse at current pricing instead of discounting this non-current product. The marine industry (boats & motors) typically change their model year on July 1st. So we receive a Crestliner boat load in July 2008 (also a Brunswick company) and the boats are designated as 2008 models, but the motors shipped with the load have a mfg. date of 2006. Needless to say our customers are not impressed and blame the dealership for trying to pull one on them, even though we explain the situation we are in. It seems like no matter what happens in these industries… the dealership always ends up with the fallout.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
A suggestion:
When situations arise such as this, where there may be an explanation (although I doubt it) or the names of the offending company are known, then I would suggest that Greg send a certified letter to the CEO of the company accused of a practice that is damaging to the RV industry.
The letter could explain that a blog is being prepared and will be published in X number of days. Give the suspected company seven days to respond and either admit, refute, or provide no comment on the allegations.
The letter should also explain that their company is going to be mentioned in the blog.
Then let’s see how many of the offenders of such practices respond. It is unfortunate that we have companies that do so much damage to the industry and the many excellent dealers and manufacturers trying to do the right thing.
As Greg’s blogs have revealed, it’s not just poor quality, dealer issues, and warranty claims that are shining a bad light on the RV industry when it should be promoting and expanding the marketplace.
Social networking is a fact of life in business today, and consumers are well aware of it. I hope nobody in this industry thinks the only people who read the blog are industry types!
Guess what - your customers are reading this also.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I AM HORRIFIED!!! That is so unethical…probably illegal also. You should name names so that these manufacturers can be avoided!!!
September 12th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I’ve known of this practice and see it done occasionally. This practice along with very poor quality, very poor warranty treatment, very poor parts availability, and other “very poors” makes our industry look very bad. I would like for RVDA to take a much more aggressive stance when it comes to “naming” names when the quality survey results come out and maybe this publication could name those guilty of rebadging. “Pussy footing around” has done no good and needs to stop.
September 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I agree with Randy. Enough of the pussy footing around. How about some name(s)?
September 11th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
LIKE JOE SAID NEW MODELS SHOULD COME OUT FOR THE LOUISVILLE SHOW,IT WILL HELPS US A LOT SINCE WE ARE IN THE NORTH COUNTRY,QUEBEC,CANADA
September 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I agree with all the comments. Why don’t you just come out and say who is doing this and I’m sure the problem will take care of itself.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
There is already so much confusion in regards to the year of a coach. In the class C market, very often the chassis is a whole different year than the box. I owned a unit that was sold and marketed as a 2003 on a 2002 Ford E450 chassis. If you took it in for chassis service they would always tell me I had given thm the wrong year on the Motorhome.
If a Mfg of a motorhome were to try to sell it on the internet and any of thier dealers got wind of it somehow it would cause a lot of problems. Dealers would feel like the mfg was competing with them.
I think that the mfg and the dealers need to work together and discount the units enough to move the units off the lots.
If Mfg’s are using this practice of rebadging it should be stopped immediately. As an industry we have enough problems with bad publicity lets not add fuel to the fire.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Although I’m sure it happens I don’t quite understand why a manufacturer would find the risk worth while! It wouldn’t take a very savy dealer to figure out that the coach isn’t new model year. Between graphic changes and options how a dealer couldn’t catch that would be the surprising factor! If the dealer didn’t catch them then sooner or later they will have to account for the missing VIN’S.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Ive always said , the new models should come out in November, NOT JUNE!