The Spot Light is Now on Buy Backs
If you want to start a spirited conversation at a
meeting with a group of lubricant marketers, just
ask them what they think about buybacks, or if they
feel the back fees are adequate and what they
believe is a good mix of buyback business. And if at
the same meeting you feel the need for some mental
gymnastics and what will in all likelihood be an
exercise in futility, ask any major in attendance to
share with you and others within earshot how they
calculate their buyback fees and what metrics and
triggers they use to adjust these fees.
One thing you can be sure of is that these and
most other questions and comments concerning
buybacks will get attention. This is because in the
view of many lubricant marketers, growth in buyback
business is one of the most significant issues on
their plate.
So what are the majors doing to assure that buy-
back fees are fair and that their valued channel
partners are equitably compensated for driver wages,
fuel, insurance, and other rising costs that go into
delivering a gallon of lubricant on the major's
paper? From what Jobbers World is hearing, some
majors say they are "studying it." But what does
this mean? What are the majors studying and how long
will it be before marketers see any results?
For some majors, "studying it" means they are
spending big bucks on market research data. As an
example, two majors recently spent major bucks with
a consulting firm for benchmarking studies on buy-
back fees. Marketers were told that the objective of
these studies was reportedly to compare the buy-back
fees of the major against the fees of other majors
to determine if its fees were inline with the
competition.
But in the words of just about every marketer
Jobbers World spoke with about these studies and
others like it, beyond the fact that the numbers are
often dated and wrong, these benchmarking exercises
are out of touch with reality. Rather than
benchmarking and addressing the real and dynamic
costs associated with delivering a gallon of
lubricant in specific cities and states and to
specific classes of trade, some feel they do nothing
more than "benchmark bad numbers against bad
numbers." Moreover, they seek to prove that the
major's fees are equitable only by saying they are
"inline with the others." To some, this proof is not
much different or persuasive than the student who
seeks to prove to its parent that the "D" it got on
a test is OK because everyone else in its class also
got a "D." And worse yet, there is no need for them
to do better because its grade is inline with the
other in its class. This novice attempt by the
student at best in class benchmarking doesn't wash
with a parent. And the more professionally wrapped
version of it in the form of a high priced market
research study on comparative buy-back fees isn't
washing with savvy lubricant distributors either.
Don't get me wrong, some majors have worked
closely with their marketers when studying buy back
fees and they are sensitive to cost differences in
regions and accounts. But overall, Jobbers World's
data indicates that others don't.
So while the majors continue to "study" buy back
fees, Jobbers World will be taking an in-depth and
independent look at the facts in its upcoming series
on buy back fees. Because while some majors are
reportedly "studying it," the cost of diesel went up
$0.24 a gallon, marketers got one letter from their
insurance carrier about a significant price
increase, and at a minimum, the marketer's drivers
have seen at least one pay raise. And yes, for those
marketers in the North, it will very likely cost
more to keep the major's product warm and dry this
year than it did last.
Get the facts on Buy Backs and other important
marketer issues by subscribing to the full print
version of Jobbers World