I am conducting a fact finding mission to see if we have standing to bring a class action suit against NAGS.
Please post your opinions and legal references.
NOT YOUR OPINION ONLY. RANTS Will do nothing except cloud the issue.
Any articles you find please post link. (If allowable)
I am going to take all info gathered and discuss this matter with an attorney.
Join your local AGR associations. This brings a strong coehesion to the AGR industry and a shareing of ideas and concepts.

I don't think there is any case against NAGS. They are a 3rd party information company. They are the same as Kelly Blue Book or a comic book pricing guide.

It's the insurance companies that choose whether or not to use the NAGS pricing as a guide and it's the insurance companies that are responsible for what they pay.

Unless one could prove that the insurance companies and NAGS are in collusion together or that NAGS requires the insurance companies to use them or pay specific amounts, I think you're chasing the wrong company.

JAC

Research the case against PPG that caused them to be under a consent decree for several years.

I don't know the actual details, have to dig for this one, but I do remember that PPG list prices were different from NAGS. If only by a few cents, perhaps, but different, nevertheless.

Could be useful toward your goal.

Also, check into the flat glass price fixing case from not long ago. If that could be tied in, it could be useful.

Also...(still thinking as fast as I can type) if NAGS IS in fact an aftermarket part pricing benchmark, then consumers are automatically, by insurer/network/nags usage proxy, excluded from OEM part reimbursement, without even knowing it.

Personally, I believe that basis will be the key.

Now, what I'm curious about is, who will be the class, and what will be the tort? Strongly suggest you keep consumers in the front both.

From here, little should be posted on an open forum until all feather-bearing, quack-producing, web-toed waddling winged creatures are aligned.

Look at PPG's records in the 70's, they sure were cautious about anti-trust laws back then. If memory serves me correctly there were some cases involving sales people in the AGR depts and contract sales.

Is there anyway we can force NAGS to reveal how they come up with the list prices?

Your issues are with the insurance companies not Nags.
You are the ones accepting the discounts the O&A offers. You just do not get it.
Nags simply put prints a list.

FredO

It's the manipulation process of Nags "BENCHMARK PRICING"

How can a benchmarch be changed to benefit certain companies and be used to destroy others?

What is the definition of benchmark?

I do a lot of comercial glass on new construction, once a "benchmark" is established. Everyone works from it and can not be changed, if it is, things just do not work out properly.

That is what we are faced with in the auto glass business today. Benchmark Pricing is being changed to benefit those that publish it and also those that lobby for lower pricing.

Call NAGS. Be respectful and listen. I have found them to be accesible and straight forward about their methodology. It is not perfect but I feel the best we have availble right now. As far as a class action suit: on what grounds? I'm no attorney but you have to be able to demonstrate negligent activity that is designed to benefit the 1st party at the cost of another.

Ok,

So i have been quiet for what a week or 2 i have been building a 15 foot hight statue of bud oliver to put in my shop.... Lol but seriously, Your like a drug addict wanting to know why the drugs addict you, if you do not like what your taking (NAGS) get off it. We do not want you! I am surviving thru these changes and the last time i looked i weighed alot more, its because i eat steak, and not romnie noodles like i use to pre-nags re adjustment. Get off there ****ign ass i am serious. You by whining to insurance comapnies makes US as an industry look like a bunch rednecks. Hill Bill I am

Leave NAGS alone, or if you dont I will bring out the "GIMP" and let her sue you :)

If the Wholesalers or manufactures do not use NAGS. Where would NAGS get information to lower or even raise an established "benchmark" pricing.

Am I missing something here?

Mark1, could you give your oppion on this question.

Thanks

No, I think they just seem to favor the insurance industry. Wounder what party their contributing to.

It is my understanding that NAGS representatives and insurance company reps. meet, have met, are meeting to discuss list prices and acceptable labor hours. I tend to believe this as (A) there is a 3/10 of an hour difference (for clean-up) in nags hours between the AGR shop & body shops (B) whenever the list prices start rising, we suddenly see a complete re-structuring of NAGS pricing (C) the third party billing services are aware of and have this restructured pricing weeks before the AGR shops do.

One would think in spite of the antiquated anti-trust protective legislation passed decades ago on behalf of the insurance industry these meetings would constitute price fixing to the Nth degree.

Should NAGS be held accountable? Absoulutely! But I feel the insurance companies need to be held accountable as well. The hold they have over us should and must be addressed.

Thank you, Sglass, for taking action. I will do my best to seek information that could be helpful.

IB;
Your UNDERSTANDING (you spreading rumors)

OR

You KNOW for a FACT (What is)

IB = Nut case, lets see the video of nags and the insurance companys meeting... mabey they meet at area 51 ?? I am not sure I will look into it once i get done with my alien morphing lessons later.

STOP WHINING! STOP IT ! STOP IT!!!

ITS NOT A TUMOR!!!!

SEE ARTICLE IN WALL STREET JOURNAL-OCT. 6TH- PAGE 1 UPPER RIGHT HAND. VERY SIMILAR TO OUR SITUATION WITH NAGS. THIRD PARTY ARBITRARILY PRICING DRUGS FOR THE BENEFIT OF DRUG WHOLESALERS. POSSIBLY A $4 BILLION JUDGEMENT. ON MANY PARTS, NAGS PRICING IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. I AGREE THAT NAGS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM IN OUR INDUSTRY. THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY DETERMINE THEIR BENCHMARK PRICING.

HOLY PERSONAL ATTACK BACHAN!

& THAT'S CASHEW TO YOU!

You know what, it doesn't matter what NAGS sets the price at, the ins companies will just demand a discount to whatever the bottom line is of what THEY think it should cost THEM, and you all follow like lemmings of the cliff blaming NAGS as you go down.
So, you think if NAGS takes a part listed at $100 and "benchmarks it at $1000 you are going to make more money. Ya right, the ins co. will just change the discount right to where you are making the same per job. Don't you get it??????????????????????????

Jeeez wake up and smell the profits!

I am not whining. I am looking for avenues to change the trend our industry is in. Glass goes up, materials go up, gas goes up, Health & Business Insurance goes up, electricity goes up, oil for heat goes up, rent goes up, taxes go up, cost of living rises and OUR PROFITS ARE GOING DOWN. I’m not whining my business is good But I am looking for a way to STOP the trend.
Welcome back Bachman, I thought LS was going to take you place as the most condescending, obnoxious, know it all. You both share distain for fellow shop owners. Are you the same person?

FredO

Do you think once a Benchmark price is set, it can be adjusted once every 4 month's. If every price were adjusted the same, it would make more since to me than randomly changing only certain part #'S.

When you only change some it will effect all and in some cases the consumer not only gets the benefit of the lower discount, they also receive the lower so called "acceptable pricing" discount.

Now the glass shop takes a double hit on some parts.

People, if Sglass is attempting to document that NAGS is NOT reflective of the market at large, what's the problem with that? WE PAY for an accurate database. IF it isn't, then what's the point? What are we paying for?

I will agree that NAGS isn't the only problem, but it is one problem.

The fact that insurers change the discounts from a supposed list is indeed a problem as well, but starting at the beginning and working from there makes perfect sense to me.

IF NAGS benchmark was supposed to reflect the marketplace as a whole, then why do we have so many net priced parts?

Why aren't there now, nor have there ever been, any PREMIUM domestic parts? Dont' people that drive a Ford or a Chevy have a right to OEM just like those that drive a Beemer?

Is NAGS now predominately an aftermarket glass price database? If so, have they, and have we, by using it, played into a scenario where we are limiting consumer's choice of parts, due to the database we use, and to work within the insurers/networks "allowed rates"?

Look, I don't use the darn thing for anything past part numbers anymore, haven't for years; I cost-plus-markup every item, and I've offered to only buy the part usage and let them keep the pricing. So please don't tell me to stop whining.

What Sglass is doing is asking for information to sift through "A" pile of assumptions and misconceptions that exist in this business....the biggest of which is that the insurance companies are our customers, but his in the database we all use. And he's not the only one questioning data/software. Several in Collision have been gathering information for several years, watching changes mostly in shrinking labor times, but there are other anomolies as well: procedures, overlaps, allowances, missing items, ect ect. It's pretty darn interesting, in that these people hold themselves out to be supplying accurate data, but so many problems exist in the data, or in the software, or both.

Now, everybody relax, and have a NICE day!

CVB:

Pretty darn good question!

Where the heck are they getting the data? Asked and answered with "From Glass shops". They did not answer which ones, and yes, I was there at the conference listening, and asking.

I will give Bud and Jessee credit, standing up in front of all those people that were obviously ticked off, had to be tough.

Does not change the fact that we're left dealing with the results of "The Colonel's Secret Recipe".

Is there perhaps anyway to get an injunction against NAGS, or the LIST PRICE they publish? Something a judge can order to stop use of the product until it is found out to be reliable?

It is not like this is a faulty child seat where we can get the national media on this. I mean who really cares, other than all of us, if our profits are shrinking?

As was stated, you must keep the CONSUMER in the forefront of the arguement and show how it is detrimental to the CONSUMER!

just my thought for what it is worth!

Is NAGS the real problem here? I think the bigger problem is that the insurance companies offer less than NAGS and although there is plenty of complaining going on, most everyone signs th O&A Agreement and therefore accepts those terms. If the insurance companies were paying NAGS List for all of the parts (glass, moulding, clips, urethane, etc) and also paying a fair hourly rate like body shop or mechanics rates of $40-60.00 per hour at the suggested number of hours posted by NAGS, no one would be complaining.

I'll ask again: Is NAGS the real problem here?

the rule of the game is there are no rules anymore. back in the early '90's we all use to get paid well enough to run a business. Well times have changed. If you want to run a non-profit auto glass business you are still on the networks and making sure you bill your jobs out to the discount the insurance company wants you to. You don't step on anyones toes cuz god forbid they reject your invoice. This entire industry is a three ring circus and you are the trapeze artist. Grow some nuts and stand up for yourselves. Quit trying to find ways to play the game by THEIR rules. Bill direct. Forget the rest of the GD bullshiest.

OK.... here goes..

NAGS is a problem because the industry granted them a type of monopoly status based on one set of criteria and they changed those criteria, but for all intents and purposes, still have the status.

The industry cannot realistically ignore the benchmark (at the insurance level) because of the risk of what is essentially blackballing. Every major carrier requires a NAGS product reference for prompt payment. To go against the grain, one must remove their company from the standard and accepted method of billing and payment and thus incur additional expense and risk with the assertation that they WILL be treated in a manner that causes great financial risk.

This is because the industry granted NAGS their voice based on calculation methods that were abandoned in part in the late 90's and in total in 2005. The fact that the "benchmark" no longer represents a valid price and most shops have no confidence in the calculation methods now considered "fair" (this is a quote), is not a factor. There is no leverage on the glass side, as we continue to accept every price they throw at us.

Of course, if we didn't accept the price, the guy across the street would. That essentially means there is too much money in the business at this point. Like it or not. When we reach the point where the O/A is sent back with revisions, we will see a turnaround, until then, we don't have a leg to stand on.

Many in the industry have invested a ton of time and research into NAGS pricing and the formulation of true benchmark pricing. It is complicated, expensive and difficult to put in place. The work is continuing.

As far as a lawsuit goes, there could possibly be some grounds for price fixing, I don't know, but the thread is too tangled, the legal outcome too murky and the potential upside for a plaintiffs attorney too hard to quantify to garner any interest...especially when you add the fact that it would be difficult to show any consumer harm.

The long term fix is pretty clear; the industry stops accepting benchmark based "contracts", a new process is introduced, or NAGS agrees to revisit the formula procedures (which seems unlikely unless there is tremendous customer backlash). I think it will get a lot uglier before it gets better.

DL

You make to much sense.LOL Something we do not understand anymore we are Tooooo brain washed!

Let's look at this from a different angle. Those ****
Faxes every four months(or sooner sometimes) are causing a tremendous snowball effect. One insurance company sends thiers through and here we go the downward spiral is off and running. We also need to stop this cycle in it's track.

I have an idea Phone block all insurance companies and TPA's from faxing or calling your office!!

Sorry Sglass- I just had to throw that one in the mix....But those faxes are another item you may want to throw in your fact finding mission.

Referencing Glass Geek, I said it on page one of this thread and I'll say it again, the buck stops at the insurance companies. They are the ones manipulating NAGS to their favor, they are not using it as it was intended to be used after the rebalancing. Are they? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of rebalancing should have done away with the need for discounts. The rebalance was supposed to reflect accurate retail prices. We have not chosen to offer 25% off NAGS, it's take it or leave it. Now I know all of you anti network people who've either figured out how to get your invoices through directly without penalties and no contracts, or can afford to lose the installs that would be steered away because you shop does not "participate" in the given ins co's DRP are going to hit me with "yes you did, when you signed the O/A" statement. SO I think I will quit now and read the O/A every single page of it, it was in place when I began here. Then convince the boss to call a couple of agents maybe, and try to determine whether or not we will continue on DRP program, or try flying solo. Wonder if you go off of network, and 6 hungry months later try to rejoin they will have had you blacklisted or something LOL

The buck DOES NOT stop at the insurance company. It stops at your shop.

Imagine going into a store or service center of any type and saying "I will pay XX" for your product, and I potentially use this product xxx times per (insert time period here). If that number is within their profit tolerance, they might say, "ok". If it isn't, they will say no.

If they say no, you have the option of taking your offer elsewhere. If everyone says no, you have to modify your offer.

The argument that NAGS is non-sequitor is in direct conflict with the fact that the cash price for most installations, for whatever reason, is less than the exact same job on the insurance side. Bring up the cash price overall and "no" becomes a valid response. It happens every day with cash sales. Until it happens with insurance work, the price will continue to move down - regardless of NAGS.

They are frustrating, IMO, they could be a much better resource (for both sides of the industry), but for publically unknown reasons, won't take the necessary steps to refine their standards on the price, labor, or product quality identification standards. I guess it is because they don't really have to. I honestly believe that the addage regarding a successful comprimise leaving both sides a bit unsatisfied is disproven by NAGS. Both sides of the AG situation are unsatisfied with the results of NAGS, AND it truly doesn't work correctly. Pretty major accomplishment really....lol.

The only way the "just say no" option is going to work here is if EVERYONE does it, or at least 90%. There is no way that the remaining 10% of shops could begin to cover all that work. Some shops however, depend on the insurance work as a major portion of their income. (Unfortunatly, the insurance companies are aware of that fact also.) The way things are now, the smaller shops can't afford to lose that big of a chunk of sales. Again, it won't work unless almost everyone says NO.

It isn't a strategy. It is a business decision that each "participant" comes to by their own calculation. I agree that most need to decline - or there needs to be more differentiation in the type of business that is doing the work, but the simple fact is, if I said I will pay you $175 flat average to replace any piece of glass - many would say "pass". If I raised that number to $250 average far fewer would pass.

The industry needs to bring the threshold of acceptability up - and improve the differentiation on those that choose to accept. This is tied to just about everything we are facing, from distribution practices to quality verification measures...and yes, it includes a fair burden of responsibility on NAGS.

WHat I would like to add into this discussion is the point that has been made about the insurer not being the customer, from a legal standpoint. THe insurer is NOT contracting for the repairs to the car with the shop.

Once we get past that fallacy, then the discussion about being blacklisted for not signing or accepting the O/A changes dramatically.

Eversman said it well, document, document, document.

And no, saying no to the networks isn't a picnic, quite the opposite, but still shops did it and lessened the hurt by changing their biz model to be less dependent on insurance work, but still stand up for themselves. I can personally say that it's NO picnic.

But I would point out that apparantly, the two recent articles about short pays, are obviously about shops that said no. Otherwise, with a signed network agreement, the insurers would have killed the cases quickly.

My point is, I believe that a whole bunch more shops are saying NO or PASS than we are being led to believe. I also believe that network members do NOT make up 51% of the marketplace, because the numbers just don't add up.

Take Metryx: months after the deadline, they announced that 9000 shops had 'now' registered, even though it was required by Allstate and the FArm. THe Farm said previously that they had 23000 shops in the O/A. WHat happened to the other 14000 shops???

The 2000 census had 27000 in the country, but one could weed out at least 2000 as flat, or salvage, or such. Lynx has claimed to pay X-million claims a year to 23000 shops annually, but has claimed 5000 Lynx members publicly also. Safelite has claimed 6000 members publicly, and Harmon (then Harmon) claimed 4000 members publicly.

Now, we all know that a shop that's on one network likely is on several. So you can't just add all these up without having many duplicates. And let's not even discuss how many are ghost shops.

Not 51% of the market, not market majority accepting the 'terms', not fair and reasonable for 'the market'. The numbers just don't add up.

"This dog don't hunt".

JMHO.

IMO, JHMO.....explain please what these stand for.

IMO = In My Opinion

I think they meant to type JMHO which is Just My Humble Opinion

I agree with the "pretend stores" thing. There are not 23000 glass shops in the US. There are probably close to 8000 if you weed out all of the network only addresses.

The fact that the work is getting done at the requested rate, not the number of people doing it, is the deciding factor. When insurors have a problem servicing their customers (the real customers), the problem will come full circle and the "offers" go up. The largest glass installer in the US only had 15% of the market at it's peak. It is a huge country and one that is difficult to control nationally without help.

If a certain networks work was refused, that network would be instantly unable to service their account base. They simply couldn't provide the service. This has been the battle cry for years among that networks competition, but they have not made a strong enough alternative to push that decision for those that have to be on board. They have instead decided to duplicate the very model they want to demonize as much as possible.

There are enough people agreeing to the rate to cover the work, so there is no coverage problem. Until there is, why would they change their operating philosophy? Would you not do the EXACT same thing if you were them?

As far as the ultimate consumer goes, if we, as an industry were forced to treat every consumer as just that, instead of an insurance customer etc... a couple of things would happen:

A) The cash price would go up. It would have to.
B) The money spend trolling for insurance jobs via deductible waiving, or giveaways would move to traditional marketing and economies of scale would be better realized (how big of a YP ad does a shop need?)

If we took a true look at the amount of money that is spent to lure insurance into the door, the price spread between cash and insurance is not near what it appears at times. The cost of insurance only sales forces, giveaways etc.. is rarely factored into what is essentially an artificially high price in many situations.

I think DL is on the right track. I think we all agree that NAGS numbering system is a useful tool, and their published labor rates are valid for the majority of parts (the others can be corrected), but the Benchmark (list) price creates havic for all of us. I think the rebalanced NAGS list was developed in good faith although with a blind eye to what NAGS knew the insurance industry to do, want further discounts.

We all fed into this by accepting or allowing ANY discount off of NAGS and signing "contracts" based on this system. If we had all stuck to NAGS LIST+ we may not be having this discussion at all. We are our own worst enemies by signing "contracts" and a few of us starting the "we can give you a discount off NAGS" policies.

If the auto glass industry were to simply migrate to a cost+ system (which we would still be arguing with the insurance companies over how much markup is fair, not that this would be any of their business) it might eliminate the need for a NAGS benchmark price altogether, and save Bud and Jesse a lot of heat. It might also be much more reflective and responsive to your real costs (and any immediate cost fluctuations i.e. ppg, Pilk, and other's recent announcements), and even help protect those consumers that want aftermarket glass to their keep claims lower while still protecting those consumers that want OE glass in their newer vehicles.

thx for the comment, but don't confuse my assertion that NAGS isn't the only problem with the fact that NAGS is a huge problem.

I don't think the efforts on the rebalance were made in good faith. I think they are inaccurate to the point of "no effort whatsoever" in many cases. The statement that every part was evaluated is either not true, or the evaluation methods so flawed that the whole body of work is in question.

the Good ole' Bud and Jesse rhetoric on this thread is misplaced. They are the biggest contributor to declining sale prices in the country. They could prevent it as well with a little bit of common sense and a lot of product improvement work. They are both nice guys, especially Bud, but professionally, something else entirely. I don't claim to know why, but I am capable of understanding how - and know for a fact how to fix it.

Please share fix

As always, DL, I enjoy your comments. Hope things are well in "occupied territory". lol

One point: If you are right about the number of shops, and the 2000 census was that wrong, then so is all of the demographics the insurers use to come up with their rate data.

All numbers I used were from public statements by Lynx, Safelite, State Farm, PPG, Harmon, or the Census, just for the record. I only may have 'rounded' them a bit.

Sglass

A few points to look at:

1) Do the insurance companies set on a board at NAGS and help them come up with the "Benchmark" pricing?

2) If so, who are they?

3) Most(or all) insurance companies only work from NAGS "Benchmarks " pricing.

4) Most(or all) Insurance companies send out faxes strongly sugesting market discounts.

The first question that comes to my mind i(if point 1 is true). How can you set or help set a "Benchmark" and the next day strongly sugest you should discount from it. Most insrance companies do this before the "Benchmark "price even hits the streets and the shops have a chance to make thier own evaluation.

Makes you wonder which wolf is watching the Hen house..

The very concept of a "benchmark" that is useful across many different geographic regions with many different sized markets require a couple of things:

1) It has to be inflated enough to be used in the lowest volume (highest priced) areas. This will lead to a discount in the areas with higher competition, as the supply chain is more developed and there are more people competing for the work. That is just market dynamics. There is no "one size fits all".

2) The rationale for development must be consistent across each part. There must be a "least common denominator" starting point that is used for EVERY part. It will not work to use factory price as a starting point in one case and wholesale in another, and retail in yet another. The last two are influenced by market conditions and therefore not reliable as a "benchmark" componant in areas where those market conditions are not real. In short, in must start with weighted average price to distributor. This is the sector that has the least variance in $ and % acoss the board. In cases where a specific vendor distorts this price, that part should be treated as different, trademarked and published on it's own. The market will decide if the premium is warranted.

Once a valid starting point is determined, the actual mark up to a benchmark process must be done the same across all parts with similar values. This is mandatory to ensure that the formula works for all parts. Wholesalers may choose to discount at different levels by group of prices (eg. A-D or similar), but overall, the premise that the industry is generally willing to accept a lower GP % as the value of a part increases should be honored. That eliminates the "ridiculous" (NAGS exec, 1999) discounting and unrealistic list prices that caused the system to fall apart in the first place.

The actual formula by part group used for markup doesn't really matter, as long as there is room for variance in market condition and it is applied equally. The market will determine (as it should) what the selling price is, as long as the methodology is accurate.

The simple fact is NAGS originally applied a formula without regard to "value based" criteria (aka: what we sold it for) and the industry chose that vehicle to price its items. As the dynamics and price points evolved in the industry, they abandoned the methodology that led to the industry adoption, and chose to make what are essentially value based decisions on a parts true value at retail. That is not what we need, nor are they equipped to accurately do it. There are roughly 25K SKU's floating around in this industry. It is completely unrealistic to think that anything other than a solid mathematical starting point is possible to produce. They are trying to isolate the individual market dynamics of thousands of shops on thousands of parts and roll them into a neat little package. The package isn't neat, and is inaccurate as a result.

The industry will take an accurate benchmark and decide what to sell the product to the end user for. The "kind of market related", "kind of benchmark" apprach in play right now is nothing more than smoke and mirrors with a veil of secrecy covering up the overall inadequacies of the methodology that is creating it. It would be better using a survey based Min/Max/Median approach by region; which is impractical and not neatly controlled.

An impartial benchmark is the only solution that allows for any standardization at all.

M1 - I don't think ANYONE in the US knows how many "true" glass shops there are. The insurers have a vested interest in showing acceptance in their program. 8K might be low, but I am pretty confident that it is close. It all comes down to defining what you mean by "shop".

DL

WOW!

In a nut shell, you just explained that who ever writes NAGS is lazy and the insurance companies love it.

It is all beginning to make sence now.

Thank You

I don't think they are lazy, I think their price product is wrong and it goes a long way to prevent us from gaining any legitimacy as an industry; as well as preventing standard economics from being the driving force behind our business decisions.

Believe it or not, the insurance companies don't like it either. For the very same reasons.

DL

Are you a glass shop owner?

no...just been around awhile. lol.

I have seen this industry change for over 25 years now & NAGS is not the problem. This company was as strong as the industry but during the course of time it/we went from independent to dependent. I give alot of credit to the shops that are like me billing direct & fighting the war against insanity. If you want to change the industry then it's time to lose the war & win the battle. Dig deeper for the ways to counter the "BIG BOY'S GAME PLAN" may I suggest terminating your contracts with all the networks, not only would this stop the price hacking but it may just stop the war on pricing. If you drop the networks they are forced to seek quotes from independent shops & not just thier parent company. In order for them to avoid the steering & price fixing laws they need your signature so that they can sell these low prices & they are doing this with your approval!(only if you are on thier "preferred" vendor list or in short have sold your soul to thier contracts), also one more thing, some companys are also being given a very high percentage of work from the ins. co. because of these low prices. The insurance companys are looking to save money just like us so if ABCD company enters & sells a price to the ins. co. & they have 100 shops that have signed on with them to do thier work in each state then the need for getting fair pricing is mute for you have signed a contract giving them power to set the pace weather it be fair or not. The need to break away as dependent and become independent is rough but in the long run the strong will survive and the battle can be won. The question is..... is there power in numbers????????? the answer is always YES.

Saying NAGS is not the problem with pricing is like saying the bullet in the gun pointed at the industry's collective bank account is a non factor.

Every point you just made requires a business owner to make a quick, intelligent, business decision about how to price their product. That isn't possible using NAGS as it exists.

HEY JOHN L, I have to agree with you completely! Good post. Now I do believe nags is a broken tool, but nags doesn't say we should discount from their prices, tpa's do. We should all be able to get full list on EVERYTHING nags lists, from glass to kits to mldgs, clips, EVERYTHING. The pricing problem would be over, but it's the tpa's, mainly, that dig deeper and deeper and so many of the shops are ss reliant on them that they have all the power. It's a bitter pill but to me it seems the only answer. At rebalance we dropped networks, negotiated all avenues to direct bill, where we can, and we are doing ok, not great but we pick and choose the work we will do. It's the same answer as it has been for the last 2 years, can we really afford to let the networks run our lives???? My answer is just as it has been,,, get off the Dictated Rates Undermining Glass Shops! JOHN L on these points I agree whole heartedly!

Sorry Sglass, after reading your original post I am guilty of opinions and a bit of ranting too! I just keep wondering why none of the associations or shops haven't been looking at the avenue of "RESTRICTION OF TRADE". I don't believe any shops out here can believe restriction of trade is not in a big way affecting our businesses. We are basically forced, in many instances, to have to deal with a network. From First notice of loss, to unlicensed adjusters to getting paid how is this not restriction of trade?
Anyone have an answer to that one?

xxx - if the benchmark is "broken", then how do you come up with the justification that you should get "full list"?

I have watched and posted on this board since day one. The same issues keep coming up. The same solutions get thrown out there and the cycle continues.

Trying to simplify a broken industry to the point of "drop networks" or "file a lawsuit" or (god forbid) "create a union" is a waste of time for the industry as a whole. It may work well in individual cases, but as a strategy, those are just steps...each of which needs to be taken in the right order en-masse (if at all) if you want to change the whole.

IMO, to "fix" what ails us requires a strategy that encompasses many issues; broken into bite sized chunks. I post a lot on the NAGS issue because I have invested a ton of time on it and strongly feel that it is a universal, entirely fixable situation. It is also the groundwork necessary to logically go to the next step.

If the information we all use is reliable, The assertions we make regarding fair and reasonable can be compared equally. The decision on whether or not to sell at a certain "discount" can be analyzed accurately and strategies can actually be formed that have a solid business foundation.

Without a solid foundation, we are incapable of even explaining this industry with any degree of logic, let alone "fix" it. Some individuals may be able to pull it off, some companies will thrive on it, but overall, we will remain ... a mess.

I think a trade association that addresses the issues in a systematic fashion would be a good start. It appeared a couple of years ago that the IGA was heading that way, but lately, it seems to have chosen a different tack. I don't question their motive, just the route they chose to get there.

Trying to fix (the independent) piece of the industry with soundbite strategy is like trying to win a war by "going over there and kicking butt". It sounds good, it motivates, it may be partially successful, but to be victorius, a solid strategy made up of many objectives pursued in order must be used. It is just common sense.

Actually DL, most of our ins work is list PLUS. But the short answer as to why,,,, we are a RETAIL shop, not a "wholesale" or "discount house". Nags current benchmark leaves a small margin for profit, but not on all parts. Proper labor is where shops SHOULD be making their main profit, but this too has been discounted by tpa's using their only means to gain market share,,,, DISCOUNTING. THERE'S MY SHORT ANSWER,, TIME TO GET OUT OF HERE FOR THE DAY,, PLACES TO GO,, THINGS TO GET DONE,, HAVE A GOOD NITE! DO YOU WORK FOR A NETWORK? hmmm

LMAO. Sure, I work for a network...I also club harp seals on weekends for a kick.

You are missing my point, but thats ok. have a nice evening.