AutoCheck does not exist
Comments(0) I am continually amazed at the brand position that CARFAX maintains. Consumers are seemingly unaware of any alternative to their vehicle history report service.
AutoCheck exists
AutoCheck LLC was born in 1998. By 2002, when almost a million AutoCheck reports were being served each month, the company entered an agreement with Experian and became an Experian Automotive product. This partnership would transform the AutoCheck reports from being primarily an auction product to a mainstream consumer product in direct competition with CARFAX.
Too little too late
The game was already over, and CARFAX won. By December of 1996, consumers could access reports through CARFAX’s website that contained title information for all fifty states. AutoCheck’s delivery of this feature was 5 years late, enough time for CARFAX to brand the product as their own. Today, AutoCheck is still reinventing their product and acquiring partnerships with sites like eBay Motors to boost their brand.
Experian doubles the amount of time that $25 can access unlimited reports; CARFAX gives 30 days and AutoCheck gives 60. I feel this is a small edge that has a small effect on consumers. When 11 out of 12 people can name CARFAX and no alternative, price points mean very little.
Update: I wrote this today when the Yahoo! Answers question had 12 responses. There’s a few more now, numbers 13 and 14 that are pro AutoCheck and surprisingly emotional. You goons. You fool no one.
Search engine marketing is not paid search. Why this is not obvious is beyond me. Marketing does not equal “buying ads,” so how could something something marketing mean buying ads on something something? I expect a trade publication to conduct the small amount of research required to ensure they are not fabricating definitions and misleading their readers.
His statement only makes sense after you have learned the bogus definition of SEM. I do not think that Mark is an idiot, and it is obvious (to me) that he is talking about pay-per-click advertising costs. It is unfortunate that he has been quoted saying something goofy like dealers are not trying to increase their traffic from search engines, but is that the worst part? I think the largest oops here is the fact that the writer of this article, Jim Leman, took his quote and multiplied the mistake, and none of the editors of the magazine knew better to sort it out. 
