Will the issue of DRP versus Non-DRP ever get resolved? I think not. It just provides fodder for all the writers of collision industry publications. It is one of those items, like the hourly labor rate that just never gets solved.

You see there are two sides to the matter, those who hate DRPs and those that love DRPs and no matter how much rhetoric neither side will agree with the other. You will find the majority of shops that are on DRP programs agreeing that there are a number of things that could change to make the programs better, but for the most part they are happy. The non-DRP group hates DRP programs, claiming they are illegal and will not be satisfied until DRPs have gone the way of the Model T.

Just last week ABRN published a story about the Coalition for Collision Repair Excellence (CCRE) finding fault with the report released by the Fair Trade Practices committee of the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) that outlined the committees proposal for reform of DRPs.

CCRE, which was formed over ten years ago, is a group that is made up of repairers who quite frankly hate DRP programs. They do not allow insurers to attend their meetings, in fact I personally think they are not interested in any dialog with the people who write the checks to pay for collision repairs. To CCRE folks there is no such thing as a good insurance company, they have no use for any of them.

So CCRE in the interest of promoting better communications within the shop owner community stated that CIC's interest in DRP reform is to promote the personal interest of certain CIC participants and administration. In other words, "how dare you promote anything that we do not agree with." CCRE feels that CIC even considering DRP reform is more detrimental to the collision repair industry than the DRP concept itself. Really?

Okay, lets step back a second, I'm sure you remember the fourteen point DRP reform document produced by the CIC committee that I wrote about in this newsletter right after NACE 2008. If you recall I asked for your comments on each of the fourteen points. Well you must have felt they had value because I received absolutely no comments about any of them. I know this because a good number of you do not hesitate to make known your feelings when you strongly disagree with something you read.

So once again we are back to the same argument about who is right and who is wrong. Actually neither side can claim that their position is the only one that is correct and righteous. It just depends on which side of the fence you happen to be on.

Attorneys for CCRE claim that DRP programs are inherently illegal, but so far I have no knowledge or any proof that this is true because if it was why wouldn't this group have lawsuits pending in fifty states? Lets face the facts, many of those that are part of CCRE are highly principled industry professionals that simply believe that DRP programs are wrong thus they have decided not to participate. No matter what, these people will never give up the ship. Another large portion of this group are people who for one reason or another didn't qualify to become a DRP shop or were dropped from a DRP program. They are angry so they have decided to choose the CCRE side of the fence. I have always wondered what would happen if the majority of the non-DRP group if offered a lucrative DRP contract would jump sides in a minute?

The non-DRP group (CCRE) never seems to miss an opportunity to take a cheap shot at repairers who have chosen to become DRP shops. You know what I mean; shops that work with insurers do lousy work; short cut repairs, or are paying somebody off. It actually gets sickening after a while. I have been around this industry long enough to know that there are at least an equal number of bad repairers on either side of the fence. In fact some of the biggest collision fraud arrests are from the non-DRP side of the fence.

Many of the leaders of the non-DRP movement talk about the fact that they don't need DRP programs to make money. They are doing fine without insurer support. Well, if this is the case why do they keep slamming those who have chosen another way to do business.

Actually if DRP programs were declared illegal I believe you would see a proliferation of new creative marketing ideas by those shops presently on DRP programs that would really dig into the pocketbooks on the people on the non-DRP side.

Look, neither side of this issue is ever going to change their mind so why continue to throw dirt on your fellow shop owners. Neither side is right or wrong, it is just a matter of choice. And my friends DRP reform as proposed by the Fair Trade Committee of CIC is certainly a move in the right direction. There are even provisions that are good for those shops that have chosen to hang out on the other side of the fence.