It seems like there are always certain services that are routinely performed by repair facilities at a loss. Sure, they might generate enough revenue to pay for the direct expenses of doing the job, such as parts and technician labor, however, they often fail to make their needed contribution to the overhead expenses of owning the shop to begin with. It's that failure to contribute to the bottom line profits that make the service a "loss" to the company.

Why would a business be willing to operate that way? Especially in a field like ours where we carry such heavy liabilities after the customer leaves. It really doesn't make good sense when you think about it. After all, the money the customer hands you over the counter covers the various parts, salaries and overhead expenses. Why take a loss on that transaction? Is it to attract business? What good is it to attract even more business that is performed at a loss to the company?

Services that are "loss leaders" have become such not because of the service itself, but because the shops' owners and managers chose to make them that. I believe that poor management has created these loss leaders, and good management and marketing skills can reverse them.

The way I see it, the average person is driven by some sort of tangible reason to seek auto repair services. I am willing to bet that no matter how good your shop is, no customer has come to you just because they were ...