Bronco Sport named best small SUV for initial quality in J.D. Power 2024 U.S. Initial Quality Study

[Administrator]

FORD JUMPS 14 SPOTS IN THE J.D. POWER 2024 U.S. INITIAL QUALITY STUDY

JUN 27, 2024 | DEARBORN



DEARBORN, Mich., June 27, 2024 – Ford leaps 14 positions in the J.D. Power 2024 U.S. Initial Quality Study, while Lincoln also improves its performance.
Bronco Sport was named best small SUV for initial quality, outperforming 18 other models for the title.

Ford jumped 14 spots to No. 9 from No. 23 and a number of Ford vehicles performed well in the study, which is based on feedback from drivers and data on vehicle repair visits during customers’ first three months of new vehicle ownership. Lincoln also improved its rank from No. 28 to No. 25.
“We are making a lot of progress on quality and customers with our latest vehicles are benefiting from it,” said Jim Baumbick, Ford’s vice president of Product Development and Quality. “We have more work to do, as our ambition is to have best-in-class quality and we won’t be satisfied until we achieve and sustain it.”

“Ford’s achievement of receiving the award for the Bronco Sport in the Small SUV segment shows their continued commitment to Initial Quality,” said Frank Hanley, senior director of auto benchmarking at J.D. Power.

Additionally, 2024 Explorer, Maverick and Super Duty performed well, ranking second in their respective segments.

Sponsored

 

[Rockboz]

While I am pleased to hear this news, unfortunately, J.D. Powers’ name has been distilled to mean pretty much nothing.

It almost a joke, akin to Motortrend Car or Truck of the Year always goes to whomever had the highest ad budget.

 

[rocks]

While I am pleased to hear this news, unfortunately, J.D. Powers’ name has been distilled to mean pretty much nothing.

It almost a joke, akin to Motortrend Car or Truck of the Year always goes to whomever had the highest ad budget.

Add in 90 days. How about a 3+ year review? Long term quality is what counts.

 

[Mark S.]

While I am pleased to hear this news, unfortunately, J.D. Powers’ name has been distilled to mean pretty much nothing.

It almost a joke, akin to Motortrend Car or Truck of the Year always goes to whomever had the highest ad budget.

Do you have a source for this claim? As far as I know, J.D. Power does not advertise for auto manufacturers. Manufacturers do pay for the data J.D. Power collects (beyond what's released publicly), and manufacturers may use that data in advertisements. But from what I've read, the agreement manufacturers sign to use the data gives J.D. Power final review rights to whatever manufacturers propose. See this article. Excerpt regarding use of data in advertising:

Chrysler’s ad agency sought to run a full-page newspaper ad that said one of its cars was better than five other models it supposedly “beat.” The ad was rejected. Chrysler responded that it paid for the data, the campaign was factually accurate, and that J.D. Power had no say in the matter. Dave [Dave Sargent, vice president of global automotive] responded that if Chrysler ran the ad in question, he would run an ad that put the satisfaction scores of Chrysler in the context of all the cars, not just the five the ad agency had cherry-picked. Chrysler backed down.

The problem with J.D. Power rankings, in my opinion, is that people don't really know what they mean. Initial quality rankings generally don't tell us all that much about what to expect regarding ownership of a given vehicle. I would expect that really cool cars--like the Bronco Sport--are going to rank well with owners initially. Unless, of course, they fall apart as you drive off the new-car lot.

 

[Rockboz]

Do you have a source for this claim? As far as I know, J.D. Power does not advertise for auto manufacturers. Manufacturers do pay for the data J.D. Power collects (beyond what's released publicly), and manufacturers may use that data in advertisements. But from what I've read the agreement manufacturers sign to use the data gives J.D. Power final review rights to whatever manufacturers propose. See this article. Excerpt regarding use of data in advertising:



The problem with J.D. Power rankings, in my opinion, is that people don't really know what they mean. Initial quality rankings generally don't tell us all that much about what to expect regarding ownership of a give vehicle. I would expect that really cool cars--like the Bronco Sport--are going to rank well with owners initially. Unless, of course, they fall apart as you drive off the new-car lot.

At one point J.D.Power had clout, my issue that now they give out their rankings for eight different industries like healthcare and financial services. This in my opinion, lessens that clout.

 

[Mark S.]

At one point J.D.Power had clout, my issue that now they give out their rankings for eight different industries like healthcare and financial services. This in my opinion, lessens that clout.

Why? What difference does it make how many industries they collect data for?

 

[rocks]

How J.D. Power Makes Money
J.D. Power makes money by selling its research findings and licensing fees. If a company wants to feature J.D. Power in an advertisement (like those car commercials you might see), the company has to pay a licensing fee for it.


Criticism of JD Power
Because companies pay J.D. Power licensing fees, there are situations in which J.D. Power is making money off the very companies it’s ranking. This possible conflict of interest is something competitor "Consumer Reports" addressed in a May 2020 article. The article called attention to the fact that J.D. Power charges fees for companies to access survey results, mention the firm in ads, and participate in the Certified Customer Service Program.5

 

[Mark S.]

If a company wants to feature J.D. Power in an advertisement (like those car commercials you might see), the company has to pay a licensing fee for it.

And get J.D. Power's approval for the ad material. We have at least one documented example of J.D. Power preventing misuse of its data.

This possible conflict of interest is something competitor "Consumer Reports" addressed in a May 2020 article. The article called attention to the fact that J.D. Power charges fees for companies to access survey results, mention the firm in ads, and participate in the Certified Customer Service Program.

J.D. Power publicly releases ranking data on manufacturers whether they pay for the data or not. It's a data collection agency, and it has been providing manufacturers with marketing data for decades now. It seems to me if there were any evidence it was favoring one manufacturer over another based on money then manufacturers would stop buying its data. And again, we have at least one documented example of a J.D. Power denying a paying customer (Chrysler) use of its data in a misleading way.

Here's more from an article published by Investopedia.

 

[rocks]

And get J.D. Power's approval for the ad material. We have at least one documented example of J.D. Power preventing misuse of its data.


J.D. Power publicly releases ranking data on manufacturers whether they pay for the data or not. It's a data collection agency, and it has been providing manufacturers with marketing data for decades now. It seems to me if there were any evidence it was favoring one manufacturer over another based on money then manufacturers would stop buying its data. And again, we have at least one documented example of a J.D. Power denying a paying customer (Chrysler) use of its data in a misleading way.

Here's more from an article published by Investopedia.

I trust CR more and not 100%. Actual owners give their reviews. Also, 90 day reviews mean nothing to me.

 

[Tigger]

Also, 90 day reviews mean nothing to me.

If you ever owned a Mercedes, they would.

Anyway, great news on the Sports!

 

[coopny]

J.D. Power publicly releases ranking data on manufacturers whether they pay for the data or not. It's a data collection agency, and it has been providing manufacturers with marketing data for decades now. It seems to me if there were any evidence it was favoring one manufacturer over another based on money then manufacturers would stop buying its data. And again, we have at least one documented example of a J.D. Power denying a paying customer (Chrysler) use of its data in a misleading way.

Here's more from an article published by Investopedia.

I'm really confused by the overall messaging of your post here because you say they release ranking data whether manufacturers "pay for the data or not". The problem is the manner in which they do so. JD Power will happily release data based on an "initial quality survey" and the number of complaints per X number of vehicles - weighs someone being marginally upset with the location of a cupholder equal to your car dying on the side of the road within 90 days. Initial quality implies something like major failures within a short period.

J.D. Power is infamous for Toyota being their first customer for this reason - collecting the data, releasing public stats, and then using that as pressure to make automakers buy the underlying data from them to understand what complaints were leveraged to try to fix them. Toyota was the first large automaker to side with them.

Saying that J.D. Power denies a paying customer (Chrysler) of theirs data in a misleading way makes J.D. Power look worse. Essentially that you can create a problem as a surveying board (here's your horrible review score) and then the automaker doesn't get anything actionable unless they pay. Unless we take the Chrysler example to mean even if you do pay, you'll be given crap data, and you might as well not.

I don't hold a high opinion on JD Power, because they use marketing coded language to conflate the Vehicle Dependability Survey - what fixes a car needs within the first three years, a metric most of us would care about - and conflates it with an Initial Quality Survey, which basically encompasses anything from "the door handle is impossible to grab to being unsafe" to "it's a tad too hard to get my big gulp in the cupholder" to "I wish the red on the HVAC controls was a touch less red."

At the end of the day, J.D. Power is an advertising company. One might debate over potential external good they've had on the industry separate its own watch, but I consider them to be parasites. This is not the IIHS which took a look at the government saying "the only metric that matters if the passengers surive an accident" and the insurance companies deciding to make their own rating based on not only passenger safety but overall cost of claim (how likely are you to injure other people? what will they sue for?), it's a company that has made its goal to make a highly publicized score that automakers feel compelled to buy because media publications will parrot it.

If it was just the VDS data, I would feel very differently, but the way that "initial quality" is made to sound like repair issues within the first 90 days when it's just any slight gripe doesn't help anything, IMO.

 

[Mark S.]

weighs someone being marginally upset with the location of a cupholder equal to your car dying on the side of the road within 90 days.

Nowhere in the article linked did it say that J.D. Power considers cupholder location on par with major mechanical problems. Where did you get that? As far as I know, J.D. Power doesn't make such judgements in any case. It sells data to automakers for their use. There is currently another threaded discussion here on the board regarding the location of HVAC controls, and it's clear to me that consumers are very interested in ergonomics. I would think automakers are interested in this kind of data.

J.D. Power is infamous for Toyota being their first customer for this reason - collecting the data, releasing public stats, and then using that as pressure to make automakers buy the underlying data from them to understand what complaints were leveraged to try to fix them. Toyota was the first large automaker to side with them.

I don't understand your point here. What do you mean by "infamous?" If your business is selling data that you claim may be used to improve product quality then I would think having Toyota as a customer would be a pretty good selling point; Toyota has a reputation for durability and reliability. Whether that reputation is deserved or not (both Consumer Reports and J.D. Power reports suggest it is), survey data collected by J.D. Power suggest consumers believe it to be true, and that's what's important to manufacturers.

Essentially that you can create a problem as a surveying board (here's your horrible review score) and then the automaker doesn't get anything actionable unless they pay. Unless we take the Chrysler example to mean even if you do pay, you'll be given crap data, and you might as well not.

As far as I know, J.D. Power doesn't "create" the survey data it sells; it collects and collates the data from consumers. Do you have a source that suggests otherwise? The Chrysler example shows that J.D. Power doesn't doctor the data it sells to auto manufacturers, and it doesn't allow auto manufacturers to do so either, even if they pay for it.

At the end of the day, J.D. Power is an advertising company.

Who does J.D. Power advertise for? Do you have any examples? As far as I can tell J.D. Power collects and sells data, and it places strict rules on how customers who buy the data may use it in their advertisements. It issues press releases to the news media when it has a batch of data on which to report.

There's one thing we agree on: the initial quality rankings do not tell consumers much about a vehicle they might be interested in purchasing. As I mentioned previously, I would think cars that garner a lot of media/public attention are more likely to be well regarded by new owners. A person will tend to feel pretty good about a just-purchased car if they are constantly told by others how cool it is. That doesn't mean much of anything when it comes to whether a customer will be happy with their purchase three years down the road.

 

[coopny]

Nowhere in the article linked did it say that J.D. Power considers cupholder location on par with major mechanical problems. Where did you get that? As far as I know, J.D. Power doesn't make such judgements in any case. It sells data to automakers for their use. There is currently another threaded discussion here on the board regarding the location of HVAC controls, and it's clear to me that consumers are very interested in ergonomics. I would think automakers are interested in this kind of data.

From the horse's mouth:

TROY, Mich.: 22 June 2023 — New vehicles are becoming more problematic, evidenced by the number of problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) rising a record 30 PP100 during the past two years. According to the J.D. Power 2023 U.S. Initial Quality StudySM (IQS), released today, the rise in problems is 12 PP100 greater than in 2022, which follows an increase of 18 PP100 in 2022 from 2021. In 2023, the industry average is 192 PP100. A lower score reflects higher vehicle quality.

The continuing decline in quality can be attributed to multiple factors such as greater usage and penetration of technology; continued integration of known problematic audio systems into other new models; poor sounding horns; cupholders that don’t serve their purpose; and new models with 11 PP100 more than carryover models.

Since the IQS goes by the number of problems to come up with the score that gives us the fancy bar charts that JD Power puts press releases out with, counting the number of problems per 100 vehicles gives a score that puts equal weight on all problems, regardless of their scope.

I don't understand your point here. What do you mean by "infamous?" If your business is selling data that you claim may be used to improve product quality then I would think having Toyota as a customer would be a pretty good selling point; Toyota has a reputation for durability and reliability. Whether that reputation is deserved or not (both Consumer Reports and J.D. Power reports suggest it is), survey data collected by J.D. Power suggest consumers believe it to be true, and that's what's important to manufacturers.

Your last point hits the nail on the head: JD Power's surveys have put them as a company that is perceived to be reputable on how reliable cars are. The IQS is collected and the data publicly released to create optics. Automakers feel compelled to buy the data from JD Power to understand what the more easily resolvable complaints are to get lower scores. One can debate on how much this actually improves cars: cupholders that work, HVAC controls that aren't annoying, etc., but the positioning of "initial quality" to consumers is misleading, buried in text that nobody reads the definition of.

As far as I know, J.D. Power doesn't "create" the survey data it sells; it collects and collates the data from consumers. Do you have a source that suggests otherwise? The Chrysler example shows that J.D. Power doesn't doctor the data it sells to auto manufacturers, and it doesn't allow auto manufacturers to do so either, even if they pay for it.

JD Power solicits survey responses based on automaker, dealer, and lender lists. Somebody sold my data to JD Power and I was asked to complete an initial quality survey. They paid for the postage of one envelope and put a crisp clean $1 bill in there to try to make me feel compelled to follow the link. The data is based off real owners. Again, my issue is with how JD Power markets initial quality, and the access to the data. We all have to eat, so JD Power has to be compensated in some way for their surveys, but I have a bone to pick with the way in which JD Power promotes IQS. The Vehicle Dependency Survey, I don't take issues with, because I believe it is presented in a more authentic fashion.

Who does J.D. Power advertise for? Do you have any examples? As far as I can tell J.D. Power collects and sells data, and it places strict rules on how customers who buy the data may use it in their advertisements. It issues press releases to the news media when it has a batch of data on which to report.

J.D. Power gives their awards/logos as collateral for automakers to use in commercials/advertising, in exchange for a licensing fee.

Let's say you had a really research at your own company, and really minimized initial quality or vehicle dependability survey issues. So effective, that when JD Power did their own research, you ranked near or at the top as a make. J.D. Power would not allow you to use their reference of how reliable your make was in your own material without paying a licensing fee.

There's one thing we agree on: the initial quality rankings do not tell consumers much about a vehicle they might be interested in purchasing. As I mentioned previously, I would think cars that garner a lot of media/public attention are more likely to be well regarded by new owners. A person will tend to feel pretty good about a just-purchased car if they are constantly told by others how cool it is. That doesn't mean much of anything when it comes to whether a customer will be happy with their purchase three years down the road.

We are aligned here. I think JD Power's emphasis on initial quality in their press releases, promo material, is great for their bottom line, but ultimately bad for consumers. Some gripes like charges, cupholders, door handles etc. will have fixes thanks to JD Power doing the survey and automakers paying them for the data, but I feel that it's detrimental in that it distracts looking at vehicle dependability. I've seen a lot of people conflate the IQS and the VDS, or the IQS against Consumer Reports' vehicle reliability survey, and the IQS simply isn't comparable.

 

[Mark S.]

J.D. Power doesn't weight the data, it reports it. Your gripe is with people who don't take the time to understand what they are reading. How is this JDP's fault? BTW, JDP now incorporates vehicle repair data starting this year.

JD Power's surveys have put them as a company that is perceived to be reputable on how reliable cars are.

Why are they perceived as such?

J.D. Power would not allow you to use their reference of how reliable your make was in your own material without paying a licensing fee.

JDP has spent decades building a solid reputation in the market survey industry. It does all the work of collecting and evaluating survey data. Why should anyone else be able to capitalize on JDP's reputation or use the produce of its work for free?

 

[coopny]

J.D. Power doesn't weight the data, it reports it. Your gripe is with people who don't take the time to understand what they are reading. How is this JDP's fault? BTW, JDP now incorporates vehicle repair data starting this year.

As someone who majored in marketing - and who had a head of the marketing department at my university that deeply lamented that I didn't go into it professionally - my main gripe with the initial quality survey is that I really disrespect the way in which it is marketed.

I would wager if you took 19 out of 20 people and asked them to explain what they thought an "initial quality survey" actually meant, they would interpret that as a malfunction, error, or failure of a part as it was designed to function. The name is wrong.

Similarly, measuring all quality issues equally (but not weighing them) from "the cupholder could be a bit tighter so my can doesn't jiggle" to "the A/C stopped working" is not helpful.

Ford pays J.D. Power for IQS and VDS data, I think this does help Ford realize vehicle issues in terms of design and operation. Where I take issue is the name. If, say, J.D. Power changed one letter (acronym) or word (full phrase) to call it an "Initial Owner Satisfaction" survey - I'd have no qualms whatsoever. I would think it's a metric honestly prevented and that J.D. Power offering that data for public consumption would be a public good, and that automakers being able to buy that data to improve their vehicles would ultimately be beneficial to the new car market.

I don't think that the way in which IQS is presented benefits the public, and I don't believe in the caveat emptor of "it was adequately legally disclosed ackshually". Such things may be legal. I don't consider them ethical.

Directly incorporating vehicle repair data as an IQS point is basically trying to say that the statistic now includes repairs. Again though the problem is in it being unweighted, and called "quality".

Why are they perceived as such?

J.D. Power started as a firm to analyze vehicle claims down to the O-ring. They have grown and evolved since then. Their results have been widely trumpeted by them (in TV and advertising) as "what to buy". That was useful. The firm has since branched out to doing the IQS since 1997.

The firm is seen as a neutral third party without bias, when in reality they make different scores to sell to mean different things. Toyota can claim a VDS score in a class while Ford can claim an IQS score in the same class. Both trophies look essentially the same in the ads that automakers make. Again - I don't find automaker claims of read the fine text availing.

JDP has spent decades building a solid reputation in the market survey industry. It does all the work of collecting and evaluating survey data. Why should anyone else be able to capitalize on JDP's reputation or use the produce of its work for free?

See my context above. As I said earlier, we all have to eat. I believe that J.D. is disingenuous with the initial quality survey. I do not begrudge their need to be paid to conduct surveys, but I consider the manner in which the IQS is positioned to be a misleading one.

Sponsored