The “digital strategist” position is being eliminated in favor of a “performance management model of client services,” Cox spokesperson Lisa Aloisio told Seven Days.
The company is eliminating 112 digital strategists across five locations. Half of those positions are in Vermont, Aloisio said, but affected employees will have “a really good amount of time to apply” for the new jobs.
Dealer.com creates and manages websites and online inventory systems for car dealerships nationwide. It was founded in 1998 and sold for $1 billion in 2013 to Dealertrack Technologies. Cox Automotive bought that company for $4 billion in 2015.
Aloisio said the company plans to hire more than 112 people to replace existing digital strategists, but she refused to comment on whether all 56 Vermont jobs would be replaced.
According to a written statement from Cox Automotive, “impacted team members will be given an opportunity to apply for a Performance Management Operations Specialist role or enroll in a three-month trial program for a Performance Consultant role.”
Digital strategists who don’t qualify for the new roles or don’t want them “will leave [the company] and receive transition and separation support.”
Aloisio didn’t provide specifics on how the “performance manager” responsibilities will differ from the work of digital strategists, but she said the new jobs will employ “a significantly different skill set.”
“The biggest difference is … you need some hands-on experience with dealer operations,” she said, refusing to elaborate further.
Part of the reason the company is so tight-lipped about the new jobs, Aloisio said, is to give internal candidates “first shot at the new roles.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
A few years ago Dealer.com was the poster child of the Chamber and Business Roundtable- a model for the future. Nice judgement.
VEPC awarded Dealer over $6 million in “incentives” over the last ten years.
As we keep going with these BTV Ignite Festivals every year in an effort to encourage the growth of the tech sector in our “Gigabit City” we’d be wise to look into how to create sustainable, cooperative, long-term viability in the era of capitalist hyper-accelaration.
Otherwise, if we stoke this essentially ephemeral market sector without paying attention to how abrupt bubble busts can raze entire enterprises, then we risk the bottom falling out from under our feet.
Cox automotive based in the state of Georgia enjoys a 6% business tax compared to Vermonts 8.5% business tax not including local taxes. Its a pretty easy decision to make.
One wonders if this enterprise will continue to maintain its elevated visibility in the community vis a vis sponsorships of events such as Burlington Discover Jazz…or did those derive from tax breaks, incentives etc. in the old ‘one hand washes the other’ syndrome?!?!?
Mr. Gimp – First, the article said nothing about moving facilities or jobs. Indeed, since jobs will be affected in five locations, one could be Georgia. Second, it said nothing about taxes. Third, state taxes are a tiny part of business overhead and are dwarfed by wages and other factors. It’s easy to assume that state taxes are the cause of such business changes, but there is precious little evidence to support that.
“A few years ago Dealer.com was the poster child of the Chamber and Business Roundtable- a model for the future. Nice judgement.”
Dealer.com employs 900+ people. Just because a business lays off people doesn’t mean its overall presence isn’t a good thing. Do you not like businesses? What are you saying? That its existence here isn’t a net plus? That its presence here isn’t a good thing? That Burlington doesn’t benefit from the hundreds of jobs it provides? That it isn’t e net benefit to the Chittenden County economy? That it shouldn’t be here at all because it has the nerve to lay employees off?
Doug Hoffer,
Vermonts business climate isnt exactly welcoming. With an 8.5% business tax, a local tax in many cases, higher energy costs and the act 250 nightmare. Lets not forget that were (Vermont) competing with other states to lure new businesses to our state and keep the ones we have from relocating. Furthermore, Being critical of VEPC incentives in a high tax state isnt exactly rolling out the red carpet.
First, the article talked about eliminating jobs over five locations, and 50% of the eliminated jobs are in one location; Vermont. 30% more than the average.
Second, just because the article doesn’t explicitly refer to taxes, and spell it out for you, does not mean that additional 2.5% isn’t a factor. In business, that 2.5% matters.
Third, it’s not an assumption, it’s a presumption, based on the facts and ample precious evidence that all points to Vermont being a high tax, high cost state to do business.
Keeping your head buried in the sand won’t help Mr. Hoffer.
ForestGimp, BED has the lowest electric prices by far. Nice to know what “energy” prices you’re talking about when the main work is information-based.
Also, Dealer.com was treated just like every non-employee-owned business in this country. A little company to be gobbled up by bigger fish in the vicious financial ocean that the 1% run. Businesses that are built here can stay here and not go through this crap if they are formed as coops or employee-owned. City Market is fighting interstate markets for market share and making a nice niche for itself. If Vermont is for Vermont, it should be encouraging these homegrown businesses that are developed to work in this environment. If they are a good product they succeed. The original owners of Dealer.com grew their business and then sold out to out of state owners, which was their right. Maybe Vermont should be looking for a different model to protect its citizens and businesses.
If taxes are so incidental as one poster claims then why are companies always looking for tax incentives to move from one state to another?
What tax incentives and other incentives did http://Dealer.Com receive to locate in Burlington? VEPC kicked in $6 million, what other incentives were used? VEPC needs to be investigated.
Mr. Cohen said, “If taxes are so incidental as one poster claims then why are companies always looking for tax incentives to move from one state to another?”
First, businesses would be crazy not to look for free money. Second, we’ve been led to believe that lots of jobs are gained and lost due to interstate business moves. That is not supported by the available evidence. Third, taxes and tax incentives are not the same thing. In Vermont, incentives are just a one-off, while taxes are an annual event.
“The original owners of http://Dealer.com grew their business and then sold out to out of state owners, which was their right.”
No, they SOLD the business they grew.
Not surprisingly, the highest bidder was not a Vermont-based company. Theirs is a multi-national software platform. Onion River CoOp is great (I’ve been a member for a very long time). But it is in no meaningful way analogous. A closer comparison would be IDX (remember them?) Rich Tarrant was smart to sell to GE.
I’m not going to go off on some “Atlas Shrugged” rant here, but if you really want to kill the dreams of many young innovators in Vermont, then tell them that, yes, they can work like all get out, take enormous risks–but then cannot plan to ultimately sell the business they built.