Cadillac is one of many makers who have laid out detailed showroom redesigns dealers are expected to implement.

When Ford Motor Co. officials began pulling together plans to revive the long-struggling Lincoln brand one of the first moves was to advise dealers they’d need to redesign their showrooms – again.  And Lincoln isn’t unique, from high-line brands like Mercedes-Benz to mainstream marques such as Chevrolet, automakers regularly roll out expansive – and expensive programs intended to reflect brand values with dealer redesigns that can run millions of dollars for even a small, rural showroom.

Now, however, dealers may be ready to tell manufacturers that without a clear payoff they can take their blueprints and shove ‘em.  The National Automobile Dealers Association, the nation’s largest automotive franchise group, has commissioned a study designed to see whether such projects really pay off or are nothing more than an extension of brand ego.

“We need to get down to rhyme and reason, legitimate facts and figures,” said NADA Chairman Steven Wade, himself a Utah mega-dealer who has been asking for answers every time automakers have demanded he upgrade his various showrooms.

While Wade said he understands the need to have a clean, well-lit and inviting store, he questions whether manufacturers demand he re-do the gray tiles in one of his stores “because it’s not the right shade of gray.”

Executives like Ford’s global marketing chief Jim Farley defend the need to have stores all looking essentially alike – and sharing such details as corporate colors and accents – because they reflect the image that a brand wants to project, makes all dealerships seem more familiar and approachable.

But Wade – and other dealers – say they’ve yet to see hard numbers that show these goals actually pay off in higher sales or increased customer loyalty.  Some dealers counter that profligate spending during the current economic crisis might convince potential customers they’re being overcharged.

“If our members are going to spend the money they want to see there’s a return on their dollars,” said Wade, who was in Detroit for an NADA dealer meeting and took time out to address the Detroit Automotive Press Association.

Such projects can run into the millions of dollars, a serious strain on small retailers but a financial burden even for big retailers during a time when many have succumbed to the downturn in industry volumes.  From a peak of 17 million annual new vehicle sales the numbers plunged by nearly half in 2008 and 2009 and will struggle to reach 13 million for all of this year, something Wade described as a “slow…and fragile recovery.”

In some cases, manufacturers have offered cash assistance but often dealers are simply expected to shoulder the burden with the promise of long-term benefits.  Those who refuse might see their franchises challenged or suddenly find themselves stuck with vehicles no one wants while waiting for the latest hot-selling model.

The research project the auto dealers association has launched will be handled by Glenn Mercer, a former McKinsey consultant and now an independent automotive consultant.  Begun two months ago, Wade is hoping to have a preliminary white paper ready by the end of the year with the results of the project set to be formally announced during the annual NADA convention in Las Vegas next February.

Even if results that clearly show such projects a waste of money, Wade was asked what happens if manufacturers counter with their own data and demand dealers keep spending on capital improvements.

“I just hope we can have more civility” in the discussion, he stressed.  “I haven’t thought about going to court or suing people.  I just want some answers.”

The NADA weighed in when General Motors and Chrysler tried to cut thousands of dealers after their 2009 bankruptcies, forcing the makers to largely reverse course.  On a statewide basis, the organization has helped its members implement powerfully protective franchise laws.  So, in the increasingly hostile world of business dealers frustrated by the constant upgrade programs are hoping that the results of the study will make their case and — if necessary — could very well be used as ammunition to force a showdown with manufacturers – or at least get them to start picking up more of the costs of the brand-based redesigns.