“Or tell that girl in the car next to you that you think she’s hot?” Sure, but I was 20.

“Tell that guy his brake lights are out or the owner of the parked car that he sucks for taking up two spots?” Yup.

Now I can do all these things in public, with CarPong, “a social network that lets you send messages to other drivers.” Members post messages about other drivers on the Carpong site, using the other driver’s license plate to identify whom they are talking about. If the other driver is following their license plate on Carpong, he or she will receive an email alerting him of comments. Members and non-members can also see what other people are saying about them by typing in their license plate number on the site. It’s anonymous to the extent no one can see what you are writing about anyone else and, per most sites that enable conversation, only your user name and profile are visible. And, of course, it’s free.

So now I can “say” all those things I always said in the car, with the windows closed or perhaps open, at speed or stopped dead in traffic, when I’ve had a bad day, only other people can actually “hear” them now, just not necessarily in real time. (You can see messages in real time if you are using a smartphone while driving, but that is unsafe and illegal in many US states, some Canadian provinces, and many countries.)

Lots of the posts (go here) are exactly what you’d expect: criticism of other people’s driving skills. There is no shortage of bad drivers or people who are inattentive or just make mistakes. If someone saw a crime being committed – such as hit and run – and got the license plate, this might be useful, but I’d imagine they’d call the police first.

Advertisers I saw included an insurance company, Kaplan University (for criminal justice degrees), a local (to me) car dealer, local personal injury lawyers, the Nexus One, and a local law firm specializing in DWI and motor vehicle defense, which indicates that someone is seeing value in being visible on a site that is populated by drivers. If millions of people sign up and use this site, it may become a good place to site your online ad if you provide services or products to this huge population. Note: There were “250,844,644 registered passenger vehicles in the US in 2006,” according to Wikipedia, which cites the US Bureau of Traffic Statistics.

One of the founders, Tony Mastrorio, says he is trying to get towing companies to use Carpong to tell drivers when their cars have been towed and how to find them. (Might work, but why not try Twitter first?)

This looks like fun, but not much more than fun at this point. Let’s hope no one gets angry enough about what’s written about them to try to connect profile with posting. Let’s also hope no one you are writing about has a friend that’s on Carpong and can find you behind them or next to them.

Anyway, I was angry when I left: no one has posted about me.

But the actual deal between the two is less about cash then it is about technology exchange and access to their respective dealerships. Fiat, for example, is keen to bring its line of compact cars to the US, and is willing to trade access to its successful small-car platforms and fuel-efficient technologies to do so. Seems like a high price to pay for real estate, non?

Which brings us to the magic of US car dealerships:

• GM has more than 6,400 dealers in the US.
• Ford has over 4,300 in the US.
• Chrysler (with Jeep and Dodge) have over 3,300.
• And finally, Toyota/Lexus has (just) 1,400 US dealers.
• This works out to nearly 700,000 direct employees across the US dealer network.
• And with annual sales of 14-15 million new car sales per year, this works out to about 750 units sold per dealer.

For the most part, these dealerships operate as single-brand sales outlets (proprietary models one might say). Subsequently, the framework for sales across the US leaves the industry with a heavy, and somewhat immoveable burden of dealers that contributes to their inability to restructure.

But does it have to be this way?

There may or may not be precedent for something else.

Example 1 is Ontario’s Brewers Retail – the Beer Store. “Established in 1927, The Beer Store is the primary distribution and sales channel for beer in Ontario. It sells beer to the public under the authority of the Liquor Control Act and is owned by Labatt Brewing Company Ltd., Molson Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd.” I.e. It acts as a platform for distribution of various brands. Brewers that wish to sell through The Beer Store can pay a per store listing fee or a single fee for the entire system depending on the number of stores they wish to sell in.

Example 2 is the Credit Card – which for argument’s sake we’ll limit to Visa and Mastercard. Prior to their respective IPOs, both functioned as cooperatives, owned equally by their networks of 21,000 and 25,000 financial institutions respectively, wherein each institution would purchase a license for use of the network.

Both of these examples saw individual organizations choose the efficiencies and lower transaction costs of a distributed and shared network over a proprietary model. And while my colleague Denis makes a good point that in the auto industry the sticker price of a purchase is the equivalent of 1000 or so cases a beer, and thus makes keeping the customer as close as possible more important, I can’t help but think that a shared platform for sales would be more efficient and might just hep build a competitive and user-centred industry.

I’ll admit I’m not an expert on the industry so I’d love to know what everyone else thinks. I’ll also admit that I submitted a similar idea for the financial services industry about 8 years ago when I worked at large Canadian bank and got told thanks but no thanks! So maybe it’s already being done? Maybe it’s not possible?

Let me know.

There is speculation that companies in countries like India and China will take the lead in terms of green innovation. Early examples support this notion. A project by the Center for Scientific and Industrial Research, an Indian organization, has resulted in a solar powered rickshaw with a top speed of 15 km an hour and a range of 50-70 km. The rickshaw runs on a 36-volt battery that can be replaced at a local solar-power charging station. The vehicle is now being tested in Delhi with the aim of replacing some of the city’s 500 000 rickshaws. If successful, the soleckshaw as it is called, will provide a clean and relatively speedy option for moving around Delhi’s crowded streets.

Another innovation in China produced an inexpensive solar powered car. The vehicle has a sticker price of just over $5000 with a range of up to 150 km. The tiny Chery QQ clone has been fitted with roof mounted solar panels that absorb 95% of the solar energy coming in. Although far from luxurious, the vehicle may be attractive to China’s rising middle class. It will be interesting to see if emerging economy companies and public sector institutions manage to leapfrog developed countries in both green technologies and their market applications. We would be interested to learn of any other green innovations from outside of the developed world that our readers might have come across.

This week’s edition of the Wikinomics Report Card will focus on General Motors Corporation (GM). In case you missed my first report card about Major League Baseball, you can find it here. Like last week, I will be evaluating GM on the Wikinomics principles of being open, peering, sharing, and acting globally.

Company Background: GM was founded in 1908 and is the world’s largest automaker and leader in global sales for the last 77 calendar years. It manufactures cars and trucks in 35 different countries under the brands Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac, and many more. Under the strength of Alfred Sloan’s revolutionary corporate structure and leadership, GM was once one of the world’s most profitable companies peaking in the early 80’s with a U.S. market share of 45%. However, the legacy costs and complex accounting systems associated with the Sloan era have hindered GM’s efforts to create a more lean manufacturing process. Stiff foreign competition from companies like Toyota and poor strategic decisions like focusing on SUVs and light trucks in a rising fuel market has led GM to one of its weakest points in its history. Yesterday, its stock reached a 53-year low after Goldman Sachs changed it status to “sell”. GM is hoping that it can weather this storm long enough to introduce its new line of alternative energy vehicles like the Chevy Volt and reclaim some of its former glory.

Being Open: Traditionally, GM has been a very closed organization. Even internally, its different brands acted with a silo mentality. In the Alfred Sloan era, GM used espionage tactics to quell union uprisings and in the mid 20^th century, GM was blamed for killing American public transportation in the Great American Streetcar Scandal. In the 1990’s GM was accused of killing the electric car so that it could sell its high margin SUVs and trucks. GM had a fully functional electric car with the EV1, but scrapped the program entirely in 2003. Despite an offer of $1.9 million for the 78 EV1s already produced and a waiting list of customers, GM stripped the car of its recyclables and crushed them. However, in recent years, GM has made great strides in opening up. GM’s chairman and CEO Rich Wagoner admitted that the worst decision of his tenure was “axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image”. GM’s R&D chief Larry Burns said that “if we could turn back the hands of time, we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.” Admitting this mistake is a big step in being open and acting with integrity in the new era. GM has started by being very public and transparent about its production plans for the Chevy Volt. Also, GM is one of the few car companies to have higher executives and “Car Czar” Bob Lutz blog on a regular basis. GM continues to act more openly, it should be able to repair its damaged reputation.

Grade: D+

Peering: Although peer production of automobiles is very difficult with today’s technology, GM has been able to leverage peering very well in its marketing efforts. From our paper on the 8 Net Gen Norms:

Net Geners are also helping develop advertising campaigns. GM invited consumers to a newly built Web site that offered video clips and simple editing tools they could use to create ads for the Chevy Tahoe SUV. The site gained online fame after environmentalists hijacked the site’s tools to build and post ads on the site condemning the Tahoe as an eco-unfriendly gas-guzzler. GM didn’t take ads down, which caused even more online buzz. Some pundits said GM was being foolhardy, but the numbers proved otherwise. The Web site quickly attracted more than 620,000 visitors, two-thirds of whom went on to visit Chevy.com. For three weeks running, the new site funneled more people to the Chevy site than either Google or Yahoo. Most importantly, sales of the Tahoe soared.

This hugely successful campaign generated a lot of buzz for GM at a very minimal cost. With GM’s negative operating margins, cutting down advertising expenses through peering could greatly reduce costs and improve the bottom line.

Grade: B+

Sharing: GM has done a great job involving itself in joint ventures and collaborative efforts over the last few years. GM is the majority stakeholder in the Korean automaker Daewoo, and has collaborated with many of the world’s auto manufacturers. This includes product, powertrain and purchasing collaborations with Suzuki Motor Corp. and Isuzu Motors Ltd. of Japan, advanced technology collaborations with Toyota Corporation and BMW AG of Germany and vehicle manufacturing ventures with several of the world’s automakers including Toyota, Suzuki, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. of China, AvtoVAZ of Russia, Renault SA of France, and most recently, UzAvtosanoa of Uzbekistan.

More importantly, GM has decided to outsource its battery development for its future cars like the Chevy Volt whereas Toyota has decided to develop their battery technology internally. Toyota’s closed attitude and lack of collaboration could eventually lead to a technology gap between itself and GM. While Toyota has profited from selling its superior hybrid software and technology, they may lose out to GM in the future if they remain on this path.

Grade: A-

Acting Globally: GM’s ceo Rich Wagoner expects that 75% of its car sales will be outside the U.S. within a decade. GM is the largest overseas automaker in China and is GM’s second largest market after the United States. After growing sales by 27% each year for 5 years, the GM’s China sales grew 19% last year. This success is largely due to the success of their joint venture between them and Shanghai Automotive. GM is building a new research centre in Shanghai focused on hybrid technology. This is GM’s first venture that is completely separate from Shanghai Automotive. The announcement coincided with the Chinese Government’s powerful National Development and Reform Commission disclosing that it would provide subsidies to alternative fuel vehicles under certain conditions. One major condition was that critical parts must be manufactured in China. While Toyota assembles its cars in China, the critical parts are manufactured and shipped from Japan. This should give GM a big head start in selling hybrid vehicles in China. If GM can repeat its success in China in other emerging markets, it may be able to keep up with Toyota’s sales in the future.

Grade: A-

Overall Verdict: GM is in a very deep hole right now. They are losing around $2 billion a month, and even the new initiatives outlined above won’t act as a quick fix. However, they are building quality cars once again, and seem to be making a lot of great moves. Since the stock is at a 53 year low, this (more like a year from now) may not be a bad time to invest in some GM stock. If the Chevy Volt goes into production on schedule in 2010, high gas prices should propel its sales, and more importantly GM’s corporate image. If 10 years from now, 75% of GM’s sales come from outside the U.S., and its legacy cost issues are solved, they could reclaim the crown from Toyota.

Overall Grade: B

What are your thoughts? Could you see yourself driving the Chevy Volt (above) in 2010?

Usually I regard greater internet connectivity as unambiguously good progress towards more efficiency and productivity, but this raises my eyebrows a bit. Chrysler explains that the service is only for passengers or for the driver when the vehicle isn’t moving, but I think we all know that the temptation will be too great for many. The horror stories about drivers distracted while talking/ texting on cell phones or fiddling with GPS units are enough to make me sick. These accidents happen while being distracted by a mere cell phone. Imagine what could happen if people are distracted by work, Ebay, Facebook, and Youtube.

I’m not saying this feature is outright bad. I for one would love to have Wi-Fi service wherever my car is. I just worry that the benefits won’t outweigh the safety risks. There currently aren’t any laws, that I am aware of, that make computer use while driving illegal. With the introduction of this service, that will be a pressing issue. Personally I think Chrysler should take more responsibility and disable the Wi-Fi connection while the car is in motion.

Regardless of the safety concerns, this is a sure sign that ubiquitous connectivity is on its way. The family road trip is no longer safe from dad and mom being tied down by work e-mails, status updates, and webinars. With a sense of wary excitement, I wait to see what will be developed next.

Let me know your thoughts on this new advent…