Tesla Increases Lobbying Efforts To Break Into Michigan

 

 

What is to keep manufacturers from inching up list prices (cannot use the term MSRP anymore because nothing about it is "suggested") with direct retail, even more than they do now?  The perception of getting a "good deal" goes out the window.  That, to me, is not necessarily a happy outcome of a vehicle purchase.  It will take a complete rethink of the purchasing process, and it might make some ppl go for a less well equipped vehicle than they would go for if the negotiating process is eliminated.

 

GM tried it with Saturn.

 

People LOVED the original Saturn.... they had the highest customer satisfaction rates at their dealerships in the industry.  Saturn only failed because GM failed the brand with poor, late, or outdated product.

 

Manufacturers inch up MSRP now.  

 

Dude though, if the plan had worked it would have spread, don't you think?  Everybody wants customer satisfaction, it keeps 'em coming back.

Does this then extend to the trade-in... one price for it no matter what?

Plus a hotel room, restaurant meal and a telephone is nothing like a car.

 

As far as the trade in - You submit pictures of your car taken with the app, front/back/left/right, odometer, interior seats, trunk, engine.  They get back to you with a trade-in offer. As long as the car matches what is submitted at pick-up time, then the transaction goes through.   The basic process is already in place now with some of the used car websites. 

That is still not a very convincing argument Reg. especially when you slide in that little OpEd about the cars themselves like it has anything to with their business model versus the dealership model. I worked in car sales about twelve years ago so I know what it takes to keep the machine running and they are more than free to continue to run with that model if they want. I am more in line of giving the customer a choice and if the model that Tesla is running truly sucks as much as you claim, then they will just wither away and die or change and adapt. However, that does not seem to be case and that is why the old guard has been getting so nervous over the last few years. Again, if they can't adapt to the change that may actually benefit all customers, then they will simply be left behind.

But they are not "getting nervous", how do you figure that?  I don't see that in the least here.

The nervousness is proven by the fact that the dealerships are fighting tooth and nail to keep Tesla from bringing their sales model into their backyard. It's obvious to me.

Here is a link to dealer license laws in Michigan, if anyone wants them for reference.

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-49534_50300_50308-29797--,00.html

These laws exist for many reasons, to protect consumers, dealers, etc. They are not just used for greed or ‘antiquated’ business models to take advantage of. So using ‘slavery’ as an example of ‘wrong’ to bolster one’s argument, is pretty pathetic. Give me a freaking break on that one.  And nobody is ‘fighting tooth and nail’ due to nervousness.  LOL.  No drama there either.   All other automakers follow the rules in the above link to the letter, and the implications of just letting one hipster get a pass because he is so ‘progressive’ and wise and cutting edge….are far reaching.

Don’t like it, lobby to change it, but in a manner that is fair to all……not just one.

Protect consumers? explain.. pressuring salesman, inconsistant pricing, salesmen who don't know jack about their products...

I will not give you a break until you actually explain how you think that forcing HOW a company sells their product is "fair". Using slavery laws is not a bad example, the point was just because it is a law doesn't mean it is actually fair, and you knew exactly what the point was.

Cap,

I have explained myself umpteen times here, you just don’t want to hear it….or you want me to say it in a manner that jives with your stance.

Once again, it is the state law, and it must be enforced to protect other parties (dealers, automakers, consumers, etc.)

And I have explained that I don’t freaking care what they ultimately decide, as long as it is done fairly.

Just framing the question as dictator like rules to sell, is not a properly asked question. 

So IOW, if there was enough pressure to change the law and allow it, do so in a manner that is conducive to fairness.  I am no lawyer here, but give the other automakers adequate time to come up with a revised business model that can co-habitat with dealer networks. Or, have a provision that states Tesla has to have XX amount of dealers first, and then allow the new model. Whatever it is, it has to be at least fair enough to NOT be so one sided.

Cap,

I have explained myself umpteen times here, you just don’t want to hear it….or you want me to say it in a manner that jives with your stance.

 

Once again, it is the state law, and it must be enforced to protect other parties (dealers, automakers, consumers, etc.)

And I have explained that I don’t freaking care what they ultimately decide, as long as it is done fairly.

Just framing the question as dictator like rules to sell, is not a properly asked question. 

So IOW, if there was enough pressure to change the law and allow it, do so in a manner that is conducive to fairness.  I am no lawyer here, but give the other automakers adequate time to come up with a revised business model that can co-habitat with dealer networks. Or, have a provision that states Tesla has to have XX amount of dealers first, and then allow the new model. Whatever it is, it has to be at least fair enough to NOT be so one sided.

 This is exaclty all of our points.. You just say it is law without explaining what about this law is fair to a small company trying to enter the automotive industry.

You saying it is "state law" isn't explaining jack $h!. WHY is it the law? WHAT makes that law fair to a new company?

With your "logic"(if copying and pasting links from websites is even considered an opinion) then there will never be another american automotive company because the cost to set up an entire dealer network in order to sell a freaking car. If you think that barrier to enter the market place is fair and if that legitimately sounds "american" to you then I don't think you know the ole "american dream".

You're being one sided here, I've given an opinion on a possible solution for BOTH parites. One that could help a small company and once/if they grew they would have to join the bull$h! "dealer network".

Cap,

I have explained myself umpteen times here, you just don’t want to hear it….or you want me to say it in a manner that jives with your stance.

 

Once again, it is the state law, and it must be enforced to protect other parties (dealers, automakers, consumers, etc.)

And I have explained that I don’t freaking care what they ultimately decide, as long as it is done fairly.

Just framing the question as dictator like rules to sell, is not a properly asked question. 

So IOW, if there was enough pressure to change the law and allow it, do so in a manner that is conducive to fairness.  I am no lawyer here, but give the other automakers adequate time to come up with a revised business model that can co-habitat with dealer networks. Or, have a provision that states Tesla has to have XX amount of dealers first, and then allow the new model. Whatever it is, it has to be at least fair enough to NOT be so one sided.

Saying "Well it's the law" doesn't mean the law isn't wrong.

There is essentially zero consumer protection in the law.  Read what you linked - all that is required is Fleet insurance and a continuous $10,000 bond.  There is no protection for the manufacturers (and frankly, I'm not that worried about that anyway, if Toyota can weather Floor-mate-gate, Ford weather electronic ignition-gate, and GM weather ignition-switch-gate, I'm sure they can handle themselves). 

The only thing the law is protecting is the business model of the existing dealership groups.... and yes it is antiquated these days.  Costco is now the largest automotive broker in the country now. People apparently like the process of the pre-negotiated sale, pre-negotiated trade, pre-negotiated financing.  It is an unfortunate anachronism that in order to complete the sale, these Costco customers still have to go to the dealership to sign paperwork because of these NADA written laws. 

An aside, removing the franchise laws would not remove franchises.  The franchises would still have a contract with the manufacturer that the manufacturer would be bound to honor. And it is very likely that most manufacturers would want to keep a mix of franchise stores and company stores because building and maintaining a huge network of stores is very cost intensive.   So it isn't like all of these dealerships would go out of business overnight.   What would change would be the addition of factory owned stores or 3rd parties like Amazon or Costco that dealerships would have to compete with.  Dealerships would need to justify their existence, which isn't something they are currently accustomed to.   Dealerships need to up their game... people hate going to them for a reason, and they've only existed in this form for this long because they have the protection of these outdated laws. 

 

Cap,

I have explained myself umpteen times here, you just don’t want to hear it….or you want me to say it in a manner that jives with your stance.

 

Once again, it is the state law, and it must be enforced to protect other parties (dealers, automakers, consumers, etc.)

And I have explained that I don’t freaking care what they ultimately decide, as long as it is done fairly.

Just framing the question as dictator like rules to sell, is not a properly asked question. 

So IOW, if there was enough pressure to change the law and allow it, do so in a manner that is conducive to fairness.  I am no lawyer here, but give the other automakers adequate time to come up with a revised business model that can co-habitat with dealer networks. Or, have a provision that states Tesla has to have XX amount of dealers first, and then allow the new model. Whatever it is, it has to be at least fair enough to NOT be so one sided.

 

Saying "Well it's the law" doesn't mean the law isn't wrong.

 

There is essentially zero consumer protection in the law.  Read what you linked - all that is required is Fleet insurance and a continuous $10,000 bond.  There is no protection for the manufacturers (and frankly, I'm not that worried about that anyway, if Toyota can weather Floor-mate-gate, Ford weather electronic ignition-gate, and GM weather ignition-switch-gate, I'm sure they can handle themselves). 

 

The only thing the law is protecting is the business model of the existing dealership groups.... and yes it is antiquated these days.  Costco is now the largest automotive broker in the country now. People apparently like the process of the pre-negotiated sale, pre-negotiated trade, pre-negotiated financing.  It is an unfortunate anachronism that in order to complete the sale, these Costco customers still have to go to the dealership to sign paperwork because of these NADA written laws. 

 

An aside, removing the franchise laws would not remove franchises.  The franchises would still have a contract with the manufacturer that the manufacturer would be bound to honor. And it is very likely that most manufacturers would want to keep a mix of franchise stores and company stores because building and maintaining a huge network of stores is very cost intensive.   So it isn't like all of these dealerships would go out of business overnight.   What would change would be the addition of factory owned stores or 3rd parties like Amazon or Costco that dealerships would have to compete with.  Dealerships would need to justify their existence, which isn't something they are currently accustomed to.   Dealerships need to up their game... people hate going to them for a reason, and they've only existed in this form for this long because they have the protection of these outdated laws. 

 

But but, it's the law Drew and we know that laws are meant to protect everyone and not just one industry that is scared of a little competition right? (sarcasm wholly intended)

Protect consumers? explain.. pressuring salesman, inconsistant pricing, salesmen who don't know jack about their products...

 

I will not give you a break until you actually explain how you think that forcing HOW a company sells their product is "fair". Using slavery laws is not a bad example, the point was just because it is a law doesn't mean it is actually fair, and you knew exactly what the point was.

Exactly. That law only protects the industry it was written to protect via massive lobbying by that industry. I see nothing that protects the customer as he claims.

Dealerships need to look at themselves like a restaurant. They are only in business as long as they offer something of value to the customer.

What is that value dealerships offer?

SERVICE!

I have found many dealerships, and lately the worst is Toyota and Ford with a very hard pressed sales approach. A Churn N Burn approach to jump on you when you get on the lot, pressure you into deciding on an auto. Sell it with add on's and move onto the next one.

Sadly this leaves a bad taste in my mouth and a poor over all experience. What really needs to happen is a Customer Service that makes the experience stress free, enjoyable and drives home the point of coming back again and again for service on your auto.

I will say that the experience in the Tesla store was pleasing and even test driving it was enjoyable. If you go to a store and test drive one and have never driven a pure electric car you will be in for a surprise at the torque from the get go. What I was not impressed with is the answers to how do I get repairs done, who services the auto, etc. Clearly they have 3rd party places setup and that should be fine but not everyone in their Salon store knew what to say to the basic questions of maintenance, service, warranty, etc. This is where Tesla needs to step up and Pep Boys who is a certified service center is not good enough when you have a state that only has 1 store in it.

Over all, GM will murder Tesla with the BOLT and having a superior service experience. I hope that the Chevy dealerships will be like my Cadillac dealership and give superior service. I go in, never pressure to buy, only how can they help me. I enjoy going to the dealership just to kill time and check out the new auto's. GM needs this across all dealerships as does everyone else in the business.

^ Exactly one of my points.. If Tesla wants to do things their own way, beat them by playing your own game. Make your dealerships actually worth going to. I try not to even go to a dealership when they are open because I don't want to either be pressured into buying something or try and talk cars with a guy who isn't even a car guy..just a salesman.

The dealers really just need to be all around better. Make them worth visiting. Make an automotive dealership the kind of place a family can waste an hour or so before a movie or something instead of the kind of place people dread going. Get people who want do be there and to do a good job.

But it is absurd that it is "law" on how a company can get their product into a consumers hands(and we're not talking about alcohol, tomacco, or firearms - WHICH SEEM TO HAVE A LONGER LEASH THAN CARS!!) 

in Arizona it is against the law to own more than two dildos. However Arizona does not enforce that law because it is a bit absurd. I'm not sure who would need more than one dildo however if you would like more than one then it's okay because the law apparently makes no sense and is no longer enforced. there are hundreds more examples of bizarre laws like that one. Point is antiquated laws need to be taken off the books or no longer enforced. Or as some would claim, they need to be changed,through some sort of due process. However it is hard to change a law when lobbyists and money own Washington. This seems to be the case for this entire thread. it's a good thing 150 years ago Washington was not already bought and paid for by money and business. If it were we would all still be walking because it would be illegal to have an idea and try and sell it.

Scout,

I would rather not know how you know that

in Arizona it is against the law to own more than two dildos. However Arizona does not enforce that law because it is a bit absurd. I'm not sure who would need more than one dildo however if you would like more than one then it's okay because the law apparently makes no sense and is no longer enforced. there are hundreds more examples of bizarre laws like that one. Point is antiquated laws need to be taken off the books or no longer enforced. Or as some would claim, they need to be changed,through some sort of due process. However it is hard to change a law when lobbyists and money own Washington. This seems to be the case for this entire thread. it's a good thing 150 years ago Washington was not already bought and paid for by money and business. If it were we would all still be walking because it would be illegal to have an idea and try and sell it.

An odd but accurate example of the silliness of some laws. Btw, I live in Arizona.

Well, we do take all kinds here at C&G

Scout, I love your example! Lol funny, but it gets the point across.

exactly. I was going to make a free-market argument also. I agree completely I'm just surprised you're the one who posted it given your previous posts. as for how I knew that, I used the most off the wall thing I can think of / find to illustrate how just because it is the law does not mean it is right.

too many things to reply to i can't till i go home. 

one thing i should clear up.  I am not advocating anything on whether i think the law is boohickey or not.  I'm really just saying dealer owned only or corporate stores won't really provide a net benefit like people are assuming.

On a point regarding Apple products, I have purchased at least a dozen apple products in the last few years.  Phones, tablets, etc.  I can only recall three of those purchases being direct from Apple, and none were from the store.  I got an ipod shuffle and my orig apple tv as refurbished off their website.  I think I got my original Ipod (black and white 40gb) possibly direct from the web, but i can't recall for sure.  In some way that's not a direct comparison as the places i got them from were chain stores and discounters.  But since I dislike the experience in the Apple stores (tired, outdated decor, don't really like the staff that's all over you, never a deal) I would hate for the auto biz to evolve to something like that.

People think the salesman make $$$ off car buyers.  hardly.  One guy i talked to who sold chevy said once it was tough to even make $150 on any new car sale.  Big franchise one price places like i was at, flat rate on a car sale represented not even 1 tenth of 1 percent of the MSRP.  Sure the dealer would make volume bonuses and the sales mgr would get a cut also, but one price places need to sell below invoice to move metal.  Your volume steps make up for not making anything on the base sale of the car.  You'll make money on finance and warranties as a dealer, but no corporate store is going to give that money up either.  New car dealers might aim to make 1,000 bucks if they can average out on the base sale of a car, that's not a lot of profit margin ona  40k rig, and the MSRP's will never get knocked down on corporate stores.

I am not sure why people get their shorts in a bind about auto profits.  Look at what idiots pay for clothing at hip stores in the mall.  You want to talk margin......

too many things to reply to i can't till i go home. 

 

one thing i should clear up.  I am not advocating anything on whether i think the law is boohickey or not.  I'm really just saying dealer owned only or corporate stores won't really provide a net benefit like people are assuming.

 

On a point regarding Apple products, I have purchased at least a dozen apple products in the last few years.  Phones, tablets, etc.  I can only recall three of those purchases being direct from Apple, and none were from the store.  I got an ipod shuffle and my orig apple tv as refurbished off their website.  I think I got my original Ipod (black and white 40gb) possibly direct from the web, but i can't recall for sure.  In some way that's not a direct comparison as the places i got them from were chain stores and discounters.  But since I dislike the experience in the Apple stores (tired, outdated decor, don't really like the staff, never a deal) I would hate for the auto biz to evolve to something like that.

Apple doesn't really have a direct competitor for their entire line-up, so that's why there is never a deal. Sure, you can built an rough equivilent out of competitor's products, but you'll be shopping a 5 different stores and there is no guarantee that it will all work together.  (I am not an Apple fanboy, I don't own any of their products anymore)

i still kick myself for not getting a new ipad air 2 from target on black friday.  150 dollar gift card and 5% off with red card.  that's a deal you'll not get at the apple store.  

So post a picture about free market while not supporting a free market when it effects your business? Interesting.

too many things to reply to i can't till i go home. 

 

one thing i should clear up.  I am not advocating anything on whether i think the law is boohickey or not.  I'm really just saying dealer owned only or corporate stores won't really provide a net benefit like people are assuming.

 

On a point regarding Apple products, I have purchased at least a dozen apple products in the last few years.  Phones, tablets, etc.  I can only recall three of those purchases being direct from Apple, and none were from the store.  I got an ipod shuffle and my orig apple tv as refurbished off their website.  I think I got my original Ipod (black and white 40gb) possibly direct from the web, but i can't recall for sure.  In some way that's not a direct comparison as the places i got them from were chain stores and discounters.  But since I dislike the experience in the Apple stores (tired, outdated decor, don't really like the staff that's all over you, never a deal) I would hate for the auto biz to evolve to something like that.

 

People think the salesman make $$$ off car buyers.  hardly.  One guy i talked to who sold chevy said once it was tough to even make $150 on any new car sale.  Big franchise one price places like i was at, flat rate on a car sale represented not even 1 tenth of 1 percent of the MSRP.  Sure the dealer would make volume bonuses and the sales mgr would get a cut also, but one price places need to sell below invoice to move metal.  Your volume steps make up for not making anything on the base sale of the car.  You'll make money on finance and warranties as a dealer, but no corporate store is going to give that money up either.  New car dealers might aim to make 1,000 bucks if they can average out on the base sale of a car, that's not a lot of profit margin ona  40k rig, and the MSRP's will never get knocked down on corporate stores.

 

I am not sure why people get their shorts in a bind about auto profits.  Look at what idiots pay for clothing at hip stores in the mall.  You want to talk margin......

As a former salesman, I know for a fact that I made money off of buyers, especially when negotiations went in my favor but that was on used cars. There is way more markup on certain new vehicles as well though (full size trucks come to mind here). Then there's the dealer mark up on limited run models like the Shelby, Z28, and the Hellcat.

And it's not auto profits most have a problem with. It's that everything is too damn high for the customer in the first place. There are some here that really love to tout those profits though, so that may contribute to the dislike.

too many things to reply to i can't till i go home. 

 

one thing i should clear up.  I am not advocating anything on whether i think the law is boohickey or not.  I'm really just saying dealer owned only or corporate stores won't really provide a net benefit like people are assuming.

 

On a point regarding Apple products, I have purchased at least a dozen apple products in the last few years.  Phones, tablets, etc.  I can only recall three of those purchases being direct from Apple, and none were from the store.  I got an ipod shuffle and my orig apple tv as refurbished off their website.  I think I got my original Ipod (black and white 40gb) possibly direct from the web, but i can't recall for sure.  In some way that's not a direct comparison as the places i got them from were chain stores and discounters.  But since I dislike the experience in the Apple stores (tired, outdated decor, don't really like the staff that's all over you, never a deal) I would hate for the auto biz to evolve to something like that.

 

People think the salesman make $$$ off car buyers.  hardly.  One guy i talked to who sold chevy said once it was tough to even make $150 on any new car sale.  Big franchise one price places like i was at, flat rate on a car sale represented not even 1 tenth of 1 percent of the MSRP.  Sure the dealer would make volume bonuses and the sales mgr would get a cut also, but one price places need to sell below invoice to move metal.  Your volume steps make up for not making anything on the base sale of the car.  You'll make money on finance and warranties as a dealer, but no corporate store is going to give that money up either.  New car dealers might aim to make 1,000 bucks if they can average out on the base sale of a car, that's not a lot of profit margin ona  40k rig, and the MSRP's will never get knocked down on corporate stores.

 

I am not sure why people get their shorts in a bind about auto profits.  Look at what idiots pay for clothing at hip stores in the mall.  You want to talk margin......

I get my panties ruffled because of how crummy salesmen can be and pressure ignorant buyers into things that DO make them money such as the extended warranties, glass protection, winshield wiper fluid refills(exaggerating) but those are where a buyer will get pressured even more because that is where they make the most money off of a new car. That is also where a buyer will get the most ripped off. I had a guy I worked with who was not a car guy by any means and the Chevy dealer told him it would cost 10k to replace his wheels on his Malibu had he hit a pothole or whatnot and bent/cracked/dented his wheels. It is a 2012 Malibu. 10k my ass. I just told him that whoever sold that "protection" plan ripped him off. Of course he got that plan because he was scared if something happened he wouldn't be able to afford to fix it...because he was told it would cost an absurd amount to replace.

My point is that not having to ever deal with a salesman trying to con me into something..would be nice.. Or somehow change the way they make money somehow to get an honest worker. Or just get honest employees.

My point is that not having to ever deal with a salesman trying to con me into something..would be nice.. Or somehow change the way they make money somehow to get an honest worker. Or just get honest employees.

Excellent points. I've been in the I.T. industry in some fashion or another for 20 years (I'm 37, so that should say something there) and nothing annoys me more than having to talk to a salesperson at Best Buy.  It annoys me to even overhear Best Buy employees talk to OTHER customers because I just have the strong urge to jump in and intervene on the customer's behalf. 

It's not the profits that anyone is complaining about here Reg, though I do think transaction prices might tick down slightly at a corp owned store. It's the bad behavior by so many dealership that would likely be reigned in by Corporate if they were actually in charge. 

I don't visit a car dealer unless it is the one my friend works at. Even then, we called and told him what we wanted and that we had a prenegotiated price.  He also knows that I have equal knowledge to him on the products. 

 

exactly. I was going to make a free-market argument also. I agree completely I'm just surprised you're the one who posted it given your previous posts. as for how I knew that, I used the most off the wall thing I can think of / find to illustrate how just because it is the law does not mean it is right.

 

Well, I did state that I am unfazed and have no horse in this race, and that as long as fairness is observed, I don't care what law is in the books. 

Leaving aside all the arguments for and against what Tesla is trying to do, this is just a waste of their time, finances, and energy.

Elon Musk cannot change the world. Whether his ego can stand that is the question.

Last year, the State of Michigan signed a bill that banned an automaker from doing direct sales. This meant an automaker like Tesla couldn't sell any of their vehicles in the state. The move was widely applauded by the likes of GM and the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association. Tesla wasn't impressed by this and since then has been working on trying to change this.

So the UAW and traditional dealers are still scared.

I fail to see how the UAW has anything to do with this.

Leaving aside all the arguments for and against what Tesla is trying to do, this is just a waste of their time, finances, and energy.

Elon Musk cannot change the world. Whether his ego can stand that is the question.

How is wanting to expand your market reach to the most car centric state in the country a waste of time?

Because he's got bigger fish to fry.

Think about it: the last two attempts at this were bankrolled by the two largest automakers in the world, and the outcome was iffy even then.

He doesn't have the capital to spend on legal battles. Concentrate on product.

Last year, the State of Michigan signed a bill that banned an automaker from doing direct sales. This meant an automaker like Tesla couldn't sell any of their vehicles in the state. The move was widely applauded by the likes of GM and the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association. Tesla wasn't impressed by this and since then has been working on trying to change this.

So the UAW and traditional dealers are still scared.

I fail to see how the UAW has anything to do with this.

IMO.

The UAW has taken their lumps since '08 as well as the automakers. But at the end of the day all they do is make what they're given to make.

Anti-union sentiment is illogical. In a nation supposedly founded on checks and balances, unions are a natural extension of that ethos into the marketplace. In short, they keep the bigwigs honest.

you are right in two ways. 1 my dislike for the UAW, and 2 my dislike for unions. I have seen too many piketers shutdown Ma and Pa, hole in the wall stores for no other reason then they simply were not Union. That's why I say here that Tesla seems to be the little guy. However I believe the Union discussion may be a different debate for another thread.

We've both been down that road elsewhere. No need to do it again

But even going back to the whole Apple Store approach to selling cars: it's a nice idea. But a car is a tad more complex to service than an iPad. It isn't the old views of the automotive establishment that need to be modified, it's the know-it-all attitude of the Silicon Valley crowd.

I agree with you (as I often do because your logic is usually sound) that a car is not an iphone. But I also tend to think that in a free market consumers should have the right to make that choice. Not washington, lobbyis, big money. and if I were to read through everything in this thread I believe that most share that sentiment, even you. after 5 pages of this I think what it comes down to is,

Should Tesla be allowed to sell cars without a dealer franchise?.?.?.?.

My answer is yes. If the big guns in the industry don't like it that's too bad. They can either evolve or go extinct. Such as the way of a free market. like I said earlier, just because it has been so for a long time does not mean that it is right.

Because he's got bigger fish to fry.

Think about it: the last two attempts at this were bankrolled by the two largest automakers in the world, and the outcome was iffy even then.

He doesn't have the capital to spend on legal battles. Concentrate on product.

I see what you're saying but part of concentrating on the product is putting it in more markets to sell more product.

Scout: But there is no such thing as a truly free market, nor should there be. If this were the case we would be gassing up our cars at Standard Oil service stations.

Because he's got bigger fish to fry.

Think about it: the last two attempts at this were bankrolled by the two largest automakers in the world, and the outcome was iffy even then.

He doesn't have the capital to spend on legal battles. Concentrate on product.

I see what you're saying but part of concentrating on the product is putting it in more markets to sell more product.

There are plenty of states left to tackle besides Michigan. Musk knows how to grab PR: just pick a fight with the state where the mainstream media has a hate-on for their major industry. Clever. But still prohibitively expensive.

Car prices wouldn't be cheaper at a corporate store. Either being the only to buy the brand, or existing competing against franchised stores. The buyers market will set the price of the car.

Dealers or manufacturers, it wouldn't matter. You'd still end up with a building with a lot of salespeople and they would be pressured to make sales because that is how the doors stay open. Those of us who frequent here are enthusiasts and we know all the little details of this and that. We think we should be able to build a config, click buy, and test drive it without assistance.

90% of the buying public isn't capable of weeding through the mud like that.

I don't disagree that we don't always need to be 'helped' or pressured or however you take that. I would love to check in at a dealer, tell the receptionist to give me keys for 6 cars and leave me alone for half a day. To create something experiential like that I don't see it happening no matter who runs the retail outlets.

If they open the doors, it does not matter who owns it, they will want deals, there will be pressure to sell. And then when the dealership closes and abandons you, then what happens?

I totally get the being stuck with a particular salesperson, or at all. I think if a customer and a salesperson are a bad match, it should be such that either party can walk from the pairing up and there should not be repercussions. It's kind of like marraige, it shouldn't be forced or arranged. If that single issue alone was changed in the dealership experience that alone would help.

Remember these people don't get paid a bunch so the skill in customer service sometimes correlates to what the people get paid.

I had to lol at Drew and Best Buy. I have had lots of those experiences there lately too. But I just roll with it because there are so few places that have any knowledge or customer service with electronics. That and I worked for 4 years at a best buy in college. Didn't sell (managed music dept) but watched a lot of people have to sell vcrs and stuff. The customer service is much worse now a days because they don't pay much.

I've never read so much impotent rage from old farts in one C&G thread before.

Instead of hating Tesla for its success and visionary, game-changing impact on the entire industry, consider pressuring the likes of Ford to make its poverty Cadillac knockoff less terrible. Or it'll become Pontiac. 

Because nobody cares about either brand. Especially Pontiac. Because Pontiac's dead. 

GM will murder Tesla with the BOLT

 
How much CNG does one huff to become this silly?

The Bolt will be a runaway success like the Volt was...oh wait.

You know confidence in your product's sales success is high when you're offering incentives before it even launches.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/10/2016-chevrolet-volt-already-seeing-purchase-incentives/

The Bolt will be a runaway success like the Volt was...oh wait.

 

You know confidence in your product's sales success is high when you're offering incentives before it even launches.

 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/10/2016-chevrolet-volt-already-seeing-purchase-incentives/

The incentive was over on November 2nd.  I can't imagine there were that many 2016 Volts even available at that point... it just started rolling out in October.

There are 172 2016 Chevy Volts currently listed nationwide on AutoTrader and the 2016 is only being sold in certain states. The real test will be to see if Chevy can move the 2017s when those are rolled out to all states.

And the Volt enjoys extremely high owner satisfaction, the people who buy them, love them. 

I've never read so much impotent rage from old farts in one C&G thread before.

Oh come on now! You most certainly have!

I was waiting for Lenny and Squiggy to show up.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/no-more-new-gas-powered-cars-by-2050-say-eight-states-and-five-countries/

 

The Bolt will be a runaway success like the Volt was...oh wait.

 

You know confidence in your product's sales success is high when you're offering incentives before it even launches.

 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/10/2016-chevrolet-volt-already-seeing-purchase-incentives/

 

The incentive was over on November 2nd.  I can't imagine there were that many 2016 Volts even available at that point... it just started rolling out in October.

There are 172 2016 Chevy Volts currently listed nationwide on AutoTrader and the 2016 is only being sold in certain states. The real test will be to see if Chevy can move the 2017s when those are rolled out to all states.

 

And the Volt enjoys extremely high owner satisfaction, the people who buy them, love them. 

 

i would love a volt.......especially if it were malibu sized

http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Tesla+(TSLA)+on+Watch+as+German+Automakers+Try+to+Kill+It/11135794.html

this is an article on how the German marques are out to bury tesla, maybe we won't even have to fuss about the way they sell their cars......

The fact that the Germans are finally going to attempt to compete with Tesla (and desperately so) shows that Tesla is doing something right.

The Germans? The same pack of losers who cheat on emissions and whose vehicles boast electrical systems that barely last after the three year lease period?

Ooooooh scary.

 

 

Because he's got bigger fish to fry.

Think about it: the last two attempts at this were bankrolled by the two largest automakers in the world, and the outcome was iffy even then.

He doesn't have the capital to spend on legal battles. Concentrate on product.

I see what you're saying but part of concentrating on the product is putting it in more markets to sell more product.

There are plenty of states left to tackle besides Michigan. Musk knows how to grab PR: just pick a fight with the state where the mainstream media has a hate-on for their major industry. Clever. But still prohibitively expensive.

 

How is it expensive for Tesla? Given the amount of lobbying, i.e. money giving, the old guard has been doing to try and stop Tesla from selling there, I'd say it is going to be more expensive for them in the long run. Just my opinion though. It makes sense for them to try and sell in the car capital of the country. It's a no brainer in fact.

The Germans? The same pack of losers who cheat on emissions and whose vehicles boast electrical systems that barely last after the three year lease period?

Ooooooh scary.

On the VW group is implicated in that, not Mercedes or BMW (so far anyway).