When the auto industry was conceived, the independent dealers were integral to their success. The auto companies were startups and couldn't afford the cap ex of retail operations. So after the industry matured the manufacturers became huge they were a threat to the dealers that helped them succeed. However, Tesla doesn't have any legacy relationships with dealers. Public opinion is on Tesla's side. The dealership's days are numbered. Ordering online allows custom cars, and reduces inventory and storage costs for manufacturers.
Dealers are still integral to the makers (faux) success.
The manufacturers take revenue on shipments to the dealer, not the sell-thru to the end consumer. This allows them to stuff the channel to hit their numbers. Of course, this becomes unsustainable once the effectiveness of discounts & incentives hits the wall and they can't clear the inventory in time for the next stuff job. See 2008 Big-3 explosion, the dealer channel had YEARS worth of inventory of some makes/models.
It's very fair to assume this is a fundamental reason the manufacturers will defend the dealer network to the death. Without it, sales numbers would, by necessity, become a reflection of true demand... Short-term thinking for sure, but very hard to unwind.
At the same time, giving Tesla the privilege to sell directly because of their absent legacy relationshops would give them a unfair advantage. I like Tesla, but they shouldn't gain this advantage.
Society could simply allocate its resources more efficiently if the law is dropped for all manufacturers. Protecting the status quo at the cost of inefficient allocation can not be justified.
This isn't "giving" a privilege. It is a matter of not burdening them with something that is completely unnecessary.
These other companies signed away their point of sale long, long ago. Then everyone gets laws passed which demand that anyone in the future add middle men so they will be equally inefficient.
Of course the argument always comes up, "it's the law, they should abide by it." This argument is always paired with the implied notion that they shouldn't even challenge the law. They should just go along with the law that their competitors wrote to prevent competition. It's a bad law, it needs changing. If it gets changed then everyone can enjoy the same "privilege".
Tesla wants to make something and sell it. This shouldn't require government "privilege" to accomplish. The notion of government planning of industry needs to be squashed.
Preventing Tesla from breaking up the weird dysfunctional system is not the way to get it dropped for all manufacturers. It's the way to enshrine it even more firmly than it already is.
Comments
When the auto industry was conceived, the independent dealers were integral to their success. The auto companies were startups and couldn't afford the cap ex of retail operations. So after the industry matured the manufacturers became huge they were a threat to the dealers that helped them succeed. However, Tesla doesn't have any legacy relationships with dealers. Public opinion is on Tesla's side. The dealership's days are numbered. Ordering online allows custom cars, and reduces inventory and storage costs for manufacturers.
See my blog post on Tesla http://seriouslackofdirection.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-i-hav...
Dealers are still integral to the makers (faux) success.
The manufacturers take revenue on shipments to the dealer, not the sell-thru to the end consumer. This allows them to stuff the channel to hit their numbers. Of course, this becomes unsustainable once the effectiveness of discounts & incentives hits the wall and they can't clear the inventory in time for the next stuff job. See 2008 Big-3 explosion, the dealer channel had YEARS worth of inventory of some makes/models.
It's very fair to assume this is a fundamental reason the manufacturers will defend the dealer network to the death. Without it, sales numbers would, by necessity, become a reflection of true demand... Short-term thinking for sure, but very hard to unwind.
At the same time, giving Tesla the privilege to sell directly because of their absent legacy relationshops would give them a unfair advantage. I like Tesla, but they shouldn't gain this advantage.
Society could simply allocate its resources more efficiently if the law is dropped for all manufacturers. Protecting the status quo at the cost of inefficient allocation can not be justified.
This isn't "giving" a privilege. It is a matter of not burdening them with something that is completely unnecessary.
These other companies signed away their point of sale long, long ago. Then everyone gets laws passed which demand that anyone in the future add middle men so they will be equally inefficient.
Of course the argument always comes up, "it's the law, they should abide by it." This argument is always paired with the implied notion that they shouldn't even challenge the law. They should just go along with the law that their competitors wrote to prevent competition. It's a bad law, it needs changing. If it gets changed then everyone can enjoy the same "privilege".
Tesla wants to make something and sell it. This shouldn't require government "privilege" to accomplish. The notion of government planning of industry needs to be squashed.
Preventing Tesla from breaking up the weird dysfunctional system is not the way to get it dropped for all manufacturers. It's the way to enshrine it even more firmly than it already is.