Disappointed with the D unveiling

[green1]

One way to prevent the "Osbourne" effect (aka shut down the factory until the new stuff is ready) is to announce the new stuff and immediately discount the current price. Those who want the new stuff will pay the higher price and wait. Those who are willing to forgo the new stuff get a deal. Anyone with an existing order is contacted and asked if they wish to wait or pay the lower price for what they already ordered.

What a horrible idea, costs Tesla a ton of money, and the people that just got delivery will still be pissed off just like they are now.

Do what Apple does when they reduce the price of a product: give everyone who took delivery recently a refund. Apple picks 14 days, for Tesla I'd say 90 days is more appropriate.

And we'd see all the people who ordered 91 and 92 days ago being all pissed off that they didn't get it when the person the next day did.

All you're advocating for is to push the problem back a few months, you'll still have the same jealous people who have the same ridiculous arguments, and you will have cost Tesla a whole lot of money in the process.
No thanks. The only "fair" solution is for people to stop whining that someone else got something great, and enjoy that they too got exactly what they were promised

 

[felixtb]

No thanks. The only "fair" solution is for people to stop whining that someone else got something great, and enjoy that they too got exactly what they were promised

+1.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

It's also only fair that nothing in any store ever go on sale in case someone bought it the day before. If no promotional offers are ever given in case someone else didn't get it, if no lottery winner is ever picked because other people didn't win.

A sale is different, because the item in the store hasn't changed, and because the item was priced differently at ***different times***.

In the Tesla scenario, people who ordered on the same day at the same price could have received substantially different goods for the same price.

Lotteries are entered voluntarily, with participants being advised of the odds and knowing that most will not choose the winning numbers. Disclosure is the key here.

 

[green1]

The only solution I've heard so far was to hold off on delivering the hardware until the announcement was made.
The benefit to those that don't currently have the hardware is absolutely nothing. But you'd have a few hundred more people who didn't have this great new feature.

Oddly, the complainers here would be happy with that scenario, because in their twisted world that's "fair", But in truth it's just petty.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

How would people address this scenario:

Alternate universe 2013: Apple launches the iPhone 5S. For launch week, random 5S units have the much faster A7 microprocessor, which also supports 64-bit ARM instructions. All other units use the A6 processor, which is half as fast and supports only 32-bit ARM instructions. There is no way to tell from the outside box which processor the phone has inside. You get what Apple delivers to your door or what the Apple Store employee brings out from the back storage room. They are all priced the same. Apple tells no one at the September keynote.

Tim Cook reveals the secret hardware in October, and tells people that the A7 will enable better performance with iOS updates, and ensure future compatibility with 64-bit apps an iOS.

You think people would react well? You think that crazy Apple fans wouldn't riot and threaten to set Cupertino ablaze?

 

[green1]

How would people address this scenario:

Alternate universe 2013: Apple launches the iPhone 5S. For launch week, random 5S units have the much faster A7 microprocessor, which also supports 64-bit ARM instructions. All other units use the A6 processor, which is half as fast and supports only 32-bit ARM instructions. There is no way to tell from the outside box which processor the phone has inside. They are all priced the same. Apple tells no one at the September keynote.

You think people would react well? You think that crazy Apple fans wouldn't riot and threaten to set Cupertino ablaze?

What did they advertise? If they advertised that they are selling a 32bit A6, and some random people get a 64bit A7 instead, those people would be extremely happy, and the others shouldn't feel bad because they got exactly what was advertised.

If they advertised a 64bit A7 and some people got a 32bit A6, they have a reason to complain.

This is simple folks. If you get exactly what you asked for at the price you agreed to pay then everything went right. Just because someone else was lucky doesn't diminish what you got in any way.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

This is simple folks. If you get exactly what you asked for at the price you agreed to pay then everything went right. Just because someone else was lucky doesn't diminish what you got in any way.

I don't think this is the way customers in general think. As a realist, I think it's best business practice to deal with customers as they are, not how we'd like them to be.

I advise Tesla accordingly.

 

[Tupelo]

This is simple folks. If you get exactly what you asked for at the price you agreed to pay then everything went right. Just because someone else was lucky doesn't diminish what you got in any way.

No but it's really, indefensibly, bad business from a customer satisfaction perspective. Selling two people the same car for the same price, and delivering one a better, more valuable car with no choice given to nor input sought from the one who got shorted. This isn't the first time Tesla has screwed up like this, and it won't be the last.

 

[breser]

It's also only fair that nothing in any store ever go on sale in case someone bought it the day before. If no promotional offers are ever given in case someone else didn't get it, if no lottery winner is ever picked because other people didn't win.

A lot of stores provide refunds of price drops for customers that bought things within a certain period. Some credit cards offer this as well. It's called price protection. The reason it's done is because a customer that buys a product the day before it goes on sale is going to be mad. Places with generous return policies end up just getting a bunch of returns that they then have to restock (and possibly discount for resale). So just giving the customer the lower price creates a happy customer and prevents a problem for the store.

I think Tesla is going to have to do something like this. Because smart customers the next time this happens are going to walk in, see they didn't get new feature, and refuse delivery. They will eat their $2,500 deposit. That's not an ideal outcome for Tesla, because now they definitely have inventory. Ironically, at least some of us ended up in this situation because Tesla was trying to decrease the inventory they'd have to hold across the end of the quarter.

For what it's worth there's a post on the official forums where someone from the UK seriously thought about doing that after they lowered the UK price by more than the deposit but wouldn't lower his cost. He apparently would have saved £4k still after eating the order. But ultimately decided not to do it because he wasn't comfortable doing it. Though he would have been entirely within his rights in the contract. In that case the car didn't change any and he could have probably canceled, ordered the car and had them delivery the same car just for less. The delay would have just been a few days to sort this out. Incidentally, doing that is somewhat sleezy on the part of the buyer, but no less sleezy that what Tesla has done to us.

This is jealousy at it's worst. There's no upside to person A from stopping person B from getting the extra, and yet that's exactly what everyone is advocating for. Back to my toddler example, people would rather they get one cookie and the other person get none, than that they get 2 cookies and the other person gets 3, even though both people are better off in the second example.

Enjoy your 2 cookies, and don't be upset that someone else has 3, the alternative is that both of you have none.

I really wish you'd stop with your very thinly veiled ad hominem attacks. I've told you at least 2 times now that's not what we're asking for. Nobody here is attacking owners that received the sensors, as someone else said this is between us and Tesla.

The alternative I'd asked for is not that neither of us have sensors. The alternative I'd asked for is those of us who weren't going to get the sensors to be notified that was about to happen and get the option to delay our build. Tesla could toss in a discount as an incentive to give up the features (or a disincentive by losing your depsoit) and I think you'd see a fairly even split of people choosing one or the other. As I suggested in another thread they don't even have to exactly say what the feature was. Just give those of us a choice.

With a choice it's your own fault. If I order red paint and then hate it that's my fault. If I decided to take delivery earlier after being told the consequences and hate those consequences that's my fault.

What a horrible idea, costs Tesla a ton of money, and the people that just got delivery will still be pissed off just like they are now.

It'd at least be an acknowledgement that Tesla provided me a product with less value. I might not be happy but a proactive action like this would buy a lot of goodwill on the part of Tesla. I probably would not have complained to them. Even something small like giving the $950 discount on the price of my build under the new system versus the old would have meant a lot. Given the supposed profit of 25-28% of the price of the car, this would not be that big of a deal for them. You're ignoring the fact that the sensors have to cost something. For them to add them as standard the cost to build the cars has had to come down. So Tesla gave up some profit on those cars, I can't see what the huge hit to them is. So why exactly can't they give up some profit on my car?

As it was they didn't even want to acknowledge that the sensors existed at delivery for me. Other people were told by Tesla employees that the info on the Internet were lies. That of course managed to help dissuade me from refusing delivery. What most everyone here isn't acknowledging is that you haven't actually bought the car until you accept delivery. Your only risk up that point is the deposit. Tesla went out of their way to hide information to dissuade customers from refusing delivery. I don't understand why you can't at least empathize with customers in this situation where the transaction was seriously tilted in Tesla's favor.

And we'd see all the people who ordered 91 and 92 days ago being all pissed off that they didn't get it when the person the next day did.

All you're advocating for is to push the problem back a few months, you'll still have the same jealous people who have the same ridiculous arguments, and you will have cost Tesla a whole lot of money in the process.

The negative feelings about the situation are going to taper off with time. If you missed a upgrade added as standard by a few days you're going to be disappointed. If you missed it by 3 months, you're still going to be disappointed but not nearly as much as the guy who missed it by 2 days. If Tesla wanted to decrease the cost they could just taper what they're offering based on how much you missed the feature by.

 

[green1]

No but it's really, indefensibly, bad business from a customer satisfaction perspective. Selling two people the same car for the same price, and delivering one a better, more valuable car with no choice given to nor input sought from the one who got shorted.

It also happens to be standard practice in pretty much EVERY industry. sometimes things go on sale, sometimes new components are included, sometimes there's a design change, sometimes you want to recognize your Nth customer (arbitrary number), sometimes there's a toy in the cereal box.

There was a wonderful video that went viral about an airline around here last christmas, they had "Santa" sitting in the departure lounge at the Toronto airport asking everyone what they wanted for christmas. When they got off the plane in Calgary 4 hours later, completely unexpectedly, whatever they had asked for appeared at the baggage claim, from socks and underwear, to big screen TVs.
These people paid for an airline flight, not for a big screen TV, the people on the flight an hour before didn't get this, or an hour after. but the public loved it. People weren't bitter that they didn't get the gifts, they were happy for those that did.

This isn't the first time Tesla has screwed up like this, and it won't be the last.

I sure hope it isn't the last! they did an amazing thing here, I hope they continue to do it, often!

 

[Canuck]

Originally Posted by green1
This is jealousy at it's worst. There's no upside to person A from stopping person B from getting the extra, and yet that's exactly what everyone is advocating for. Back to my toddler example, people would rather they get one cookie and the other person get none, than that they get 2 cookies and the other person gets 3, even though both people are better off in the second example.
Enjoy your 2 cookies, and don't be upset that someone else has 3, the alternative is that both of you have none."

I really wish you'd stop with your very thinly veiled ad hominem attacks. I've told you at least 2 times now that's not what we're asking for. Nobody here is attacking owners that received the sensors, as someone else said this is between us and Tesla.

An ad hominem attack is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing rather than something independent of that person. Green1 gave you an independent argument based on his "cookie" example to make his point. He never mentioned anything about you personally at all. In fact, he made a valid argument that applies to the discussion of this thread and one that was in no way an ad hominem attack.

 

[breser]

It also happens to be standard practice in pretty much EVERY industry. sometimes things go on sale, sometimes new components are included, sometimes there's a design change, sometimes you want to recognize your Nth customer (arbitrary number), sometimes there's a toy in the cereal box.

We're not talking about a box of cereal here. We're talking about a $100k car. Where the profit is somewhere in the range of $25-28k. Tesla does tons of things on the service end for goodwill. Are you seriously going to argue that they can't do something on the sales end in circumstances like this? Also Tesla has done a lot to present themselves as a better experience than everyone else. Saying everyone does it is not a convincing argument when Tesla goes above and beyond in so many other circumstances.

There was a wonderful video that went viral about an airline around here last christmas, they had "Santa" sitting in the departure lounge at the Toronto airport asking everyone what they wanted for christmas. When they got off the plane in Calgary 4 hours later, completely unexpectedly, whatever they had asked for appeared at the baggage claim, from socks and underwear, to big screen TVs.
These people paid for an airline flight, not for a big screen TV, the people on the flight an hour before didn't get this, or an hour after. but the public loved it. People weren't bitter that they didn't get the gifts, they were happy for those that did.

That's called a marketing promotion. Very few people got that. You probably have better chances of winning the lottery than getting on a flight like that.

You're also comparing the overall public liking the video, most of which weren't flying on the airline the same day. Obviously if you weren't flying on the airline you have nothing to be disappointed about. Pretty much everyone likes seeing other people happy.

I'm really happy for the owners that got the sensors. That doesn't change the fact that I feel my particular situation was poorly handled.

- - - Updated - - -

An ad hominem attack is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing rather than something independent of that person. Green1 gave you an independent argument based on his "cookie" example to make his point. He never mentioned anything about you personally at all. In fact, he made a valid argument that applies to the discussion of this thread and one that was in no way an ad hominem attack.

The implication is that we're acting like children, that is indeed an ad hominem attack. He's said so much more directly previously. Someone else said something about being 12 further up. I've been trying to ignore it, now it's getting old since it's just being repeated over and over. The cookie example is just a veiled way of saying it. Especially since none of us is asking for anyone to lose the sensors, rather we're asking to get a choice as to which side of the break point we fall. All owners would have had the same benefit. Some who got the sensors might even have preferred to take delivery sooner and not get them.

 

[green1]

Ok, think of it completely differently then, Tesla did a "marketing promotion" where a select group of people were given a free upgrade to the sensor package. "Very few people got that." You weren't in that group, but that's ok, because "you probably have better chances of winning the lottery than getting on a flight like that."

I'm guessing you're still upset, but you used those same words to defend the airline promo, what's the difference?

Your situation is you didn't get something that you didn't order. You got what you did order, but you got it early. Had you known an announcement was coming you would have what? cancelled your order? told them to park your already completed car in their parking lot and got the same one later, still without the sensors?
Someone will always be the last person without whatever it is. There's no point complaining about it, you just get yourself worked up about the fact that progress is happening and other people are happy.

- - - Updated - - -

none of us is asking for anyone to lose the sensors, rather we're asking to get a choice as to which side of the break point we fall. All owners would have had the same benefit. Some who got the sensors might even have preferred to take delivery sooner and not get them.

Actually that's exactly what you're asking for. You can't choose which side of the change you're on without forcing someone else to be on the other side of it. The change has to be somewhere, and nobody is going to choose to be on the loosing side. The only fair way to do it is make sure that anyone who orders something gets it. And Tesla did that perfectly. The fact that they also gave a few away for free is actually even better!

 

[Canuck]

The implication is that we're acting like children, that is indeed an ad hominem attack.

I respectfully disagree. Even if the implication is that you're acting like children, it's based on the "cookie" example which applies to certain options being given to some purchasers and not to others. In order to be an ad hominem attack, it must be based on some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or person being criticized.[SUP][2] [/SUP]The "cookie" example is relevant (even if it is not agreed to) thus making it not an hominem attack. It would be fair to say that you feel it's not appropriate to use that example as a veiled attempt to call you a child. That's fair. But it's not ad hominem.

 

[breser]

Ok, think of it completely differently then, Tesla did a "marketing promotion" where a select group of people were given a free upgrade to the sensor package. "Very few people got that." You weren't in that group, but that's ok, because "you probably have better chances of winning the lottery than getting on a flight like that."

I'm guessing you're still upset, but you used those same words to defend the airline promo, what's the difference?

There's all the production from roughly the 18th of September through whenever they have flushed the orders made before Thursday night. Given that they're saying P85D's will come out in December and other D's in January/Febuary. That's at least a quarter of their production for the year. Possibly more because there are people with orders from June that still haven't received their cars. So roughly a 25% chance if you ordered in 2014 of getting the new sensors.

The airline example you gave happens to be WestJet. WestJet flies 45,000 passengers a day. They fly 737-NG planes of which the largest can carry 189 passengers. So on that day you had a 0.42% chance of getting this promotion. For the whole year you had a 0.00115% chance. That's actually slightly better than I thought, but I didn't realize it was such a small airline.

That's not even remotely in the same ballpark.

Actually that's exactly what you're asking for. You can't choose which side of the change you're on without forcing someone else to be on the other side of it. The change has to be somewhere, and nobody is going to choose to be on the loosing side. The only fair way to do it is make sure that anyone who orders something gets it. And Tesla did that perfectly. The fact that they also gave a few away for free is actually even better!

You're presuming that Tesla can't manage this such that they give people the choice and they rearrange orders and then order the right number of old and new parts to make the cut such that everyone is on the side they want. Beyond that this presumes that they can't continue to make the old parts and that there has to be a clean cut. I doubt that a lot given that parts will still need to be available for the older cars that won't have these sensors.

The other option is that Tesla take cars that would have been built without the sensors and use them as inventory cars. As I pointed out before they are decreasing the profit on the new cars by some amount. They could probably discount these cars by the same amount and get them sold quickly to people that don't care about them.

The whole idea that Tesla couldn't have done this better because it's impossible just doesn't hold water.

- - - Updated - - -

I respectfully disagree. Even if the implication is that you're acting like children, it's based on the "cookie" example which applies to certain options being given to some purchasers and not to others. In order to be an ad hominem attack, it must be based on some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or person being criticized.[SUP][2] [/SUP]The "cookie" example is relevant (even if it is not agreed to) thus making it not an hominem attack. It would be fair to say that you feel it's not appropriate to use that example as a veiled attempt to call you a child. That's fair. But it's not ad hominem.

Fair enough, I don't think it's an appropriate example, since it's not applicable since nobody is suggesting that nobody get the sensors.

 

[green1]

There's all the production from roughly the 18th of September through whenever they have flushed the orders made before Thursday night. Given that they're saying P85D's will come out in December and other D's in January/Febuary. That's at least a quarter of their production for the year. Possibly more because there are people with orders from June that still haven't received their cars. So roughly a 25% chance if you ordered in 2014 of getting the new sensors.

So you're saying that a promotion is only a good thing if fewer people get it? In my world the more people that get it the better...

You're presuming that Tesla can't manage this such that they give people the choice and they rearrange orders and then order the right number of old and new parts to make the cut such that everyone is on the side they want. Beyond that this presumes that they can't continue to make the old parts and that there has to be a clean cut. I doubt that a lot given that parts will still need to be available for the older cars that won't have these sensors.

Thing is, nobody would choose to not get the hardware, and yet, someone has to. The cars without the hardware need to be produced right up until they're ready to put the hardware on, and not putting it on after that is just silly, the only reason not to at that point is so that people before that don't get jealous, a horrible motivation.

The other option is that Tesla take cars that would have been built without the sensors and use them as inventory cars.

Why should inventory cars have fewer options than regular cars? There's no benefit to that, it pushes legitimate orders out further, increases the number of inventory cars above what's necessary, and makes them harder to sell. As a TSLA shareholder I'd be appalled by that level of mismanagement.

The whole idea that Tesla couldn't have done this better because it's impossible just doesn't hold water.

Actually I don't think they could have done this any better. They gave everyone what they ordered, they gave a few people more than they ordered. The only way to do better would be to give more people the sensors, and you have to assume that they started putting them on the cars as soon as they were ready to do so, so that's obviously not an option.

You're jealous, it's a natural emotion, I understand. It's not something to be proud of though.

-

 

[breser]

So you're saying that a promotion is only a good thing if fewer people get it? In my world the more people that get it the better...

We're not discussing how good the promotion is. We're discussing how likely people are to be disappointed.

I'm not disappointed that I had to order a standard color because a handful of customers (probably mostly insiders) have managed to get Tesla to make them custom colored cars. As far as I know there's at best maybe a dozen of those cars. 12 cars out of 60,000 isn't significant. The chances that Tesla would do that for me are very remote.

Thing is, nobody would choose to not get the hardware, and yet, someone has to. The cars without the hardware need to be produced right up until they're ready to put the hardware on, and not putting it on after that is just silly, the only reason not to at that point is so that people before that don't get jealous, a horrible motivation.

Fine let's say you're right (not sure that I agree, even though I think that the argument you're making is a strong point for my case). Nobody would choose not to get the hardware. If that's so obvious then it should be so obvious that nobody is going to be happy about having missed out on the new hardware. Meaning not proactively giving customers anything for missing it is an obvious mistake from a customer satisfaction standpoint. Tesla's goal is to sell products to their customers that the customers are happy with so that they'll buy again and recommend their friends buy. The emotions on the part of the customer that drive for or against that satisfaction aren't particularly important (though I don't think I'm jealous, more on that later).

Why should inventory cars have fewer options than regular cars? There's no benefit to that, it pushes legitimate orders out further, increases the number of inventory cars above what's necessary, and makes them harder to sell. As a TSLA shareholder I'd be appalled by that level of mismanagement.

Ahh so now we see your interest here. You have skin in this game. You're not just some disinterested party that is telling me I'm being unreasonable.

Actually I don't think they could have done this any better. They gave everyone what they ordered, they gave a few people more than they ordered. The only way to do better would be to give more people the sensors, and you have to assume that they started putting them on the cars as soon as they were ready to do so, so that's obviously not an option.

Let's assume you're right here as well (again I don't agree but for the time being let's presume you're right). In this case then Tesla should have offered some compensation to a small group of people who missed the sensors. That's a select group getting something that others are not. You're in favor of that right? The only difference between that and what happened is that Tesla's profit reduction on the vehicles isn't aligned with when they added the sensors. They'd lose a little more profit, but obviously a profit they were willing to forgo on all cars going forward.

You've argued against any sort of cost reduction for customers without the sensors. You ignored my previous arguments to this point. The truth is what you're really in favor of here is whatever happens to benefit Tesla (ergo you as a shareholder) the most in your opinion. Which strangely isn't what makes the maximum number of customers happy.

I wish Tesla had handled things better, I don't expect them to do anything about this situation. But if I was in charge of the company I would do something because a little goodwill goes a long way. Tesla obviously understands that given their behavior with servicing customer's cars. I'm not sure if you object to that as well. But I don't understand why you don't seem to want to apply that to the sales process.

You're jealous, it's a natural emotion, I understand. It's not something to be proud of though.

For the last time I'm not jealous of other owners. That's an emotion you are projecting on me. I'm frustrated that I didn't get to make an informed choice about my delivery timing. If I'd gotten that choice and chose wrong I wouldn't say anything. Hint: I chose wrong in my opinion about headliner selection, not complaining about that.

You don't get to tell me how I feel. You can tell me how I feel is unreasonable. You can tell me you don't like how I feel. You can argue what I think should have happened isn't possible. But you don't get to tell me what my emotions are. Especially, when you're just exchanging text on the Internet.

For what it's worth, I wish I didn't feel the frustration I do. But the frustration I feel reflects not just on the sensor situation but the entire way the delivery was handled for me. As I mentioned before, my DS essentially ignored me.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I respectfully - and jestfully - think that the likes of green1 and Canuck are acting like 12 year-olds in that they see only one way Tesla could be, without the complexities of adult solutions.

Really, breser has been promoting a wide range of things Tesla could do and the response is, basically, Tesla can only do what they are doing now and its the only right way ever, so shut up... Seriously, people. It is cute to have 12-year old fanboys uncritically rooting for their home team, less so in an adult environment.

To simplify a customer interaction as large as a car purchase into "you're jealous, get over it", is to ignore not only a range of human emotion, but also a range of market realities. In this case, it also ignores the fact that Tesla changed breser's delivery date without informing him of the implications of doing so. Had breser gotten what he ordered, when he ordered, he would have gotten the upgrades.

There is a reason why companies have price protection, generous returns policies and even retroactive upgrade policies at times - not just because people are jealous, but because they are human and the interaction of the sale is precious - and precarious. There is also a reason why the topic of great corporate communications is a science of its own. There is a lot a company can do to navigate the business environment to the benefit of all involved. There is also a lot they can fail at.

To suggest Tesla could do no better and the likes of breser just need to get over the jealousy is, well, really naive. In reality, there is likely a lot of stuff Tesla could - and perhaps should - take home from feedback like this and improve. And there's lots the community can learn and help each other with going forwards. At the very least, it is a fair discussion.

In my opinion, a smart company - and a smart community - will take all this into consideration. Discussing how Telsa could improve and how a Tesla owner feeling slighted could proceed with the situation is an adult conversation. Adult conversations are hard, though. They're complex and without simple answers.

Think about that, next time you fight the very human urge to caricatyrize your discussion opponent into a primitively emotional adolescent.

As I said previously, have a little heart.

p.s. Personally I find the lack of empathy in parts of this community a turn-off and a disappointment.

 

[tdiggity]

Super snip

Great explanation.

 

[Flyshacker]

So are you disappointed guys going to switch to LEASING a from now on, so you won't tie up such a big investment in rapidly changing technology?