-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
GM continues to try to stifle competition
- Thread starter pedriscoll
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Bimbels
GoldMember
I think Tesla is going about fighting those opposed to the strategy of selling cars directly in the wrong way. I realize why they're doing it but it's a losing strategy.
All these battles have the same playbook:
Dealer pops up, spreads around cash to legislators and riles up their 50,000 in-state employees and owners. Scares them that Tesla is trying to play by different rules than they are and eventually they'll lose their jobs, the little league teams will lose their sponsors, the trickle down effects of dealers going out of business would be terrible, etc. Tesla gets wind of pending legislation, whips up it's supporters into action, but our numbers are much, much less than the dealer lobby. Legislators listen to representatives of the 50,000 jobs supported by dealers and side with them time and time again even in the face of their supposed free market beliefs.
I'd love to see some brainstorming from the very intelligent people on this forum about how Tesla could take a pro-active approach to these fights and what those methods should be.
All these battles have the same playbook:
Dealer pops up, spreads around cash to legislators and riles up their 50,000 in-state employees and owners. Scares them that Tesla is trying to play by different rules than they are and eventually they'll lose their jobs, the little league teams will lose their sponsors, the trickle down effects of dealers going out of business would be terrible, etc. Tesla gets wind of pending legislation, whips up it's supporters into action, but our numbers are much, much less than the dealer lobby. Legislators listen to representatives of the 50,000 jobs supported by dealers and side with them time and time again even in the face of their supposed free market beliefs.
I'd love to see some brainstorming from the very intelligent people on this forum about how Tesla could take a pro-active approach to these fights and what those methods should be.
Last edited:
bollar
Disgruntled Member
IMO, that's a big win and gives us plenty of opportunity to rally with a public education effort.
This confirmation appeared 27 minutes ago in the Tesla news section of my brokerage account:
| Today's News, February 25, 2016 | |
|---|---|
| 10:16 am ET | *Indiana Legislators Remove Amendment to Bill Which would have Ended TSLA's Indiana Dealership Licenses at End of 2017 -Wall Street Journal |
| Benzinga |
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Buck complains that he has been the target of 'incivility from Tesla owners'. I find that hard to believe - more likely, Tesla owners have wanted answers.
Contrast that with those nice owners that buy from dealerships. Not ONE spoke up and made anyone uncomfortable. Not. One. Spoke. Up. Ever. Only those that own dealerships speak up in favor of dealerships. Not consumers. But those that profit.
- - - Updated - - -
It's not over, Curt. It's going to Summer Study and will likely be back. I'm gathering info right now on what that means.
Contrast that with those nice owners that buy from dealerships. Not ONE spoke up and made anyone uncomfortable. Not. One. Spoke. Up. Ever. Only those that own dealerships speak up in favor of dealerships. Not consumers. But those that profit.
- - - Updated - - -
It's not over, Curt. It's going to Summer Study and will likely be back. I'm gathering info right now on what that means.
phigment
Member
Hopefully by the "Summer Study" the Model 3 would have increased awareness of Tesla's sales model and the implications this change would have for anybody who wants a Model 3.
Yeah, listening to the comments of a few of the Senators, it was quite clear that they expect the bill to come back, after "hopefully coming to a solution all parties can agree on." Today's result is better than having the bill pass for sure, but it's not a win. Maybe it's halftime.
Thank you to those of you who helped publicize this, wrote to your representatives, or showed up at the hearing.
Listen to the beginning of Jim Chen's statement, he says that SB72 last year was referred to summer study and assigned to interim study for the Committee on Roads and Transportation and that never happened. He says that Tesla stood ready to come in and to work with that committee and to present all the information before the legislature.
I'd be interested in knowing why they failed to go forth with the study with Tesla's cooperation last year. Instead, the legislature seemed to try to achieve their means with HB 1254 this year. Will have to look at the history of SB72 from 2015.
Lanny
I'd be interested in knowing why they failed to go forth with the study with Tesla's cooperation last year. Instead, the legislature seemed to try to achieve their means with HB 1254 this year. Will have to look at the history of SB72 from 2015.
Lanny
Here's the 2015 bill information. I'm not seeing anything explicitly stating why it didn't go anywhere over the summer.
chickensevil
Active Member
Probably because any fair study always comes out in favor of Tesla and they know this... so they are trying to push this through without people being able to get actual facts.
I have yet to ever see a study, ever. that comes out in favor of the dealership model. Even GM's own "experiment" in South America determined that dealerships add around 8% added cost to the vehicles that wouldn't be there otherwise. So when your own funded study comes out against your business model, of course you don't want anyone else looking behind the curtain either... they will absolutely come to the same conclusion you did... that your business model is terrible for the consumer.
Sorka, even though I contacted the Indiana Senators in opposition to HB1254, I agree with you, somewhat. There should not be a walled garden on servicing a Tesla vehicle. In some states that right to service information and parts is codified in law. The pros to direct sales model allow Tesla to have enough financial breathing room to generate profit by keeping their costs low and pricing their vehicles consistent with the marketplace. The end result of that profit is the continued innovation of EV and autonomous vehicle technology. The con to this model is what you pointed out.
For a period of time, the market can sustain this model. However, something will have to change when they try to sell and service the Model 3 at some of the volumes they want (200-500k per year). I'd love to have this debate but the simple fact is it is unfair what the Indiana legislature is trying to do to Tesla and consumers.
Mahan, R-Hartford City, sponsor of the Bill: We have heard that (the bill) is anti-free market," Mahan said. "Let's be clear: A truly free market would have no rules or regulations whatsoever."
Another elected official, equating a free-market to the absence of government. It may be easy to fill a 2-3 minute hearing slot, for that one. I hope someone in Indiana takes a future opportunity to help show GM's-sponsor that a free-market has at least two sides.
Another elected official, equating a free-market to the absence of government. It may be easy to fill a 2-3 minute hearing slot, for that one. I hope someone in Indiana takes a future opportunity to help show GM's-sponsor that a free-market has at least two sides.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
The owner of the Hubler GM dealerships testified how they protected the consumer and provided a competitive landscape.
Soooo... how is it competitive when they own all the GM dealerships in the area?
A customer review (the only one) of Hubler Chevrolet on the Better Business Bureau site:
Soooo... how is it competitive when they own all the GM dealerships in the area?
A customer review (the only one) of Hubler Chevrolet on the Better Business Bureau site:
Similar threads
- Poll
