Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video' started by GoBlue88, Jun 19, 2014.
I dare you to try and get through this message without laughing out loud.
Yeah. Using Fisker as an example of how dealerships stepped up to support customers when they went under isn't the best example.
I have rarely heard so much nonsense and so many specious arguments in such a short period of time.
NADA is terrified. As they should be. Their archaic business model is threatened by Tesla.
Love the implication that supporting the DTC model means you are taking money away from schools, firefighters, and police. As if in the absence of stealerships consumers wouldn't be paying sales taxes on their cars and manufacturers wouldn't be paying state income tax on their sales.
I'd say fine, mandate that dealerships and manufacturers must donate a certain percentage of profits to schools and tee ball teams to be fair. Somehow I doubt dealerships would like that.
The whole fight with Tesla over their direct sales is hurting NADA in a big way. NADA started the war instead of coming to a compromise and it is really blowing up in their face. Consumers are pretty smart and will not fall for the BS argument this little ad presents. The other mistake NADA makes is that seem to be under the misconception that people like dealerships. The war they started brings the role of dealerships into the spotlight and the public is not happy about it. So NADA is losing the war that they started. The longer the war continues the more it will be in the spotlight and the more you will see the media picking apart their moronic arguments and government agencies, like the FTC, rallying against NADA. NADA needs to come to a compromise with Tesla ASAP before they damage the position they struggled so hard to keep safe.
The thing that they clearly don't want to talk about is how the public currently views car sale people. A December 2013 Gallup poll on honesty/ethics in various professions says it all. Only members of congress and lobbyists scored worse.
I love how their points conflict with each other.
On one hand they say that automakers would still have to have locations to do all the stuff a dealer does. But then go on to say how dealers employe millions of people -- implying that getting rid of dealerships would result in mass layoffs. But if the automakers have to still have locations -- won't they employ about the same # of people?
Plus -- I don't know what they are really scared about. Other industries also operate on a franchise model -- just look at fast food. McDonalds and Starbucks have franchisees, but also have company-owned locations too. Some chains are all company-owened too. These restaurants compete with other restaurants. Car companies mostly compete with other brands (sometimes they compete with other models in the same brand).
Consumers hate the car buying process. Once you decide which car you want to buy, the process of getting current dealerships to compete for your business is just asinine. The automaker still makes the same profit on the car (yes, there could be sales target based back-end money where large market dealers have a leg up over a small market dealer to earn those incentives). All that's being negotiated is the dealer's share of the profit. When buying the Tesla I really did not miss the negotiation stage -- I knew the price and it was simple math whether it worked for me or not. I did have to get financing myself, but even that was much less work than negotiating with a dealer (where you also have to negotiate the rate since dealers mark that up too...)
The NADA is using and will use any tactic to make DTC vehicle manufactures disappear. I think they fear the competition because the competition has shocked the auto industry. It went who is, to it's just vaporware, to they will never build it, to it will never be crash worthy for the road and now to oh snap!!! we have to stop them at all cost.
Nope, couldn't do it.
Laughed several times.
I would like to do a video showing how people get ripped off at a dealership, pressured into extra warranties, get pushed through several different "advisors", and hours later can buy the car. And include a picture of impatient people (is waiting for 2 hours impatient?) waiting for service to be done every few thousand miles.
Never liked going to a dealership, never will again.
Tesla can sell cars with less people in each state but that should be their fault they can do same job more efficiently.
Yes, dealers certainly do compete fiercely. Over who can do the best job of screwing the consumer.
ya. don't try and drink while you laugh over a computer.
what a joke. sad that there might be some people that believe it? hope not
I will say that the dealerships in Humboldt that I have been to didn't even try and sell me a car. I had to find someone to help me @ Toyota and he was reluctant to help me even. The ford dealer I stopped at to check out the Focus ev had a salesguy who went for a ride in my car instead of trying to sell me a car. test drove the I3 and the local BMW people were more interested in the S...
If dealerships provided a better consumer experience, consumers would choose dealerships. They wouldn't need fear tactics to stay in business. The existence of this video just proves out Tesla's business model.
Remember kids: Dealers make cay buying"convenient"!
There are those slick Tesla commercial-type videos on Youtube that people have made. Someone needs to make one about what you describe!
However, many restaurant chains have moved away from the franchise model and instead prefer direct ownership. As Tesla identified, the Internet and modern computing tech have changed performance data and logistics such that the benefits of risk management and local knowledge from franchising are significantly diminished.
They also used cartoon people because real actors couldn't do that commercial with a straight face.
I lol'd. I don't see the big deal though, room for everyone. I don't think consumers prefer the dealer model, and time will tell if going direct hurts any local systems such as schools and firefighters. I'd lean toward probably not since those taxes would still be paid by local company-owned franchises (though I guess there may not be as many company owned stores as there were individual franchises)