Pricing/Option Aftermath: Still buying?

[Mycroft]

I think the reason the pano roof was made optional was because they got a lot of pushback at the October event over the pano roof. The folks in sunny climes were quite vocal in their qualms over such a large glass roof.

As for the wheels, I think they felt they had to be made standard with the Sig because all the marketing up 'til now featured the wheels. Imagine if they'd made those wheels a $3,500 option with a Sig.

 

[JRP3]

I don't think I'd want a pano roof either, it makes sense for it to be an option.

 

[smorgasbord]

I don't think I'd want a pano roof either, it makes sense for it to be an option.

Well, with that thinking, then everything that is an option should also be an option on the Signature. But, Tesla's not going that route and it doesn't yet make sense to me why Tesla chose what they chose.

 

[dsm363]

Well, with that thinking, then everything that is an option should also be an option on the Signature. But, Tesla's not going that route and it doesn't yet make sense to me why Tesla chose what they chose.

Maybe they just made a calculation on what options to include based on how angry people would be having to add them back (rather than just bundling the cost into the car and making it 'invisible' in a sense) and which people wouldn't mind paying extra for. I realize you pay for anything they include in the base but somehow when something is included already and you know the price, the cost is absorbed into the total value of the car.

 

[Cobos]

Yes but this thinking doesn't make sense. You can choose to get the 19'' wheels on the Signature without getting any credit but if you choose to NOT get the sunroof you get a $1500 "credit". I completely agree with Smorgasbord that this is a wierd way to handle it. The Signature where supposed to be fully loaded, and then you can decide to decontent it if you want to, i.e. choose away the 21'' wheels, remove the sunroof or the rear seats etc. That would have seemed the most logical way to handle it?

Cobos

 

[dsm363]

If they kept their current system where when you take away an option (21" wheels) you don't pay less for it (I don't think this is a good system) then adding the cost for options more than a few people don't want would increase the cost of the car even more. I'm not saying what they're doing makes sense, just trying to guess and why they did it that way.

 

[Trnsl8r]

Well, with that thinking, then everything that is an option should also be an option on the Signature. But, Tesla's not going that route and it doesn't yet make sense to me why Tesla chose what they chose.

To improve production efficiency in the first production run with less variables?

 

[AnOutsider]

Yes but this thinking doesn't make sense. You can choose to get the 19'' wheels on the Signature without getting any credit but if you choose to NOT get the sunroof you get a $1500 "credit". I completely agree with Smorgasbord that this is a wierd way to handle it. The Signature where supposed to be fully loaded, and then you can decide to decontent it if you want to, i.e. choose away the 21'' wheels, remove the sunroof or the rear seats etc. That would have seemed the most logical way to handle it?

Cobos

Curious, where was it announced that Tesla would be giving credit for not getting the pano roof?

 

[Mycroft]

Curious, where was it announced that Tesla would be giving credit for not getting the pano roof?

Exactly, they didn't even want to go there.

 

[ckessel]

Curious, where was it announced that Tesla would be giving credit for not getting the pano roof?

You get the "credit" in the sense it's $1500 in credit off of the "every possible option imaginable by default" scenario. Imagine the Sig that had pano roof and rear seats by default, but you could downgrade those and get a credit. Whereas you don't get a credit for choosing cheaper paint.

Tesla's choice of mandatory vs. optional is a bit odd (particularly the charger) and the decision not to give credit for downgrades is damn near evil in my opinion. We can talk "assembly line efficiency", but there's practically nothing different about bolting on 19" vs. 21" tires. At the same time, the pano roof is obviously quite different which blows holes in the "limited Sig options for efficiency" theory.

My personal take is:
- I'm fine with all "user experience" items being mandatory: audio, tech package, leather. Things you sit in the car and can appreciate as a step up even if you might not normally have chosen it.
- The 2nd charger should be downgradable (lots of folks will charge only at home on a NEMA socket and won't use it).
- Any downgrade allowed by Tesla should come with a credit (not just Sig, but on the Performance version as well): just tires and paint as it stands today. These are more subjective items than the "user experience" items in that not everyone will prefer red paint and not everyone will like the 21" tires (either aesthetically or a technical perspective, such as ride comfort).

If all that were true, I might have even been willing to pay the Sig premium (probably not, but it would have been up for consideration).

 

[NigelM]

You get the "credit" in the sense it's $1500 in credit off of the "every possible option imaginable by default" scenario.

That doesn't make sense. Sorry, I think you lost the argument on that one.

Whereas you're forced to spend $1500 on a 2nd charger even if you don't want that.

This is on the "Signature" cars. If these cars represent Tesla's Signature they've got have the max range possible and the shortest charge time possible. It's a basic brand question IMO.

Tesla's choices of mandatory vs. optional is a bit odd (particularly the charger) and the decision not to give credit for downgrades is damn near evil in my opinion.

Ever tried to buy a car off the lot and asked for credit for the items you didn't want? Evil? Seriously?

 

[brianman]

Tesla's choice of mandatory vs. optional is a bit odd (particularly the charger) and the decision not to give credit for downgrades is damn near evil

No, it's not. Stop with this.

When I hear junk like this, I start to wish the would just make the kid seats required. I'm nearly at the point where I'd rather pay the $1,500 for this feature (that I'll never use) just to stop this whining about which features they chose to make optional on the Sig.

 

[ckessel]

Ever tried to buy a car off the lot and asked for credit for the items you didn't want? Evil? Seriously?

You're trying to compare buying a made-to-order car with buying off the lot...

 

[ckessel]

No, it's not. Stop with this.

How do you interpret Tesla keeping the $3500 if someone chooses 19" tires? Can you come up with a plausible justification? The tires just sit in stacks to be bolted on at the end.

This is a pretty pure case of actions speak louder than words. I am a Tesla fan (or was, maybe still, hard to say) and I'm having a difficult time finding any justification for this action beyond a money grab. Verizon recently tried a $2 "convenience" fee and got so much backlash they took it back. This isn't far from a $3500 fee convenience fee for choosing 19" tires and it seems fair to level pointed criticisms of that.

just to stop this whining about which features they chose to make optional

We're in the "pricing/options aftermath" topic. You're going to hear discussions, musings, complaints, and probably even a few rants about pricing and options...

 

[NigelM]

ck,

Tesla wants their Signature cars to look and perform as the top of their range. If you want a different spec then just order what you want. IMO (no offence intended!) it sounds like you want the Sig badges but with your own spec and at a lower price. I respect that but from a marketing standpoint it doesn't make sense for Tesla to encourage that.

 

[Cobos]

Curious, where was it announced that Tesla would be giving credit for not getting the pano roof?

I hoped that using "credit" would be sufficient. My point was on the Sig you can choose to not get the Pano Roof, that will save you $1500. You can also choose to get the 19'' wheels that will NOT save you any money. As has been mentioned Tesla announced the Signature would be fully spec'ed. Then IMHO it would make sense to make everything included, which definately should include the pano roof, and probably the rear seats. You could then choose to downgrade for a credit (if Tesla offered that), or for no savings. That would have made sense for their production lines and after all they said the Sig had all features included.

The situation now is the pano roof is something you can select away and save money doing it, but the wheels you can not select away for any savings. And as ckessel said, the argument Tesla has been using has been with production line efficiency, and that just makes NO sense.

Though for me it's only my investor part that cares what Tesla does with their Sig customers. I'm not a Sig customer and I can not afford to be one, so for me as a customer I don't care. I just find it strange that's all.

Cobos

 

[ckessel]

Tesla wants their Signature cars to look and perform as the top of their range. If you want a different spec then just order what you want. IMO (no offence intended!) it sounds like you want the Sig badges but with your own spec and at a lower price. I respect that but from a marketing standpoint it doesn't make sense for Tesla to encourage that.

Actually, I'm largely trying to understand (and/or critique) the rationale behind their choices. I think such things should have a clear vision, a reflection of the company's values or goals.

Tesla's Sig pricing, as it stands, is full of contradictions. The pano roof is an option, leather/charger/etc isn't. Some things are options that you don't start with, but cost to get. Other options you start with, but don't get credit when removed.

The pano roof and paint is a great example of the inconsistentcy. Both are $1500, yet they're treated differently. Why wouldn't the pano-roof be standard and the black/solid roof a "no cost" option? That'd be consistent with how the paint option is handled.

I'd actually be fine if Tesla had said "every option, full price, no credit for downgrades, no exception" as that's a clear vision about their intent for the Sig. I wouldn't be interested and I'd disagree on the ethics of "no credit for downgrades", but I could respect the vision behind it.

We can certainly say "it is what it is", but right now the vision is muddy. Are they focused on the customer? On the initial assembly variations? On the bottom line? On the word of mouth impressions inherent in the Sigs? Given the options/pricing as it stands, I could argue for or against all of those. There's undoubtedly some balance, but whatever balance considerations drove the current choices is opaque at best.


Edit: Cobos mostly beat me to it and hit the nail on the head.

 

[Mycroft]

As a Sig customer and investor, (and even though I would probably have selected the 19" wheels if I got a credit), I'm perfectly fine with Tesla's decision. I'll get the 21" wheels and they're gonna look amazing, the 8 months of the year that I can use them.

 

[AnOutsider]

ck,

Tesla wants their Signature cars to look and perform as the top of their range. If you want a different spec then just order what you want. IMO (no offence intended!) it sounds like you want the Sig badges but with your own spec and at a lower price. I respect that but from a marketing standpoint it doesn't make sense for Tesla to encourage that.

100% agreed. I think it's actually nice of Tesla to offer the option to downgrade really. Most people who go for a top of the line car want what's there, and if they don't, they don't go for it. You could always sell the wheels if you don't like them, and I can't see how having the additional onboard charger actually hurts you...

I hoped that using "credit" would be sufficient. My point was on the Sig you can choose to not get the Pano Roof, that will save you $1500.

Gotcha, I'd actually forgotten for a bit there that the pano roof wasn't included in the sig spec and so was thinking someone told you that you could actually take money off the price if you opted out.

As has been mentioned Tesla announced the Signature would be fully spec'ed.

Actually, I've always heard it was going to be "close to" or "pretty much" fully loaded. I've never heard it would be 100% fully optioned.

The situation now is the pano roof is something you can select away and save money doing it, but the wheels you can not select away for any savings. And as ckessel said, the argument Tesla has been using has been with production line efficiency, and that just makes NO sense.

Tesla hasn't stated anything as far as I know, we've all just been assuming (which still may be correct). I think the more likely reasoning on the wheels is that they're arguably the best-looking wheels and it's what the car has typically been shown with, so of course they should have been included. I don't equate the pano roof and wheels personally.

As a Sig customer and investor, (and even though I would probably have selected the 19" wheels if I got a credit), I'm perfectly fine with Tesla's decision. I'll get the 21" wheels and they're gonna look amazing, the 8 months of the year that I can use them.

Ditto. If I actually decide to use the S in the winter (going back to the convo in the other thread re: RWD in snow), I'll likely get the 19" wheels or the Aeros with snow tires. For all other times of the year, I'll enjoy better performance and "signature" styling.

 

[ahimberg]

There is one option it seems you can't downgrade on a Sig, the leather interior. I had been waiting to see the pricing/options if I would upgrade to Sig, but with that requirement I won't do it.