Why the Ban in New Jersey has also good side effects for Tesla

[TD1]

I think that most people will only read the News Headline somewhere "Tesla Banned in New Jersey" and even thought they wont read into details.
Other people will read into the details and get more information about the car.
It could have the same effect that the Nike Air Jordans Ban in the NBA had on the Sala of those shoes.
Tesla is a complete new technology and separates itself from traditional car manufacturers.
The NBA Ban of the Nike Air Jordans is considered one of the most genius PR stunts in history, It had the message "unfair advantage for the wearer"

So overall its of course bad that they banned Tesla, but Natinalwide that Ban will hype the car.

Similar anecdote: The german food regulators found "cocaine trace" in RedbullCola, and issued a ban nationwide, the ban was released in the morning, by the evening most shops didnt got the notice but the customers did, all cans were sold out national wide just in a couple hours.

 

[TSLAopt]

I think that most people will only read the News Headline somewhere "Tesla Banned in New Jersey" and even thought they wont read into details.
Other people will read into the details and get more information about the car.
It could have the same effect that the Nike Air Jordans Ban in the NBA had on the Sala of those shoes.
Tesla is a complete new technology and separates itself from traditional car manufacturers.
The NBA Ban of the Nike Air Jordans is considered one of the most genius PR stunts in history, It had the message "unfair advantage for the wearer"

So overall its of course bad that they banned Tesla, but Natinalwide that Ban will hype the car.

Similar anecdote: The german food regulators found "cocaine trace" in RedbullCola, and issued a ban nationwide, the ban was released in the morning, by the evening most shops didnt got the notice but the customers did, all cans were sold out national wide just in a couple hours.

I agree 100%...if someone in NJ wants to buy a model S they will buy one despite this ban, same as with Texas.

 

[Bgarret]

Let the milking of the PR parade commence. Elon just made sure Tesla is on Sunday talk shows, political shows, investmet shows, liberal shows, libertarian shows....it's a movable feast with something for everyone, except his latest strawman/foil Chris Christie. I'm thinking there is a 9 part "trilogy" coming here sometime. So much fun to watch Elon having fun at the expense of some of the most hypocritical and pompous.

Cheers to Mr. Musk.

 

[neroden]

Any publicity is good publicity, as they say. Not really true, but close to true.

 

[The Blue Owl]

There is a crowdfunding campaign on FundElevator raising money to fight the Tesla ban in NJ. From the text on the site:

If our democracy is for sale, then it’s time we become the buyers.

And politicians aren’t that expensive. In NC it only took $8,000 to get a state senator to sponsor an anti-Tesla bill. So give what you can, $1, $5—it’s not the amount of money we raise but the number of people we get to contribute that counts—it is the popular support that is what makes this movement invaluable, this, is what Tesla needs. If we don’t hit our goal off $155,000 (the amount that NJCAR, NJ’s Auto Dealers’ group, spent lobbying last year) in 90 days you will get a full refund.

The way things are going, it won't be long before auto dealers will rue the day they started this fight.

 

[yobigd20]

There is a crowdfunding campaign on FundElevator raising money to fight the Tesla ban in NJ. From the text on the site:


The way things are going, it won't be long before auto dealers will rue the day they started this fight.

I don't think a single person has contributed $1 to this so far. The amount of $$ in there seems like the initial pool, if you look at all the participant donations on the right hand side for all the categories, they all say 0.

 

[4SUPER9]

The way things are going, it won't be long before auto dealers will rue the day they started this fight.

I tend to agree. I can envision this escalating up the legal food chain, only to find and eventual ruling in TM's favor. All the big auto companies would soon follow suit, and the dealers would be left in the dust. If the dealers just shut-up, then they could probably live longer, with TM as their only competitor.

 

[Chickenlittle]

I tend to agree. I can envision this escalating up the legal food chain, only to find and eventual ruling in TM's favor. All the big auto companies would soon follow suit, and the dealers would be left in the dust. If the dealers just shut-up, then they could probably live longer, with TM as their only competitor.

I disagree. Tesla selling on own does not threaten the dealer model since they have agreements with their auto company. Tesla only threatens other companies by competing. The deal or associations, like other associations does not look out for their members only the associations interest. The associations interest is dues from tesla. As unpleasant as it would be, tesla paying dues to the association would make the issue go away

 

[johnnyS]

The Los Angeles Times ran an op-ed about the New Jersey action:
"The Car Dealer's Racket"
The car dealers' racket - latimes.com

 

[Mario Kadastik]

And NY Times ran a story which I think is relatively pro-Tesla or objective.

Log In - The New York Times

 

[Robert.Boston]

I disagree. Tesla selling on own does not threaten the dealer model since they have agreements with their auto company. Tesla only threatens other companies by competing. The deal or associations, like other associations does not look out for their members only the associations interest. The associations interest is dues from tesla. As unpleasant as it would be, tesla paying dues to the association would make the issue go away

I disagree; at the hearing in Natick for Tesla to get its Massachusetts license, one of the auto dealers, speaking on behalf of his brethren, was forthright: they didn't want to open the door to their OEMs bypassing franchise dealers. Currently, MA state laws protects them against such direct encroachment, but laws can be changed. If Tesla proves that the direct-sales approach is not merely acceptable but actually preferable, the days of the franchise dealer are numbered. They understand this, and so they are trying to prevent any breach of that barrier.

 

[The Blue Owl]

I disagree; at the hearing in Natick for Tesla to get its Massachusetts license, one of the auto dealers, speaking on behalf of his brethren, was forthright: they didn't want to open the door to their OEMs bypassing franchise dealers. Currently, MA state laws protects them against such direct encroachment, but laws can be changed. If Tesla proves that the direct-sales approach is not merely acceptable but actually preferable, the days of the franchise dealer are numbered. They understand this, and so they are trying to prevent any breach of that barrier.

Exactly. Dealers thought they had to nip this in the bud so as not to set a precedent.

My point in my first comment was that if the dealers had allowed Tesla to pass under the radar, maybe they would have had a stronger case against the other manufacturers trying to emulate Tesla, since existing manufacturers actually are bound by the franchise laws. By raising a stink with Tesla, they picked the one fight where they are the most vulnerable, because Tesla never used dealers, and on top of everything else, everybody is crazy about the car.

Dealers still have a lot of political clout, but they already lost the most important battle: they have no mindshare, no good will left whatsoever. Their mantra "we are here to protect consumers" is so hollow, it is actively insulting the intelligence of every car owner who has ever suffered through the dealer experience.

 

[TexasEV]

And NY Times ran a story which I think is relatively pro-Tesla or objective.

Log In - The New York Times

I don't think it's either pro-Tesla or objective. It takes the dealer position at face value:
"These rules are generally meant to ensure competition, so that buyers can shop around for discounts from independent dealers..."
This sentence was not a quote from the dealer association spokesman, it was stated by the reporter as fact! Even the reporter should have known the rules put in place at the behest of the auto dealers were not to ensure competition, they were to protect the auto dealers.

 

[ABVA]

I don't think it's either pro-Tesla or objective. It takes the dealer position at face value:
"These rules are generally meant to ensure competition, so that buyers can shop around for discounts from independent dealers..."
This sentence was not a quote from the dealer association spokesman, it was stated by the reporter as fact! Even the reporter should have known the rules put in place at the behest of the auto dealers were not to ensure competition, they were to protect the auto dealers.

+1, reporters statement is nothing more than hogwash, insulting common intelligence. Consumer is being forced to pay additional dealer expenses and profits. So in simple terms consumer is being forced to pay for dealer gains. Any law, policy or regulation which promotes protectionism of one group (dealers) over others (consumers) must invite immediate scrutiny and amended to be equitable to all.

 

[Mario Kadastik]

I think you are quite biased. I was taking it in relative terms that if you compare it to the Broder piece, then this is very pro-Tesla. The overall commentary is the standard one, but they do highlight Tesla advantages multiple times and while they do mention the dealers position (and I understood this as the dealers position that the author regurgitated) they also mention Teslas position multiple times. They do play a bit dirty by squeezing in the f***s at the end, but overall it's a piece that brings the issue to a wider public attention and doesn't feed the dealers lobby as the truth and nothing but the truth. That I think is pro-Tesla in the context of NY Times. Yes, they're not going to the streets and screaming fraud, that's why I mentioned it's a bit more objective that they aren't taking a stance which of the positions is right, just highlighting the action and what sides think of it.

Yes reporting should have more passion and be more objective and looking at what corporations etc are doing bad etc, but in reality there are very few such journalists left in the world hence in the current reality getting a piece like this is positive news I think.

 

[TexasEV]

I think you are quite biased. I was taking it in relative terms that if you compare it to the Broder piece, then this is very pro-Tesla. The overall commentary is the standard one, but they do highlight Tesla advantages multiple times and while they do mention the dealers position (and I understood this as the dealers position that the author regurgitated) they also mention Teslas position multiple times. They do play a bit dirty by squeezing in the f***s at the end, but overall it's a piece that brings the issue to a wider public attention and doesn't feed the dealers lobby as the truth and nothing but the truth. That I think is pro-Tesla in the context of NY Times. Yes, they're not going to the streets and screaming fraud, that's why I mentioned it's a bit more objective that they aren't taking a stance which of the positions is right, just highlighting the action and what sides think of it.

Yes reporting should have more passion and be more objective and looking at what corporations etc are doing bad etc, but in reality there are very few such journalists left in the world hence in the current reality getting a piece like this is positive news I think.

My criticism was not that he mentioned the dealers' position, which of course he should do for balance, it was he stated the dealer position "these rules are generally meant to ensure competition" as a fact rather than identifying it as the dealer position by quoting someone saying that or otherwise identifying it as the dealers' viewpoint.

I emailed the reporter about this. I'll post followup if I hear back.

Also why does every reporter feel compelled to mention that there have been several fires whenever writing about Tesla even if it's completely irrelevant to the article? Do they mention car fires when writing about any other car manufacturer?

 

[Robert.Boston]

Or Toyota's $1.2 billion settlement and admission of criminally withholding information about safety flaws? Or GM's recall of 1.6 million vehicles (and still unanswered questions about faulty airbags, which may trigger more recalls)? The only time I think journalists should be bringing up the f***s is when they are discussing how fragile the stock valuation is: those f***s did reveal how quickly some investors are willing to bail on TSLA.

 

[brianman]

Also why does every reporter feel compelled to mention that there have been several fires whenever writing about Tesla even if it's completely irrelevant to the article? Do they mention car fires when writing about any other car manufacturer?

For the same reason they keep using stock photos of the prototype vehicles rather than the real deal -- it's an industry that is in decline, on many fronts.

 

[The Blue Owl]

Another crack in the dealership model

The opening of a second front in Europe?

This Autonews article was available to non-subscribers, but it doesn't seem to be accessible anymore. Here is a key quote (the article is much longer):

"I think the future of retail in the automotive industry is without bricks and mortar, at least compared to what we do now, which is invest multimillions in dealerships," Ellinghaus said at the Geneva auto show this month. That would give Cadillac the ability to "control not only the transaction prices better, but also the quality of the experience, of the dealer touch points."

Other luxury automakers are rolling out alternative retail strategies in the United States as they adapt to shifting shopping habits, offering customers the chance to kick tires in an environment free of sales pressure or financing pitches. Test tracks, virtual showrooms and other automaker-operated spaces offer car companies a chance for the sort of direct customer face time that has mainly been the dealers' domain.

Porsche plans to open "experience centers" in Los Angeles and at its new headquarters in Atlanta, where owners and prospects can tear around test tracks and learn to tell their Caymans from their Cayennes. BMW's new retail sales model includes plans for regional pools of test cars with a wider range of models, giving dealers access to more demo models than any store could stock.

The brands are careful to say that the facilities are intended to supplement, and not supplant, the dealership experience, and that their dealer networks remain the bedrock of their retail strategy. None of the automakers say they're looking to replicate Tesla Motors' factory store model.

But it remains unclear just how the dealership's role fits into these retail setups.

Unrelated suggestion: maybe the title of this thread could change to "Tesla vs. the Auto Dealers"? This will take a long time to play out.

 

[TD1]

Tesla is banned from /r/technology, and so am I for finding out : teslamotors
Tesla stories are banned on reddit, it seems that having the word "Tesla" in a topic that is posted on /r/technology will get the articles automaticly banned.

Since that information got leaked the reddit community is going crazy and trolling
top 4 stories in /r/technology are about Tesla now and people are upvoting it just a a protest.
Also its intresting that all 4topics misstyped Tesla as "Telsa" or Elon Musk as "Leon Muks"

Telsa Motors plans to debut cheaper car in early 2015 : technology
Model S now comes with titanium under body shield which lowers the risk of battery fires : technology
Telsas Motors Aiming To Build Self-Driving Car Within 3 Years, Leon Muks Says : technology
Five ways Teslas Motors pushes technology change in auto industry : technology

Just shows that we live in an society that dislikes bans, and those bans just lead to more attention and fans.