Slashdot Mirror


Tesla's Next Auto-Dealer Battleground State: Georgia

cartechboy (2660665) writes [Elon] Musk and Tesla's biggest hurdle in the U.S. has been bypassing conventional dealerships and selling directly to customers. This concept is something that's illegal in many states thanks to a nationwide patchwork of decades-old franchise laws. Tesla's latest battle is taking place in Georgia where dealers allege that the start-up company is in violation of the state's franchise laws. Not surprisingly, Tesla's fighting back. To sell cars in Georgia, Tesla had to agree to sell fewer than 150 vehicles directly to consumers in the state. Last week the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association complained that Tesla sold 173 vehicles. Tesla hasn't publicly commented on how many vehicles it has sold in Georgia. We've seen time and time again how this story ends, and the writing is clearly on the wall for this case. Another bit of writing on the wall, though, as reported by the L.A. Times, is that recent electric car sales in the U.S. have been stagnant.

42 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. ...really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    cars people aren't allowed to buy aren't getting bought? whoda thunk it?

  2. Franchise laws = Racket laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no way in hell those franchise laws were put in place for the benefit of you and me. They were put in place merely to protect a lucrative profit stream for special interests.

    1. Re:Franchise laws = Racket laws by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      "Special interests" is an obnoxious phrase purposely constructed to conflate issue groups that are mostly grassroots(on "both sides") with big money market manipulators who like having a senator in their pocket when they need one to make more money.

      I'm not saying I like the influence of those issue organization, just that they're not greedy rent seekers actively harming others for their own benefit like the latter group.

    2. Re:Franchise laws = Racket laws by thaylin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Originally they were not bad laws, back when there was only 1 or 2 car manufacturers who did not really have to compete, and when there were not many mechanic shops. Now the laws are really just a way to pay middlemen who pay lawmakers.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:Franchise laws = Racket laws by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you only read the laws themselves, you wouldn't think that. In theory, the laws are there to give you better service through a dealership because the evil large corporation gives you poor service at a steep price. They're there to prevent a monopoly on service so that you're not required to go to a Ford Garage so that a Ford Mechanic can fix your car with Ford Parts and price gouge the hell out of you.

      In practice, they still do it and with the kickbacks and other ties to the parent company, they might as well be the same thing. The dealer ends up being the middle man that takes his cut and raises the price by thousands of dollars. The laws have effectively enshrined the dealership business model and Tesla threatens that.

    4. Re:Franchise laws = Racket laws by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is a bit more subtle than that. Back in the 20s there were over a dozen auto manufactures and many repair shops, so that was not an issue. The issue was one of unbalanced power. The manufactures could bully the franchisors by forcing them to buy more cars than they could sell, yank their franchise after they had built up the brand and sell it somebody else, drive up franchise fees after the initial 10 year contract was over.etc.

      A free market only works when there is a free exchange between 2 parties. The laws were supposed to, and did, redress this balance of power. Of course, what was true 100 years – or even 25 years does not necessarily apply today or to Tesla. The NADA today is about defending locally entrenched business interests and the status quo.

    5. Re:Franchise laws = Racket laws by bigpat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Originally they were not bad laws, back when there was only 1 or 2 car manufacturers who did not really have to compete, and when there were not many mechanic shops. Now the laws are really just a way to pay middlemen who pay lawmakers.

      I think that is probably backwards. These laws would obviously tend to help larger car companies exclude competition. Like many issues of regulatory capture I would deduce that these state franchise laws were actually bought and paid for by big companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler in order to ensure that all those smaller car companies that didn't have robust dealership networks would either be forced out of business or forced to sell out to the big three. It took some serious capital investment and many years to set up dealer networks for Toyota, Honda and other foreign car companies. But they had the backing of their respective countries and large consumer base at home to leverage. Make no mistake these laws may have been passed at the behest of the local dealers, but those dealers were working from the same game plan as the big three.

    6. Re:Franchise laws = Racket laws by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      It is not as easy as that.

      Maybe not. But even if franchise regulations are needed (I am not convinced) it would make much more sense for them to say "If you are going to use franchises, you must do it this way" rather than to say "You must use franchises".

    7. Re:Franchise laws = Racket laws by davester666 · · Score: 2

      A whole bunch of dealers did get fucked over a few years ago...when the automakers went bankrupt, and as part of the process revoked a bunch of dealership licenses. It amounted to: the cars you have, you still owe us full price for, you have 30 or 60 days to sell them before you can no longer sell them as new 'brand' cars. Good luck with that.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:Franchise laws = Racket laws by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      I would take the opposite view. GM had a large number of inflexible costs. Old underutilized factories that they could not close, redundant union employees that could not fire, and a huge number of small unprofitable dealerships. The state franchise laws were so strong that the only way to fire these unprofitable customers was to dealer bankruptcy.
      GM and Toyota have roughly the same market share but GM had twice as many dealers. In the 60s GM had over 50% of the market share, so it made sense to have 7 brands, and thousands of dealerships. Plus Americans were more rural and spread out. By 2010 having that many dealerships was irrational, but state franchise law limited what GM could do.

      It made sense for the individual dealership to hold on – why give away a valuable franchise for nothing? And GM did not have the money to buy them out – even a marginal franchise is worth a million. But the collective actions were an anchor around GM's neck.

      You could see GM moving in the right direction in 2000-2010, transforming themselves from a huge slow moving dinosaur into something for the modern age, but they just could not move fast enough.

  3. You're having me on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "electric car sales in the U.S. have been stagnant."
     
    "Tesla had to agree to sell fewer than 150 vehicles"
     
    I don't think that is a coincidence.
     
    Captcha: congest

  4. Ah, how heartwarming... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do 'States' Rights' have any applications that aren't kind of embarrassing?

    1. Re:Ah, how heartwarming... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes!

      Some of them were outright morally repugnant, like slavery.

    2. Re:Ah, how heartwarming... by internerdj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep. It is an availability bias. We only hear about states rights when in completely screws something up. You can't seriously say that a uniform code of law works best across the country, can you? What is best for California is best for New York? Or what is best for Arkansaw is best for New Jersey? Or what is best for Hawaii is best for Montana? Different attitudes, different resources, different population densitities. We are strong because we are different but united, granted when we screw it up the we screw it up monumentally.

    3. Re:Ah, how heartwarming... by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pot legalization.

    4. Re:Ah, how heartwarming... by internerdj · · Score: 2

      Well then there is a difference between the colloquial and the academic uses. That in itself is probably a big reason for the divide between positions on the issue.

    5. Re:Ah, how heartwarming... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      State's rights is the argument that the State's have the right to nullify federal law.

      No, "States' Rights" is the argument that if the Constitution doesn't say the Feds can do it, and doesn't say the States cannot do it, the States get to decide whether to do it or not.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  5. Stagnant electric car sales by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

    The reason they're stagnant is because there is only one brand worth buying them from is Tesla.

    Toyota/Honda has a decent lineup in the upper range with their plugin hybrids but if I'm going to plunk down 50k, it might as well be a Tesla or I can get a gas powered car with identical economy for half that price from better brands.

    Perhaps one of the Germans will start entering the market with a better option but the Chevy Volt is crap, Ford and Fiat publicly state they rather don't do it, Fisker was legislated out of business, the rest of them are simply putting in a model because they have to and it shows; it's the same frame as a gas powered car with some batteries slapped into it.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re: Stagnant electric car sales by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      The leaf is a reasonable attempt I the no, pricey for what it is, but seems an honest attempt.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re: Stagnant electric car sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The leaf is a reasonable attempt I the no, pricey for what it is, but seems an honest attempt.

      The problem is they're two different market segments. The Leaf is an honest attempt to build an electric car. It gets you from A to B, looks kinda cute, and RUNS ON ELECTRICITY NOT GAS! You're saving the environment! (But you could do that in a Prius, Fit, or any other subcompact.) The Model S and the Roadster are electric cars. They accelerate faster than a Lamborghini Countach, look totally badass, and, oh, by the way, they just happen to run on electricity, not gasoline. You're feeling awesome whenever you come up to a metered highway entrance because you get to go from zero to sixty in five seconds! (And there are still relatively few cars in which you can do that and save the environment.)

    3. Re: Stagnant electric car sales by Moof123 · · Score: 2

      I can't disagree with anything you said. The Leaf is a good little second or third car. I use mine as my daily commuter, usually 15-40 miles a day, and we use it for most of our driving on weekends. It easily gets used for >50% of the miles in the house. But the range just doesn't cut it for about 10% of the trips. It is actually rather fun to drive, but only once you get good at ignoring all the whirly gigs warning you about how much energy you are wasting and the completely bogus range estimator.

      If they can get the real range up to 150 or 200 miles it will be vastly easier to own a car like the Leaf as your only car. Only a couple percent of trips would be out of that range for almost anybody, and then renting using things like a Zip car makes good sense for the few long trips you take per year.

      Tesla has a great car, and has suffered some bugs from being their first full fledged car. $70-90k just makes it an absurd proposition for most folks. I got my used leaf for $15k, which will pay for itself in about 40k miles compared to driving my truck, so it was a no-brainer.

      I am hopeful that within a few years we will have a longer range Leaf, and a cheaper Tesla to provide 2 good options in the $35k ballpark. Just as important, it would be nice to see the charging infrastructure get figured out, too many companies with too many hair-brained plans are a real turnoff to trying to do a road trip (AeroVironment chargers for example require a monthly plan, or to call to access them every time, wtf?).

  6. RE: Electric Car sales. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My local dealers in Georgia do not carry electric cars. To get an electric car you have to order it through them (if their manufacturer actually makes one) or buy online. In other words, car dealers are hurting electric car sales.

    I hope Tesla is successful. Car dealerships are an anachronism and offer no value to the consumer. They are just needless friction in the car market and just adds expense and bullshit for us consumers.

  7. So much for less government regulation by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't Georgia one of those states where a majority of the folks rail against government intrusion and regulations into the private sector?

    Must be nice to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe they should get a gig as a sideshow freak.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:So much for less government regulation by tomhath · · Score: 2

      You raise a good point. Perhaps there's a reason people are railing against the intrusive regulations that were signed into law by Gov. Roy Barnes (D) in 1999?

  8. Stagnancy bogus. Math is hard. by Jodka · · Score: 5, Informative

    from the summary:

    "...as reported by the L.A. Times, is that recent electric car sales in the U.S. have been stagnant"

    from the LA Times:

    "Sales of electric drive vehicles are stuck at about 3.6% of all new car sales for 2014"

    "And that's during an otherwise robust sales season. Total figures for August were higher than any time in the last decade."

    So the absolute number of electric car sales is increasing but their market share is not. The reporter, one "Charles Fleming," seems not to comprehend that a fixed percentage of an increasing value is itself an increasing value. "Stagnant," is the wrong term to describe an increase in sales. Math is hard.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  9. Let's keep big government out of business by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    By making sure that small government totally blocks business!

    That's how it's supposed to work, right?

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  10. Re:Small government by Gim+Tom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Isn't Georgia one of those "small government" red-states? How's that working out?

    Oh, yea... And we are also one of the most corrupt states too! The Attorney General was fined this week for withholding evidence in an ethics case that might have implicated the Governor.

  11. Re:They are stagnant by GodInHell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the other articles on the L.A. times is reporting that "U.S. auto sales surge in August to month's highest level in years" so - it's lies, damn lies and statistics time. Electric car sales fell 0.1% as a proportion of total car sales during a period that included the car sales at the "highest level in years."

    Consider also that Tesla is still on back-order status and they are gearing up to release two new models of cars. Other than the Tesla, only Nissan has a pure electric generally available on the market - the Leaf - which sold over 120,000 cars last year. See, Wikipedia. Ford's focus is also out there, but only in select markets.

    Shorter: there's only one mass-market electric car on the market. The Tesla Model S, while definitely a beautiful car, doesn't have the production volume to compete in a market share battle - that's not Tesla's bag - yet. The "stagnation" story is more of the knee-jerk car guy rejection of electrics that has been bouncing around in the media for 30 years now.

  12. Re:What is the Tesla strategy? by hansoloaf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because: 1) Dealers sell more than one brand. They will steer the buyers towards other brands if the buyer is hesitant about Tesla. Dealers don't care about one brand loyalty - just want to sell as many as possible in a month. 2) Dealers will definitely try to sell more gas cars as they break down more frequently and the $$$ for dealers is the service dept. They barely make a profit in the sales dept. 3) Tesla has a specific idea on how to do customer experience. Dealers are the worst in this category. Tesla wants to avoid this.

  13. And how much of that stagnancy is because of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And how much of that stagnancy is because of a lack of options to choose from? I mean, really when you look at it there are VERY few models available as full EV - Tesla, and then a couple little entry levels that have been given EV versions... There's almost nothing available in between, and absolutely nothing in the small/mid SUV or mid-sized sedan or sport coupe markets to choose from.

    Until there are more models to choose from that span all the market segments, there's always going to be a limited subset of buyers who will be willing to purchase these as their primary car...

  14. Re:Small government by thaylin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Democrats from 1872-1950s are the current republicans, founded by southern democrats of the time who disliked the north democrats policy to not fight, but accept the decision.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  15. Comment from Tesla by JamieKitson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tesla *has* publicly commented on how many vehicles it has sold in Georgia, it says that the 150 maximum is for a calendar year, while the 173 figure is for October to June and it hasn't hit the 150 mark for 2014.

    http://www.autonews.com/articl...

  16. an insight into the stagnation by nimbius · · Score: 2

    sterling allies of the separate but equal doctrine and creation science, Georgias firm stance against competition from Tesla shouldnt surprise anyone. Texas and Ohio do the same thing when it comes to selling cars in the interest of preserving a relic of a dying baby boomer era. We all know and love the car salesman for his even handed approach, calm demure, and truthful nature right?

    another issue of stagnation is price. Outside of California and New York, electric cars largely dont have subsidies. this is partly due to the franchise racket, and partly because other states dont have stringent EPA mandates or emissions standards like california. Tesla is also, according to their website a 'premium' electric vehicle company. The average price for a Model S is around $90,000 US so among the worst wealth gap in history, the remenence of a major housing crisis, a looming student debt crisis, and rampant american unemployment its no wonder most people arent exactly leaping at the opportunity to saddle themselves with this. 90k is, or was, a decent chunk of a home for most people before the collapse.
    target demographics are also not to be forgotten. Millenials like myself do not care for cars. give us light rail, busses, and trains but ultimately the thing that matters most to us is not that symbol by which our parents projected their status. cars are expensive to maintain and own for us because we earn less than our parents do and, once again, are commonly saddled with an enormous amount of student debt. make it as futuristic as you want, thats fine, but that centre console only does half the things our smartphones are capable of, and requires us to multitask and drive while using it.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:an insight into the stagnation by Locando · · Score: 2

      I don't know why you're calling big cities with lots of jobs and cultural opportunities "hellholes." You have the choice to live in the suburbs or a smaller city, and clearly that's the one that makes sense for you. But why do you tell one person how limited their worldview while yourself attacking people different from you?

  17. Rather un-American, no? by wyr_taliesin · · Score: 2

    Surely only a bunch of liberal Commies would pass laws that ban citizens from selling legal things to each other? Shame on all those Commie legislators in Georgia!

  18. Re:What is the Tesla strategy? by ksheff · · Score: 2

    They can sell more than one brand, but what's stopping someone from setting up a dealership that sells only electric cars and installs & services the home charging systems?

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  19. Re:They are stagnant by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In other words, electric car sales are stagnant because of a supply problem, not a demand one. They can't produce more cars and they essentially are sold out months in advance.

    As a proud owner of a Tesla (6 months and 15K miles so far), I can't imagine buying a non-electric car in the future. I live on the east coast and the supercharger network is built out around me well enough that I don't have any range anxiety at all.

    Several friends are looking to see how I do this winter before putting money down themselves. A couple others already put down a ridiculous amount to be on the list to buy a Tesla Model X when it finally hits production.

    Dealers should be concerned. If the big auto manufacturers go the Tesla way, dealers won't be making much in service contracts in the future.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  20. Re:They are stagnant by Xenolith0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Other than the Tesla, only Nissan has a pure electric generally available on the market

    That's not entirely true, currently available full EVs include the:

    • Tesla Model S
    • Mitsubishi i-MiEV
    • Nissan Leaf
    • BMW i3
    • Ford Focus Electric
    • Volkswagen e-Up!

    That's not an exhaustive, but those are commonly available to buy today in the US.

  21. NOT stagnant by zwede · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tesla had a 2 month backlog (time from order to delivery of a car) of 2 months early this year. In the spring it grew to 3 months. Early summer they upped production to address this, but backlog grew to 4 months. Tesla is building more cars than ever, yet the wait keeps increasing.

    "Stagnant" my ass.

    All this for a car that was introduced almost 2 years ago and has had virtually no updates during this time. Shows how far ahead of other manufacturers they were.

  22. Re:They are stagnant by AaronW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I agree with you. I'm also the owner of a Tesla (18 months, 19K miles). Tesla is constrained by batteries. They can't make them fast enough. There's also a huge demand for the model X with thousands of pre-orders yet it is sight unseen. This is from a company that does no advertizing other than their showrooms.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  23. Re:They are stagnant by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 2

    We've had our Model S for a year and a half. Last winter was one of the coldest in memory in Chicago.

    Although the range was reduced somewhat, maybe 25% when it was super cold it was no problem whatsoever. Interestingly enough, the reduced mileage on our Mariner hybrid was about the same.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  24. Evolve or die. by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2

    Telsa should be able to operate showrooms where it wants and their competitors will either improve their business practices or perish, period. Let the free market sort this out.

    Whenever I see a dealership invoking some obscure franchise law, what I hear is: "We're a dinosaur that can't compete against Telsa."

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.