Slashdot Mirror
Court: Car Dealers Can't Stop Tesla From Selling In Massachusetts
curtwoodward writes: Many states have laws that prevent car manufacturers from operating their own dealerships, a throwback to the days when Detroit tried to undercut its franchise dealers by opening company-owned shops. But dealers have taken those laws to the extreme as they battle new competition from Tesla, which is selling its cars direct to the public. In some states, dealers have succeeded in limiting Tesla's direct-sales model. But not in Massachusetts (PDF): the state's Supreme Court says the dealers don't have any right to sue Tesla for unfair competition, since they're not Tesla dealers. No harm, no foul.
I love the courts logic.
Dealer Franchise Laws were prevented to promote the Franchise model.
If a car company sells franchises in the State, it can't then open Company Stores and undercut their Franchises.
But if the Car Company has no franchises, there is no one being hurt.
Car Dealerships can't sue because they don't like a new Car Company's Sales Model.
Reality is the Franchise owners were licking their chops thinking of all the money they would make selling Teslas in their dealerships. They got butt hurt when they found out Tesla wasn't going to sell them Franchises.
If they were offering Tesla what they wanted or needed maybe tesla wouldn't see a need to bypass them.
Tesla for example likes to have their dealerships in normal store fronts where they have ONE car in the middle of the store and a lot of information. They sort of look and feel like apple stores. Very minimalistic, hip, modern. If the dealerships were willing to do that then maybe Tesla wouldn't have needed to do this.
Tesla points out that new car companies in the US tend to fail and they blame the dealership system for this because they say they're invested in existing auto companies and brands.
For Tesla to be comfortable the existing dealerships would have to be willing to commit themselves to Tesla in the same way that Tesla's company run dealerships are committed to Tesla.
And even then... Tesla doesn't have to deal with the dealerships. That whole model of sales is obviously going to come under challenge from all the other car companies now that will all ask "why do we have to deal with you when Tesla can do what they want?"
Maybe Toyota or Ford will want to have their own stores. And the dealerships are going to have to justify themselves to those organizations.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Tesla points out that new car companies in the US tend to fail and they blame the dealership system for this because they say they're invested in existing auto companies and brands.
I blame the dealerships too. The last time I went shopping for a car, I told the salesman I was looking to replace my Chevy Malibu, and wanted something small to midize that was good in the snow. Despite the bevy of options on the lot, he walked me over to a Challenger SRT ... a rear-wheel drive boat that most likely isn't even particularly good in the rain. Looking around, though, the dealer had invested in a lot of special edition models of sports cars (2 Mustang Roushes, a GT500, the Challenger, etc) and that was what he needed to sell that day. If I was the guy making midsize sedans, I wouldn't want that guy involved in selling my cars either.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
More like just State Supreme Court. SCOTUS stands for (S)upreme (C)ourt (O)f (T)he (U)nited (S)tates.
Dealers are their own worst enemies.
Recently a co-worker of mine went shopping for a car and the local dealer treated her like shit. (She made the mistake of knowing what she wanted, and what she was willing to pay.) At one point the sales slime flat told her "Can I talk to your husband? I don't think you understand buying cars" - This did not fly well with the single, divorced professional woman who's been buying cars longer than that young prick has been alive.
The above scenario would not fly at a chain owned by a national or international auto outlet. One phone call to a news station and the media would be all over said auto maker for how they treat their female customers. On the other hand, people sort of expect local dealers to be corrupt, sleazy middle men. And they are. They're nothing but entrenched middlemen hiding behind old laws and inherently corrupt local politics. (Car dealers are infamous for greasing the palms of mayors, county clerks, governors, etc)
actually, Supreme Judicial Court is the highest court, the highest "appeals" court in Massachusetts; whereas Trial Court is the ordinary court in Massachusetts and General Court is the legislature; and wherease, Supreme Court of New York is the ordinary trial court, and Court of Appeals is the highest NY State appellate court.
This terminology all varies by state (and/or by commonwealth or provident plantation)
I see you can learn something from this example.
The original post indicates he didn't go in uninformed. A classic negotiation tactic is to let the other side go first. Asking a salesman to show you something is a good opening move for an expensive purchase even if you know exactly why you are there and what you want to buy. When the salesperson went immediately to the product of the day, that gave away that they were acting in bad faith.
You are right about historical reasons but I believe wrong about the ones you have supplied. I believe the primary reasons are more likely to do with distance and communication.
When you were a factory in the 40s and 50s pumping out cars you were focussed on the manufacturing aspects and your business was located in a single location - ie Detroit. The idea of trying to manage a network of stores across the country when communication was by post or expensive phone calls just simply didn't make sense. It was more cost effective to outsource that work, in exactly the same way it makes more sense to outsource things like accountancy, IT services and legal in many organisations.
Selling cars is a different business to making cars. And there is no guarantee that if you are good at making cars you will be good at selling them. The original idea was that these dealer were to be your customer interface, and ideally do a better job than you could.
The fact that manufacturers obviously decided that wasn't working at some point in the past and tried to open dealer owned stores is a sign that that system broke down.
Today, communication is almost instant, manufacturing processes and methodologies are more flexible than ever before and there is far more information available to your average consumer. A lot of what were "meant" to be the value adds of dealers are gone. Dealing directly with the customer allows you better control of your brand and if done well will increase profitability by removing a stage in the process.
But it can't work for every product. You still won't be buying your softdrinks direct from Coke or your shampoo from Unilever. Because in these situations the dealers (ie supermarkets) still make more sense.
This highlights one of the benefits of the dealer model, there are almost always a *lot* of dealers to choose from and try to get a better deal/experience/vehicle from.
I'm of the opinion that it highlights one of the disadvantages of the dealer model, you often have to go from one dealer to another, haggling and bullshitting, before finally settling on the car you want at a price you feel comfortable with. I'd rather have one place in town that sells what I want, with a clearly marked price, skip the haggling, and do a transaction. Maybe some people enjoy the car buying "experience" but I look at it like any other purchase. I want to do some research ahead of time, walk into the store, buy the product I came for, and leave. It's 2014, it's no longer reasonable to expect consumers to waste an entire weekend trying to buy a car.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!