Slashdot Mirror


Dealership Commentator: Tesla's Going To Win In Every State

cartechboy writes Unless you've been in a coma for a while you're aware that many dealer associations have been causing headaches for Tesla in multiple states. The reason? They are scared. Tesla's new, different, and shaking up the ridiculously old way of doing things. But the thing is, Tesla keeps winning. Now Ward's commenter Jim Ziegler, president of Ziegler Supersystems in Atlanta, wrote an opinion piece that basically says Tesla's going to prevail in every state against dealer lawsuits. He says Tesla's basically busy defending what are nuisance suits. This leads to the question of whether there will be some sort of sweeping federal action in Tesla's favor.

110 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Short answer - No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Not unless Tesla can outspend the dealers lobby.

  2. Federal Overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    As this is an interstate sale, federal action is actually constitutional. However, I don't see any reason we need Washington to command us how to sell cars; Tesla's approach (common sense and a bajillion dollars) seems to be working.

    1. Re:Federal Overreach by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, except that a single company shouldn't have to spend a bajillion dollars in order to be able to sell cars without having to kowtow down to dealer cartels. That's why the Federal Government needs to get involved -- no one should have to sell their product through a middleman.

    2. Re:Federal Overreach by trout007 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Right. If there is one thing the federal government is good at is breaking up cartels.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    3. Re:Federal Overreach by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Maybe try reading the words?

    4. Re:Federal Overreach by iroll · · Score: 2

      Ha! Whoops! Read that as unconsititutional. It took me about a dozen rereads to spot it... guess I'm just not used to anybody actually arguing that something is constitutional :)

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    5. Re:Federal Overreach by gumbi+west · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you are trying to be ironic and are throwing your hands up. But try to disprove me on this claim: there is no more effective or prolific trust buster than the USG.

    6. Re:Federal Overreach by PRMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      They've certainly busted my trust over the last 15 years...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:Federal Overreach by ksheff · · Score: 1

      that's what they do best.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    8. Re:Federal Overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They can sell directly, what makes you think they can't? They choose to sell through pharmacies because it's more convenient for them to do so. They could easily just accept prescriptions from doctors and sell directly to the patients, it's just that patients often need prescriptions immediately and it's not convenient for the manufacturers to have that many retail outlets.

    9. Re:Federal Overreach by Locando · · Score: 1

      Profound analysis. By your logic, why don't we just give up on anything requiring centralized government then?

    10. Re:Federal Overreach by LordNimon · · Score: 3, Informative

      no one should have to sell their product through a middleman.

      Tell that to Section 2 of the 21st Amendment.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    11. Re:Federal Overreach by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Profound analysis. By your logic, why don't we just give up on anything requiring centralized government then?

      Exactly. Outside of keeping the states working together collaboratively, and providing national defense, there really isn't much that the Federal Government should be doing.

      That is why the original Articles of Confederation were so weak - too weak to even enforce getting funding from the States; the US Constitution that replaced it was made stronger primarily to ensure the Federal Government was able to collect funding from the States and do a little more, but the intent of the Federal Government was still basically the same - to help smooth over relations between the States by managing the inter-state relationships, and provide a uniform defense for all States against foreign (not domestic) enemies. (Domestic enemies were left for the States to manage.)

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    12. Re:Federal Overreach by Locando · · Score: 1

      That's weird to say there was any one "intent" of the federal government under the Constitution, given the differing intents of the various people who contributed to it, but your viewpoint is certainly not consistent with that of, say, Alexander Hamilton. Nor is consistent with the views of John Marshall, who established judicial review in what was essentially a power vacuum. Nor is it consistent with the fact that we're discussing the modern validity of speculative viewpoints on optimal government from 227 years ago as if they're automatically relevant in a world of outsourcing, petroleum politics, derivatives, and beheadings for international ransom on YouTube, as if we can roll back to a scope and manner of government that was established partially to appease a slave-holding, cotton-plantation-economy South before it tried to secede anyway. You're talking about 25 years before we decided to invade Canada, for the glory of the Republic, to strike back against (among other things) British forced conscription of American sailors! A lot of things have changed since then! So has the government.

    13. Re:Federal Overreach by Zynder · · Score: 1

      And it'll still be better than the every man for himself mentality we have now. Or do you not see a problem with the current cartels?

  3. Re:Short answer - No. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Not unless Tesla can outspend the dealers lobby.

    They do have a considerable budget to work with. Here's to hoping!

  4. Spot on by zerofoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I buy damn near everything over the internet. I get exactly what I want from a competitive marketplace. Why can't I buy a car to my exact specifications direct from the manufacturer? If Amazon can deliver almost anything to my front door, why can't GM, Ford and Toyota deliver a car to my door?

    1. Re:Spot on by SJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amazon is a middle-man. You're not buying from a manufacturer.

      I'm sure Amazon would be happy to sell you a car. Just make sure you order when they have free-shipping deals on.

    2. Re:Spot on by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Because they sold the rights to sell those items with restrictions on competition (franchises called dealerships) in various areas of the states and laws have been created to both enforce those rights and restrictions and protect the consumers from the fraudulent acts of unaccountable people.

      And actually, they likely can deliver right to your door, they will do it the same way 1800 flowers does business and use a local dealer as the intermediary who actually procures the vehicle and delivers it. I'm not sure how they can get around dealer markup so it will likely cost. I know there are some dealerships that will deliver purchased cars to your front door. Some will even pick up and return vehicles for maintenance and repairs ( I saw both when I was in New Jersey- Ford, Mercedes, and I think it was Audi. there may be more)

    3. Re:Spot on by iroll · · Score: 1

      Just because FooCo sold franchise rights to its dealers doesn't mean that BarCo should be legally required to create franchises. That doesn't protect FooCo's franchises from FooCo's bullshit, it doesn't protect consumers from FooCo or BarCo, and it's against the most fundamental tenets of free enterprise.

      There are good reasons to create franchise networks, but they should have to compete with other models. The current system was put in place for only one purpose: to artificially create a need for dealers.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    4. Re:Spot on by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Because they sold the rights to sell those items with restrictions on competition (franchises called dealerships)

      Baloney. Tesla never sold any franchise rights. Other recent entrants only established franchises because they were required to do so. It is reasonable to have laws regulating how franchises work, so small dealers don't get unfairly crushed after they build the market. It is not reasonable to require a manufacturer to establish dealer franchises.

    5. Re:Spot on by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I never said bar is bound to a dealership. Ford and the rest are because of it though. This is after all, what the GP was griping about.

    6. Re:Spot on by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I suggest you read the GPs comment who didn't mention Tesla then take your balogna and put it between a couple slices of bread then eat it.

    7. Re:Spot on by iroll · · Score: 1

      Sure, but right now Bar *is* bound to dealerships, even where none exist, at least in all of the states that Tesla hasn't won concessions in.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    8. Re:Spot on by Trachman · · Score: 2

      Amazon is a middleman. But you have a choice. For example, if you do not like Amazon, you can go to Ebay, or Alibaba, or you can use internet to reach out the manufacturer of whatever is that you looking for.

    9. Re:Spot on by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The states have been regulating comercial car sales new and used for a long time now. In fact, ghey do it for most major purchases. I do not see why anyone should be able to skirt that. Perhaps that is reason enough.

    10. Re:Spot on by iroll · · Score: 1

      The sticking point isn't that they regulate sales (all sales are regulated at some level), but that they expressly forbid manufacturers from direct sales.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    11. Re:Spot on by Rinikusu · · Score: 2
      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    12. Re:Spot on by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Or Sony.com or Apple.com or any other of hundreds of sites that sell direct to the public.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    13. Re:Spot on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only way I'd be for a "Tesla Dealership" is only if it was a general fully street legal and CAPABLE electric vehicle dealership, so Teslas, BMW i3 Electric, Mercedes B-Class Electric, Ford Focus Electrics, Mitsubishi i-MiEVs, Nissan Leafs, Smart Electrics, Zero Cycles, Harley Davidson Livewires etc. Just none of the glorified golf carts.

      If these where t also have full supercharger station capability for all brands of electric vehicle and had properly trained electricians to work on the cars should anything go wrong with them we could then have the best of both worlds.

      But a traditional dealership wont give these vehicles a fair shake as they can't make as much money off of maintenance work.

    14. Re:Spot on by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      I buy damn near everything over the internet. I get exactly what I want from a competitive marketplace. Why can't I buy a car to my exact specifications direct from the manufacturer? If Amazon can deliver almost anything to my front door, why can't GM, Ford and Toyota deliver a car to my door?

      In your scenario your going to hate it when you need warranty work and the dealers tell you that you need to take it to an authorized warranty repair center for directly purchased cars. BTW that service center is three states over.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    15. Re:Spot on by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      I buy damn near everything over the internet. I get exactly what I want from a competitive marketplace. Why can't I buy a car to my exact specifications direct from the manufacturer? If Amazon can deliver almost anything to my front door, why can't GM, Ford and Toyota deliver a car to my door?

      In your scenario your going to hate it when you need warranty work and the dealers tell you that you need to take it to an authorized warranty repair center for directly purchased cars. BTW that service center is three states over.

      You mean like how I can't get warranty repair on my Dell because I'm nowhere near Texas? Oh wait, I can. Hell, I can get the tech to come right out to my office and do it on-site, I don't have to take it anywhere. Funny what happens when there's a competitive marketplace, and the ease or difficulty of getting service and support is something consumers consider. Or were you imagining a scenario where car buyers worry less about server than computer buyers? Cars are so cheap, after all. Oh wait...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    16. Re:Spot on by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      s/server/service/

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    17. Re:Spot on by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      In your scenario your going to hate it when you need warranty work and the dealers tell you that you need to take it to an authorized warranty repair center for directly purchased cars. BTW that service center is three states over.

      Why? Tesla has repair/maintenance centers located even in areas where it can't legally sell it's cars due to the stealership laws.

      Second would be to simply authorize independent repair shops to do warranty work, who the manufacturer would pay standard rates to in order to do it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:Spot on by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You mean they will not let a manufacturer open a car lot in their state? Or is it that they will not allow yhem to act as one without a physical presence the state can regulate?

      This seems a lot like Uber and Lift were people want every business regulated then are shocked to find they are subject to regulation if they act like a business or that their favorite business is regulated too.

    19. Re:Spot on by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I think I'd have more sympathy for dealers if they sold cars for the price on the sticker with no negotiations, no hidden extras, no hidden fees. The price you see is the price you pay. It would be better yet if they did this online where they can't bamboozle people with figures or promises they won't keep or with high pressure sales for extras.

    20. Re:Spot on by DrXym · · Score: 2
      I guess the problem that Apple & Sony demonstrate is that going to the manufacturer doesn't necessarily get you a better price even without a middleman. They just use it as an excuse to have bigger margins.

      The proper form of competition would see the manufacturer required to sell its products at a wholesale price in a transparent and unbiased way. If the manufacturer wants to sell its own product it would have to set up a subsiduary company which would be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

    21. Re:Spot on by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Think abut it this way apple manufacturing is going to make its money regardless of who it is selling whole sale too, there may even be antitrust issues if they gave apple retail a discount. Apple retail still has to make money or they will be shut down so the markup is the same.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    22. Re:Spot on by voidptr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In many cases they're specifically prohibited from opening one. Cars must be sold through dealers, and dealers must have an arms-length relationship with the manufacturer and can not simply be the manufacturer or a subsidiary of the manufacturer.

      Those laws were basically written because while franchise agreements between dealers and manufacturers protected the dealers from direct manufacturer competition, the dealers believed they weren't strong enough and eventually manufacturers and their brands would become strong enough that manufacturers would find a way around them, or simply wait for the agreement to lapse and refuse to renew with that term, that dealers got them codified into law.

      Which puts us back to the original point. The law was intended to protect existing franchises from existing dealers. They never anticipated a new manufacturer showing up who didn't want to sell through dealers. The law should not bind Tesla or any other new manufacturer to a business model GM and Ford designed many decades ago that puts the new entrant at a competitive disadvantage.

      --
      This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    23. Re:Spot on by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The manufacturer likely could sell for less but in many cases they don't want to get on the bad side of Amazon or Best Buy or whoever else is selling so many of their products. Most manufacturers know very little about good marketing and how to ship a product to the end customer. They simple aren't set up for such tasks. Amazon and others actually provide a very good service to many manufacturers. All the manufacturer has to do is send truckloads of their products to Amazon's warehouse. And Amazon will send money to the manufacturer. Amazon will handle all the complicated stuff like running website, sending out emails to let people know about the products, advertising on websites so people know about the products, search engine optimization to ensure people find the product they are looking for, taking payment from the customer, shipping the product out to the customer. Very few businesses could offer the level of service that Amazon and other online retailers do if they were tasked with it themselves.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    24. Re:Spot on by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      This is the big question. What does the dealership do other than sell cars for Tesla? Dealerships make a lot of their money doing regular maintenance and warranty repairs on cars. With an electric car, there is a lot less maintenance to be done. And they are much more reliable. They have an 8 year, unlimited mile warranty. No other IC engine car can offer that, because they simple aren't as reliable, and by their nature, never can be. Most of the problems with Teslas have been software bugs. Once they get all that figured out, there's very little that can go wrong. And fixing software bugs can most likely be done by the end user at home, just like they do with their computers, phones, TVs, and game consoles.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    25. Re:Spot on by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "In your scenario your going to hate it when you need warranty work and the dealers tell you that you need to take it to an authorized warranty repair center for directly purchased cars."

      Boy, those dealers are going to hate it when I hit them with a breach of the Anti-tying provisions of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re: Spot on by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Primarily because it's a logistical pain in the ass and having a drone deliver it only accounts for some of the problems with delivery.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    27. Re:Spot on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Historically, the reason why car manufacturers can't sell directly is because of what happened early on.

      First, the manufacturers didn't *want* to sell directly, because it was logistically difficult (and expensive) for them to run their own sales outlets in so many locations. As a result, they franchised, and dealers came into being. Later, they wanted to open direct-sales locations where their most successful dealers were, thereby shutting those same dealers *out* of the market, and leaving only the less profitable locations as franchised dealers. The dealers (rightly) sued with unfair competition claims, and won.

      The end result of that mess was a patchwork of state (and sometimes local) laws which heavily restrict car manufacturers from selling directly, generally in the form of either an outright ban, or (less commonly)disallowing it where they already have franchises. In locations where the dealer is simply banned from competing with its own franchisees, Tesla doesn't have an issue. Its the places which ended up with a total ban, likely under the assumption that franchisees would always exist, that Tesla is having to jump through hoops.

    28. Re:Spot on by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The law should not bind Tesla or any other new manufacturer to a business model GM and Ford designed many decades ago that puts the new entrant at a competitive disadvantage.

      It most certainly should bind them. If you don't like the law, get it changed. But any law on the books needs to apply to everyone equally. Every other automobile company has to play by those same rules. think of how much cheaper toyotas would have been if they were mail order back in the day (and they were both cheaper than American cars and got better fuel economy). How about the Yugo, you saw specials of 2 for one for just $9,000.

      If you do not like the laws, get them changed. But until then, anyone wanting to join the circus must erect a tent.

    29. Re:Spot on by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There is more to it than that. Buying and selling car between commercial entities is highly regulated. For instance, you need a special license to open a new or used car lot, even if that lot is your driveway. Many states even have laws that consider you to be a commercial sales entity if you purchase and sell more then so many cars in a year (5 or 6 in my state).

      But you also need special licenses if you want to purchase junk cars, salvaged vehicles and so on. The regulations by the state goes well beyond dealerships getting burned by the manufacturers. Its because the public was harmed- salesman lies about condition of car or the car is a lemon- warranties voided for not being serviced at a specific location or using a specific branded product- selling car with leans on the titles so the new owner ends up getting them repossessed by third parties. There are lots of reasons, even the little old lady who only drove it to church on Sunday stems reasons.

    30. Re:Spot on by drkoemans · · Score: 1

      Amazon does sell cars. Well, car. The Nissan Versa Note. http://www.amazon.com/gp/featu...

    31. Re:Spot on by DrXym · · Score: 1

      That's why I said the "official" store should be a subsiduary that buys its stuff wholesale like every other store. Then they can put whatever margin they like to turn a profit and they don't have to worry about what other retailers think.

    32. Re:Spot on by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Anytime the "official" store had better prices than some retailers would get as their cost price it would be (rightly or wrongly) seen as favoritism, and the other resellers would be livid. And it would happens. It happens all the time. Amazon and Best Buy get much better prices from the manufacturers and distributors compared to the small time shops because they sell so much volume. The little guys complain but nobody listens because they are so unimportant. But it would not be a good idea for the "official" store would not be able to undercut Best Buy or Amazon, because they have the clout to complain to the manufacturer and get a similar deal.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    33. Re:Spot on by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Why can't I buy a car to my exact specifications direct from the manufacturer?

      While it wasn't directly from the manufacturer, the first new car I bought in 1998 _was_ to my exact specifications, and I basically ordered it over the Internet. Through an "auto broker", which I guess is YET another middle man, but I knew exactly what I'd have to pay, and it was a painless process.

  5. Why so much fuss? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    Not sure why these dealers are so scared. Tesla is a super high end product that only gets 200 or so miles to a charge. The appeal to even fairly well of people is limited. The existing car companies are still going to be prevented from selling directly.

    1. Re:Why so much fuss? by agm · · Score: 2

      No company should be prevented from selling their products directly to the public. Land of the free indeed.

    2. Re:Why so much fuss? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2

      Because of this link which is right in the summary: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

    3. Re:Why so much fuss? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I wonder if existing manufacturers can pull dealership agreements and then come under the same rules a Tesla. There are also existing car companies that do not have dealership agreements that might want to sell directly.

    4. Re:Why so much fuss? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because once there is a leak in the dike, it will grow. The existing car companies will be prevented from selling directly, only if the existing franchise agreements remain in place.

    5. Re:Why so much fuss? by iroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're afraid that a Fiat or a Mitsubishi coming back to the states without a dealer presence will just use a combination of the internet and maybe some Apple Store-style mall showrooms to eat their lunch, shipping the cars out of central depots, and avoiding all of the overhead of traditional dealerships.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    6. Re:Why so much fuss? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2

      The existing car companies stil are prevented from selling directly, because it's anti-competitive with with their franchises. That's why these laws came about in the first place.

    7. Re:Why so much fuss? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Not sure why these dealers are so scared.

      Because if Tesla can sell direct, then so can Ford, GM, Toyota, etc. In a decade, there will be no car dealerships, except for used car lots.

    8. Re:Why so much fuss? by PPH · · Score: 2

      If Tesla can do it why can't other car companies?

      Because dealer franchise agreements give individual dealers a defined geographical area in which they are the only sales outlet for that particular model. And that contract language is difficult for manufacturers to break*. Tesla had no such agreements in place.

      *Not just manufacturers. We had a road realignment project here in Seattle that was stalled for years by the existence of a Buick (I think) dealership smack in the middle of where they needed to build the new road. Moving it even a few miles would have overlapped another dealership's territory and the value of the franchise was such that it was a show-stopper for the city for quite a while.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Why so much fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      yes they should, but perhaps they SHOULD be required to maintain physical presence where their products are sold so that the customer does not need to be grossly inconvenienced when trying to obtain warranty service. doesn't need to be as extensive as, say, ford motor company's dealer network, but certainly more than one per state in most cases - especially given the proprietary nature of the product and its parts, and single source availability of them, as well as the lack of availability of necessary service manuals and other documentation needed to properly repair a tesla product in or out of warranty.

      essentially that is what the automakers' dealer network is these days with online browsing, pricing reports, and being able to pretty much buy from whichever dealer gives the best price regardless of location --- local warranty service. the local dealer may have overpriced their product so you buy elsewhere, but that local dealer is still obligated to do the warranty service (for which they are paid quite well by the manufacturers).

    10. Re:Why so much fuss? by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No company should be prevented from selling their products directly to the public. Land of the free indeed.

      So, you are starting out as a small manufacturer. You've got a product you think people would like, but you don't have the money to build a network of your own retail outlets. So you shop around for a general retailer willing to put your stuff up on a shelf.

      The minute your product gains any market share, part of that agreement will be that you don't compete with the retailer within a certain geographical area. And when you start moving large volumes of product through a retailer, your cost to get to the equivalent market goes up. So its a barrier to entry.

      That's why many manufacturers' outlet stores are way out in the sticks. No existing retailers cover that area, so outlet malls spring up.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:Why so much fuss? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Tesla isn't bypassing dealerships because no dealerships actually sell Tesla automobiles.

    12. Re:Why so much fuss? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Ford, GM, et al would be competing with dealerships that they sold franchises to in the first place, it would be unfair competition.

      Tesla hasn't sold any franchises, and doesn't compete with any dealerships.

    13. Re:Why so much fuss? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Only as long as those franchise agreements continue to exist. Ford or Toyota didn't agree to uphold car dealership franchises till the end of time. If Tesla is able to turn this into a competitive advantage, and I think they will, then most of the car companies will have to follow suit or lose market share.

    14. Re:Why so much fuss? by bmo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The dealer shill thus spake:

      the local dealer may have overpriced their product so you buy elsewhere, but that local dealer is still obligated to do the warranty service (for which they are paid quite well by the manufacturers).

      In no other industry is this true. In electronics, white goods, etc, there are "certified warranty service centers" where you can call up and get them to fix your stuff. For example, you don't have to go to an Apple dealer to get your high-priced computer fixed under warranty - you can bring it or ship it to one of many service centers.

      https://www.apple.com/lae/supp...

      Please note that the requirement to become a service center does not include having to be an Apple reseller.

      Ford, Volkswagen, Jaguar, Chevrolet, etc., should be able to certify garages for warranty work. But no, the automobile industry is the only industry where you have to go to a dealer to get warranty work done.

      Leeches, all of you. Die already.

      --
      BMO

    15. Re:Why so much fuss? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Yep. It's impossible for GM to invent a new badge (like Holden as they are known in the rest of the world) and move all their cars over to it next year. Sorry, dealers, we don't make cars for GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Pontiac and Buick anymore.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    16. Re:Why so much fuss? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Two reasons

      1: They probablly see this as the thin end of the wedge, the first step would be botique car manufacturers selling directly. Then perhaps the major car manufacturers would look into how they can set up an "independent" company that isn't bound by the parent company's dealer relationships or look into how they can end the current dealer relationships and hence become a "dealer-free" manufacturer.
      2: tesla may be a botique manufacturer now but what happens if and when battery costs drop or fuel costs rise to the point that the total cost of ownership of an electric car makes sense for most drives. Will the current major automakers adapt or will they be replaced by a new group of automakers who aren't bound by the legacy contacts of the current big players

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    17. Re:Why so much fuss? by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      Fiat owns all of Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    18. Re:Why so much fuss? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Sure, but there's not a lot of incentive for the big auto manufacturers to not allow dealerships to continually renew franchise license agreements that are nearing expiry, because if they ever decided to not allow renewal, they would be taking quite a large financial hit from that point forward until they got any new direct-to-consumer system up and running in a self-sustaining capacity.... a large enough hit that it might even bankrupt them.

    19. Re:Why so much fuss? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Because dealer franchise agreements give individual dealers a defined geographical area in which they are the only sales outlet for that particular model. And that contract language is difficult for manufacturers to break*. Tesla had no such agreements in place.

      Well, if it doesn't suit them, they'll likely just revise the language, or allow the agreement to end at its expiration date, and terminate the contracts; if they don't suit the manufacturer.

    20. Re:Why so much fuss? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      Well, if the dealership model really is better for consumers, then the dealerships have nothing to fear. Right?

    21. Re:Why so much fuss? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      That might make the guy who has that current agreement with Audi very sad.

      I think that the odds are good that the car companies might be required to buy the dealers out.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    22. Re:Why so much fuss? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      sounds a bit like the way microsoft and apple do business, the 3 E's - so why should they get away with it and not car dealers after all the market should be open

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    23. Re:Why so much fuss? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Apple's requirements basically force you to be a dealer. Years ago, a computer store I worked at looked into becoming a AASP and the requirements were ridiculous compared to other brands. Running the numbers, it was actually cheaper to buy the parts through a 3rd party than going through the hassle of playing Apple's game. How many of those iDevice repair places are actually AASPs?

    24. Re:Why so much fuss? by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "they SHOULD be required to maintain physical presence where their products are sold so that the customer does not need to be grossly inconvenienced when trying to obtain warranty service"

      Why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to decide for themselves what constitutes "gross inconvenience?" Is your mommy government somehow uniquely qualified to do that?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    25. Re:Why so much fuss? by voidptr · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a reason why you should protect dealer networks if a company decides to start with that business model.

      That's not a reason to protect those dealer networks from an upstart company that never had that business model. Just because GM and Ford made a deal with the devil 50 years ago shouldn't bind a new company to that same business model. Tesla has never had a dealer franchise agreement with anyone, them selling directly does not break any contractual agreement they've entered in to. They have no obligation to respect an agreement Ford or GM made with their dealer network to not compete.

      Also as a counter point, Apple sells plenty of things through the half dozen Best Buys in my town. There's also two Apple stores within a 20 minutes drive. Just because a company sells through channel partners doesn't immediately preclude them from selling direct, it depends on the agreement they made with the channel in the first place. Even car dealer arrangements started out with the dealers protected by the franchise agreements themselves, elevating them from simple contract law to specific legislative protections came later.

      --
      This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    26. Re:Why so much fuss? by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. There's no value in the name recognition and reputation of those brands and buyers would have no hesitation in jumping in and buying a car under a new label.

    27. Re:Why so much fuss? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Unless of course, they'll go bankrupt faster if they don't. But then I guess that would be a case of more incentive to change than you would allow for.

    28. Re:Why so much fuss? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The dealers are scared because if this "directly selling to customers" thing takes off, they (the dealers) won't be needed anymore. It's the same reason that the RIAA ran scared from digital music. Middlemen don't like when efficiency makes them obsolete.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    29. Re:Why so much fuss? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The dealers aren't scared. They're annoyed by some fanboyism. With fanboys who write summaries saying the dealers are scared, no less.

      There's no reason to get carried away with feelings of self-importance. Though it helps keep things stirred up.

    30. Re:Why so much fuss? by PPH · · Score: 2

      That just smacks of dumb contracting.

      Contracts are written by both parties. Don't like the terms? Try asking for something different and see who will sign.

      option for renewal

      Yes, but who has the option? Most often the dealership, to protect what is to them a large investment. Manufacturers won't be affected by a few dealers coming and going to the same extent.

      So, if you want to invest a few million into a dealership, will you sign an agreement that might get you cut off at the end of a term? Interesting note: In the past, dealership franchise contracts prohibited corporate ownership of multiple dealerships. manufacturers didn't want large ownership structures to build up which could challenge them in contract negotiations (divide and conquer). But this was challenged and thrown out by the courts (in the '60s or '70s, I believe).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    31. Re:Why so much fuss? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      1) "only" 200 miles is FAR FAR FAR more than the vast majority of people need.
      2) You are apparently unaware of Tesla's plans to keep building lower and lower priced cars to break into more affordable markets.

  6. Not in Tesla's favour by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

    This leads to the question of whether there will be some sort of sweeping federal action in Tesla's favor.

    I'd say that's a poor choice of wording. If any such action was taken, it would be AGAINST dealers. It won't be in favour of any single company. It should be fair for all.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    1. Re:Not in Tesla's favour by jc42 · · Score: 1

      This leads to the question of whether there will be some sort of sweeping federal action in Tesla's favor.

      I'd say that's a poor choice of wording. If any such action was taken, it would be AGAINST dealers. It won't be in favour of any single company. It should be fair for all.

      It should be. But history (e.g. the "only sell through registered dealers" laws) says it won't be. It'll be in favor of whoever pays the most bribes to the right officials.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  7. Thoughts by AaronW · · Score: 4, Informative

    One thing is that in most states the laws were written to protect franchises against the car manufacturers but in this case there are no franchises to protect to often these laws don't apply.

    This podcast gives a lot of insight as to why the dealerships are so anti-consumer blood sucking parasites.

    http://www.thisamericanlife.or...

    One other thing to keep in mind is that the dealership model has changed significantly. It used to be a bunch of mom and pop dealerships throughout the country. These aren't the dealerships complaining about Tesla. Instead it's the huge dealership conglomerates that have gobbled up and consolidated many of the smaller independent dealerships. These are also huge political donors in many states, getting laws written to protect them, often to the detriment of the automobile manufacturers.

    Part of it is the way the car manufacturers have the dealerships competing against each other, giving them huge incentives to sell a certain number of cars by the end of the month, etc. The dealerships also make a lot of their money off of service, whether it be warranty service or just plain service.

    Tesla does things differently. The people who work at the showrooms do not earn commissions on cars sold. Their job is to show the car, not play all these silly games pushing cars that people don't want to get their numbers.

    Also, Tesla generally does not maintain an inventory of cars. Every car is built to order with only the features the buyer wants. They don't have huge lots of cars that they have to push since every car is already spoken for.

    Their service is also different. They have publically stated that their goal is not to make a profit off of service. I have had to have things repaired that were not covered by warranty (I broke some clips). The cost to repair was actually fairly reasonable and was much less than what the cost would have been had the same sort of thing happened to my Prius.

    My biggest complaint about service is that there is often a long wait to get an appointment because they're having trouble keeping up with the growing number of cars out there.

    Tesla took a cue from Apple with the Apple stores. They want to provide a consistent experience for their customers without all of the hassles and problems often encountered at dealerships. The company has also consistently bent over backwards in favor of their customers. When news of the fires hit they quickly extended the battery warranty to cover fires caused by hitting objects then actively worked on methods to mitigate it. They retroactively increased the drive train warranty to unlimited miles.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    1. Re:Thoughts by fermion · · Score: 2

      My thoughts are there must have been a reason that dealers franchises had to be protected from manufacturers. I suspect there were issues, and that is the reason in the vast number of cases, except for fly by night 'seen on tv' junk we as retail consumers tend to buy retail, not direct from the manufacturer. I have bought or been involved in buying a fair number of cars in my life. I never felt the dealer was pushing me to buy a car I did not want. I have generally gone in knowing the car that I want, and the back and forth is which car that is available is the car I am willing to plunk done some cash for. I suppose some people go into to buy a car that they have no interest in, and the dealer gets them to buy it, but I don't think that is the general case. Making money off service and not the car is no issue to me. That is how we keep cars affordable. It is called competition. What Tesla wants to do is charge an arbitrarily high price for a produce, like Mont Blanc. I am not a greedy person and have never been unwilling to pay for good service. Likewise is a car comes with a good warranty I know that there is a good chance the car is good, and a dealer network means I can get warranty repair. I am not saying that Tesla is not a good car, but if the car needed a repair not under warranty, and it cost money, and it was less than three years old, it is not a good car. There are a lot of cars that have limited production run. The Lotus Evora has production runs of about 2,000 a year, but I can go down the street right now to my car dealer, lay down $100K, and get one. A 2013. So Tesla is not unique there. I suspect that the franchise laws will change, and that Tesla will be able to sell direct. I also suspect that Tesla has spent too much time with the lawyers, and cheating tax payers out of 1.5 billion, and not enough time innovating, so they may not be able to bring the 25,000 electric car to the people, which is what we need. As it is the Asian car manufacturers are shipping real cars right now that get over 50mpg in the real world. Not all electric, but electric is simply a means to an end, not an end to itself.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:Thoughts by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure they hit the '25,000 electric cars to the people' mark. ;-)

      As for buying cars from dealers, I've been in quite a few purchases myself. The only dealer I had a reasonably good experience with was Saturn.

      With Lexus, Jaguar, and BMW, there was a lot of negotiation. I had to go to several dealers to get competing prices (which were *always* with a spread of $2-3K). In addition, the push was always to buy something either off-the-lot or something that they could have brought over from another dealer's inventory within 2-3 days.

      I was with my dad when he went to get his BMW 5 series. They pushed him into a few options he wasn't particularly interested in because they could get the car to the lot in 2 days. And once he signed the contract, it was a done deal. He called the dealership a couple hours later and wanted a different color, and the answer was that the car was already on it's way from across the state. It arrived more than a week later with barely a 'sorry for the delay' from the dealer.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  8. Why can't anyone compete? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    If a car maker would sell regular cars the way Tesla does, why couldn't they compete in a major way and dominate the younger generation demographic?

    I suppose the barrier here is all the big auto makers are so set in their ways with and entrenched in regulatory capture that there is no incentive for them to change to a new "model".

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Why can't anyone compete? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      In addition... small or local car dealerships should not complain about Tesla for killing their business model. They should look to those car mega-dealers that completely shit on their customerbase in order to make a dollar. No wonder so many people despise all car dealerships.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Why can't anyone compete? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The big barrier (for other auto manufacturers) here is that all of the big auto makers have already sold franchises to dealerships, giving dealerships a right to sell their cars, so if the manufacturers of said cars started selling direct to consumers, they would be competing with the franchises that they sold to dealerships in the first place. This is unfair competition, and why it is illegal.

      However, Tesla hasn't sold any franchises, and so wouldn't be competing with any of the dealerships in any kind of unfair capacity.

    3. Re:Why can't anyone compete? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      The manufacturers can't bypass them because the manufacturers sold the dealerships franchise rights in the first place.

      Tesla hasn't sold any franchises to any dealers, so there's no dealership it actually competes with.

      Now theoretically, big auto manufacturers could pull their franchise lciense renewals and wait for the existing ones to expire before selling direct, but they probably would take a large financial hit in doing so, and its unlikely to be in their best interest.

  9. I'm going to enjoy this...... by Dega704 · · Score: 1

    Few things cheese me off more than corporate cartels and their allies in congress who preach about the goodness of the free market and against government meddling, right up until the free market threatens their dominant position; then they want the government to put a stop to that nonsense immediately. If you really do support a free market, then you either change with the times or you get out of the way and stop holding back those who are actually innovating.

  10. Re: ok...let's say Tesla wins....then what? by randallman · · Score: 1

    Huh? What's your point? Are you being sarcastic?

  11. Conservatives in America by stankalonius · · Score: 1

    It always surprises me that states that argue the most for anti-government involvement in business affairs (the Red or Conservative states) are the first to decry a company that is espousing their ideals. There's too much money involved with Cars and Constituents and other things that our 'elected leaders' care about.

    Tesla's model is, as far as I understand, direct and open competition with their fellow automobile salespeople/dealerships. Tesla is doing everything right (that we know) and should be allowed to do direct business with consumers of their products.

    In the US, its hard because we have a hard time seeing the 'middleman' in our transactions, whether it be at the shopping mall buying clothes or at teh convenience store buying a squishee. Conservatives are mostly arguling against something they believe in, or at least at face value. If they truly want free business unregulated by law, they should allow Tesla to continue to operate as it is.

    Unfortunately the politcal situation in the United States is laughable at best. The outcome is likely to be that many states (a few have already) ban Tesla from selling cars in their state. Sad Day.

    Anyone wanna have a drink? We're fucked.

    1. Re:Conservatives in America by stankalonius · · Score: 1

      We can also spell things correctly. Sorry all.

  12. Re:Short answer - No. by rockout · · Score: 1

    Citation needed.

    --
    I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  13. Facts, history, perspective by pr0t0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I highly recommend to everyone reading this discussion to listen to this 16-minute NPR Money Matters story:
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...

    Them if you have some time, This American Life tells the dealer's side of the story:
    http://m.thisamericanlife.org/...

    I'll warm you now that your blood may boil, and you may turn into a rage monster thinking about the sheer absurdity and stupidity of the car-buying process.

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    1. Re:Facts, history, perspective by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links. Was an interesting listen.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  14. Re:Short answer - No. by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Citation coming up.

    Of course, the AC is wrong in most respects.
    1. They're not selling 'carbon credits', they're selling ZEV credits(Zero Emissions Vehicle).
    2. The price isn't $30k per car, the penalty itself is only $5k per missed ZEV, so logically Tesla has to sell them for less. Maybe $4k each.

    It's not small change, but it's only about 5% of the vehicle.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  15. Re:DO NOT TRUST TESLA. by sxpert · · Score: 1

    citation needed

  16. Hope they all go out of business! by execthis · · Score: 1

    I hope every one of the grubby mofo's goes out of business and that all vehicle manufacturers follow Tesla's lead in this matter.

  17. Re:Manufacturers win? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    In my neck of the woods (Germany) that would have counted as criminal fraud and the German equivalent of the DA might have been interested.
    I'm not so sure about US law, but threatening legal action might have been just the right thing :-)

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  18. Re: ok...let's say Tesla wins....then what? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

    So why doesn't he just say that instead of the verbal diarrhea ?

  19. Re:English mutha fuka, do u write it by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Try again:

    "Tesla is new, different, and shaking up the ridiculously old way of doing things."

    "... basically says Tesla is going to prevail in every state against ..."

  20. Facts, history, perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Turn into a rage monster?

    This wouldn't happen to be a giant green rage monster would it?

    If so, SIGN ME UP!

  21. Bad laws by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The states have been regulating comercial car sales new and used for a long time now.

    Regulation does not require the use of a mandatory middle man. Particularly one that adds as little value as most dealers do. The reasons we have the dealer system we do are largely historical and anachronistic. Regulations can come in many form and pretty much all (legal) transactions are regulated to some degree (see the Uniform Commercial Code). I have no problem with states requiring manufacturers to play nice with their dealers but I have a HUGE problem with states requiring me to buy a car through a dealer even when it makes zero economic sense for me to do so.

    I do not see why anyone should be able to skirt that.

    First off, just because something is the law doesn't make it right. There are plenty of unjust, cruel or even just stupid laws out there that deserve to be ignored.

    Obsolete laws and business models deserve to go the way of the dodo. Furthermore it isn't obvious that Tesla is skirting any law and even if they were I REALLY do not care in this case. Independent car dealers provide me not a single service I genuinely need. They have a very well deserved reputation for behavior that borders on criminal. I would much rather deal with Ford or Toyota or BMW directly than most any independent dealer.

  22. New car companies are very difficult to start by sjbe · · Score: 1

    They never anticipated a new manufacturer showing up who didn't want to sell through dealers.

    I disagree. I think they (meaning the dealers) understood this possibility perfectly which explains some of the current fighting. They just never had to worry about it much because starting a successful new car company is damn near impossible. Plenty have tried but it takes very deep pockets to get into that business, particularly in mature markets like the US. Tesla is really the first company to try.

  23. Re:Short answer - No. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Actually yes. In area, is there a competing phone company? Do they have dealers? And so....

    What is good for Verizon, AT&T, etc -- no dealerships, must also be true and allowed for Tesla

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  24. Re:Short answer - No. by rockout · · Score: 1

    $30K is a long long way from $4k. To say "If they didn't have that, they wouldn't be making any money" about $4k per car is ridiculous. Thank you for pointing out that the AC was full of shit.

    --
    I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  25. Re:Short answer - No. by macpacheco · · Score: 1

    Not only you're wrong in the amount, but also you ignore the FACT that every company making ZEVs can sell those credits if they make only ZEVs.
    And the credit is per ZEV, not a percentage of the ZEV price.
    So Tesla is the company least benefited from the ZEV credit. Nissan making cheap ZEV gets a much better return on their investment.
    And that takes us to the most important FACT about Tesla.
    Tesla is a for profit company, but as far as for profit companies go, Tesla cares a whole lot about customer satisfaction than average.
    But it probably doesn't matter, for me "Anonymous Coward" = paid anti Tesla shill in this case. If you had any balls you would show yourself up.