Trish Regan Rocks - Tesla’s Fight to Keep Direct-Sale Stores

Now that is more like it, the auto dealer got pwned there and she was in control all the time.

Though this probably should be under videos.

Yep saw this great video today as well. It seems like the bloomberg staff has chosen sides and is actually calling out the dealerships on their misinformation. It was very refreshing to see this with the after the segment with matt (miller?) where he went after another dealership quack.

Wow, that was quite a drubbing. She really hammered home some solid points and didn't let up on the NADA rep at all. Nicely done!

The tide is turning.

Makes me chuckle if his best argument as to why free-markets/consumer choice should be restricted is the "because the states deem that's best for you" argument.

Can't remember if the last time I heard that kind of argument was in East Germany before 1989 or some time ago in Cuba...

Seriously, car dealers are in a bad shape if that kind of argument is the best they can come up with...

Trish Regan understands that dealers are not consumers' best friends.

The tide is turning, indeed.

SebastianR said:

Makes me chuckle if his best argument as to why free-markets/consumer choice should be restricted is the "because the states deem that's best for you" argument.

Can't remember if the last time I heard that kind of argument was in East Germany before 1989 or some time ago in Cuba...

Seriously, car dealers are in a bad shape if that kind of argument is the best they can come up with...

Click to expand...

Totally agree.

Also, what the dealers seem to miss is that Tesla does not sell cars the same way they do. It's fundamentally different:

- Tesla does not have "inventory on lots" in the same way that a traditional dealer does
- Tesla employees at Tesla stores are there to help potential customers understand EVs and are not commission-based sales people
- Tesla has a policy to not make profits on service
- There's this thing called "the internet" that people like to use to make purchases these days

Overall, these things lead to a lower cost of selling the vehicles and provides a much better experience for the customer. If dealers would be willing to replicate the above, then I'm sure that Tesla would be more than happy to have them on board. However, I think the chance of that is so close to zero that you may have a better chance of winning the lottery.

I also find their argument that, under a direct sales model, manufacturers would not be able to meet consumer protection laws is pompous and arrogant. The same laws apply no matter who the seller is! If the seller does not meet their obligations under these laws then they will likely not be around for very long and/or the consumer will buy elsewhere.

The argument the dealer spokesman (shill) makes about dealer service is laughable. Let's see, I have to drive my car to the dealership to get it fixed, I'm very lucky if they provide a loaner for free (most don't), and the service is the major profit center for the dealership, so the dealer will pile as much unneeded stuff as he can get away with to maximize profit. That's another major reason why traditional dealers are so threatened by Tesla: it's turned this crappy service model on its head.

Wow, this is NADA's best foot forward and all I can hear is the old "this is why you want dealers" argument which Trish punctuated with obvious logic holes (well, obvious to any Tesla owner). The NADA VP was speaking with such fear. Can you imagine this fellow, ten years ago (or his equivalent), never having to face public outcry, not having to go to court to defend your monopoly? Wow, what a cushy life. Take your come-uppance, Johnathan, this defense of yours is going to look about as bad as the Pontiac Aztek (the car that helped kill a brand).

How is 5 dealers in the same area cheaper to run than 1 company store? It should be obvious to all that there are way too many dealerships and way too much stock on lots both of which drive up costs.

This is excellent. There seems to be a concerted effort at Bloomberg to confront the Dealership Associations in the past few days. I think combining all the threads together under "Bloomberg confronts Dealerships about Tesla."

It started with Matt Miller's visit to the mall to experience shopping for a Tesla:

How to Buy a Tesla at a Mall Near You: Video - Bloomberg

This was followed by a confrontation with Jim Appleton of NJCAR:

Is Tesla a Victim in New Jersey Sales Fight?: Video - Bloomberg

Then the next day Bloomberg devoted an entire hour to the conflict:

Where Are Tesla Direct-Sales Battle Lines Drawn?: Video - Bloomberg

Which was followed by Trish Regan nailing the VP of NADA:

Tesla’s Fight to Keep Direct-Sale Stores: Video - Bloomberg

Altogether an excellent dissection by the Bloomberg news team of what the Dealership Associations are trying to do to cripple Tesla's direct sales approach.

Let's hope for more media examination like this.

Excellent job by Trish Regan. Like most politicians he never directly answers the GM question and just pivots back to 'we are doing warranty work now' and she points out that a factory store would do recall work as well. Nicely done.

I wish that could have gone on longer. I'd like to see her take 30 minutes to continue this beating.

He touted the dealerships for how much sales tax revenue they generate - well a Tesla store generates tax revenue as well.

He touted that the states have determined this to be the best model. Well, that's false. Even if it was, that was SIXTY YEARS AGO or more. The rules were to keep the factories from competing aginst their own dealers.

The warranty stuff - I have my own experiences with that which would shut that lackey up.

He talked about how many people dealerships employ - as if a Tesla store would employ NOBODY.

That is what bothers me.
Trish Reagan tries to be them down
Never answered the question.

incurred by the dealership or factory- why not, financing, hazardous materials inside of it, big purchase- So what, you can buy a $40,000 TV no questions asked, but buying a $15000 car is a big deal. Let's put it this way, my brother's viking range was more than my Corolla.

competition- factory owns all the market- compete with other manufacturers... bumps back to just a simple brand. If ford jacks up the Focus price to 25 K; well, I'm buying a 15 K Kia.

dealers on consumers side for recalls- doing it now, but too late. If you were about protecting the customers just get the part and do it out of your own pocket.

No middleman costs- well then there would be no point be be a car dealer- time value of money- I buy cars put them on a lot- I should just stick my money in the bank at get 0.005% interest.

I would love for a moderated debate, stick to the questions, no off tangents just answer the questions
1. Financing you can do on your own, hazardous materials.. so is draino and people buy it regularly, we let people buy objects as expensive that are also durable goods without needing special middlemen.
2. Competition between brands? You say competition within the brand, well technically everything is a monopoly, but 4 wheels, similar features, people cross shop.. Corolla, Civic, Fusion... same difference, buy the cheaper one.
3. Why did dealers on the whole NOT replace the ignition switches in 10 years, I don't care about now, I care about the actions of the past 10 years. If they were truly about customer safety why did they not alert their customers in 2004 and replace the ignitions out of their own pockets?
4. The owners of the dealerships make money right? Are you saying making money for the owner does not increase the price of the car? Please tell me how adding an owner would open up a car dealerhip and NOT make any money and if he would stay in business for a long time where he could invest the money in the bank at make more.

The TV example is a good one but they'd argue you don't endanger people on the highway with your TV. I agree their argument is stupid and if their point is consumers should be 'protected' for purchases above a certain dollar amount then what is that dollar amount?

dsm363 said:

The TV example is a good one but they'd argue you don't endanger people on the highway with your TV. I agree their argument is stupid and if their point is consumers should be 'protected' for purchases above a certain dollar amount then what is that dollar amount?

Click to expand...

The counter argument to that is that it is the job of the NHTSA to regulate safety on the highway, not the dealers. Even in a case of a recall, there is no guarantee that the dealer will not charge the manufacturer the max amount but skimp on the repair to maximize profit.

On top of that, consumers have access to things like consumer advocate groups and lawyers who have no financial interest on the subject and are on the consumer's side.

Though fundamentally, the biggest flaw in that dealership argument is that it somehow assumes that sales and repair must be done in the same spot by the same party. The dealerships case that repairs have to be done for safety at dealerships has no relevance on how a car can be sold.

Agree. Their argument has zero value especially when you ask why these 'protections' they argue for do apply to all other consumer goods.

dsm363 said:

The TV example is a good one but they'd argue you don't endanger people on the highway with your TV. I agree their argument is stupid and if their point is consumers should be 'protected' for purchases above a certain dollar amount then what is that dollar amount?

Click to expand...

The simplest counter argument to that is "Why then do we allow individuals to sell used cars to other individuals?"

EarlyAdopter said:

The simplest counter argument to that is "Why then do we allow individuals to sell used cars to other individuals?"

Click to expand...

I wouldn't use that one. They would probably agree saying that individuals should not be selling used cars and that new laws should be passed barring that practice.