Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla considering "Hybrid Dealers"?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The current structure of the auto industry evolved for a reason. I would never claim that it's perfect or that there aren't ways to disrupt it, but I think those people that think Tesla will somehow be completely immune from the tidal forces of the auto industry as it grows in size and market reach are not being realistic.

There was a reason; managing the information flows was cost prohibitive to establish a factory owned global network.

Now we have computers and the internet.

Franchised dealerships are no longer required.

- - - Updated - - -

It's for both used and new. Elon and Diarmuid are both on record saying that dealers will probably be needed when they go mass market. Right now, dealers are not the appropriate model due to

There is no such record. What they have said is that franchised dealers "might" be needed not probably needed.
 
The question is really about how to build out capacity; Tesla is going to go from ~7,000 cars per quarter to about ~7,000 cars per week in ~5 years time if Model 3 is really going to be mass market. Assume some economies of scale and Tesla still needs a sales, delivery, and service operation that can handle 10x current capacity. It would be crazy not to look at capacity build out alternatives.

Hi Nigel,

Very good point. No question that an order of magnitute or more increase in production is going to require looking at all alternatives. Elon has previously gone on record of not being against franchised dealerships in some form. Personally I doubt that Elon would hand off the sales function to franchised dealerships in the foreseeable future. However, after the sale is made by Tesla I can envision a hybrid system in which non-Tesla entities handle the preparation and delivery of vehicles.

However, it is very clear to me that regardless of the enthusiasm of the talking head in the video that the conventional franchise system is definitely NOT superior to selling directly to consumers.

Larry
 
I think dealers are overrated nowdays.
Yes its sad that Tesla is banned in many states.

But in todays world more and more people are just got used to ordering stuff online without really trying it before or they saw/tried with friends.

At some point the fight for a stare licence compared to the actual benefit gets small especially in comparison with the Worldmarket that tesla is adressing.

In the end Tesla is fighting this battle primary for the customers that wouldn't ever order online.

I see that kind of people in decline.
points are:
-Hunderts of test drive reviews on youtube and countless websites.
-Model S had huge amount of preorders without a customer every test-driving it, same goes for all european customers that ordered a 100k$ car without a test drive.
-Model X over 20.000 preorders, again no customer ever test drove it.


The down site for a "hybrid-model" is that it makes tesla vulnerable to the established dealer laws. Right now Tesla has a competitive advantage in many states by selling direct because they never worked with dealer and therefore dont trigger the Dealer Law.


I would be really disappointed about a hybrid-model, that would be a defeat for Tesla.
The source suggests that its just FUD.
 
From a car maker's perspective, one nice thing about dealers as independent businesses is that it allows you to spread the risk and cost of carrying inventory.
Definitely. Manufacturers can build and dump as many heaps as they can convince the dealers to take.
Tesla doesn't need to worry about that too much, yet, but I suspect there will come a day when the build-to-order with a 2-3 month wait simply no longer works in order to achieve the volumes they want to achieve (and to reach the customers they want to reach). At that point, will Tesla want to keep a large inventory of cars sitting on lots, or would they rather pass that responsibility on to independent businesspeople?
And yet, that's not GM's experience outside the US. Quoting from the DOJ paper:
a real-world example of the benefits of a build-to-order, direct manufacturer sales model is GM do Brasil's experience with production and sale of the Chevrolet Celta economy car at its modern Blue Macaw plant in Gravatai. Since 2000, customers in Brazil can order the Celta over the internet from a site that links them with GM's assembly plant and 470 dealers nationwide. By 2006, 700,000 Celtas had been produced and the car continues to be one of Brazil's best sellers. Consumers have 20 "build-combinations" from which to configure a model of their choice, including colors and accessories, and can view each change as it is being made. GM built five distribution centers throughout Brazil to reduce transportation time from its assembly plant and buyers can track location of their car online on its way to delivery at a dealer of their choice. The time from configuration at the factory to delivery is only about a week, in contrast to the several week wait that can be common in ordering a car in the United States.
Hopefully, the Model 3 will be able to achieve the same kind of turnaround.
 
The delay right now is that the production line can't keep up. As the line ramps up and production more closely matches demand there's no reason you couldn't order and get delivery a week later. I highly doubt that the construction phase takes more than a couple days (especially from the point in the line where the options have to be decided.
 
I think dealers are overrated nowdays.
Yes its sad that Tesla is banned in many states.

But in todays world more and more people are just got used to ordering stuff online without really trying it before or they saw/tried with friends.

At some point the fight for a stare licence compared to the actual benefit gets small especially in comparison with the Worldmarket that tesla is adressing.

In the end Tesla is fighting this battle primary for the customers that wouldn't ever order online.

I see that kind of people in decline.
points are:
-Hunderts of test drive reviews on youtube and countless websites.
-Model S had huge amount of preorders without a customer every test-driving it, same goes for all european customers that ordered a 100k$ car without a test drive.
-Model X over 20.000 preorders, again no customer ever test drove it.


The down site for a "hybrid-model" is that it makes tesla vulnerable to the established dealer laws. Right now Tesla has a competitive advantage in many states by selling direct because they never worked with dealer and therefore dont trigger the Dealer Law.


I would be really disappointed about a hybrid-model, that would be a defeat for Tesla.
The source suggests that its just FUD.

I don't understand this at all. This isn't about how you order the vehicle. It's about getting a convenient test drive whenever you want. Having the titling and registration taken care of for you. Being able to see the different options and features. To spend some time talking to someone while they walk you through how the big touchscreen works.

The vast majority of individuals will not make a $40k+ purchase without touching, driving, talking, etc. It's one thing to put down $5k refundable for a pre-order, as I did 3 years before release. It's another thing entirely to sign the MVPA without the test drive. Some folks did it, but I was prepared to pull my deposit if the Get Amped drive was disappointing.
 
OK, apparently Elon Musk did an interview with Autoline Daily. He is quoted as saying, "We may need a hybrid system, with a combination of our own stores and some dealer franchises." That is no different from what he has said in times past. Somehow, the host of the show had no idea of this stance and thought it was new...

The problem is that as is usually the case, people entirely overlook the qualifier he used: 'may'. It is not the same as the word 'will', nor is it the same as the word 'should', and it isn't very close to the word 'can', because it is every bit as ephemeral as the word 'might'.

The fact of the matter is that those States that have franchise laws for dealerships do NOT allow for 'a combination of our own stores and some dealer franchises'. In those states, an automobile manufacturer must choose one, or the other. Period.



FYI... Autoline is rather a good show series. They have good hosts, guest hosts, and interview subjects. That said, they are definitely set in their ways. It is obvious that they are resistant to change. And they are in all ways skeptical about Tesla Motors.

Autoline After Hours - Acura's Game-Changing TLX (#262, 1:04:17); An interview with a guy from Acura. Tesla coverage begins at 49:08.

Autoline This Week - Leading America's Car Dealers (#1832, 26:47); An interview with a guy from NADA. Tesla coverage begins at 3:49.
 
OK, apparently Elon Musk did an interview with Autoline Daily. He is quoted as saying, "We may need a hybrid system, with a combination of our own stores and some dealer franchises." That is no different from what he has said in times past. Somehow, the host of the show had no idea of this stance and thought it was new...

The problem is that as is usually the case, people entirely overlook the qualifier he used: 'may'. It is not the same as the word 'will', nor is it the same as the word 'should', and it isn't very close to the word 'can', because it is every bit as ephemeral as the word 'might'.

The fact of the matter is that those States that have franchise laws for dealerships do NOT allow for 'a combination of our own stores and some dealer franchises'. In those states, an automobile manufacturer must choose one, or the other. Period.



FYI... Autoline is rather a good show series. They have good hosts, guest hosts, and interview subjects. That said, they are definitely set in their ways. It is obvious that they are resistant to change. And they are in all ways skeptical about Tesla Motors.

Autoline After Hours - Acura's Game-Changing TLX (#262, 1:04:17); An interview with a guy from Acura. Tesla coverage begins at 49:08.

Autoline This Week - Leading America's Car Dealers (#1832, 26:47); An interview with a guy from NADA. Tesla coverage begins at 3:49.
As I noted above, you can't just look at Elon's answer, you also have to look at what question he was answering. He was asked if using dealers may be necessary to be able to sell and service the car in all 50 states. If the answer is yes, it says more about the political power of the auto dealer cartel in some states than anything about the dealer model itself.
 
Guys, maybe we are looking at things all wrong? Maybe the hybrid dealerships is not for new cars but for used cars? You don't need a franchise to sell used cars do you? So Tesla can stick to selling new cars and sell some used cars through dealers.
The recent change to Michigan Franchise Law specifically states that manufacturers can't own used car dealerships either.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

Sec. 14. (1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following:

(h) Directly or indirectly own, operate, or control a new motor
vehicle dealer, including, but not limited to, a new motor vehicle
dealer engaged primarily in performing warranty repair services on
motor vehicles under the manufacturer’s warranty, or a used motor
vehicle dealer.


It's for both used and new. Elon and Diarmuid are both on record saying that dealers will probably be needed when they go mass market.
Elon Musk is typically very careful about the qualifiers he uses in public statements. He was quoted in this instance as having said "We may need a hybrid system..." I found it interesting that though the host said he had interviewed Elon, he had no video of the event.

Right now, dealers are not the appropriate model due to

1. Conflict of interest
2. Misinformation/Poor education
3. No need because Tesla is not at scale
4. Need to capture as much margin to re-invest cash and get to mass market as quickly as possible
Howzabout:
5. Never gonna happen

Elon indicated that the biggest problem with Dealerships is there failure to make a commitment toward purchasing Tesla Motors vehicles in bulk. If PENSKE or ROBERTSON or ELWAY wanted to truly represent Tesla Motors, they would order cars at 20,000 ... 30,000 ... 50,000 units per year... at each of multiple locations... THEN it will be time to seriously consider using them as franchise holders... Before saying, "NO."

When Gen III rolls around and when Tesla gets capacity, there definitely can be SOME dealers but for cars "in stock." Also it's for when there is no need to ask the question: Gas or electric.
Tesla Motors sees their Customers as the end users, the people who will individually operate the cars. The Detroit Big Three see their Customers as the Dealerships, the companies that make the majority of their profit by servicing cars. This is the fundamental difference between their philosophies.

There is literally nothing at all about the Tesla Motors means of doing business that is not scalable. People who say otherwise are looking at the challenges that face them from the wrong end of the telescope. I have said before that the time will come when Tesla will be able to deliver a car built to order within two weeks anywhere in North America. Cars are transported via car carrier by all the major automakers, they just drop them off at dealership lots. Tesla can just have them dropped off for their Customers too.
 
...The Detroit Big Three see their Customers as the Dealerships, the companies that make the majority of their profit by servicing cars...

Um, no. Dealerships are an important stakeholder in the retailing process but the retail purchaser is absolutely the customer and the Big Three act that way. Otherwise why advertise, conduct focus groups, have car mags test drive vehicles, etc. There are internal teams that focus on dealer relationships just like major consumer product companies focus on their sales channels by building relationships with Walmart, Costco, the many grocery chains, etc. That doesn't mean that Walmart is P&G's customer.
 
> The fact of the matter is that those States that have franchise laws for dealerships do NOT allow for 'a combination of our own stores and some dealer franchises'. In those states, an automobile manufacturer must choose one, or the other. Period. [Red Sage]

And TM can choose to have only dealer franchises in Michigan and any other state so restrictive as to disallow stores and/or service centers. EM was likely viewing this 'combination' from his Bay Area point of view.

With Subaru being the only remaining 'no commission, fixed-price' dealer in the US they could theoretically be the ones in Michigan to raise the Tesla banner out front and begin receiving cars from the factory and providing service. :rolleyes:
--
 
> The fact of the matter is that those States that have franchise laws for dealerships do NOT allow for 'a combination of our own stores and some dealer franchises'. In those states, an automobile manufacturer must choose one, or the other. Period. [Red Sage]

And TM can choose to have only dealer franchises in Michigan and any other state so restrictive as to disallow stores and/or service centers. EM was likely viewing this 'combination' from his Bay Area point of view.

With Subaru being the only remaining 'no commission, fixed-price' dealer in the US they could theoretically be the ones in Michigan to raise the Tesla banner out front and begin receiving cars from the factory and providing service. :rolleyes:
--

And Tesla can choose to be less successful. If they franchise, their "EVs can't be sold at franchised dealers" argument disappears. I cannot see them franchising. They know that with laws as they stand the model stinks, so they are better off sticking to their guns until have a volume product that they can use to get more popular support. They have the rest of the world, CA, NV and rights to stores in other key states, plus service centers in almost all states.
 
There is literally nothing at all about the Tesla Motors means of doing business that is not scalable. People who say otherwise are looking at the challenges that face them from the wrong end of the telescope. I have said before that the time will come when Tesla will be able to deliver a car built to order within two weeks anywhere in North America. Cars are transported via car carrier by all the major automakers, they just drop them off at dealership lots. Tesla can just have them dropped off for their Customers too.
This is a key point. Let's wish away the franchise laws for a moment and think about the business case solely. What do dealers really bring to the table, if anything?
  • Capital? Who has a lower cost of capital, Tesla Motors or an auto dealer? Tesla, I think, by a solid margin. But, you may say, if they had to raise a huge amount of capital to fund the inventories typical American dealerships carry, they'd have to pay much higher rates. Holding inventory on the lot is expensive. But in Europe, you don't see huge inventories of cars at auto dealerships; they are a historical relic of a dysfunctional relationship between dealers and OEMs in the US. I strongly suspect the optimal inventory number is closer to the European "low" value, and therefore the capital requirements are proportionally lower. And, Tesla hasn't had any trouble raising capital so far
  • Knowledge of local markets? I've heard this before, and I can't figure out what special "local conditions" are in the auto market. Sure, McDonalds in Maine sells lobster rolls, and Jeep or someone had an "L L Bean" trim, but those were all corporate decisions. Local car ads seems pretty much the same anywhere: horrible. I wouldn't want my product being represented by the crap-quality ads most dealerships produce. Besides, Tesla would have enough locals working for it to get whatever this mystical "local knowledge" might be.
  • Risk diversification? Mr. Mega-Dealer owns franchises for ten brands, so if demand is down for Ford, it may be up for GM. But the capital markets that Tesla taps diversifies this risk much more effectively, without creating the very real risk that Mr. Mega-Dealer will decide to steer customers away from Tesla because he doesn't make much money servicing them.
So, a centralized model seems to dominate on each of these points. Moreover, with Tesla-owned stores, Tesla can do all sorts of things that cannot be done in the franchise model:
  • Close stores at will to better balance local demand conditions. Just try closing a franchise.
  • Better HR management. High quality employees can be promoted and shifted to other stores or other functions within Tesla, while at a dealership you need to wait until someone above you leaves before you can get promoted. Bad apples can be fired quickly, with fill-in staff coming quickly from elsewhere.
  • Control every facet of the customer experience. Some brands do this better than others (e.g. Audi really focuses on this), but there's no better way to control something than to own it.
  • Regional inventory. Stores can have enough cars for test drives, with all inventory stock held regionally. Thus, deliveries could be made next day (which is as quickly as you can get them from a dealer, if they have any prep work to do)
​In short, I just don't see any economic or business rationale for Tesla to franchise dealers. Of course, it may become a political necessity, but that's a different matter.
 
Um, no. Dealerships are an important stakeholder in the retailing process but the retail purchaser is absolutely the customer and the Big Three act that way. Otherwise why advertise, conduct focus groups, have car mags test drive vehicles, etc. There are internal teams that focus on dealer relationships just like major consumer product companies focus on their sales channels by building relationships with Walmart, Costco, the many grocery chains, etc. That doesn't mean that Walmart is P&G's customer.
They advertise because they mistakenly believe that advertising works. They advertise because their Customers -- the 'independent franchised dealerships' -- demand it. They advertise because their contracts with 'independent franchised dealerships' require that they foot the bill, and share the load. They advertise because, believe it or not, most people have no clue whatsoever that when they go to Billy Bob Bleuhardt's Big Blue World of Cars Chevrolet, that they are NOT BUYING DIRECTLY from Chevy. That is why some people literally never take their cars anywhere for service, even an oil change, unless it is an 'authorized dealer'.

But make no mistake... Traditional automobile manufacturers are NOT allowed to specify they types of cars that their 'independent franchised dealerships' sell. There is a big huge portion of the recent Michigan protectionist law that speaks precisely about what manufacturers cannot do. Manufacturers cannot make wholesale changes to their product line without the express consent of their 'independent franchised dealerships'. This is why electric cars cannot be effectively sold and marketed through 'independent franchised dealerships' -- they have no interest in doing so. At all.

Here, have a look:

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

Sec. 14. (1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following:

(a) Adopt, change, establish, or implement a plan or system for the allocation and distribution of new motor vehicles to new motor vehicle dealers that is arbitrary or capricious or based on unreasonable sales and service standards, or modify an existing plan or system that causes the plan or system to be arbitrary or capricious or based on unreasonable sales and service standards.

(b) If requested in writing by a new motor vehicle dealer, fail or refuse to advise or disclose to the dealer the basis on which new motor vehicles of the same line make are allocated or distributed to new motor vehicle dealers in this state and the basis on which the current allocation or distribution is being made or will be made to that new motor vehicle dealer.

(c) Refuse to deliver to a new motor vehicle dealer in reasonable quantities and within a reasonable time after receipt of the dealer’s order, any new motor vehicles that are covered by the dealer agreement and specifically publicly advertised in this state by the manufacturer as available for immediate delivery. However, the failure to deliver any motor vehicle is not considered a violation of this act if the failure is due to an act of God, a work stoppage or delay due to a strike or labor difficulty, a shortage of materials, a lack of manufacturing capacity, a freight embargo, or other cause over which the manufacturer has no control. If a manufacturer requires a new motor vehicle dealer to purchase essential service tools with a purchase price in the aggregate of more than $7,500.00 in order to receive a specific model of vehicle, the manufacturer shall on written request provide the dealer with a good faith estimate in writing of the number of vehicles of that specific model the dealer will be allocated in the model year in which the dealer is required to purchase the tool.

(d) Increase the price of a new motor vehicle that the new motor vehicle dealer had ordered, and then eventually delivered to, the same retail consumer for whom the vehicle was ordered, if the order was made before the dealer’s receipt of a written official price increase notification. A sales contract signed by a private retail consumer and binding on the dealer constitutes evidence of a vehicle order. In the event of manufacturer price reductions or cash rebates, the dealer shall pass on the amount of any reduction or rebate received by the dealer to the private retail consumer. Any price reduction in excess of $5.00 shall apply to all vehicles in the dealer’s inventory that were subject to the price reduction. A price difference applicable to new model or series motor vehicles at the time of the introduction of the new models or the series is not considered a price increase or price decrease. This subdivision does not apply to price changes caused by any of the following:

(i) The addition to a motor vehicle of required or optional equipment under state or federal law.

(ii) In the case of foreign made vehicles or components, revaluation of the United States dollar.

(iii) Any increase in transportation charges due to an increase in rates charged by a common carrier or transporter.

(e) Offer any of the following to any new motor vehicle dealer of a specific line make without making the same offer available to all other new motor vehicle dealers of the same line make:

(i) Any specific model or series of new motor vehicles manufactured for that line make.

(ii) Any incentives, rebates, bonuses, promotional items, or other similar benefits payable to the new motor vehicle dealer for selling new motor vehicles or purchasing new motor vehicles from the manufacturer.

(iii) Any consumer rebates, vehicle price reductions, or interest rate reductions or other changes to finance terms that benefit the consumer.

(iv) Any program that provides marketing and sales assistance to new motor vehicle dealers, including, but not limited to, internet listings, sales leads, marketing programs, and dealer recognition programs.

 
I've read the statute several times and I'm aware of the protections in place. Note that many of these clauses are a result of historic abuses by manufacturers. We can hate on dealers all we like but having access to inventory on a fair basis, at a consistent price, is not unreasonable. Dealers provided a needed distribution channel for the manufacturers. They needed protection to ensure that the manufacturers would not swoop into their territory and steal the market that the dealers developed.

Now they are taking it a step too far by preventing any manufacturer from entering the market. That's what the argument is about.

And you're kidding yourself if you think that advertising and brand development has no impact on consumer decisions.
 
I've read the statute several times and I'm aware of the protections in place. Note that many of these clauses are a result of historic abuses by manufacturers. We can hate on dealers all we like but having access to inventory on a fair basis, at a consistent price, is not unreasonable. Dealers provided a needed distribution channel for the manufacturers. They needed protection to ensure that the manufacturers would not swoop into their territory and steal the market that the dealers developed.
I concur... to a point. It's perfectly OK to guarantee you will not be starved out by a supplier on purpose. It's another thing entirely to deny your Customers access to the best products your supplier has to offer. The reason why the Ford Probe went away was that it was eating sales of the Ford Mustang, which cost more. People would test drive the base Mustang, test drive the top-of-the-line Probe, see they cost about the same, and they'd get the Probe instead.

If Billy Bob Bleuhardt's Big Blue World of Buicks decided to also carry the Tesla Model ☰ and anyone who test drove it had no interest in the LaCrosse and Regal fleet that was sitting on the lot anymore, and were content to wait three-to-six months for it to be delivered... That's more of an incentive to hide that Tesla Model ☰ demonstrator in the back somewhere.

Now they are taking it a step too far by preventing any manufacturer from entering the market. That's what the argument is about.
Precisely.

And you're kidding yourself if you think that advertising and brand development has no impact on consumer decisions.
I've watched beer commercials my whole life. I don't drink beer. I'm old enough to remember Marlboro commercials... I don't smoke. If I never watch another Coca-Cola commercial again, and every commercial break for the next 50 years is from Pepsi, I'll still want to drink a Coke.

I put more value on promotion and marketing than I do to advertising. I believe there is a distinct difference between them. Advertising obfuscates. Marketing illuminates.
 
The reason why the Ford Probe went away was that it was eating sales of the Ford Mustang, which cost more. People would test drive the base Mustang, test drive the top-of-the-line Probe, see they cost about the same, and they'd get the Probe instead.

Provided the holdbacks and incentives were the same for each vehicle why would it matter to the dealership which one got sold? If Ford wanted to change dealership behavior vis a vis the Probe, they could simply change those incentives. Take a closer look at when the Probe was sold. It was going up against a much better know brand in the Mustang (although the Mustang had its share of problems at that time) and consumer buying patterns where shifting to SUVs.

I've watched beer commercials my whole life. I don't drink beer. I'm old enough to remember Marlboro commercials... I don't smoke. If I never watch another Coca-Cola commercial again, and every commercial break for the next 50 years is from Pepsi, I'll still want to drink a Coke.

I put more value on promotion and marketing than I do to advertising. I believe there is a distinct difference between them. Advertising obfuscates. Marketing illuminates.

And you are representative of the entire US population?
 
And Tesla can choose to be less successful. If they franchise, their "EVs can't be sold at franchised dealers" argument disappears. I cannot see them franchising. They know that with laws as they stand the model stinks, so they are better off sticking to their guns until have a volume product that they can use to get more popular support. They have the rest of the world, CA, NV and rights to stores in other key states, plus service centers in almost all states.

Of course I agree. I'm 230 miles from the nearest Tesla outpost and have had no problem with that. Most US potential customers can find Tesla locations within that radius and travel or use the Internet. And I'm hoping the Interstate Commerce Clause will get TM thru this adversity over the next few years. There will be lots of good publicity if it ever goes to the Supreme Court.
--
 
Provided the holdbacks and incentives were the same for each vehicle why would it matter to the dealership which one got sold? If Ford wanted to change dealership behavior vis a vis the Probe, they could simply change those incentives.
Once again, the point was that the Probe wasn't killed because it didn't sell... It was killed because it sold instead of the Mustang. The higher priced car, with a higher margin, was sitting on the lot longer than expected. Dealers don't like that. Not. One. Bit. Each day that it sits on the lot bites into the holdback amount, and racks up higher financing costs while the vehicle is on consignment. Plus, since the Probe was based on the Mazda 626, it could be serviced at Mazda dealers instead of Ford locations.

Take a closer look at when the Probe was sold. It was going up against a much better know brand in the Mustang (although the Mustang had its share of problems at that time) and consumer buying patterns where shifting to SUVs.
The Probe went away for the same reason the Pontiac Firebird went away. The corporate bigwigs saw its sales bringing down sales of another product that had higher prestige. That could not be allowed. The Ford Explorer added to the bottom line, and F-150 sales continued to climb. If the Explorer had been taking sales away from F-150, the Explorer would have been canned.

And you are representative of the entire US population?
Dude, I'm barely representative of humanity. Advertising is a big hole in the ground that companies try in vain to fill with money. It doesn't work, for anyone but the advertising firms.

;-)