No and yes, respectively. GM's continuing fascination with a merger with Chrysler which this blogger has strongly criticized has now spread speculation that the companies could consolidate dealerships. This is of course tacit recognition that the car market has become, in many segments, comoditized. It is only a question of time before someone wakes up to the fact that selling cars in exclusive dealerships is a luxury fewer and fewer manufacturers can afford and more and more shareholders should question. Besides which, the old argument that specialized dealerships "know the product and are loyal to the brand" is bull excrement. Any person with a modicum of research in their head can walk onto the floor of any showroom in the nation and instantly confound the sales person with a few rudimentary questions about the vehicle on the floor. I once visited a Ford dealership in Cincinnati here the salesman had difficulty in identifying a Ford Escape versus a Ford Explorer. Dealerships are going to have an increasingly hard time justifying their existence.
Let's look at the car purchase rationally. If I am in the market for say, a minivan, does it make sense for me to spend days wondering around different dealerships, haggling with different sales people and financing companies, or does it make more sense to go to "Joe's Mini Van Market". There under one roof I can see a series of minivans, from several companies and compare them. I can see features I like or don't like and quickly choose the one I like best.As the idea catches on, soon "Joe's Market" will have a minivan department, a pickup department, a sedan department, etc. All under one roof. Paradise!
For the manufacturers it means tremendous efficiencies as parts are shipped to Joe's Market based on computer models that show how many vehicles he has sold, and what they are likely to need in the first, second and third year of warranty. Prices would be have to be competitive and the whole archaic process of dealer incentives, hold backs, etc. would go away in favor of a fixed commission for Joe, with perhaps bonuses for vehicles sold. Saturn's idea of "no haggle pricing" would be a welcome innovation, with sales at different periods of the year. It would be Joe's headache to deal with salesmen and the public could easily opt for the best vehicles at the most competitive prices, with a margin for personal tastes, thus making manufacturers more efficient by being able to rapidly hone in on what the public wants versus what they are selling.
If this sounds like it makes sense, it does. It is essentially what happens every time you go to a supermarket or Best Buy or Sears. In fact, the question arises, why has someone not thought of this already? Well, for one, the middle man, the dealership, has a legal leg to stand on, against the manufacturer, if they opt to abandon their dealership network in this fashion.
But how exciting would it be to see Chrysler and GM started selling their vehicles through open markets like the one described above? How exciting would it be to walk onto a showroom floor with competing vehicles side by side?
If you hold shares in an American car company, it may time to start asking questions about how much the dealer network actually costs you as a shareholder, and to ask "why are we insisting on using a sqaure wheel when every other consumer product has already invented a round one?".
Let's look at the car purchase rationally. If I am in the market for say, a minivan, does it make sense for me to spend days wondering around different dealerships, haggling with different sales people and financing companies, or does it make more sense to go to "Joe's Mini Van Market". There under one roof I can see a series of minivans, from several companies and compare them. I can see features I like or don't like and quickly choose the one I like best.As the idea catches on, soon "Joe's Market" will have a minivan department, a pickup department, a sedan department, etc. All under one roof. Paradise!
For the manufacturers it means tremendous efficiencies as parts are shipped to Joe's Market based on computer models that show how many vehicles he has sold, and what they are likely to need in the first, second and third year of warranty. Prices would be have to be competitive and the whole archaic process of dealer incentives, hold backs, etc. would go away in favor of a fixed commission for Joe, with perhaps bonuses for vehicles sold. Saturn's idea of "no haggle pricing" would be a welcome innovation, with sales at different periods of the year. It would be Joe's headache to deal with salesmen and the public could easily opt for the best vehicles at the most competitive prices, with a margin for personal tastes, thus making manufacturers more efficient by being able to rapidly hone in on what the public wants versus what they are selling.
If this sounds like it makes sense, it does. It is essentially what happens every time you go to a supermarket or Best Buy or Sears. In fact, the question arises, why has someone not thought of this already? Well, for one, the middle man, the dealership, has a legal leg to stand on, against the manufacturer, if they opt to abandon their dealership network in this fashion.
But how exciting would it be to see Chrysler and GM started selling their vehicles through open markets like the one described above? How exciting would it be to walk onto a showroom floor with competing vehicles side by side?
If you hold shares in an American car company, it may time to start asking questions about how much the dealer network actually costs you as a shareholder, and to ask "why are we insisting on using a sqaure wheel when every other consumer product has already invented a round one?".
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment