4 ms·
And that's in an environment where they are mostly prohibited, in the US, from having dealerships. It's quite a feat, actually.
by cronix 8y ago
And that's in an environment where they are mostly prohibited, in the US, from having dealerships. It's quite a feat, actually.
- ummonk 8y agoWait, what? How are they prohibited from having dealerships? If anything, the problem they have run into is that some states require them to have dealerships and sell through them instead of selling directly to the consumer.
- belltaco 8y agoThey probably meant having company owned dealerships.
- cronix 8y agoRight. It's an ancient dumb law that seems pretty unique to this industry going way back. How many other industries are prohibited from having their own stores and selling the products they produce themselves? It's like telling Apple they can't sell their hardware at their own branded stores and must only sell them from 3rd party retailers - at an additional markup so the retailer can make a few bucks too. It's anti-consumer and anti-competitive. If Ford wants to open their own stores to sell their own cars (not "dealer franchises"), why shouldn't they be allowed to?
- ams6110 8y agoIt originated as protection for franchisees. Early on, manufactures didn't have the resources to set up dealerships everywhere they wanted to sell cars. So they used the franchise model. The argument is/was, that the franchisees needed protection so they could be assured that their investment in a property, facilities, and developing a market in an area could not be taken away by a manufacturer moving in with a company-owned dealership. Very similar to the complaints about Amazon moving in on sellers with their own products once they see what is selling well with independent sellers.
- mcguire 8y agoEssentially all elements of civilization are path dependant.