People consider cars to be necessities. There is significant legislation already in place that protects the dealer model. Thus, if you want to buy a car, you have few options other than dealerships.
The Faustian bargain if you will was dealerships were given certain deals by the manufacturers to protect their ability to profit. States got involved later, where there was money to license such as well as to keep manufacturers from stepping into a solid market to brush aside the dealers who forged it.
It was a solution fit for its time and still is in many cases. When Tesla's support falters who you going to yell at? Fellow disgruntled owners on a message board? Not saying it will, but you who goes to bat for you when sales are direct?
Quite frankly, if the company fails, you are out of luck, dealerships or no dealerships.
> However, theory and evidence suggest that the protection that automobile dealers have obtained from local legislatures has been to the detriment not only of manufacturers, but also of consumers, resulting in higher cost of retailing and higher prices for cars, inflexibility of the dealer network, and a lack of innovation in car distribution.
http://faculty.som.yale.edu/FionaScottMorton/documents/State...
I do, and it is entirely irrelevant to my point. You asked for an explanation of how sales can be good, even when the dealership experience is bad. I provided an explanation that depended on the existence of legislation to protect dealers. I wasn't debating the merits of the legislation to protect dealers, just noting that it exists.