Tesla Motors says car dealers are trying to hinder its sales
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
Maybe Tesla should hire Ian Ayres[1] as a consultant, give him a team to go around the country exposing misleading and aggressive sales practices at dealerships.
[1] The Ian Ayres who uncovered systemic discrimination in auto sales for the Harvard Law Review: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
Check it out for yourself:
http://www.teslamotors.com/true-cost-of-ownership
Any reasonable person would see that page and think they can get a Tesla for $601 per month. But that's the "Effective Monthly Cost". The actual monthly cost for the lowest cost model is $980 per month for a 6 year loan. Seriously, a 6 year loan?
Honestly, they don't even need to do this. The people buying a Tesla now aren't shopping for a car strictly on price and they're smart enough to not be fooled by such gimmicks.
I disagree. $601 per month is in bold almost-black and on my screen is about 115 pixels wide. $980 per month is in dark gray on gray, not bold and on my screen is about 82 pixels wide. In addition, the $601 per month has right under it a giant red button that says, "ORDER" which strongly conveys the idea that you are ordering a car for $601 per month.
Then consider even the $980 payment is pretty silly. It's for a 6 year loan. Who gets a six year loan? My opinion is that Tesla is engaging in very misleading tactics here and it tarnishes my otherwise very high opinion of them. I guess there must be a population of people that would reject a car immediately if they saw that it cost $1,157 per month after putting 10% down on a 3.30% five year loan. I guess the person is supposed to initially think they can afford it, fall in love with it, then find a way to make the numbers work? I have no idea.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732364660457840...
Even read in the most naive light, this still more straight forward than the typical auto dealer tactics which are both more numerous and more deliberately designed to confuse.
Take the typical ad for a lease of $169 a month. That could actually use an "effective monthly cost" price next to it. Once you add in the $2400 due at signing (ignoring TT&L), it's really $369 a month and much less of a bargain.
Cell phones could use an effective cost instead of a their, "iphone for $99*" which just aren't the actual cost.
That the effective monthly cost of a Tesla goes down due to subsidies, reduce fuel usage, and maintenance may seem strange, but is very real.
People who feel guilty about something are quickest to accuse others.
It's also because they're completely unneeded for many transactions. I walked into a Nissan dealership utilizing USAA pricing and a cashier's check. It still took FOUR HOURS to drive out with the car. I had to wait two hours just for the "finance guy" even though I wasn't financing anything. I threatened to leave the entire time - I still had to talk to him and he had at least 7 people in front of me in line that were financing.
How refreshing would it be to research a car, test drive a car, purchase a car without all these shenanigans meant to upsell you into ridiculous things?
Tucker closed in 1949, when about 7mm cars were sold in the US annually. [1] So Tucker's 51 cars produced, out of 7mm total leaves them with a .0007% market share.
Tesla sold 2,650 cars in the US in 2012 [2], while there were 14.5mm total sold [3]. Tesla therefore had a .018% market share.
Tesla is at least 25x the company Tucker was!
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_automobile_industry_in...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S#Sales_and_markets
[3] - http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2013/01/10/u-s-auto-sales-hit-...