Print 93 comment(s) - last by senecarr.. on Mar 14 at 8:11 PM

Tesla said Governor Christie’s administration has "gone back on its word"

Tesla Motors has been trying to push its direct sales model into various U.S. states, and while it saw a bit of success with New Jersey, a new state rule could destroy Tesla's plans. 

According to Tesla, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s administration recently proposed a new rule that requires that a person have a franchise agreement with an auto manufacturer in order to be granted a license to sell. 

This is a problem for Tesla, considering it already operates two stores in New Jersey and had plans to open more. It's possible that Tesla could have to stop selling its all-electric Model S and any future vehicles in these stores and instead use them as showrooms where customers can look, but not buy. 

"Unfortunately, Monday we received news that Governor Christie’s administration has gone back on its word to delay a proposed anti-Tesla regulation so that the matter could be handled through a fair process in the Legislature," said Tesla in a statement. "The Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process by expediting a rule proposal that would completely change the law in New Jersey. This new rule, if adopted, would curtail Tesla’s sales operations and jeopardize our existing retail licenses in the state.

"Having previously issued two dealer licenses to Tesla, this regulation would be a complete reversal to the long standing position of NJMVC on Tesla’s stores. Indeed, the Administration and the NJMVC are thwarting the Legislature and going beyond their authority to implement the state’s laws at the behest of a special interest group looking to protect its monopoly at the expense of New Jersey consumers. This is an affront to the very concept of a free market."

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Barack Obama

Tesla has been in a battle with many states regarding its direct sales model. The issue is that auto dealerships feel Tesla's new sales model threatens their network, which many other automakers rely on. If other automakers were to follow Tesla's example, it would put the dealerships in a bad spot. The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) said that dealerships are necessary to ensure competitive prices for customers, and that it will continue to defend franchise and consumer laws in the states.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, on the other hand, believes that auto dealerships don't do a very good job at selling specialty cars like Tesla's high-end electric vehicles (Roadster, Model S). Hence, he's looking to run his own Tesla stores around the U.S. where he believes his cars will get a fair shot at being sold. 
However, the problem for Tesla is that auto dealerships have much deeper pockets -- meaning that they have a lot more to spend on lobbying, and lawmakers will surely side with them when money is involved. 
In fact, auto dealers spent $86.8 million on state election races across the U.S. between 2003 and 2012. They also spent $53.7 million on federal campaigns. Tesla, on the other hand, has spent less than $500,000 on both state and federal politics. 
Tesla has gone head-to-head with many other states that are protecting auto dealerships, such as Massachusetts, Ohio and New York. 
Just last month, it was reported that Ohio Sen. Tom Patton (R-Strongsville) backed a new bill called Senate Bill 260, which aims to prevent Tesla and any other automaker from "applying for a license to sell or lease new or used motor vehicles at retail." Tesla opened its own stores in both Cincinnati and Columbus, as Ohio's current laws allow the automaker to do so. However, Senate Bill 260 would certainly put a stop to it, unless existing stores opened before the bill are deemed safe. 
What's interesting is that Patton received at least $42,825 between 2002 and 2013 from state and national auto dealership owners, employees, and political action committees. 

Source: Tesla Motors

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Just stop
By Solandri on 3/12/2014 5:21:26 PM , Rating: 3
The middleman serves a purpose only for logistics...and in that equation, he necessarily raises the cost to the consumer.

I'm only going to explain this once more since you're clearly resistant to examining the situation in any other way than the narrow scope you've pre-defined it in your mind.

Shimano makes fishing reels. They could do the logistics for distribution (marketing research, finding and booking transport companies, etc) by themselves. Yes it would reduce cost compared to a middleman who only buys and resells Shimano reels.

Penn also makes fishing reels. Like Shimano, they could do the logistics themselves, and it would reduce cost compared to a middleman who only buys and sells Daiwa reels.

But look what's happened. You now have two companies, both with their own in-house logistics division doing the same thing . That is duplicated work. Now multiply this by the dozen companies that make fishing reels, and you're talking about a whole lot of duplicated (wasted) work.

In steps a distributor - a middleman. They do the market research for all these different reels simultaneously. They negotiate a single contract for retailers to carry the reels. They handle the transportation contracts with a single employee. They track shipments with a single database.

This eliminates a lot of work and saves a lot of time compared to when each reel manufacturer did it in-house. Consequently the middleman is able to handle the logistics work at less cost than any single manufacturer could do it in-house. The manufacturers sign up with the middleman to distribute their goods, and the final price is lower for the customer. The middleman has lowered prices.

Logistics is the beginning and ending of why middlemen exist. Saving money for the consumer does not, in any way, figure into that equation.

Saving money for the customer is everything in a competitive environment. If you can save the customer money compared to a competitor, more of them will buy your products and you will make more money. Using a distributor saves manufacturers money, which they then pass on to customers in the form of lower prices.

It's the same reason why I moved my previous small business over to a hosted mail service. I'm technically competent enough to run my own mail server. But the amount of my time it took and spare resources we'd have to keep on hand (extra hard drives, computers, backups, etc) made the cost enormous.

The hosted mail service has those same costs, but they're able to distribute them over hundreds of customers. Their ratio of techs to mail servers is about 1:100, so they're not spending most of their day browsing the web waiting for a problem to crop up. They keep spare drives in the closet, but where I needed 100% redundancy (1 operating drive, 1 spare), they may only need 10% redundancy (100 operating drives, 10 spares). The labor involved running and validating the backups was about 1 hour/month. But the hosing service could do it for 100 mail domains simultaneously making their labor cost 36 seconds/month. Lower than my costs to do it in-house.

When a middleman consolidates work like this, they lower costs for everyone. You're purposely thinking of middlemen as only people who flip - buy something and resell it with no value added. You're right that flippers increase costs. But other middlemen add significant value to the product distribution stream, and consequently lower costs.

RE: Just stop
By Motoman on 3/14/2014 4:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
You're not smart.

The reason why middlemen serve logistics roles is because not everyone lives next to the Shimano factory.

If, somehow (doesn't matter how for this exercise) you could get a 100,000 people in the Shimano parking lot all at once who wanted a reel, you could most certainly buy 100,000 reels from Shimano at the bulk rate, and everyone would have their reel as cheaply as it could possibly be gotten.

That's the best-case scenario. Highly unlikely, but case.

Middlemen buy in bulk from Shimano, and perform the function of a distributor - WHICH NECESSARILY INCREASES THE COST OF THE PRODUCT TO THE CONSUMER. Because they have to pay for, at a minimum, their apportioned amount of the logistics costs. And, realistically, whatever additional % the middleman wants to stick on top of it.

At no point did I ever say the middleman wasn't performing a service - at all points I said all he was good for was logistics. This is irrefutably true, and it is also irrefutably true that having the middleman in the equation necessarily increases costs to the consumer. Period. Case closed. There is nothing more to say, and you need to shut your moronic mouth because you're clearly in way over your head.

No one should force a middleman into a retail transaction by law. There's no just cause for it. In the specific case of buying Tesla cars, Tesla is perfectly capable of receiving an order from a consumer and shipping the car out - or, probably, letting the consumer pick the car up at the factory (I'm guessing). REQUIRING that a dealer (middleman) be inserted into that equation MUST NECESSARILY INCREASE THE COST TO THE CONSUMER. Because the dealer doesn't work for free.

Now please stop making the internet stupider with your incessant willful ignorance about these simple facts.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki