TO THE EDITOR:
It's a shame that franchised auto dealers continue to endure false-narrative opinion pieces from "experts" who know nothing of the intrinsic value of franchised dealers ("Tesla wins vs. outdated franchise laws," Feb. 3).
Daniel Crane writes about how he so virtuously detailed the "nefarious circumstances and effects" associated with dealer franchise laws. He further adds that now Tesla can "avoid the cumbersome dealer model" and gain significant market share.
Here's reality: Most states have tough franchised dealer protection laws because they know the largest part of their tax base is comprised of dealers who have invested significant capital and resources into their communities. We live in an age of price transparency, and most dealers operate on razor thin margins of 1 to 2 percent net of sales. Mr. Crane would relegate us to some perception of decades ago instead of the reality that most consumers are satisfied with their local dealers.
Volume sales without the capacity to service properly fails every time, and I suspect if and when Tesla does manage any significant volume, it won't have the luxury of a dealer network to absorb floorplan costs, transport costs, training costs, employee costs, tool costs, advertising costs, etc.
Perhaps stock market valuations are skewed in reverse, and there should be more inherent value attached to nonsubsidized manufacturers WITH dealer networks?
CHRIS SAVAGE, General manager, Robinson Brothers Ford-Lincoln, Baton Rouge, La.
