wendell wrote:
I don't see what difference it makes, if a dealer only sells 10 units a month, thats 10 more sold than if the dealer didn't exist. The dealerships are privatly owned, no cost to the company. I may not be seeing this right, but one car sold is one more than they had.
Not exactly. I am in real estate franchising and that applies somewhat here...
The cost of keeping an underperforming franchise is probably much greater than the income created from selling 10 cars. Keeping the doors open requires constant customer service (the dealer being the customer in this case), administrative costs, contract negotiations, education, site visits, etc. All of those services cost time and money and without enough sales it might just not be worth it.
The other aspect is consumer perception. If would-be consumers have a negative view of Chrysler because of their underperforming local dealership then that is perhaps the most costly aspect of all. Maybe the dealership has terrible advertisements or does not advertise at all in the local market. Maybe they just have such a bad service reputation that customers won't go near it. Now you have an entire town that has a negative view of the Chrysler name just because of one bad owner. It is VERY costly to have a private owner completely grenade your branding efforts in one small pocket of the world. If it is happening a lot of places then something needs to be done.
In that case, if Chrysler enforces/imposes quotas then the local dealership has two choices...get its act together or get out of the business. In turn, Chrysler now has a more productive dealership OR has the option to replace the still underperforming dealership with a new one (that maybe sells 20 cars).
Anyway you look at it...probably a win, win for Chrysler.