Jan 13th 2012, 18:25 by R.D. and P.C.
FOR customers about to splash out hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars on something like a new television or car, it makes sense to try out the goods and ask some questions before parting with their money. So it is also sensible for them to visit the dealership with the fullest range and the best customer service. But ample showrooms and well-trained staff are costly. And consumers may find that, having made their choice, they can save money by buying from dealers who skimp on such expenses—or, in the case of internet-only sellers, who spend nothing on maintaining physical outlets.
Rival dealers also like to see others invest in high-quality stores. In one of the cheekiest examples of low-cost sellers free-riding on other retailers’ lavish spending, Dixons, an online electronics retailer in Britain, ran a big advertising campaign in 2009 urging the public to try out televisions and other gadgets in big department stores—and then go to its website and buy them more cheaply (ironically, the parent company of Dixons operates physical stores vulnerable to online free-riders).
Unsurprisingly, high-quality retailers have trouble recouping their costs—a phenomenon economists call a “missing market”. That is a good thing for consumers: free-riding dealers keep prices down. But they also cause problems. The pressure on prices forces full-service dealers to cut spending on showrooms and advertising. As a result, fewer consumers may get to know the products, and overall demand for them may fall.
Carmakers have tried to overcome free-riding by guaranteeing each dealer an exclusive territory by banning other dealers from opening outlets there. But this causes problems of its own. A local monopoly reduces a dealer’s incentive to keep prices low. That, in turn, risks reducing demand and hurting the manufacturer. So carmakers have also sought to impose price ceilings as well as strict quality standards on dealers’ showrooms. Such market-distorting rules have attracted the attentions of antitrust regulators from time to time.
The rise of internet car-sellers has acerbated the free-rider problem. In the past ten years the proportion of car-buyers relying on the internet to research which model to buy has risen from 19% to 94%, according to a recent study of car-buyers worldwide by Capgemini, a management consultancy. Even in developing countries such as India and China, the study finds, online window-shopping is now the usual way people look for a new car. And 42% of buyers worldwide say they expected to make their purchase online. Carmakers are also getting worried about price-comparison websites like TrueCar, which prompt dealers to offer ever-bigger discounts (see article in our print edition).
In America most car-buyers still visit a physical dealership to do a final test-drive and complete their purchase of a new car. Yet a dealer who tries to please the carmakers by maintaining palatial showrooms is forced to compete with shabbier outlets in neighbouring districts—which put their low prices up on internet price-comparison sites.
A paper by two American-based academics, published in 2001, just as the dotcom boom had turned to bust, suggested a market-friendly answer to all this. The manufacturers themselves could open “hybrid stores”, in which the full range of their products are beautifully displayed, but with not much stock. Consumers could try out the products, even if they ultimately bought them from a retailer elsewhere. The best-known adopter of this approach is Apple, a computer maker, whose chain of stores in city centres and shopping malls let browsers try out the company’s gadgets, with lots of bright young assistants offering advice, but with little pressure to buy.
Joe Oddo, one of the authors of the Capgemini report, notes that carmakers are increasingly following suit. Many have opened chains of Apple-like car showrooms in city centres, where potential buyers can kick tyres, sit behind the wheel and maybe even do a test-drive. Those who decide to buy are typically directed towards a retail dealership close to their home, which will also offer the after-sales services that motorists prefer to have close by. This is unlikely to reverse the trend towards fewer, larger dealerships (see chart). But neighbourhood dealers will no longer need to maintain such well-appointed and heavily staffed showrooms. The free-riding problem is unlikely to go away, but it will be less costly
In this blog, our Schumpeter columnist and his colleagues provide commentary and analysis on the topics of business, finance and management. The blog takes its name from Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian-American economist who likened capitalism to a "perennial gale of creative destruction"
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
It is also important that you remember what large dealers do for their community. In our area, the local dealers donate cars to various schools and charities, they support churches and sports, music programs, local and city gov., one of our local car dealers even donated his body shop to fix all of the local police cars paint jobs which would have cost tax payers thousands and thousands of dollars. Shopping at your local dealer does more for the community then just give cars...in an economy that needs more jobs, we need to keep our local businesses thriving...that is what will keep costs low and your local community moving forward. There are always different perspectives that we need to look at as an educated reader.
Good article and good posts, but the one thing that has not been mentioned yet is that Apple does not permit the discounting of its products. An iPad sold in its store is the same price everywhere else (non gray market)
The analogy with Apple fails, both because Apple stores DO let you try, and because they hold large stocks. And they do service and support.
Car sellers used to use big profits on sales to support service and other activities. The obvious way out is for these to separate, as is probably happening already.
The Economist should be ashamed of itself for falling for the, almost certainly unproven, 'everyone-will-lose' line. Basically this is about car dealers trying to maintain anti-competitive practices.
agree with willstewart about the apple analogy: apple's retail outlets are one of the most successful with an incredible sales-to-square foot ratio as well as a sales-to-sales staff ratio. maybe apple should sell cars already?
say hurrah for lower consumer prices
Seems to me like mega "gallery stores" might be valid business models for most products in the future. Go in, try stuff out, order online.
I make up a short list of cars on line and then choose amongst them by visiting the dealer.
I would never buy a new car on line because I don't just buy the car: I buy the warranty and the after-sales service. If the latter two are unsatisfactory, I won't buy and you can't get those over the internet.
Neighborhood dealers in my experience were vastly over rated.
When I search for cars on Autotrader, I instantly pass over any descriptions that come off as a sales pitch. Effects such as words in ALL CAPS and too many exclamation points (!!!!) are a good indicator of the quality of service and amount of pressure you will receive in person.
Incidentally, this greatly diminishes the probability of me ever buying a car from a dealership in Maryland.