SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Missouri Automobile Dealers Association sued the Missouri Revenue Department and now a judge has ruled in their favor on part of their claims in Missouri.
Cole County Judge Daniel Green ruled that the Missouri Revenue Department violated state law when it gave the California-based manufacturer a license for a University City dealership in 2013 and a franchise dealer license for a Kansas City dealership in 2014. That allowed the automaker to sell cars directly to customers instead of through a dealership serving as a middleman.
[...] Tesla has faced similar roadblocks to selling its cars in several states with dealership laws similar to Missouri's. In some of those states, legislators have been looking at ways to tweak laws and let the company operate.
Previously: Tesla Direct Sales Blocked in New Jersey
(Score: 3, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Friday September 02 2016, @05:23PM
The Commerce Clause gives the Federal government power over these areas only if a relevant law is passed, otherwise the State level law is accepted. The FTC wrote about Tesla's business model in 2014. [ftc.gov]
There are a lot of similar pointless leeches by law in the distribution and sale of alcohol, to the point that small breweries have to sell their own product to these leeches and then buy it back from them if they wish to have tastings or bars in-house. This idiotic internal mercantilism may be expanded into cannabis cultivation, requiring growers to use this wasteful system as well. This is why in some states the local alcohol distribution cartels are pushing for legalization, where other states without leeching by law have cartels that are against it.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PocketSizeSUn on Friday September 02 2016, @10:33PM
I know it is unpopular (because it is seen as an unfair requirement to sell indirectly) however it does in fact breakup monopoly pricing.
In this case I have tried running a small wine (importing) business and this is how it works here:
The rule is basically:
Importer cannot be the distributer.
Distributer cannot be the retailer and must:
- Purchase from the importer (or producer)
- Sell at a non-discriminatory price.
- Cannot give a 'Suggested Price'.
This, in the end, gives retailers a level playing field - they can markup the goods however they see fit.
Here for example you will have specialty shops that recognize a very underpriced product and they will
proceed to mark it up dramatically. This leaves competitors that simply price based on cost marginal markup.
The informed consumer that shops around wins, sometimes dramatically. Sure the low price shop may raise
their prices on a specific product but they have to balance that against losing customers.
Here we do have a few larger players that want to sell a branded product.
While the importer, for example TJ's[1], cannot be a producer, importer, distributor and retail directly what they can and do is:
Be the producer and the importer.
The must sell and buy back from a distributor however know both sides of the deal it's hard
for the distributor to hold much profit in this deal. The upside for everyone is that TJ's wants to sell
a self branded product at a low but profitable price which means that if the product is a good seller
the liquor store down the street can buy it from the distributor for the *same price* as TJ's
So in effect the distributor (while making a good profit) is actually blocking monopoly pricing using
a self regulating free market trickery.
So how does this same thing work in a different locale (without the free market hack?)
Let's pick on Hong Kong (yes .. this is first hand, again about 7 years ago now).
In Hong Kong (and many other places in Asia the same holds) here I'll pick on Pernod Ricard, owner of Jacobs Creek.
Estimated cost of Jacob's Creek ex. works at this time ~$2.20 USD
With lesser known competitors at ~$3 USD.
Compared to lesser known Chilean and Argentinean producers at $1.25-$2.00 with significantly better products.
Yep, ex works from Chile you could get a 90+pts rated wine for $2/bottle. MOQ ~1200 bottles.
So in Hong Kong the retail price of Jacob's Creek is $20 USD a bottle.
A comparative price of a much better tasting but little known brand will cost you much closer to $5-6 USD.
In the US market this flips dramatically:
- Jacob's Creek US pricing: $3 to $4.50 from the distributor, or 6 to 9 USD retail.
- Much better (Australian wine ... let's to apples to apples here): $4-5 from distributor, USD $8-10 retail.
The reason for this is actually both simple and smart (from the perspective of Jacob's Creek and Pernod Ricard)
In Hong Kong you can only deal with Pernod-Ricard, you cannot import from that brand from Australia as they will
only sell/ship to themselves. It protects the brand and in the HK market the brand is well advertised what sells well enough. HK never had the US experience of seeing Jacobs Creek as a low end, low priced brand.
So what's the per container pricing? $11 USD / bottle. Yep, more the US retail, anywhere in the US.
Needless to say *that* deal didn't go very well for me :-(.
1 - Just picking on TJ's here because you may be aware of their very low priced and self branded wines[2]. What you may not be aware of is that while they may be exclusives in some other states, in this state any liquor store can sell them at any price they like. In fact any retailer in this state can buy them for the same price TJ's pays the distributor.
2- That said while I find the majority of the self branded bottles too sweet or just a bit off for my taste they do have quite a few other bottles that I enjoy as everyday table wines and few special bottles. I don't shop their exclusively by any means but I do often find that when they do carry the exact same bottle as the local competition they are usually around $1 cheaper.
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Saturday September 03 2016, @02:45AM
Perhaps on a specific wine, but not on "alcohol" or "beverages" or even "wine in general." Likewise, the dealership laws targetting Tesla may break up monopoly pricing on "2016 Kia Soul Exclaims," but if those are expensive, people will just drive something else. It's like saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones. Sort of true, but they certainly don't have a monopoly on telephones, mobile Internet devices, pocket computers, or anything like that.
And if you have to deal with a state distributor or retailer, you are handling a monopoly on a specific wine by dealing with a monopoly on all alcohol. (I think Virginia still has a crazy system like this.) With the ability to order stuff over the Internet, local retail monopolies just aren't a very interesting class of problem in almost any product category any more. Even stuff like fresh groceries are starting to be more practical to get delivered if you live in a place that only has one supermarket.