Cybercatch22: Demand vs Delay

[CyberOwl]

Tesla probably have a reasonable idea of how many of these reservations are genuine, but why should Tesla allow and enable parasitic profit loss for the first few years of production?

ALL reservations are genuine. As long as you take delivery,Tesla is fulfilled. No one at corporate headquarters gives a flyingF how you use the truck or what happens after that. And parasitic profit is some jargon you made up to describe supply and demand.

This mechanism would honour the genuine reservations of the early adopters, whilst also providing a profitable mechanism for late comers to jump on the bandwagon. The issue is not alienating those people that have a genuine use for Cybertruck but were also planning to scalp some reservations

You can’t adopt something you don’t have. Tesla will reward true early adopters who put money down first. The more money you put down for multiple reservations the bigger the reward. Late comers will wait their turn, or pay the true early birds as a reward for their foresight. WTF is a true ‘genuine’ use for a cybertruck anyway? The rich kids in Saudi Arabia have as much use for a CT as anyone, and the only way for them to get it is through second hand sales.

I personally don’t want to pay a premium so some people can leech of Cybertrucks brand, value, ingenuity.

And here we have it, your true concern. You are worried how this will personally affect your bottom line. Cybertruck is not a brand, Tesla is. People who had faith, years before the thing was even revealed, in what a bonkers success it would be are the true believers. Tesla believers. Elon believers. Early adopters, as you call them. The value is dictated by them. As will be seen at auction blocks the world over.

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 3316]

ALL reservations are genuine. ……..

And parasitic profit is some jargon you made up to describe supply and demand……

WTF is a true ‘genuine’ use for a cybertruck anyway?

1. You argue that all reservations are genuine, but it's important to recognise that a scalper or speculator who intends to immediately resell the vehicle is not a genuine customer in the traditional sense. Such customers do not have a genuine need or use for the product, and their actions can potentially harm the brand and other genuine customers.
2. Your dismissal of the concept of parasitic profit is fallacious because scalpers and speculators can and do artificially drive up demand and prices, which can harm the brand and genuine customers.
3. The context for your statement about second-hand sales is unclear, but it's important to note that the solution being discussed is about providing access to the Cybertruck for non-reservation holders in a fair and equitable manner.
4. The definition of a genuine user is subjective, but it's reasonable to assume that a genuine reservation holder is someone who intends to use the vehicle for its intended purpose rather than immediately reselling it.
   
   You seem to be getting quite emotional about this topic, how much are you set to lose if Tesla do take up this suggestion?
   

 

[Crissa]

How is it a flawed premise that any company would use restrictions to capture more revenue?

The flaw is that most of the methods to generate more revenue - vastly raised prices, more deposits, schemes - will generate bad press, ill will, and overall, reduce long term demand.

ALL reservations are genuine. As long as you take delivery,Tesla is fulfilled. No one at corporate headquarters gives a flyingF how you use the truck or what happens after that. And parasitic profit is some jargon you made up to describe supply and demand.

Actually... No. People who put in multiple reservations, or reservations to resell - they'll delay and avoid delivery and paying for their vehicles until they can resell them or whatnot.

And that reduces overall deliveries and increases Tesla's sales burden per vehicle. That's bad, GIR.

-Crissa

Edited for typos.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

The flaw is that most of the methods to generate more revenue - vastly raised prices, more deposits, schemes - will generate bad press, ill will, and overall, reduce long term demand.

-Crissa

Please flesh this out a little, it’s not entirely clear the point you’re trying to make.

High prices for non reservation holders buying at auction will transparently indicate actual demand. Unlikely to generate ill will. Bad press will just generate itself

Reservation holders will not have to suffer the exhorbitant prices exacerbated by parasitic profiteers manipulating demand for their own profit. Unlikely to generate ill will, or reduce overall demand.

I’m yet to see an valid argument that doesn’t prioritise profit for people that haven’t provided any benefit to the transaction.

 

[Crissa]

High prices for non reservation holders buying at auction will transparently indicate actual demand. Unlikely to generate ill will. Bad press will just generate itself

Reservation holders, asked for more money, would feel put out. Press, which would love to have Tesla clicks, would find the least satisfied voiced and raise the.

Reservation holders will not have to suffer the exhorbitant prices exacerbated by parasitic profiteers manipulating demand for their own profit. Unlikely to generate ill will, or reduce overall demand.

...Instead they'll be forced to wait while parasitic profiteers leave trucks on Tesla lots and tie up resources that could be used to getting them their trucks?

I’m yet to see an valid argument that doesn’t prioritise profit for people that haven’t provided any benefit to the transaction.

Please expand on this, because to me, it sounds like gibberish. Benefit? What transaction?

-Crissa

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Reservation holders, asked for more money, would feel put out. Press, which would love to have Tesla clicks, would find the least satisfied voiced and raise the.


...Instead they'll be forced to wait while parasitic profiteers leave trucks on Tesla lots and tie up resources that could be used to getting them their trucks?


Please expand on this, because to me, it sounds like gibberish. Benefit? What transaction?

-Crissa

Hi Crissa,

It seems like there are a few misunderstandings in my posts that I can hopefully help clarify.

Firstly, non-reservation holders are those who have not indicated interest for the vehicle and reservation holders are those who have registered interest the vehicle. It's important to distinguish between the two groups because they have different levels of commitment to purchasing the vehicle.

Regarding my statement about high prices for Cybertruck it’s important to understand the two pricing structures being proposed. For non-reservation holders the price at auction could be influenced by many factors such as the number of trucks available, the current market conditions, and the willingness of buyers to pay a premium. It's also important to note that high prices at auction for non-reservation holders do not affect reservation holders since they have already secured their place in line and would not be subjected to the price volatility.

In response to my second post, it's important to note that parasitic profiteers refer to individuals who purchase Tesla trucks solely for the purpose of reselling them at a higher price. This practice also known as scalping and has the potential to drive up prices for all. By engaging in a restrictive sales contract reservation holders can be protected from this by Tesla competing directly with scalpers in the open market.

Finally, my statement about profit prioritization refers to the fact that scalpers are profiting off the transaction without adding any value to it. Reservation holders who have placed a deposit and committed to purchasing the vehicle are providing value to the transaction by creating demand for the product. In contrast, scalpers are simply taking advantage of the situation to make a quick profit without contributing anything to the production or distribution of the vehicle.

I hope this helps clarify some of the confusion. Let me know if you have any further questions!

 

[cvalue13]

Please expand on this, because to me, it sounds like gibberish.

Lorem ipsum parasitic profiteering dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, parasitic profiteering sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore parasitic profiteering magna aliqua.

Would help if there were any data whatsoever regarding the percentage of buyers, over the life of a model, are pure scalpers (as opposed to legit buyers who decide against ownership).

Merely looking at the first year or two is distorting.

The question no one seems prepared to answer is: what is the scale of this purported “problem”

 

[CyberGus]

Tesla already cancels orders from serial scalpers to capture more revenue

Tesla will refuse sales to flippers, since the sales contract stipulates the buyer is the end user. There’s no evidence they do this to “capture more revenue”.

For Cybertruck, they will do what they’ve always done: resellers will end up in “Tesla Jail”.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Tesla will refuse sales to flippers, since the sales contract stipulates the buyer is the end user. There’s no evidence they do this to “capture more revenue”.

For Cybertruck, they will do what they’ve always done: resellers will end up in “Tesla Jail”.

How will this work for people with two reservations, one to own one to sell? Take delivery of both and resell the second at considerable profit?

Why else would Tesla cancel orders if not to capture actual revenue available?

 

[CyberGus]

How will this work for people with two reservations, one to own one to sell? Take delivery of both and resell the second at considerable profit?

Why else would Tesla cancel orders if not to capture actual revenue available?

I must have been out sick from business school the week they discussed “cancelling sales to maximize profits”

 

[Deleted member 3316]

I must have been out sick from business school the week they discussed “cancelling sales to maximize profits”

Is it really that hard to understand?

Two people want a Cybertruck.

Person A has 2 reservations person B does not.

Person A purchases both vehicles for ¥800k
Person B is prepared to pay ¥900k for one vehicle.
Person A sells their second vehicle for ¥900k keeping ¥100k and a Cybertruck for themselves.

That extra ¥500k could have gone to Tesla if there was a mechanism for person B to purchase from Tesla.

Cancelling sales (stopping scalpers) does in fact maximise profits.

 

[CyberOwl]

1. You argue that all reservations are genuine, but it's important to recognise that a scalper or speculator who intends to immediately resell the vehicle is not a genuine customer in the traditional sense. Such customers do not have a genuine need or use for the product, and their actions can potentially harm the brand and other genuine customers.
2. Your dismissal of the concept of parasitic profit is fallacious because scalpers and speculators can and do artificially drive up demand and prices, which can harm the brand and genuine customers.
3. The context for your statement about second-hand sales is unclear, but it's important to note that the solution being discussed is about providing access to the Cybertruck for non-reservation holders in a fair and equitable manner.
4. The definition of a genuine user is subjective, but it's reasonable to assume that a genuine reservation holder is someone who intends to use the vehicle for its intended purpose rather than immediately reselling it.
   
   You seem to be getting quite emotional about this topic, how much are you set to lose if Tesla do take up this suggestion?

1. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe anyone who pays the listed MSRP and takes delivery is a customer
2. This is not a situation of finite supply like a concert or basketball game. Anyone who wants to buy a truck can make a reservation and wait. Tesla dictates the price of the truck, and it does not change based on the second hand market. Not sure how you can make an argument otherwise. Secondhand buyers are determining the value of the wait, not the product.
3. Non reservation holders do not factor into any decisions made by the OEM. Tesla is not concerned with providing access to people who are not their customers
4. Agreed. Subjective.

It’s always interesting when people infer emotion from the written word. I have opinions and am happy to express them. Not particularly emotional one way or the other. Reservations are fully refundable, so no one is in danger of loosing anything. In less, of course, you consider unrealized gains… but I never count my chickens

Actually... No. People who put in multiple reservations, or reservations to resell - they're delay and avoid delivery and paying for their vehicles until they can resell them or whatnot.

And that reduces overall deliveries and Tesla's sales burden per vehicle. That's bad, GIR.

-Crissa

Whatever rules Tesla makes regarding delivery timelines is written in stone. I seriously doubt they will allow people to parry very long with regards to paying. I just picked up my first Tesla on Friday and the process is so straightforward and simple, it leaves very little room for excuses.

As I said before, this whole topic is a big nothingburger. Tesla keeps their house neat and tidy, and don’t put up with any shenanigans. Think… ‘No soup for you’. That’s how it goes. All they care about is unloading semi-trucks and getting the vehicles off their lot ASAP

 

[Rozonoe]

My reservation is now selling for 2.5 million plus a 5 digit reservation number.

My guess is that for those who have multiple orders, Tesla would deliver 1 of those units to that individual & the remaining orders for that person will be full filed later to let more Cybertruck deliveries in other part of the country to be seen by the public to ramp up new orders! My 2cents!

 

[Arctic_White]

I’m not talking about someone considering it now. There’s likely 2million reservations, at 250,000 per year static production rate that’s an 8 year backlog. There is more demand than just the reservations. People bought up reservations with the express purpose of siphoning profit.

Tesla probably have a reasonable idea of how many of these reservations are genuine, but why should Tesla allow and enable parasitic profit loss for the first few years of production?

This mechanism would honour the genuine reservations of the early adopters, whilst also providing a profitable mechanism for late comers to jump on the bandwagon. The issue is not alienating those people that have a genuine use for Cybertruck but were also planning to scalp some reservations

These are going to be highly desirable vehicles simply because the other manufacturers are failing to even plan to compete on volume.

I personally don’t want to pay a premium so some people can leech of Cybertrucks brand, value, ingenuity.

You're incorrect about two things:
1) 2M reservation does not translate into direct sales. Many of these reservations will be canceled for various reasons.
2) You're assuming that many of these said reservations are strictly for resale purposes. The # is tiny and not worth the hassle for Tesla.

Tesla will price CT very competitively. If the backlog is long, they will adjust prices so that the supply meets the demand.

Sponsored