Profit protection against resellers/scalpers.

[JBee]

It super hard to interact with essays JBee, can you boil it down to one or maybe two salient points?

I'll try.

So my understanding so far from your posts is that you believe that scalpers have a detrimental impact on Tesla customers, because they increase the cost for customers and/or reduce the profitability of Tesla ie they have a net negative impact on sales and impede Tesla in their mission.

I postulate the counter argument that Tesla is largely unaffected by scalpers, to the point that they are not impacted enough to warrant a change in their sales strategy. Further that they have no influence on Tesla mission for change to sustainable energy, not only because of the minimal "perceivable" impact, but also in that Tesla is actively trying to circumvent any demand vs supply market restriction, by implementing complete vertical integration for all of their products.

My question is if the solutions offered in the OP, or by the proposed position, regardless of any moral justification, has any net benefit to achieving Tesla's goals. Tesla's goals is not to make money, rather change to sustainable energy, and having more currency does not always equate them having more compacity to achieve their goals. So how would what you propose help Tesla reach it's goals and not make it vulnerable to possible negative side effects by customers not agreeing with their tactics?

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 3316]

I'll try.

So my understanding so far from your posts is that you believe that scalpers have a detrimental impact on Tesla customers, because they increase the cost for customers and/or reduce the profitability of Tesla ie they have a net negative impact on sales and impede Tesla in their mission.

I postulate the counter argument that Tesla is largely unaffected by scalpers, to the point that they are not impacted enough to warrant a change in their sales strategy. Further that they have no influence on Tesla mission for change to sustainable energy, not only because of the minimal "perceivable" impact, but also in that Tesla is actively trying to circumvent any demand vs supply market restriction, by implementing complete vertical integration for all of their products.

My question is if the solutions offered in the OP, or by the proposed position, regardless of any moral justification, has any net benefit to achieving Tesla's goals. Tesla's goals is not to make money, rather change to sustainable energy, and having more currency does not always equate them having more compacity to achieve their goals. So how would what you propose help Tesla reach it's goals and not make it vulnerable to possible negative side effects by customers not agreeing with their tactics?

Cool, so the last part of your question poses another.
Which “customers” are not going to agree with the tactics? People intending to own the vehicle for 12-18 months? Probably not. People who failed to secure an early reservation and would normally look to scalpers? Unlikely, if they have another path that has some semblance of fairness.

To more directly address your question.
I believe there would be less vulnerability with a more robust and yet slightly restrictive contract for sale. People will buy it or they won’t, the demand is such that I think this is the low priority for Tesla

Removing the financial incentive for scalpers also makes clear the ratio of scalpers to genuine orders which can inform the auction volume for each territory.
more profit=R&D and potential for lower prices for reservation holders (especially if a significant profit is generated by queue jumps)…. Also if the Auctions lose popularity they know if the pricing is right or might need lowering.

What is absolutely clear, the pricing structure Tesla have right now is directly informed by the rate of scalping occurring.
What is confounding all of this discussion is the speculation of what ratio of reservations to undocumented demand.

What is also not fully understood is that over hype span of the previous few years that ratio is going to vary greatly. Which means queue jump supply and demand is also going to vary accordingly.

Allowing an equitable mechanism to queue jump will also mean Tesla can squeeze the maximum profit from all interested parties for the first few years of production. Whilst also showing those patient enough to queue what a bargain they are getting.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Just to clarify, my banter not directed at anyone I know of, I was postulating.

Must be fun to guess how much stupidity and extraneous chaff is being thrown by the comments replying!!

 

[charliemagpie]

Must be fun to guess how much stupidity and extraneous chaff is being thrown by the comments replying!!

Goodness, you got it in one.

Thats exactly how it is, it is like people here are talking to an interdimensional creature.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

I just asked ChatGPT to chime in.

Q:What strategies does Tesla implement to mitigate profit loss from scalpers?

A:
Tesla employs a number of strategies to mitigate profit loss from scalpers.
One strategy is to use technology to track and identify scalpers, such as using IP address tracking, browser fingerprinting, and other methods to identify and block multiple orders from a single individual.

Another strategy is to limit the number of vehicles that can be purchased per person. They also have implemented a referral program that rewards customers who refer friends to buy Tesla vehicles, this way they can ensure that the vehicles are going to actual drivers and not scalpers.

Additionally, Tesla has implemented a reservation system for their new models, which allows them to prioritize and distribute vehicles to customers who have actually reserved one and not to scalpers who try to buy in bulk.

They also have a policy of canceling orders that they suspect to be made by scalpers. Tesla also has implemented a policy of not allowing the resale of their vehicles for more than the original purchase price. This helps to prevent scalpers from turning a profit by reselling the vehicles at a markup.

It's worth noting that despite these strategies, scalping continues to be a problem for Tesla and other manufacturers, as scalpers are constantly developing new methods to bypass these measures.

Q: How is Teslas pricing affected by parasitic profiteering.

A:
Parasitic profiteering refers to the practice of buying a product at a low price and reselling it at a much higher price, often with minimal or no added value. In the case of Tesla, parasitic profiteering can affect the company's pricing in a few ways:

1. Increased prices for consumers: Scalpers buy Tesla vehicles in bulk and resell them at a markup, which can result in increased prices for consumers who want to buy a Tesla car. This can make Tesla vehicles less accessible and less affordable for some people.
2. Reduced demand for Tesla vehicles: When prices for Tesla vehicles increase due to parasitic profiteering, it can discourage some potential buyers from purchasing a Tesla car, which can lower the demand for Tesla vehicles.
3. Negative impact on Tesla's brand: When prices for Tesla vehicles increase due to parasitic profiteering, it can lead to negative perceptions of Tesla among some consumers and make Tesla less appealing to potential buyers.
4. Reduced profit for Tesla: When scalpers buy Tesla vehicles at a low price and resell them at a markup, they are taking profit away from Tesla. This can reduce Tesla's overall profit margin and make it harder for the company to invest in research and development, expansion, and other initiatives.

It's worth noting that Tesla and other manufacturers are constantly implementing new strategies to mitigate parasitic profiteering. However, scalpers are always developing new methods to bypass these measures, making it a continuous challenge for Tesla to control the problem.

 

[Dids]

What is the benefit of preventing bidding?

Takes too long. Each auction online would need to last a specific amount of time to allow participants to bid on a specific vehicle. Then the top bidder would turn out to be fraudulent unless you pre vetted all participants and would result in a no sale.
A descending MSRP offer prevents 1 malevolent from disrupting by bidding up.
Could also be a blind auction where each person submits an offer and at close of auction period top offer is accepted and next auction begins, but this also takes too long.
Much better is a descending price, the goal is after all to get the vehicles out at MSRP.

 

[cvalue13]

I postulate the counter argument that Tesla is largely unaffected by scalpers, to the point that they are not impacted enough to warrant a change in their sales strategy.

also, differentiate between individual “scalpers” (eg they ordered in earnest, later simply can’t ignore the financial opportunity) and systematic repeat players (eg used bots to auto-reserve dozens).

the “solutions” proposed in OP appear to make no distinction between these two practically and morally distinct contexts.

But the latter repeat player context doesn’t appear extensive (as evidenced by Teslas’s own policy decisions), meaning OPs suggestions distill down to addressing largely the individual context.

As for the individual context, it’s unclear this morally distinct scenario deserves the moral outrage, unclear that proposed “solutions” on balance do more good than harm (across any metric: marketing, customer satisfaction, moral outrage, etc.), and - based upon both instinct and the responses to this thread - nobody appears to find this controversial.

Early orders will experience some such individual “scalping,” as a minority of people are willing to pay a premium to be “first” while others value the ~unexpected windfall in cash. In its peak, these will still be fringe cases. Then if Tesla makes good on its production number statements, in a matter of months these incentives will dissipate, and what was fringe becomes rounding error.

This all seems self-evident by Tesla’s policies. One otherwise has to believe Tesla has failed to consider the topic at all to then think Tesla’s policies don’t already reflect a well reasoned, data-backed, investigation into the risk-adjusted answer.

 

[Crissa]

What is the difference to the market or Tesla if it’s a serial scalper or thousands of individuals doing it once?
There’s no difference at all.

The queue itself. Any incentive for scalpers to profit, and they will consume more and more pre-order slots, blocking other buyers from receiving their trucks at MSRP.

We can't be sure they haven't already done so.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

Pretty sure auto sales involve tax id. So unless that guy has many ss# it would show

"Straw buyers."

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

I just asked ChatGPT to chime in.

Q:What strategies does Tesla implement to mitigate profit loss from scalpers?

A:
Tesla employs a number of strategies to mitigate profit loss from scalpers.
One strategy is to use technology to track and identify scalpers, such as using IP address tracking, browser fingerprinting, and other methods to identify and block multiple orders from a single individual.

Another strategy is to limit the number of vehicles that can be purchased per person. They also have implemented a referral program that rewards customers who refer friends to buy Tesla vehicles, this way they can ensure that the vehicles are going to actual drivers and not scalpers.

Additionally, Tesla has implemented a reservation system for their new models, which allows them to prioritize and distribute vehicles to customers who have actually reserved one and not to scalpers who try to buy in bulk.

They also have a policy of canceling orders that they suspect to be made by scalpers. Tesla also has implemented a policy of not allowing the resale of their vehicles for more than the original purchase price. This helps to prevent scalpers from turning a profit by reselling the vehicles at a markup.

It's worth noting that despite these strategies, scalping continues to be a problem for Tesla and other manufacturers, as scalpers are constantly developing new methods to bypass these measures.

Q: How is Teslas pricing affected by parasitic profiteering.

A:
Parasitic profiteering refers to the practice of buying a product at a low price and reselling it at a much higher price, often with minimal or no added value. In the case of Tesla, parasitic profiteering can affect the company's pricing in a few ways:

1. Increased prices for consumers: Scalpers buy Tesla vehicles in bulk and resell them at a markup, which can result in increased prices for consumers who want to buy a Tesla car. This can make Tesla vehicles less accessible and less affordable for some people.
2. Reduced demand for Tesla vehicles: When prices for Tesla vehicles increase due to parasitic profiteering, it can discourage some potential buyers from purchasing a Tesla car, which can lower the demand for Tesla vehicles.
3. Negative impact on Tesla's brand: When prices for Tesla vehicles increase due to parasitic profiteering, it can lead to negative perceptions of Tesla among some consumers and make Tesla less appealing to potential buyers.
4. Reduced profit for Tesla: When scalpers buy Tesla vehicles at a low price and resell them at a markup, they are taking profit away from Tesla. This can reduce Tesla's overall profit margin and make it harder for the company to invest in research and development, expansion, and other initiatives.

It's worth noting that Tesla and other manufacturers are constantly implementing new strategies to mitigate parasitic profiteering. However, scalpers are always developing new methods to bypass these measures, making it a continuous challenge for Tesla to control the problem.

This time it's correct, since it's just paraphrasing evidence that already exists.

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

so you don’t know, but reassert that your statement is both true and accurate. Got it.



not the point. For simplicity I over-broadly used the terms “good will” and “loss leader” to make what I thought would be an obvious point: Ford “losing money” wrt MSRP vs production cost per unit is probably not counting all the buckets of value Ford attributes to bringing the lightning to market.

you then go on to list a few (not all!) of the other values Ford attributes to the Lightning.

so we agree.



no, chief - it’s because the “claim that the Cybertruck will be far superior to the Lightning” seemed like such a bizarre non-sequitur, as if you have Tesla-Tourette’s

@greggertruck : “resale premiums on Lightning’s have come way down”

@cvalue13 : “agreed, I mean I like my truck for $69K after incentives and at 3%, but raising to $89K with no incentives and >5% interest has really freed up inventory”

butting in, @‘ing me @HaulingAss : “the Cybertruck will be far superior to the Lightning”

so does that mean that on any given thread regardless of the content of the then-current discussion, you plan to just @ people with non-sequiter Tesla-Tourette’s?….



… I’ll take that as a ‘yes’

but since you insist on measuring truck lengths:

you’ve got me all wrong. I can love my lightning, and the idea of my forthcoming CT, simultaneously. I do currently like my lightning more than my CT, though, because the Lightning exists.

I just have no instinct for this brand of idolization you ooze; you talk about trucks with the valence that idealistic French teens talk about competing political ideologies.

Sometimes I wonder if what I’m missing - why it is I don’t care to schoolyard truck-measure with such fervor - is a fat, over-extended stake in TSLA?

Watching you non-sequitur style sh*t on Ford and force accolades on Tesla gives off the same sort of vibes as when you’re at a sports bar having a good time then one guy in the bar gets wildly emotional over the game… takes a moment before you realize that poor guy’s just got (too much) money on the game.

Wow! I can see I struck a nerve.

But what you call "idolization" is what I call comparing the known facts and coming to a rational conclusion. I don't have any problem with you liking your Ford Lightning, but I don't see how that makes you any less of a fan boy. I'm sure it's a lot better in most ways than my 2010 F-150, it better be for the price they are asking for it now.

I think it's cool you were able to get one of the early one's far below Ford's cost to produce. Good on you! But there is no reason to call my analysis by all sorts of emotionally loaded names, it just makes you look butt-hurt and emotional.

As to your first point, I'm not claiming to know Ford's exact cost to produce, down to the nearest $100, but that doesn't mean we don't know which range it falls into. And I didn't claim to know more than that.

 

[cvalue13]

And I didn't claim to know more than that.

you keep talking like anyone really cares about the validity of the contents of your statements. Nobody cares, far as I can tell. (Nor has anyone disputed them!)

Instead what was being discussed was whether those statements seemed both awkwardly non-sequitur as well as conveyed with a frothy sort of frantic, defensive, fan-boyness that’s embarrassing to read.

It’s cool - I’ll just have fun with it! Will try to remember to keep an eye out for when you’re discussing some topic with someone else, and I’ll fly in out of nowhere with nominally true but seemingly non-sequitur “facts” that I’ll convey with an almost frantic valence as though someone was just questioning my integrity, and when you respond I’ll always and only say basically “but what I said is true!!!!!!!!! But what I said is true!!!!!!”

[now is the point in the conversation where you ignore that observation, and instead respond further about how the content of your statements are correct…]

 

[Deleted member 3316]

also, differentiate between individual “scalpers” (eg they ordered in earnest, later simply can’t ignore the financial opportunity) and systematic repeat players (eg used bots to auto-reserve dozens).

the “solutions” proposed in OP appear to make no distinction between these two practically and morally distinct contexts.

But the latter repeat player context doesn’t appear extensive (as evidenced by Teslas’s own policy decisions), meaning OPs suggestions distill down to addressing largely the individual context.

As for the individual context, it’s unclear this morally distinct scenario deserves the moral outrage, unclear that proposed “solutions” on balance do more good than harm (across any metric: marketing, customer satisfaction, moral outrage, etc.), and - based upon both instinct and the responses to this thread - nobody appears to find this controversial.

Early orders will experience some such individual “scalping,” as a minority of people are willing to pay a premium to be “first” while others value the ~unexpected windfall in cash. In its peak, these will still be fringe cases. Then if Tesla makes good on its production number statements, in a matter of months these incentives will dissipate, and what was fringe becomes rounding error.

This all seems self-evident by Tesla’s policies. One otherwise has to believe Tesla has failed to consider the topic at all to then think Tesla’s policies don’t already reflect a well reasoned, data-backed, investigation into the risk-adjusted answer.

Congratulations… actually engaging the topic in a genuine manner.

I don’t agree with the speculative justifications but I too would be just speculating so to argue it would be pointless.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Takes too long. Each auction online would need to last a specific amount of time to allow participants to bid on a specific vehicle. Then the top bidder would turn out to be fraudulent unless you pre vetted all participants and would result in a no sale.
A descending MSRP offer prevents 1 malevolent from disrupting by bidding up.
Could also be a blind auction where each person submits an offer and at close of auction period top offer is accepted and next auction begins, but this also takes too long.
Much better is a descending price, the goal is after all to get the vehicles out at MSRP.

If time is the problem, set a finish with a 10min buffer and maximum bid count.

As is mentioned in the OP, funds must be put forward in order to bid so malevolent bidding is excluded.
Grays online process for multiple items sold simultaneously seems to work well. You can have multiple bidders for multiple items at differing /same values.

If it was a weekly event you would auction them all at the same time. 100 vehicles of the same specification 1st person to place the highest bid gets the first car.

• Start price is ~$50, I bid ~$100, the next 99 people bid ~$70.
• If no more bids I get the vehicle for $70.
• If one more person bids $80, they get a vehicle for $80 and so do I.
• The other 98 people get it for $70. The last person that bid $70 misses out until they match the higher price to bump off the last person.
• If you are absolutely determined to get the vehicle in that weeks auction simply bid higher than the week before to start with.

They could even have a weekly event at the delivery centre that would certainly generate interest in the first deliveries for each market.

Can you imagine the hype of the 1st reservation holder receiving their vehicle at MSRP(locked in for 12-18-24 months) then an Hour later a live event watching the last few minutes of the online auction?
Bidders actually present at delivery stadium?
The top price could easily hit $1million.

And because the money is already down and paperwork completed the winning bidder would simply summon their vehicle in the Tesla app, get in and leave, vehicle already set up to their Tesla profile.

Or to add a little more drama, close the auction by having the vehicles park in front of the winning bidders.

My main concern is a reverse auction is designed to drive the price down in a tender process. I say take advantage of the hype and push up the price for those that money is of little consequence.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

The queue itself. Any incentive for scalpers to profit, and they will consume more and more pre-order slots, blocking other buyers from receiving their trucks at MSRP.

We can't be sure they haven't already done so.

-Crissa

Yes, so making it challenging to on sell that vehicle or risky to buy from anyone that isn’t Tesla will free up those slots very quickly.
especially if there’s a weekly option to buy directly from Tesla.

Sponsored