
Tesla and Tucker – Similarities Between Automakers - jonbaer
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a21094/what-tesla-needs-to-learn-from-tucker/
======
Animats
The law here is the FTC's "Mail Order Rule".[1] Properly, Tesla allows
consumers to cancel your order at any time and receive a full refund. The
other requirement is that if Tesla misses their ship date, they have to send
the consumer a letter with a new ship date and an option to cancel. That part
is "opt-out". If, 30 days after the original ship date, the product hasn't
shipped, a refund has to be sent unless the customer explicitly requests
otherwise. That part is "opt-in". The seller can't just keep the money at that
point.

This is why, if you're selling online, you have to make sure not to take
orders you can't fill in time. In the early days of the Internet, this was a
big problem, because many sites had online ordering systems that had no
connection to inventory control. By now, everybody with a clue knows to check
inventory in the shopping cart program.

[1] [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/bus...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/business-guide-ftcs-mail-internet-or-telephone-order)

~~~
rasz_pl
I seem to remember hearing in one of Computer History Museum interviews that
in the early days of home computers it was actually illegal to sell Computer
by mail :o !?

------
vvanders
Given Musk's legal jujutsu w/ SpaceX and ULA I think Tesla is much less
susceptible to similar issues.

It's just anecdotal evidence but it seems like Telsa has plenty of momentum
and real tangible products.

~~~
adventured
GM and Ford are drastically less powerful today than they were in Tucker's
time. By 1945-1950, GM was already the global leader in auto sales, and of
course Ford had been a juggernaut for some time as well.

That's the biggest difference.

Toyota, Honda, BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Nissan, Mazda - the
combination of those companies effectively neutered the old GM / Ford
political monster. It sucked the money out of the old Detroit political
machine, making it far less fearsome and influential in DC.

The GM / Ford that Musk is facing off against, is a joke compared to what it
used to be able to bring to the table in terms of abusing the system to stop
competition.

~~~
Shivetya
However as GM has proved that they can pivot quickly and bring a product to
market faster than Tesla. They have the supplier relationships needed as well
as the manufacturing and testing expertise to do so. They key is having
management that wants to do it.

I suspect Ford could as well but their leadership isn't as willing to change
direction as GMs does.

~~~
Grishnakh
Perhaps, but GM also has a worse reputation than Ford among buyers. Ford's
reputation among the American brands is the best, while GM's is not that
great, though Chrysler's is even worse.

If I want to buy a reliable, high-quality car that I know is going to last 10
years and not have the interior plastics all looking nasty and faded and
falling apart after a mere half-decade, GM is one of the last brands I'd think
of. No one thinks that Cadillacs are serious competition to real luxury cars
like Mercedes.

I think Tesla would do much better partnering with a Japanese automaker. They
know how to build high-quality cars in high volume, and they have great
reputations too, which is important if you're trying to sell $100k cars.

~~~
Grishnakh
I'll also add that if they have to partner with an American automaker, Ford is
surely the best choice as long as they don't stick that ugly blue oval logo on
their cars. Ford has a lot of experience partnering with other brands in
mutually-beneficial relationships: they did it before with both Volvo and
Mazda. In both cases, it seems like all 3 companies benefited from the
arrangement.

------
S_A_P
The article is ok I guess. Although I think this is more a book plug than true
analysis. I've often thought of the tesla/tucker parallel and how hard it is
to get a foothold in a capital intensive business as a start up. However I
don't think the parallels stick. Tesla has built and delivered a sizable
number of cars. I think the political influence of the big 3 is much lower now
as well. For tesla, I think that it's survival hinges upon delivering the
model 3 on time and at high quality. Along with a lot of other things going
right as well. I probably make about 50k too little to comfortably afford a
model x but I would love to own one some day. Quirks and all.

~~~
gutnor
> I think that it's survival hinges upon delivering the model 3 on time and at
> high quality

... and in sufficient quantities. They have proven the technology, the
approach and the readiness of the market. The last thing they need to prove is
their capacity to scale.

If they achieve their target (i.e. Model 3 generally available in 2018), they
will have built a serious lead over the competition - meaning several years
(at least 2) on that sweet sweet market unchallenged.

Of course, Tesla has failed to deliver in time, at expected price or in
expected quantities before. Time will tell.

~~~
S_A_P
Agree. This is the biggest risk. Right now I think they have enough cache that
I would jump to electric for them where I may be too skeptical to buy an
electric ford. Delivering high quantity with high quality on time will almost
guarantee success.

------
vatotemking
Public perception is big factor too. In Tucker's time info is disseminated via
radio. If the radio host is bias and hostile towards your business, then good
luck. Now we have internet.

------
pmarreck
"Tucker: A Man And His Dream" was a good movie. I too thought of the Musk
parallel many times.

