为什么美国汽车经销商仍然是一个具有成本效益的选择

© Oliver WymanCONTENTSIntroductionContextMethodologyFindingsConclusion 3471219 © Oliver WymanINTRODUCTIONThere are some 18,000 franchised automotive dealerships operating in the US today.These dealers play a critical role in the retailing of new vehicles produced by domesticand foreign manufacturers for the US market. The independent franchised dealer modelemerged in the early 20th century as auto manufacturers (OEMs) sought ways to expandtheir distribution networks and reach large numbers of customers effectively whilefocusing their own constrained resources (people and capital) on their competencies(product development and manufacturingexpansion).As the automotive industry in the US matured, its growth slowed, and production marginsshrank, the focus of the OEMs shifted to maximizing efficiency and effectiveness (cuttingcosts and improving flexibility) across the value chain, including the cost of distributing newvehicles. The traditional franchised dealer model has been challenged most recently by newentrants such as Tesla going direct-to-consumer (DTC) and by some incumbents outside theUS experimenting with an agency model ofdistribution.With these developments, some OEM executives and industry observers have publiclyasserted that the traditional dealer model for mass market vehicles in the US is significantlymore expensive on a per vehicle basis, when compared to a DTC approach like Tesla’s.Our research emerged in response to this oft-repeated assertion. After an intense analyticalexamination supported by actual US auto sales and distribution cost data, this study foundthe assertion to be incorrect. In fact, it is the traditional franchised dealer channel thathas a lower net cost of distribution than the DTC andagency-like (Hybrid) channels whenoperating at mass market scale in theUS.Two unique aspects of our analysis drive thisresult:First, we remove from consideration the impact of non-channel-specific factors, which areoften conflated with channel choice, distorting the true “cost of the channel”. What arecommonly touted as advantages inherent to the DTC channel turn out to provide the samebenefit regardless of channel selection, and thus cannot be counted as a benefit to anyspecific channel. For example, low advertising spend or minimal inventory investment arechoices made “upstream” of channel selection and, as such, their savings cannot be creditedto channel strategy. When the impact of these non-channel-specific strategies is removed,our study found that dealers cost about the same in terms of gross distribution cost pervehicle as an equivalent DTC or Hybridchannel. © Oliver WymanSecond, we remind the industry that the net cost of distribution, defined as the “gross”channelcost offset by the incremental value delivered by the channel, is what matters. This — in ourview — serves as an optimal metric for channel comparison because every channel type bothincurs cost and generates value. For example, the DTC channel delivers the value of eliminatedintra-brand price competition, while the dealer channel delivers the value of customer-by-customer price optimization. When the relative value each channel delivers is accounted for,this study found that the net cost of distribution per vehicle is lower for the franchised dealerchannel than for the DTC or Hybrid channels, when operating at mass-market scale in theUS.CONTEXTThe franchised dealer model has been the predominant distribution system in the USautomotive market since it emerged in the early 20th century in response to the growingdemand for automobiles. The model operates as a network of authorized, independentlyowned dealerships representing the brands of a specific manufacturer, connecting themanufacturer to the consumer. Since its inception, the franchised dealer model hasflourished, resulting in a dense network of dealerships spanning urban and rural areasthat support the sale of millions of new cars and light trucks annually in theUS.Franchised dealerships provide a physical presence and point of contact for consumers intheir communities, allowing manufacturers to cater to diverse customer preferences andneeds, while ensuring that a wide range of vehicle options are readily available to buyersacross the country, often from local dealer inventories. Dealers have historically investedin local inventory, marketing, staff, and infrastructure, allowing manufacturers to focustheir time and money on their core competencies of designing, engineering, and producingvehicles. This collaborative approach has established a stable and sustainable businessenvironment by distributing risk andfinancial burden between OEMs and theirdealerships.In the spirit of exploring every avenue of improvement, OEMs have for many yearsexperimented with alternative distribution models and strategies. Examples include the now-defunct Ford Retail Network, where Ford directly owned and operated retail locations, andGM’s (also now defunct) Saturn brand, whose franchised deale