Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
You lost me...GM doesn't have direct control over their dealers, but they DID just let go of MANY of the underperforming ones, so that's a non-debatable issue, imo. Regardless if you or I consider them the "face of GM".
And the screwdriver analogy....I -...huh?  |
How does GM letting go of dealers that are not making them enough money have to do with dealing with dealerships that have customer service issues? And GM's standard line that they have no control over the dealerships is an excuse. How bout keep dealers must keep customer service complaints below x if they x number of allocations for what ever car. Or charge back the dealer for warrenty work involved with a CS incident etc, etc. GM could, if it had the inclination to, control its dealers.
I would think with the government money they would take some government advice. They influence things they have no direct control over all the time, mostly using the power of the purse. If you don't believe that try to by a 17 year old a beer or drive by a cop without your seat belt
"Coldpants then went on an extended rant about unfunded mandates to his cat and then it promptly vomited."
Screwdriver analogy-> Real world car example. Car is built to do burnouts. Car does burnouts. Warrenty is voided.