How Hard Would It Be For Mazda To Do This?

[Xeler8ing]

Yes, they can do it and they can actually make money doing it. They don't do for reasons of Politics. Maybe this side note video will help you understand:

It can be done because the current model is so way overpriced that there is plenty enough room underneath for radical change, transformation and revenue potential for the OEMs that dare do it.

This isn't just about the revenue.

In order for Mazda to switch to your proposed model, they would need a huge reserve of capital to buy out the dealers. They don't have said capital.

Exactly what ColoradoDriver said. They just don't have the cash/capital etc to go down this path.

Mazda is an independent(ish Hello Toyota stake) automobile company but they are quite small worldwide in terms of funds, revenue etc

 

[Guest2018]

Tesla lost $619M last quarter, and the trend is the more vehicles they make, the more money they lose. So far, the production rate of the Model 3 is about an order of magnitude less than what was planned. If they can't even make money on their high priced models, it will take a miracle to make the Model 3 profitable. In contrast, Mazda actually makes money.

The exact inverse is actually true. Tesla is still in the R&D/Innovation stage. Tesla is developing a new vehicle technology. They are not selling into an already existing market - they are literally building that market as we type. Those two things (innovating and developing new markets) will always (without question) cost more money to do. The inverse is true because at this stage of Tesla's history, they are actually ahead of the Revenue/Cost relative ratio when compared to traditional automobile start-ups of the past. Given that trajectory, Tesla is slated to be not just one of the most but the most successful auto manufacturers the world has ever seen. Again, this is not going to happen over night.

As oil exploration costs continue to soar because platforms have to continually drill deeper to tap reserves, as other processes such as shale prove to be cost-ineffective over time, as we approach 'standardized extraction method' peak oil and as middle income salaries continue to erode over time, expect the need for long-range personal transportation that does not cost an arm and a leg to refuel and/or maintain to become more than just fashionable as it might be today. Tesla, is on the cutting edge of a paradigm change not merely in automotive engineering technology but in scaleable economic theory as theory.

Tesla, is a cake not yet done in the oven. Remove the cake and judging it now would be tantamount to removing Ford's Assembly Line and judging it before the Model T had reached peek production. Optimization is taking place across Tesla in a number of different ways. Again, it takes time to get right. They paid back their government loans ahead of schedule, remember.

Cessna CJ4 - Your model for white glove, door to door service is wonderful, but wildly unrealistic for the price class you bought into. Would you be willing to pay extra for the rental vehicle, the extra cost for towing your vehicle to/from the repair facility, and the cost of having the rental vehicle dropped off and picked up from your door?

The cost reductions that are inherent in the new model itself offset such drastic encumbrance on the Consumer. This is the entire point. The new model would actually be far more efficient to operate and require less overhead than the current dealer model. It would also offer internal optimization the current dealer model cannot offer itself - because the current dealer model is in competition with itself and therefore aggregate optimization is anathema to that model by logical extension and definition.

The current dealer model is not merely broken - it literally makes no economic sense. It is highly inefficient from a Revenue/Cost standpoint and when put side-by-side with what the other model could offer (if people would actually study it), represents the continuance of a prehistoric dinosaur-like infatuation with the highly illogical and irrational. We've become so accustomed to being patently ripped-off inside the Dealer Model, that we don't even recognize ourselves as being that proverbial Frog in a pot of water that grows increasing hotter every single year. $50 for one quart of Differential Gear Oil! Really? That's what one dealer recently quoted me as my out the door price for one (1) quart.

We need a new model. If people would simply think it through, they would see that it could actually work out to everyone's benefit - except the current dealerships.

Converting over to a direct sales and service model would require them to either buy out most of their dealers, or abandon their dealers and build new dealerships of their own.

What's the cost to benefit ratio for scaling economic growth within a company? What's the cost to benefit ratio for innovation that increases customer satisfaction? Mazda could double its current revenues by implementing such a model long term. What's that worth? In the process, how many more satisfied Mazda owners would there be? What kind of Mazda owner today would actually claim they don't want such a level of optimized service from the company that produces their vehicle? The only people talking like that are those that have not done the homework on how such a new model would indeed work, or those who have ties with the current failed Dealer Model. No real Mazda owner would deny such an improvement in their relationship with the company that makes their vehicle. Not one. It would be highly irrational for me having just bought a brand new CX-9 Signature, to say: "No thanks, Mazda. I don't want your concierge service and I don't want your careful handling of my vehicle at a reasonable price. I'd much rather create problems that did not exist in my vehicle whenever I bring it to you. And, I prefer that you charge me 100% more than I should be charged for creating those extra problems for me. Thank you."

Nobody in the right or left mind would say such a thing.

We need a new model that works for both parties and illuminates the costly middle man. You are looking at this from a Middle Man perspective and yes, looking at it that way sure, it would cost Mazda an arm and a leg to bring such service to its customers. But, that's not what the new model would require. The newer model would offer lower costs of operation than the current one, more revenue streams from the OEM standpoint (as they both sell and maintain now), offer clear paths towards optimization of internal units and lay down a pathway towards greatly improving customer relationship long term.

The only thing holding this back right now are Politics, Politicians, Lobbyists and Disinformation leading to Misinformed opinions not based in empirical study and/or qualitative estimates of cost recovery and potential revenue growth - mostly being spread by failed old model operatives.

This can work. The people just have to step up and start demanding better for their dollar. Heck, you earned that dollar! You have some say as to how that dollar gets spent and what happens to you (and your vehicle) as a customer after you spend it.

They don't have the capital to do that, and they would risk killing their sales in the interim.

They would have more capital then they can count. It would be a significant boom for Mazda, principally because they are not Tesla and they would not have the costs associated with a company on the cutting edge of automotive technology while at the same time breaking open new markets. This is why Tesla, is not now flush with cash as they will be in the future. Mazda, has an established brand and roughly 2% market share in the United States. There is enormous potential here. CEO, Masahiro Moro, says he want's a "good 2% market share." Yet, he argues for the impossible at this point. He also says he wants a "small but profitable company with profitable dealers and loyal buyers." He can have three out of three if he wants, but not in the current failed dealership model. Masahiro Moro, can also more than double his market share in the United States, by introducing something truly needed - something he says he wants.

You become successful in business by giving customers what the want, what they need, when they want or need it and with a level of service/support that instills confidence in their mind that a longer term relationship is not merely warranted but an outright guarantee. He's got a good product line which is only going to get better. He's got a great OEM process that is only going to get better. Why not seal the deal by offering the customer a level of service after the sale that will only get better with time. That's how he goes from 2% to 4% and beyond. All this talk about remaining "small" at Mazda, is only because they've had so much difficulty breaking out in the US over the years. So, they've become accustomed to thinking "small" - believing that's all they can do. I think they can break out, take more market share than they ever dreamed possible by offering something that nobody else is offering.

Innovation does not always have to be purely Technological. Sometimes innovation can come through reoriented Process, Methodology and Principles. I believe Mazda is the perfect candidate to make this happen now.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

You speak a lot of "will have", "would have". What you're missing is the current "don't have".

 

[Xeler8ing]

Mazda is small worldwide not just in America.

America is not the be all end all market.

 

[Guest2018]

i actually have, both GM and Mazda. Nothing but great experiences and both dealers have stepped up when a "gray area" in vehicular work came up. I have very positive feelings toward both companies when it comes to the integrity of their dealerships when dealing with issues.

I've owned nothing but brand newly purchased flagships in Mitsubishi, Toyota, GM, Ford, Dodge, Chrysler, BMW and now Mazda. The only dealer I've ever felt good about was my Mazda dealer (thus far). I'm having a brand new experience about actually feeling good as a direct result of the dealer and vehicle I bought. This is brand new territory for me. With all other dealers, I've had to solve problems on my own - many of them created by the Dealer itself - or just flat out give up on the vehicle.

Flagships, everyone of them. Did not matter. The CX-9 is the only flagship vehicle I've felt confident driving in many (many) years. That's a shame and an indictment of a large portion of the industry. This needs to change. I think Mazda is in a good position to make that change happen - whether it will admit it or not is horse of another color entirely.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

(iagree)





Agreed on the electric car subsidies.

To the bolded, honestly, already have. The 2017 CX-5 does nothing for me. I am really not a fan of that move to try to go upscale. I didn't enjoy sitting in one. It completely lost that "feel" I have sitting in and driving mine. Mazda has a niche, why try to be like everybody else?

Edit: To answer OP's question posed in the title. Incredibly hard. Mazda simply does not have the cash to do this.

The irony is, Mazda is moving up market so they can make more money on similar sales volume. The Mazda you like and prefer, will die if it doesn't change its business model.

 

[Guest2018]

Also that subsidy for electric cars may be going away. $7,500 to help someone who is probably making better money than most buy a more expensive than average car... ok

Sure, the current POTUS has to pay for tax cutting for corporate interests he does not believe in somehow. Why would a president who does not believe in global warming fail to go after EV tax subsidies, especially when his favorite corporate models need the tax cuts themselves. Don't forget about the proposed removal of "Exemptions" on your 1040. That's being targeted as well to pay for more corporate tax cuts of the no so global warming kind. I guess we all have our priorities.

Mazda and every other auto manufacturer out there could bring to market a reduced price vehicle just the way you want it and without placing extra undue stress on their existing business model. They just have to be willing to cut the middle man and get down to the brass tacks of economic efficiency through optimizing service delivery after the sale. Boosting customer confidence and loyalty as a direct result would be the inevitable outcome of such thinking.

 

[Guest2018]

Agree. The electric car subsidies are ridiculous.

As far as Mazda is concerned, the appeal for many over the years was the availability of fun-to-drive, simple, affordable and reliable cars. Mazda has tried going upscale before with the Millenia without success.
Most Japanese makers had to develop luxury brands -Lexus (Toyota), Infinity (Nissan), Acura (Honda) to launch premium models as their base brands were considered reliable yet economical options. Mazda tried to launch the Amati luxury brand in the early 90's but couldn't make it fly.
I think Mazda will lose some of their base if they keep moving into the crowded upscale market and their products lose appeal to some current buyers (e.g. 2017 CX's softer suspension and lack of manual tranny is a turnoff to some).

So, remain at 2% in the US and accept manifest destiny as the final outcome. Ok, but that won't bring about the change that 88% of automobile buyers say they want: Better treatment of their vehicle after the sale. Better treatment won't come from the majority within the current model.

For those that do have good dealers who charge fair prices, don't cause problems that did not exist prior and who handle all vehicles with care, hallelujah and pass the differential fluid. However, for the majority of people out there this is not the case and only a major shift in the paradigm will change that. I just think that Mazda is in a unique position now to do something about it - of course, they would take the same heat from the Continuum Crowd that Tesla is talking right now.

Change ain't easy. But, doing the right thing should be.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Sure, the current POTUS has to pay for tax cutting for corporate interests he does not believe in somehow. Why would a president who does not believe in global warming fail to go after EV tax subsidies, especially when his favorite corporate models need the tax cuts themselves. Don't forget about the proposed removal of "Exemptions" on your 1040. That's being targeted as well to pay for more corporate tax cuts of the no so global warming kind. I guess we all have our priorities.

Oh good lord. (braindead

Politics aside, why should I be paying for someone else to buy something? You want to buy an electric car, fine, go buy it. Shouldn't be using MY money to do it. The subsidy is ridiculous, and absolutely should be done away with on principle.

 

[Guest2018]

(iagree)

Edit: To answer OP's question posed in the title. Incredibly hard. Mazda simply does not have the cash to do this.

Equity is not the problem for Mazda. Politics and Disinformation for the most part are the problems.

This would start paying for itself almost immediately and would actually be run at an annual cost basis that equals a fraction of that now necessary to run and operate all Mazda dealerships in the world. Calculate the hard and soft costs to operate a typical Mazda dealership per year. Now, cut that cost by 40% to 70% in some cases. By my calculations, Mazda could operate one (1) OEM Maintenance & Service Facility for 60% to 30% of existing dealership costs and that's before the internal optimization begins.

How could Mazda not win here. In fact, they are actually losing revenues by not implementing this as far as I can calculate. What's the typical annual lease rate (for land) cost for a Mazda dealership these days. Back out commissions paid to sales reps. Back out salaries paid to managers. Back out salaries paid to GMs. Back out salaries paid to sales support staff. Reduce physical lot size requirements by as much as 40% to 80% in some cases (this is where some of the real analysis becomes critically important). Now, build out your network of OEM facilities with the right footprint and logistics to meet servicing demand for that region. Staff it appropriately (all you need are Technicians and a tiny Administrative/Customer Service staff). The rest is equipment, tools, concierge/temp vehicles (including a couple fixed position tow trucks), well apportioned vending machines and a comfortable/relaxing customer seating area (all fixed one time costs). Staff/Personal Salaries & Benefits Packages, Insurance, Janitorial Services, Wifi, Satellite TV, water, sensitization & hazardous waste disposal, electrical and heating (all monthly recurring costs).

That package can be logistically positioned such that it cost far less than the typical dealership to operate annually. In addition, it would far more than pay for itself on that same annual basis as a direct result of the new revenues the facility generates daily/immediately. If you planned the implementation of network of facilities appropriately, each facility would have optimal customer flow and thus optimal revenues without one starving the other due to poor logistical arrangement and/or direct competition. So, the logistical implementation here would also be critical to success.

Now, in addition to Scheduled and Un-Scheduled Maintenance, Service and Repair revenues add in low cost revenue enhancers to each facility such as:

- OEM Professional Auto Detailing
- OEM Professional Auto Customization (I love this one!)
- New Tire Sales (without the need for tremendous retail mark-up)

Right now, I'm looking for Performance Parts to customize my new CX-9 Sig. I can't find them anywhere because they don't (yet) exist widely enough in the aftermarket. What if, I could take a nice drive out to my regional Mazda OEM Maintenance & Repair Facility, walk down an isle containing not just "performance parts" but OEM Specific Mazda Performance Parts - and hold on - have them installed that day by a fully Trained Mazda OEM Technician who knows and understands my vehicle better than anyone - and for a cost to me that does not rob the bank.

Hello? Who does not want that level of convenience, service and access to everything they need for their new Mazda.

Now, toss in Used Mazda Customers and that's where the explosion in brand new revenues come in like a tidal wave. Serve those customers in the exact same way as all New Mazda Customers and bingo - game changer done.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Equity is not the problem for Mazda. Politics and Disinformation for the most part are the problems.

This would start paying for itself almost immediately and would actually be run at an annual cost basis that equals a fraction of that now necessary to run and operate all Mazda dealerships in the world. Calculate the hard and soft costs to operate a typical Mazda dealership per year. Now, cut that cost by 40% to 70% in some cases. By my calculations, Mazda could operate one (1) OEM Maintenance & Service Facility for 60% to 30% of existing dealership costs and that's before the internal optimization begins.

Again....what is your answer to them buying out the current dealers? Something has to be done with them before they could implement this. Mazda can't afford that.

 

[Kaps]

The exact inverse is actually true. Tesla is still in the R&D/Innovation stage. Tesla is developing a new vehicle technology. They are not selling into an already existing market - they are literally building that market as we type. Those two things (innovating and developing new markets) will always (without question) cost more money to do. The inverse is true because at this stage of Tesla's history, they are actually ahead of the Revenue/Cost relative ratio when compared to traditional automobile start-ups of the past. Given that trajectory, Tesla is slated to be not just one of the most but the most successful auto manufacturers the world has ever seen. Again, this is not going to happen over night.

As oil exploration costs continue to soar because platforms have to continually drill deeper to tap reserves, as other processes such as shale prove to be cost-ineffective over time, as we approach 'standardized extraction method' peak oil and as middle income salaries continue to erode over time, expect the need for long-range personal transportation that does not cost an arm and a leg to refuel and/or maintain to become more than just fashionable as it might be today. Tesla, is on the cutting edge of a paradigm change not merely in automotive engineering technology but in scaleable economic theory as theory.

Tesla, is a cake not yet done in the oven. Remove the cake and judging it now would be tantamount to removing Ford's Assembly Line and judging it before the Model T had reached peek production. Optimization is taking place across Tesla in a number of different ways. Again, it takes time to get right. They paid back their government loans ahead of schedule, remember.

This literally seems like paid advert for Tesla. Oil exploration costs and people not being able to afford etc etc. I have done a lot of maths and here is real truth - for 12K miles per year including oil changes and electric with 120 mpge will save you 700 dollars or so. Teslas do 80 mpge or so, the 3 will hit 100ish so it will save you less.
Paid supercharger or third party charging is expensive on long trips - so it will cut into your savings. Now i understand salaries are low but most of the USA can pay 750 to 800 extra for their gas cars. Tesla S is notorious for burning through the 19 21 inch wheels and no one has seen plenty of model S on roads with 300K trouble free miles.

Most important point is this - currently tesla loses more money every time it sells a car. How long can Tesla go sinking millions every quarter? 5 years - 7 years? 13 Years? Only Tesla and Uber in fortune 500 have burned money for so long. Very few other companies do this and even then it is not for long.
What are the sales of Model S? 20K something for 2017 - most European countries that encourage electrics are sort of saturated, China will favor its own manufacturers over Tesla and if Tesla has to sell in China its mostly a JV which is very very risky. EVs in America are going to have a hard time since its a huge country.
Bolt / Zoe / Leaf with 150 miles and Ford's new 200 mile EV will all eat into Tesla's sale. Nothing short of a home run from Tesla will do which depends on Musk being able to make 20000 a month to make it work.

Tesla sold 250ish model 3s - target was 12500. Few of those 3s were shipped to the dealers without seats and the center iPad. Can you believe this? In a car where A/C dome lights Speedo meter and everything is shown and controlled via the iPad - Tesla sent model 3s to its dealers without this very core part of the car. The seats and iPAds were shipped later and installed. This has happened many many times as per their dealers since the S came out.
Plus fitment and alignment issues. Remember the days of model S leaking when it rained? You cannot compare Tesla build quality with a 7 series or an S class. If you do - you are mostly a geek who has not driven those vehicles.
Heck i can say Tesla 3s build quality will be behind that of Honda and Toyota as well.

Its a very nice concept but the market competition is about to get fierce. Imagine what BMW / Jaguar will bring with their automotive experience - It wont be 2inches panel gaps. Tesla might start the EV revolution but it has burnt so much cash and so much depends on the 3 - I am not willing to bet on it. Bullish on their chances. And factor in a recall or build issues - factor in the hordes of unwashed 3 owners choking the supercharger network pissing of the S and X owners.

Tesla has been sued by owners of X and S who were promised autonomous car from Cali to NY by 2017 and they were charged $8000 ahead of time. Tesla's success depends largely on Musk raising more money - the 3.5 Billion cash reserves they have will be eaten up by 3 production ramp up / automation.

 

[sjtilney]

All of this is based on the fact that most people hate negotiating prices. It doesn't need to be as stressful as people make it.
Research the car you want online, pick all the features and color you want.
Leave your checkbook at home, and go test drive the car at your closest dealership.
If you like it, email every dealership within a 150 mile radius of your house. Tell them the exact car you want (color and features), let them know other dealerships are competing for you business. They will respond with their lowest possible offer.
Make an appointment to go pickup your new car, at the price you negotiated online. You'll be out of the dealership in under an hour.

 

[Guest2018]

Oh good lord. (braindead

Politics aside, why should I be paying for someone else to buy something? You want to buy an electric car, fine, go buy it. Shouldn't be using MY money to do it. The subsidy is ridiculous, and absolutely should be done away with on principle.

How much did you pay as an individual tax payer for the Pentagon to lose $2.3 trillion? You do remember that it said it lost (could not account for) nearly $2.3 trillion American tax payer dollars just one day before September 11th, 2001, don't you? Most have forgotten that. What other subsidies are you paying for as an individual tax payer that does nothing to improve air quality or the lives of anyone anywhere for that matter? You pay subsidies to Drug Companies who then get hit with liability lawsuits every single year because the drugs the sold caused harm in numbers too large to be ignored or pushed under the rug (and those are just the kind that get called to the surface).

Yet, subsidizing the interest in an electric vehicle (which sooner or later we will all be driving - let's just be clear about that fact) that actually benefits society by removing toxic waste from our environment is not something worthy of subsidy? Ok, let's take away the subsidy for EV. Now, would that include the LEAF, or are you just wanting to remove them from Tesla buyers because they can afford to buy a more expensive car/suv? Or, do we take the incentives away because they have not worked?

I look forward to the day when incentives to do the right thing are not a requirement of mankind - that we just do what's right because its the right thing to do. Kinda like not getting raked over the coals by a Dealer wanting to rip me off merely because they can rip me off. It would be nice not having those dealers in the majority but unfortunately, they are in the majority. And, that's what I'm calling out.

How many people actually know what's happening to their vehicle behind their back when it is under the care of their "friendly" dealer? Are traps being set? Are future repair bills being set that you don't know about? Is your total cost of ownership being driven up by your dealership mechanic because problems are being created that you did not drive in with and you won't figure out until miles down the road later? All of the above has happened to me with multiple dealers of different OEM brands. I'm most certainly not the only one it has happened to. How many times have we heard from people: "Every since I took my vehicle to the dealer after XYZ date, it has never been the same." We consistently hear this and have been hearing it now for Decades.

This model has got to change for the better.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

How much did you pay as an individual tax payer for the Pentagon to lose $2.3 trillion? You do remember that it said it lost (could not account for) nearly $2.3 trillion American tax payer dollars just one day before September 11th, 2001, don't you? Most have forgotten that. What other subsidies are you paying for as an individual tax payer that does nothing to improve air quality or the lives of anyone anywhere for that matter? You pay subsidies to Drug Companies who then get hit with liability lawsuits every single year because the drugs the sold caused harm in numbers too large to be ignored or pushed under the rug (and those are just the kind that get called to the surface).

Yet, subsidizing the interest in an electric vehicle (which sooner or later we will all be driving - let's just be clear about that fact) that actually benefits society by removing toxic waste from our environment is not something worthy of subsidy? Ok, let's take away the subsidy for EV. Now, would that include the LEAF, or are you just wanting to remove them from Tesla buyers because they can afford to buy a more expensive car/suv? Or, do we take the incentives away because they have not worked?

There are plenty of subsidies I don't agree with and think are wrong. But hey, they are not the ones up for discussion in this thread now are they? This is a car thread after all. So what the hell is your point? Stop trying to change the subject.

Oh really...Greeny weenie preaching the boons of an EV subsidy? Ah yes you live in Commiefornia I see...Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Still waiting on an answer to previous question. I'll wait.

 

[Guest2018]

Again....what is your answer to them buying out the current dealers? Something has to be done with them before they could implement this. Mazda can't afford that.

No different than any Buy Out would be. It becomes part of your long-range corporate budgeting strategy. Mazda can afford to buy its dealerships several times over, if it truly wanted to. It certainly would not take $1bln to make it happen and that's currently 10.9% of Mazda's total market cap of $9.1bln as of today at the closing bell. Mazda grew at 4.64% last year with annual revenues of $29.7bln and annual profits of $866mln.

While it would be "strategic" to make such a move, it would certainly be well within Mazda's balance sheet to make it happen. What makes this possible is that in the US, Mazda only represents 2% of the market and they do not have a massive dealer network like other entrenched players. This is also one of the reasons why I say that Mazda is in a unique position in history to make this happen. Their overall structure makes this doable... now.

 

[Puyapim]

The days of plentiful 0bama subsidies to Tesla are over and the stock has been hit in recent days because of this and supply issues. Elon and his shell game tactics of boosting stock prices with “big announcements “ followed by sales of shares to boost Tesla have been known and its time they stop. Tesla should survive on its own and if they cannot then that is what the result should be.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

The days of plentiful 0bama subsidies to Tesla are over and the stock has been hit in recent days because of this and supply issues. Elon and his shell game tactics of boosting stock prices with “big announcements “ followed by sales of shares to boost Tesla have been known and its time they stop. Tesla should survive on its own and if they cannot then that is what the result should be.

(iagree)

 

[Guest2018]

This literally seems like paid advert for Tesla. Oil exploration costs and people not being able to afford etc etc.

Its an unpaid solicitation for Mazda to step out and do something both much needed and very extraordinary in a world where the vehicle buying customer is being literally shredded to death by the Middle Man.

I have done a lot of maths and here is real truth - for 12K miles per year including oil changes and electric with 120 mpge will save you 700 dollars or so. Teslas do 80 mpge or so, the 3 will hit 100ish so it will save you less.

I'd rather compare the Tesla of today vs the Tesla of tomorrow and then juxtapose that could mean for society as a whole. Mazda getting into Electric Vehicles is a different subject entirely. I mentioned it in contrast to someone else saying that Mazda and Toyota were teaming up on an electric project. I suggested that Mazda seemed like a better match for Koenigsegg's electric development program as what they will be coming out with should be light years ahead of anything Toyota is currently working on and Mazda would receive the benefit of being able to implement that technology in its future electric vehicles while standing side-by-side with a true Hypercar Manufacturer.

Mazda becoming an electric giant at this stage is not my concern. Tesla, will work out its issues with its own technology as time progresses and become not just profitable but highly profitable - no different than any other company that put itself on the cutting edge of innovation (not an easy thing to accomplish). Mazda stepping out and becoming a truly new and independent type of auto manufacturer that sets itself even further apart in the way it treats its customers by providing OEM level care to their vehicles after the sale, is my concern. I think Mazda is positioned nicely to bring that about.

Its a very nice concept but the market competition is about to get fierce.

Which is a very good reason to Be Different and Be Consistently Good in ways that the competition will not or cannot. Mazda has more flexibility than say Toyota does right now to do something like this, as Mazda would not have the same initial cost factors to deal with being a much smaller player here in the US. The US would make for a great test best for such a new direct to consumer model with high effective post-sale service that produces more revenues for Mazda, more loyalty to its brand from current Mazda owners and that opens new avenues to acquiring new customers which Mazda definitely needs right now.

 

[Guest2018]

There are plenty of subsidies I don't agree with and think are wrong. But hey, they are not the ones up for discussion in this thread now are they? This is a car thread after all. So what the hell is your point? Stop trying to change the subject.

Oh really...Greeny weenie preaching the boons of an EV subsidy? Ah yes you live in Commiefornia I see...Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Still waiting on an answer to previous question. I'll wait.

Then why bring subsidies into the thread in the first instance if the thread was about Mazda creating a new business model that imports more loyal customers and strengthens its brand image across all models? Check with whomever brought up the $7,500 subsidy in the first place. Maybe they can explain to you why they did.