An open letter to Ford.

[1Five1 Garage]

At least they are coming out with Raptor and special additions like the Everglades which no mortal will be able to afford do to ADM.

They will make those a priority which will keep the hype going.

By the way, those build dates will slip father out. It you even get one.

Sponsored

 

[Bob 07064]

My wife’s dealer laughed at her first day reservation, called it “worthless.” Actually said she’d be better off not using it.

Kinda true... In my signature is my history. I ordered another 2dr just before Thanksgiving and my build week is 3/21.

 

[CentralFLBronco]

Yes

 

[22OBX]

So new member believes without any proof or documentation of any law, article, post, etc. that Ford's lawyers approved the original terms and left them up on a website for about five months while Ford generated the first 190K or so reservations. A fine conspiracy theory I suppose... That the deviously clever dealers who followed the written terms and conditions that Ford set up all by themselves were somehow responsible for Ford writing them, Imagine that, the Great and Powerful FMC tricked by some country bumpkin dealers into breaking the (mysterious and unmentioned scary) laws that new member cannot specify or reference aside from a personal belief.



Now new member is pretending that their personal belief (with not a single shred of corroboration or even the tiniest bit of any documented emails, phone calls, etc.) is an established fact (circular reasoning, go look it up) and uses it to flat out state as a further fact that Ford and the dealers were in collusion because they were all in the know that Ford was going to add allocations after the fact instead of going with the expressly written policies that were in effect (nod, nod, wink, wink) at reservation time. (not sure how that would excuse Ford because they are the ones that would have had to tell all the dealers that the posted reservation terms and conditions was a scam and would not be built in order (and first) without allocations (they did keep the allocations tied to the First Editions, like they implicitly stated by their policy was to happen to all reservations) A bit of a modification to the post slightly earlier as it would mean that Ford and the dealers all knew allocations would be added, so it is not that Ford was not tricked by the small dealers, but it was a collusion that Ford and the dealers were all in on.

A massive conspiracy that requires Ford to have masterminded it from the start. That is the linchpin of the entire premise if any/all dealers 'knew' what was going to come later.





The sheep that follows the guy claiming Ford masterminded the above notated fraud. Gotta have some of those in a conspiracy theory or it is just plain no fun.



It is getting complex, this theory of yours, however I am still mostly able to follow your reasoning to make it fit together;

The dealers that (had to know from Ford in advance that the allocations would be added and they would never fill those orders in a timely manner. (which you originally thought were the masterminds that made Ford write the terms and conditions that were illegal in your mind)) offered good deals because they would not have to actually fill them in any kind of short term way and that they are not ethical (although they have not added ADM or sold Bronco's out from under people like the 'ethical' dealers who did not get a lot of orders.*)

I am still not clear on why you think Ford and all their dealers would go to this elaborate ruse to screw over people who reserved and chose dealers based on the original (and apparently well thought out and coordinated lie Ford put out at the start of reservations), when Ford doesn't even bother to use the number of reservations a dealer has when coming up with the allocation numbers. Was it just to generate the huge reservation numbers to pump up the stock? That actually might made sense. Do the dealers get bonuses based on stock price? They had to get something, right? A conspiracy of over 3300 Ford dealers, Ford itself, at least a few employees at each dealer, and not a single one blurted out about this collusion... had to be a lot of kickbacks on this one.

Sherlock Holmes could not have done a better job at ferreting out the truth based solely on a hunch without a shred of proof, documentation, logic, or common sense. Kudos to a job well done!



*you may want to look in a dictionary for 'ethical', I do not think it means what you think it means.

It is what is and all have our own opinions, experience and research and I have followed the Bronco news and I saw what was out there day 1. Dealers new allocations would be put in place and were locking down sales $$. You are tied to your dealer and your time stamp is being built in order (if buildable) for the orders your dealer has not all orders that Ford has. I do agree it should be easier to move to other dealers. I’m not an apologist I just think there is greed from the dealers, overselling allocation , ADM’s, and stories post after post of dealers “stealing” orders all which fall into the definition of not being ethical (pertaining to right and wrong in conduct). Sorry I didn’t mean to offend anyone sharing my views based on my observations and experience in the car market. I really joined this forum to connect with others that had like interest in the Bronco, not get into debates in theories of why some don’t have their bronco.

 

[North7]

It is what is and all have our own opinions, experience and research and I have followed the Bronco news and I saw what was out there day 1.

No, sorry it does not appear you have followed all of the Bronco news, you joined the forum on Dec 13, 2021. The Bronco leaks started in January of 2020 and the Bronco Reveal was July 13, 2020, reams of data have happened since then, only Bronco6g covered all these in's and out's, including identifying credible dealers and normal lying dealers.

Ford bends with the wind to the large dealers associations and that has caused many of the problems for the early Bronco enthusiasts.

You're trying to apply your own personal logic and "observations and experience in the car market" to partial knowledge and partial history and tell the rest of us we really don't understand how it works, a mirror may help.

 

[22OBX]

No, sorry it does not appear you have followed all of the Bronco news, you joined the forum on Dec 13, 2021. The Bronco leaks started in January of 2020 and the Bronco Reveal was July 13, 2020, reams of data have happened since then, only Bronco6g covered all these in's and out's, including identifying credible dealers and normal lying dealers.

Ford bends with the wind to the large dealers associations and that has caused many of the problems for the early Bronco enthusiasts.

You're trying to apply your own personal logic and "observations and experience in the car market" to partial knowledge and partial history and tell the rest of us we really don't understand how it works, a mirror may help.

 

[Wanted33]

It is what is and all have our own opinions, experience and research and I have followed the Bronco news and I saw what was out there day 1. Dealers new allocations would be put in place and were locking down sales $$. You are tied to your dealer and your time stamp is being built in order (if buildable) for the orders your dealer has not all orders that Ford has. I do agree it should be easier to move to other dealers. I’m not an apologist I just think there is greed from the dealers, overselling allocation , ADM’s, and stories post after post of dealers “stealing” orders all which fall into the definition of not being ethical (pertaining to right and wrong in conduct). Sorry I didn’t mean to offend anyone sharing my views based on my observations and experience in the car market. I really joined this forum to connect with others that had like interest in the Bronco, not get into debates in theories of why some don’t have their bronco.

This is where your arguement falls apart. When reservations were opened the '21 allocation formula said that 50% of a dealers allocation will depend on the amount of reservations they took. The smaller dealers we're talking about here saw an opportunity to increase their market share in their zones. So, they offered below invoice prices, and attracted a large following. The greed of the larger dealers didn't work, so they went to Ford and then it all went to shit for these dealers that out manuvered the greedy mega dealers, and in turn screwed the smaller dealers customers. You can turn this any way you want, but this is exactly what happened.

 

[22OBX]

This is where your arguement falls apart. When reservations were opened the '21 allocation formula said that 50% of a dealers allocation will depend on the amount of reservations they took. The smaller dealers we're talking about here saw an opportunity to increase their market share in their zones. So, they offered below invoice prices, and attracted a large following. The greed of the larger dealers didn't work, so they went to Ford and then it all went to shit for these dealers that out manuvered the greedy mega dealers, and in turn screwed the smaller dealers customers. You can turn this any way you want, but this is exactly what happened.

I have been reading on various forums, press releases, talking with dealers for the last year and half before placing my order with my small home town dealer. I had no problem ordering and getting scheduled at a small dealer at MSRP (1500 discount isn’t that big of deal to me) because they managed their allocation by adding surcharges to prevent non locals from ordering and reselling. I am friends with the GM and he told me lots of games were being played and he was protecting allocations for his local customers. I have also seen a large dealer post here this week they were “pacing” their allocations. In other words managing not trying to get upside down.

I work in supply chain and work with allocations in my job every day. We have to adjust allocations regularly to ensure everyone has a fair share regardless of size, and often have to rely on historical sales numbers as basis to set allocations. Yes oftentimes customers need more allocation due to demand and we handle those on a case by case basis. I have read here that dealers can request the same, but it’s not always possible. How fair would it be to other dealers and ultimately their customers and reservation holders if they were to give a large portion of an allocation to a customer that historically didn’t have the sales to support those allocations just because they discounted? It may have been big dealers calling foul, but you know the big dealers probably also had a lot of unhappy customers because they did have historical sales to back up their request for allocation. I’m sure antitrust was in play as I also deal with that daily as it relates to allocation. I was sharing my opinion to hopefully benefit someone, not to defend any tactics deployed by Ford. Since time stamps are tied to the dealers customer orders, Bottom line you could possibly order from another dealer an get built as I have seen several people that recently posted have done. If you don’t agree with my view I’m perfectly ok with that and respect your view as well.

 

[John 0874]

Every time I want a good laugh I go read through the "what's your plan B vehicle" thread the true bronco enthusiast .... "I'd get a Dodge Dakota if they made them still" or a Jeep Cherokee ..... On and on these are the people clogging up the order process cause they just want the newest hype. Not a Tru enthusiast, I've had at least one of every version bronco ever built in case anyone wants to know. Allocations have been around for ever maybe Ford should have just said we are selling new broncos go to your closest autorized dealer and pay them what they are asking for the hottest new vehicle out. This is what everyone else does , Corvette , Ford gt, raptor .... On and on .

 

[22OBX]

Every time I want a good laugh I go read through the "what's your plan B vehicle" thread the true bronco enthusiast .... "I'd get a Dodge Dakota if they made them still" or a Jeep Cherokee ..... On and on these are the people clogging up the order process cause they just want the newest hype. Not a Tru enthusiast, I've had at least one of every version bronco ever built in case anyone wants to know. Allocations have been around for ever maybe Ford should have just said we are selling new broncos go to your closest autorized dealer and pay them what they are asking for the hottest new vehicle out. This is what everyone else does , Corvette , Ford gt, raptor .... On and on .

I agree sir. Allocations apply to all manufacturers and are not unique to Ford, especially during this time.

Here is a blog from a law office General Counsel as it relates to the complexities of state laws and why manufacturers have to abide by them and adjust allocation to not create an unfair environment. A good read.

Dealing with Dealers during Covid-19: Product Allocation

14 October 2020 Blog
Authors: Connor A. Sabatino
Published To: Coronavirus Resource Center:Back to Business Dashboard Insights Manufacturing Industry Advisor
This article was originally published on Manufacturing Best Practices, and is republished here with permission.
The COVID-19 pandemic presents a number of challenges for manufacturers and suppliers managing dealership sales and service networks. Business and supply chain disruptions are depressing product output, requiring changes to product allocations and allocation formulas. It is important to execute these changes in a way that does not run afoul of state dealer regulations. Part of a series, this article focuses on the issue of product allocation.
If your company manufactures products and sells them to a network of authorized third-party retail dealers, most states regulate your relationship with those dealers. One common area of regulation involves the allocation of products. State dealer regulations typically prevent suppliers from playing favorites for product allocation, mandating nondiscriminatory allocation formulas.
The motor vehicle industry hosts the most extensive set of dealer regulations, with similar regulations applicable to the construction equipment, agricultural equipment, powersports equipment and outdoor power equipment industries. State dealer regulations typically contain anti-waiver provisions, ensuring application to dealer relationships notwithstanding the contractual terms of any dealership agreement.
Allocation is typically regulated in state dealer laws using terms like “fair,” “reasonable,” or “equitable.” The meaning of those words is complicated by the context of an ongoing pandemic. Most states provide some protection for manufacturers when allocation is affected by “conditions beyond the manufacturer’s control.” Product shortages driven by statewide “Stay Home” or “Shelter-in-Place” orders should fall within such safe harbor provisions, but manufacturers and suppliers must tread carefully when realigning a diminished supply with dealer allocation.
Product Allocation Practices
In some cases, product shortages present a mutual issue for both suppliers and dealers. Decreased demand may lead dealers to favor diminished product allocation. Manufacturers have a shared interest in preventing a flood of excess products into the market, depressing prices. Finding the right balance may feel like a high wire act because these same product allocation regulations intended to shield dealers can also be used as a sword against manufacturers.
When dealer relationships sour — especially when dealer performance is a contributing factor — dealerships often blame the manufacturer’s product allocation practices. Dealers argue that any performance problems are because they were not allocated enough products, too many products, or the right mix of products. These allegations are easy for dealers to make because state dealership regulations create an affirmative obligation for an “equitable” allocation of products, and place the burden on manufacturers and suppliers to justify the allocation practices amidst the uncertain times of our ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
One problem facing manufacturers is the manner in which product allocation is intertwined with dealer performance. A dealer that entered 2020 expected to sell 100 units of a product will be unable to meet that sales goal if it is not even supplied 100 units due to supply chain disruptions or plant shutdowns. Thus, it is critical to consider changes to product allocation and allocation formulas in conjunction with adjustments to performance goals.
Illustrating this pitfall is the case of Hyundai Motor Am. v. New World Car Nissan, Inc., 581 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App. 2019). The case started with a dealer complaint to the Texas DMV in November 2013, with the dealer alleging Hyundai’s allocation methods and performance requirements were unlawful under the Texas motor vehicle dealer law. That led to an administrative hearing, after which the Administrative Law Judge issued a proposed order to the Texas DMV Board (charged with adjudicating state dealer law disputes), in favor of the manufacturer Hyundai.
The Texas DMV Board rejected the proposed order and instead wrote a new final order favoring the dealer. After appeal, a Texas Court of Appeals in July 2019 reversed and remanded that DMV Board order, holding that the Board overstepped its authority when it rewrote the Administrative Law Judge’s original order. On Feb. 6, 2020, the DMV Board relented, voting to adopt the original Administrative Law Judge proposed order it previously rejected. Hyundai eventually prevailed, but only after seven years of ongoing litigation.
Key to the dispute was the allegation that Hyundai required the dealer to sell more vehicles than it was actually provided, in order to achieve a high score under Hyundai’s performance metrics. In other words, the dealer was complaining that it was expected to sell “x” number of vehicles to get a perfect score, yet it was not even supplied “x” number of vehicles in the first place, making a perfect score impossible.
As many manufacturers realize, the argument is a bit circular because typical allocation formulas factor-in actual performance, creating a chicken-or-the-egg scenario. A poor performing dealer is likely to see less product allocation because it is not selling enough product, and yet when it comes time for the manufacturer to critique the dealer’s poor performance, the dealer retorts by claiming an inadequate supply caused the poor performance (when the reverse is likely the true cause). This can present a lose-lose situation for manufacturers and suppliers, and if it is not carefully managed it can result in a years-long dispute like the Hyundai case.
‘Equitable’ Distribution of Assets
Thus, manufactures and suppliers must be careful when adjusting the supply of products to dealers, ensuring that new and revamped product allocation formulas are sufficiently “equitable” amid the coronavirus pandemic. Changes to allocation may similarly require changes to performance goals. A dealer challenging allocation formulas has the support of protectionist dealer laws written to purposefully favor dealers. Not only are the laws and regulations more beneficial to dealerships, disputes may be heard by adjudicative boards made up of industry insiders. The Hyundai case in Texas demonstrates this imbalance, where a favorable decision by an administrative law judge was initially rejected by the Texas DMV Board made up of industry insiders.
The ongoing pandemic is scrambling a number of norms for dealerships, and product allocation is a major one. Manufacturers and suppliers need to be prepared for pushback from dealers as everyone pursues a “new normal.” Manufacturers should expect dealers to leverage product allocation regulations to protect the ongoing viability of their dealerships and allege problems with product allocations in an effort to shift the blame for poor performance onto manufacturers and suppliers.

 

[bloominguez]

I guess I’m not the only one that think’s some of these wonderful honest discount dealers were possibly the Instigating cause of Ford’s reaction to abandon their intended reservation system.

No, you're not going back far enough. Why did people want to switch in the first place? Not all Ford dealerships are honest. That's great if you have a good dealer near you, but not all of us do. Even if we did, how would we have known that during the reservation process?

If you happened to initially pick a Ford dealer that either told you they'd be adding ADM or, just as bad, flat out wouldn't reply to your questions (my personal experience), then what would you do? Bend over and pay? Continue the process without even knowing what the final price would be? I'll bet you wouldn't. Even scumbag Levine advised getting pricing in writing before ordering, and switching dealers if you couldn't get that (before we learned that Ford doesn't always follow through with this, nor do they tell us which dealers have more allocations available). Ford has supported dishonest and opaque dealers by reducing the name match policy on reservations.

Once burned, I think you'd be more likely to gravitate towards the most transparent dealerships. As has been stated many times on this forum people are not only attracted by the price but by the honesty and transparency.

Some of us thought we'd be immune from shady dealers because we have access to X-Plan pricing ... but Ford pulled the plug on that as well, after reservations were taken as I recall. Note: Ford employees never feel any of this pain because they get A-plan pricing, so the people who can fix this have no incentive to do so.

This is where your arguement falls apart. When reservations were opened the '21 allocation formula said that 50% of a dealers allocation will depend on the amount of reservations they took. The smaller dealers we're talking about here saw an opportunity to increase their market share in their zones. So, they offered below invoice prices, and attracted a large following. The greed of the larger dealers didn't work, so they went to Ford and then it all went to shit for these dealers that out manuvered the greedy mega dealers, and in turn screwed the smaller dealers customers. You can turn this any way you want, but this is exactly what happened.

+1, that's what I saw as well.

First world problems, I guess. Ford doesn't owe me a Bronco. They're free to make decisions that maximize profit in the short term and undermine their brand image in the long term among people who would otherwise be their biggest fans. They're free to ignore me and I'm free to criticize. I'm buying another vehicle in the meantime, while still maintaining my order based on a July 14 reservation (Day 2, I believe)--you never know, that's a decision for the future.

 

[Living off road]

As a July 16 2020 reservation with no information whatsoever from Ford , I am more than insulted. You put it so nicely.

Follow up!!!! Called Ford today as I was getting ready to go out and look at a Toyota 4runner. They gave me my vin# and told me that I am 3/7 week build date!!!!!!!!! Wow. I am so excited!! Dont give up before the miracle happens. I know, I can't drive a vin #, but having it is better than nothing

 

[Maine Explorer]

People can blame constraints all they want but I've seen my exact order ordered in October of last year and delivered multiple times once even down to the color by people with no reservation. I'm a day 3 reservation though so I am late to the party. We have 2 dealers in town. Thinking about going into the other for a walk-in.

I think they think anyone who waited this long is willing to wait and a new customer might get something else. Seems to my having a reservation might actually be a big negative.

Not that angry about it. It's disappointing to see someone get to cut in line (well more be moved up in line, they didn't decide to cut) but I'm still glad they got their bronco.

None of this is going to matter soon though. Tomorrow is a Thursday so tomorrow Ford is going to email me to tell me they're making my bronco. I know I said that last Wednesday but this time I'm sure, this time it's different. This time I'm going to get the good news!!!

Sponsored