Allocation Concern

[Chevyrocker]

Don't worry about a flame war, I will show respect to serious people who are making serious points.

The government mandate is to allocate vehicles in a fair and equitable manner. Therefore, the more a dealer sells, the more equitable they are, and the more vehicles they get. This has nothing to do with first come, first serve, or however he (she?) stated it prior.

Think about it this way. If "Joe" Chevrolet sells 300 vehicles a month, and "Dan" Chevrolet only sells 30, why would GM give them the same amount of vehicles? Allocation would then be for every 10 Camaro's Dan gets, Joe will get 100 because based on performance, this is the fair thing to do.

[krauser1980]

Im with you on most of your posts BlackCamaro. I dont think it's fair to team up on someones opinion.

[SlingShot]

Originally Posted by Chevyrocker

Don't worry about a flame war, I will show respect to serious people who are making serious points.

The government mandate is to allocate vehicles in a fair and equitable manner. Therefore, the more a dealer sells, the more equitable they are, and the more vehicles they get. This has nothing to do with first come, first serve, or however he (she?) stated it prior.

Think about it this way. If "Joe" Chevrolet sells 300 vehicles a month, and "Dan" Chevrolet only sells 30, why would GM give them the same amount of vehicles? Allocation would then be for every 10 Camaro's Dan gets, Joe will get 100 because based on performance, this is the fair thing to do.

The problem I see with doing so in this manner, is it hurts the consumer. If you happen to live in a less populated area, you won't be as important as an area with more population. That in it self kinda kills the "fair" part of the system. Guess you can't please everyone, but I do think first come first server would have been much fairer. After all it is suppose to be about the consumer .....

[3GPa]

Originally Posted by 67 Convertible

Don't slam GM....the allocation process is government mandated. Do you really think GM wants to limit the number of cars a dealer can have? They want to sell as many as possible, but thanks to the government they have to try to do it with one hand tied behind their back!!

Well Now I Understand

GM Now = Government Motors.

Now I know why I've been waiting for 90 + days @ 1100. The Government is shutting down my dealership!

I guess they did not vote for the Big "O"
Gus

[BlackCamaroSS]

Originally Posted by Chevyrocker

Don't worry about a flame war, I will show respect to serious people who are making serious points.

The government mandate is to allocate vehicles in a fair and equitable manner. Therefore, the more a dealer sells, the more equitable they are, and the more vehicles they get. This has nothing to do with first come, first serve, or however he (she?) stated it prior.

Think about it this way. If "Joe" Chevrolet sells 300 vehicles a month, and "Dan" Chevrolet only sells 30, why would GM give them the same amount of vehicles? Allocation would then be for every 10 Camaro's Dan gets, Joe will get 100 because based on performance, this is the fair thing to do.

And you continue to make my point. The dealer is more important than the customer. I love it!

[BlackCamaroSS]

Originally Posted by krauser1980

Im with you on most of your posts BlackCamaro. I dont think it's fair to team up on someones opinion.

Oh well, you see it all over the forum. Someone refuses to drink the Kool Aid and endures personal attacks because of it; I just happen to dish it back. You get people's first post in the thread saying things like "uneducated", "idiotic", and "don't pollute our forum", and then calling others trolls when they respond in kind...

Fortunately, I see a whole lot more people who realize GM's attitude for the farce it really is.

[Ltespd]

Chevyrocker...Think about it this way. If "Joe" Chevrolet sells 300 vehicles a month, and "Dan" Chevrolet only sells 30, why would GM give them the same amount of vehicles? Allocation would then be for every 10 Camaro's Dan gets, Joe will get 100 because based on performance, this is the fair thing to do.

I dont care about being fair to the dealer. The customer comes first. Without a customer there is no dealer. There's no GM period.
If I order a car from a Chevy dealer on June 1st. I should get my car before someone who ordered on July 1st gets their car. It shouldn't be any more complicated than that. That's the fair way to do it.

[dreammy]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

Wow that was quick.

I am hopeful!

[tosh]

well said LT

[mrcowboy]

Allocations would be fine....but the dealers (majority) are misleading consumers and not disclosing the correct information. Lies, deceit, markups and the like are making people realize why the company went bankrupt in the first place.

[Chevyrocker]

Oh well, you see it all over the forum. Someone refuses to drink the Kool Aid and endures personal attacks because of it; I just happen to dish it back. You get people's first post in the thread saying things like "uneducated", "idiotic", and "don't pollute our forum", and then calling others trolls when they respond in kind...

Fortunately, I see a whole lot more people who realize GM's attitude for the farce it really is.

I've been at this site for much longer than you have sir (a month and 70 posts and you're the expert?). These are your first posts and they are in fact uneducated, idiotic, and polluting.

I dont care about being fair to the dealer. The customer comes first. Without a customer there is no dealer. There's no GM period.
If I order a car from a Chevy dealer on June 1st. I should get my car before someone who ordered on July 1st gets their car. It shouldn't be any more complicated than that. That's the fair way to do it.

And you continue to make my point. The dealer is more important than the customer. I love it!

Go back to my example and re-think your argument. In GM's current way of doing things, they are being fair to the customer. It just so happens that a lot more customers shop at some stores than others and therefore the stores that are more popular to the average customer get more allocation. If you owned a business and had a few different locations and one of your stores was breaking sales records and was very profitable while another store just barely stayed out of the red, wouldn't you want to make sure that the store that is helping keep your business afloat stayed stocked with everything they needed to conduct their business?

The problem here is not what GM is doing or why. The problem is that everybody nowadays thinks that the world revolves around them and that their car, in this instance, should take top priority. Do I think that GM dropped the ball with the launch of the Camaro? Absolutely. I planned a unveiling party for my dealership and had over 150 people coming. Because of a bad launch, we didn't get our car in time and I had to call 150 people and tell them that I was really sorry and that I would call them once it did get here. I firmly believe that all of the R6P orders should have been built first before anything else. But I also believe that it is your dealer's responsibility to tell you the truth about the process and be honest when it comes to allocations and time frames when a customer orders a vehicle. It is not GM's fault your car is at 1100 for 60 days. It's your dealers fault for taking your money and lying about the time frame. Once again, GM has to be fair and get cars to everybody everywhere, not just your neck of the woods. Allocation is how they do this whether you like it or not.

[ahart04]

Maybe if everyone took the time to realize SS's point, there would be less flaming. He says allocation benefits DEALERS, not BUYERS. This is not an opinion. It needs no reinterpretation. As shitty as it is however, it seems to be a necessary evil. I'm sorry SS but it has to happen this way; dealers need to have incentives, they need to be competitive, and they need to be rewarded for high volume sales. Joe Bob in Podunk suffers, yes, but it's just the nature of the game. You all look really silly arguing. Many of you flaming don't even realize that your missing the point. SS, your volatility stirs them up, not your thesis (which most aren't even understanding, and thus MY point.)

be happy everyone.

[BlackCamaroSS]

Originally Posted by Chevyrocker

I've been at this site for much longer than you have sir (a month and 70 posts and you're the expert?). These are your first posts and they are in fact uneducated, idiotic, and polluting.

You're really reaching now. Of all the ridiculous things you've said, this tops them all. So the number of times one pounds the keyboard has a direct relationship to the intelligence of their posts? You are proof of the opposite. I guess if I had made a thousand posts about personalized license plates, what songs are best for the Camaro, and what to name my car it would place me in the lofty stratosphere that you inhabit...

Talk about uneducated, idiotic and polluting...


In a much more constructive argument, Chevyrocker also said (sorry I didn't correctly combine the quotes):

"Go back to my example and re-think your argument. In GM's current way of doing things, they are being fair to the customer. It just so happens that a lot more customers shop at some stores than others and therefore the stores that are more popular to the average customer get more allocation. If you owned a business and had a few different locations and one of your stores was breaking sales records and was very profitable while another store just barely stayed out of the red, wouldn't you want to make sure that the store that is helping keep your business afloat stayed stocked with everything they needed to conduct their business?

The problem here is not what GM is doing or why. The problem is that everybody nowadays thinks that the world revolves around them and that their car, in this instance, should take top priority..."


Maybe you didn't read all of my previous posts. I DID order from the largest volume Chevrolet dealer in the country, and that is exactly my problem. Because they are such high volume, they ran out of allocations very quickly.

And yes, I'm pissed about not receiving MY car. However, I don't think the world revolves around me. If that was the case, I would want my car before anyone else; but I don't. I want my car before someone who ordered months after me, and that is only fair.

And to all of those who are posting in agreement with what I'm saying, hopefully the customer outcry will prevent this type of nonsense from GM in the future.

[Ltespd]

ahart...]Maybe if everyone took the time to realize SS's point, there would be less flaming. He says allocation benefits DEALERS, not BUYERS.

Exactly. After I get my car. I know I'll never order another GM car if the ordering process is handled like this.