Just because the Japanese manufacturers have fewer dealerships and sell an equivalent (or greater total number of vehicles) as USA brands does NOT, repeat NOT really mean anything. It is also easy to misinterpret these things, especially in light of what Toyota is doing.
Seems the average Toyota dealership sells about 1300 vehicles/ year, whereas the average Ford dealership does way less. So, comon sense might dictate that if Ford closes smaller stores, then the average Fords sold per dealership would increase--at least that's what the all-knowing consultants purport would happen. But it really does not happen that way.
In the case of GM and Chrysler Group, they have done some consolidations which have resulted in fewer sales points, but sales points with more product lines in each place. So using them as a poster child for these things is not completely appropriate.
In the case of Ford, very few Ford dealers also sell Lincoln-Mercury vehicles, especially in the larger metro areas (where only dealerships with the highest CSI ratings can have all of the lines in one location). But, what is historically unique about Ford is that they had dealerships in pretty much every smaller town in the USA, where the dealers also used to sell Ford tractors and implements . . . at the same location. That's how Ford got so ingrained in the DNA of rural America and is still stronger in those areas, especially in truck sales. Chevy dealers were more "city slickers" by comparison, plus some of the mechanical differences between Fords and Chevy pickups (in the '50s era and prior) made Fords and GMCs the "serious" trucks and the Chevy 1/2 tons more light-duty in nature.
It also seems that Toyota has been held up as being the gold standard of how to do things, by the all-knowing consultants, yet GM and Ford seem to not be treated so nicely.
So, what is Toyota doing now? Well, rather than more sales points per se, they want existing larger dealers to expand their physical plants for greater future sales/service/parts business. But, what they are also doing is letting some "satellite dealerships" be set up in the non-metro areas (adjacent to metro areas). Therefore, as the domestic makers vacate those sales areas, Toyota moves into them. Just as when the domestic makes vacate a niche of the total vehicle product line, Toyota and others seem to have a vehicle to fit right in that hole. When GM discontinued many of their 2-dr coupes, suddenly we have Toyota Solara coupe and convertible. When Camaro and Firebird went away, suddenly there was the Mitsu Eclipse coupe and conv to capture the fancy of young and upcoming car buyers. See the pattern???
Now, one other reason the decreased number of import dealerships is bad is related to repairs. Fewer dealerships in a large metro area, or especially out in the boondocks, means that if a part to repair the vehicle is not in stock locally, the dealer can either order it in (days or weeks????) or dispatch a parts truck to get it from another dealer, possibly a 3 hour round trip in favorable traffic conditions--just to repair ONE car. This is something that no consultant has addressed or admitted to. Nor the number of times/week the particular dealership will get parts shippments of special order parts or parts for stock from the stocking warehouses.
Now, I understand that Toyotas "don't break", but if they didn't, how are the dealerships going to support their expanded service and parts areas? From oil changes and tire rotations? Don't think so.
An observed problem is too many "consultants" (some with important-sounding names!) trying to tell USA vehicle manufacturers how to run their business. In some cases, they've needed some input, but in others, the input has been defective or ill-conceived or pushes a particular agenda of some whiz-bang (alleged) guru.
Many of these consultants don't know why GM might have so many vehicles at similar price points, claiming they could slash the numbers of these vehicles and "save money". Problem is that each of those vehicles is there to service a particular customer demographic rather than a price point situation. It's also called "MORE CHOICE" for the consumer.
What these people do not understand is that somebody that would purchase a Chevy Impala (for example) would not purchase a Pontiac Grand Prix or Buick LaCrosse for the same money as they like the Chevy best. Same with the Pontiac or Buick.
Similarly, there were reports that when DC discontinued Plymouth, loyal Plymouth minivan customers wanted another one. They were offered a Chrysler-branded vehicle like the one they had, at the same price as the prior Plymouth was, but the customers turned their noses up at the Chrysler as "too expensive, I want a Plymouth", so they went elsewhere or considered a Dodge . . . or looked at an import for the first time . . or found a good used Plymouth instead. Then, surprisingly, the next year's sales figures decreased by about the same number of prior year Plymouth sales. Nobody really seemed to understand why that was!
Same with Oldsmobile. GM sales decreased by the same amount as prior year Olds sales. Even with incentives to buy a different GM make! Not every manufacturer can lose 250K sales/year, not even GM or Chrysler Group . . . but some analysts/consultants told them they needed to delete those brands so they could make more money (from lower overhead) and allegedly constant total sales numbers.
And then there's the deal of all of the GM and Ford plant closings. Each factory worker was eligible to purchase about 2 new vehicles/year at factory cost, so many did, later selling them for a little profit on the private-seller market. Understandably, if you make them mad by closing the plants they worked at, they aren't very likely to buy more of that manufacturer's products in the future. A potential 500K units/year lost???? So, all in all, that might amount to 1million vehicles/year lost from USA brand sales. Who kept telling them they should be cutting back rather than fix advertising and product issues?? Consultants that make money from their "informed" advice, both in the private sector and on Wall Street.
On the surface the "cut back" orientation might make sense, but when you consider the dynamics of how it all lays out, in the long term (when most people now look at things in the short term!), the manufacturers end up with less product choices and less numbers of product being sold. And, the downward spiral starts and gains momentum exponentially.
In reality, there will be "X" number of new vehicles sold each year, whether they are mostly domestic or foreign brands. The total population is growing, too, typically. Having choice is good for the consumer ("A vehicle for every purse" works now just as it did in the prior century!). As domestic choices decrease, import brand choices INCREASE . . . even Toyotas and Nissans and Honda cars. And the same will be true as USA brands are told to decrease the number of their dealerships in the USA, too!!!
Enjoy!
C-BODY