GM Vs. Toyota Dealer Costs

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

One of our Best and Brightest pointed us to these “back of the envelope” calculations on the relative costs of running GM’s dealer network. [The comment was originally posted on the DealersEdge website. We’ve republished it here with the author’s permission.]

In a very limited attempt to figure out the savings, I’ve come up with a quickie comparison of just the cost of “reps”, with a number of assumptions. Comparing GM and its 6400 dealers to Toyota and their 1200 dealers (both of which sell almost the same amount of cars). Assuming 2 Reps (one Sales one Fixed) for every 10 dealers (for both manufacturers) and a 1:10 ratio for Supervisory positions of those reps (for both manufacturers) and for the sake of easy calculations, assume 100K Salary average for everyone.

Toyota:

1200 Dealers


240 District Reps


24 Regional Reps ( Supervisors of the District Reps)


2.4 (lets assume 3) Corporate Reps


Total dealer support staff = 267 @ 100K per = $26,700,000 Annually.

GM


6400 Dealers


1280 District Reps


128 Regional Reps (supervisory again)


13 Corporate Reps (supervisory to the Regional)


1 Executive Corporate

Total Dealer support staff = 1422 @ 100K per = $142,200,000 Annually

If you take that number of 142 million and divide it by the 6400 dealers, than the field support expense for GM per dealer per year is $22,218, which doesn’t sound like much does it?

If you look at the difference in “field support” expense between GM and Toyota on a nationalized basis, there is a difference of $79,500,000 per year.

When you consider that GM has an additional $80 million per year in “field staff” expenses to sell almost the same number of units, I can see how a bunch of suits in an ivory tower can come to this decision. There seems to be an assumed belief though, that if GM reduces its dealer count, it will still sell the same number of units. I think that belief is the “Wild-Card” thought though, and unfortunately, no one will know the reality until the dealerships are in fact closed.

There are other savings, by fewer dealers, in shipping.

If you assume every dealer gets one truck delivery per day (be it vehicles or parts) and just for easy math, lets assume $500 per truck delivery (not the cost of the vehicles or parts themselves) (for both manufacturers)

GM – 6400 Dealers X 5 Deliveries per Week X 500 per Delivery X 52 Weeks = $832,000,000

This represents a per dealer cost of $130,000 per year

Toyota – 1200 dealers- same deliveries and cost per = $156,000,000 Annually

Again, assuming a nationalized number, it costs GM $676,000,000 more per year. Even cutting the dealer count almost in half, and GM will still have a higher expense than Toyota. Using the 22K per dealer avg for field staff and 130K per dealer avg for shipping, these 2 expenses alone represent a 150K per year per Dealer cost reduction for each dealer they shut down.

GM stated an objective of having 3600 dealers remaning, which means they intend to close roughly 2800 dealers. So 2800 dealers closed X 150K per year cost reduction = 420,000,000 per year in cost reduction X a conservative 5 years = $2,100,000,000. So over 5 years, the dealer count reduction to 2800 reduces GM’s expense (on these 2 expenses) by just over $2b.

I am sure there are other areas where savings can occur, but only a bunch of accountants could figure out all that math. But let’s assume another 2 billion over 5 years saved from that, for a total of 4 billion saved over 5 years.

At that rate, assuming no interest charges, it will take 20 years to pay back the money loaned to GM by the United States & Canadian Taxpayers!

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 20 comments
  • Jwilli05 Jwilli05 on May 01, 2009

    The assumptions made in this comparison are SO OFF-BASE AND WRONG. As a GM dealer, we sell under 300 new and XXX used per year. The factory reps call on us by telephone, e-mail and internet contact. We have not had a GM employee in the dealership for over four years. Our reps/ both sales and service are responsible for forty five dealers and I can assure you that they don't make 100K per year. Keep dreamin guys. The dealers aren't the problem. Let the market take care of this and it will. This heavy handed approach will only make matters worse. TYPICAL GOVERNMENT SOLUTION

  • Anonymous Anonymous on May 13, 2009

    [...] permalink Originally Posted by clonefarmer How does closing half of its dealerships save GM all that much money? I see lower administrative costs, of course, but won't there be plenty of lawsuits to contend with? This does a good job of breaking it down. GM vs. Toyota Dealer Costs | The Truth About Cars [...]

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next