Mercedes brilliantly roasted by Senator Deb O'Neill over dubious evidence
Poor old Mercedes-Benz, always the sad story. The German autogiant could probably be seen hobbling out of parliament house recently, after a ferocious reaming by senator Deb O'Neill. Here's what happened...
Mercedes-Benz is always the victim these days, seemingly. Have you noticed? Just like fixed-price fans Honda are victims of the big bad world they inhabit, Mercedes is in hot water again.
The Australian division of Mercedes-Benz was given a stern (verbal) lashing recently, by Senator Deb O’Neill, regarding the carmaker’s conduct toward its dealer network and the switch to its ultimately ill-fated, anti-consumer agency model.
Senator O’Neill properly cracked the whip in the Upper House chamber on Friday the 29th of March, under parliamentary privilege. It’s in the Hansard on page 69 for anyone to see. It’s glorious, despite her being a politician.
She let it rip.
A proper Federal senatorial whip-cracking is, of course, a rare thing of beauty and a joy to behold.
Senator O’Neill said:
The Senator’s older than me, incidentally, but she’s still got it. That fire in the guts. Grew up just down the road, too, in Parramatta. So she knows how to fight.
My sense of this is, and I’m paraphrasing, O’Neill made a list of seven key claims made by Mercedes-Benz, under oath, relating to shafting its dealers recently. And those claims were made before a proper Senate committee, giving evidence, last November.
If you and I were, perhaps, down the pub discussing this, sotto voce, I might surmise privately to you that she appears to have formed the view that Mercedes-Benz Australia - like the fine, upstanding corporate citizen that it is - has been a weapons-grade bullshitter on this one, on the balance of probability.
Bullshit and lies are of course not the same thing, just to be clear. Check out ‘On Bullshit’ for more on this >> Awesome book.
According to political left-hooking O’Neill, Mercedes-Benz Australia asserted under oath that its dealers were happy about moving to the agency model, that they were consulted widely before being made defunct, that the defunction would be a win for the dealers, that the change was driven by consumer benefits (because Mercedes has a proud track record of caring deeply about you, the consumer, obviously).
Furthermore, Mercedes said, effectively, that dealer profits would not be affected by the agency model, that Mercedes-Benz would still want to do business with them afterwards, and that more profit for Stuttgardt was not the real reason they’d arranged this fundamental shift in its underlying business model.
The Senator then went totally off the chain, for minutes on end, entertainingly, repudiating each of Mercedes-Benz’s seven claims, revealing the truth on each point and exposing what appears to me to be actually happening. Well done, Senator.
Edited highlights of this senatorial reaming include a Deloitte report highlighting profitability at some dealerships being slashed by more than 50 per cent, the seemingly unprincipled manner of the dealer undermining exercise itself, and the $650 million lawsuit (because nobody sues for $650 million if they’re truly happy).
I like Senator O’Neill, quite a lot. Stamp of approval for her no-bullshit approach to an issue such as this; 13 points out of a possible 10. And extra credit for actually using the ‘L’-word. And she’s only getting warmed up.
That does seem to be the real motive here, doesn’t it? Don’t get me wrong, dealers are cocks, especially Mercedes-Benz. But they are Aussie businesses, they employ people - secretaries, accountants, sales sharks, apprentice mechanics with fully sick dreads, tradies, truck drivers, even the poor bastard who has to detail your car before delivery. They all pay tax. They contribute to society.
If Mercedes-Benz Australia uproots those dealers, slashes their profitability, and sends the balance back to Germany under the table - that makes Australia poorer, not better. So that’s a conflict.
Dealers are actually the biggest part of the Australian automotive industry. The car importers hate that.
My AutoExpert AFFORDABLE ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE PACKAGE
If you’re sick of paying through the neck for roadside assistance I’ve teamed up with 24/7 to offer AutoExpert readers nationwide roadside assistance from just $69 annually, plus there’s NO JOINING FEE
Full details here >>
AutoExpert DISCOUNT OLIGHT TORCHES
These flashlights are awesome. I carry the Olight Warrior Mini 2 every day - it’s tiny, robust, and super useful in the field or in the workshop. Olight is a terrific supporter of AutoExpert.
Use the code AEJC to get a 12% discount >>
WHEN THE CAR INDUSTRY GETS BUSTED
My favourite lobbyist, Tony Weber, from the FCAI was quoted in GoAuto News Premium as saying on this matter:
Tony Weber in GoAuto News Premium.
Pro Tip: ‘immune’ is not a verb. Nobody wants to ‘immune’ themselves from this or that. It's ‘immunise’.
Just at this point, I would highlight that if competition and innovation are ‘king across retail’, then why does the agency model remove the ability for dealers to innovate in selling vehicles to their customers by being more competitive on pricing? Surely the easiest way to compete is by lowering the price - which the Mercedes-Benz agency model doesn’t allow, of course.
It’s exactly why Honda's alleged new car sales momentum is wrong >>
He added:
Normally Tony Weber and I are ‘of like mind’, in some ways. But not on this occasion.
In this case, I’d suggest this is just a disingenuous confluence of positive sounding bullshit buzzwords, to which people generally don’t object - innovation and transparency and innovation. Especially flexibility, of course. Problem is he doesn’t really provide any demonstrable examples of that innovation, competition or flexibility. Surely if dealers felt this way, they wouldn’t need to sue - in my view.
On the positive side, Weber does use words in his statements. Mostly English ones. In reasonably complete sentences, often dominated by nouns and, occasionally, verbs used correctly. But seriously, dealers don’t ‘want to immune’, they want to ‘be immune’ from the agency model and moronic car importer brands making poor choices in the boardroom on their behalf. Particularly when those decisions will hurt customers financially, and therefore themselves. Own goals are so unpopular in sport and business, generally.
On the negative side, Tony’s collection of upbeat buzzwords (personal opinion) does seem at odds with objective reality, to me.
On this story, I’m going with a different, but related industry favourite. James Voortman, president of the AADA (the Australian Automotive Dealers’ Association) who said in a press release on this issue:
Mr Voortman there, one of two truly elite performers trowelling it on so liberally. Not very often that I agree with dealerships, but it does make sense. If this move was so beneficial to consumers, surely Mercedes-Benz sales would be up, but they’re not >>
But it’s even more stimulating to hear a threat from Senator O’Neill, let's be honest:
Sounds reasonably innocuous, but is actually a little more serious than being hauled before the headmaster for playing tennis in the prayer room. (You’ve gotta watch that Jordies ‘PrayerRoom’ report >>. Disgusting (alleged) conduct, if true. But incredible, nonetheless.)
See, under the Parliamentary Privileges Act of 1987, witnesses before the Senate who make false or misleading statements can be fined or even imprisoned for, essentially, committing an act of contempt.
So, I don’t think I’d really want to be in Horst von Sanden’s shoes. He was, to Mercedes-Benz Australia, more or less, what Ming the Merciless was to Mongo, in Flash Gordon. Personal opinion. That was until recently, when he departed the building and went to work for Deloitte as a consultant.
I wouldn’t want to be Jason Nomikos, either. He’s the director of customer management, retail network development and strategy for Mercedes-Benz Australia. ‘Customer management’ is an interesting term. They’ve been managing the hell out of their customers for some time, in my estimation, based on the feedback I get in my inbox. Rather intensively. The CIA would call it ‘enhanced’ management.
Anyway, they’re the two suits who might just be in the crosshairs if Senator O’Neill goes ‘next level’ with her recent whip-cracking. Looking forward to that. Grab the popcorn.
Mercedes-Benz Australia is, of course, hiding bravely behind the pending dealer lawsuit:
Is that seriously the best they can do? Please respect the court process, the better not to make them look worse than they already do?
Depressingly enough, the mainstream motoring media has, thus far, apparently, declined to report on Senator O’Neill’s epic whip cracking.
Deafening silence so far from the mainstream motoring media, disgracefully. Well done there. Zero out of a possible infinity for being good at your jobs. Here’s an Australian senator accusing notionally ‘the’ aspirational premium German motoring icon - carmaker to Satan - oh dark lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes-Benz - of acting with contempt, of lying under oath on a matter of public interest in order to syphon funds away from Aussie businesses - employers - and hand those funds, under the table, back to Germany.
Are we seriously suggesting that’s somehow not newsworthy? Do a Google search. Keywords ‘Mercedes’ and ‘Deborah O’Neill’. I researched this piece between 6am and 8am today, Tuesday the 5th of April, and I did exactly that search.
O’Neill’s speech is in the Hansard. It happened. Voortman’s mob covered it on Facebook - they’ve got skin in the game, obviously, and they’re hardly a media outlet. Rupert Murdoch’s loyal subjects at the Australian covered it bravely, in a story titled ‘Mercedes Reputation in Shambles after Dealer Attack’.
That opinion piece calls on Mercedes’s global chief executive, Olla Kallenius, to get personally involved and un-ruin things here in the Antipodes - but the report is hidden behind a paywall so only people stupid enough to pay NewsCorpse $40 a month will ever see it.
And John Mellor’s GoAuto News Premium covered it, too. An obscure publication that’s something of a dealer-interested publication. Miracle cure for insomnia for car dealers unable to nod off at their desks, kind of thing. So very few people will remain awake long enough to read that one. I was one of them, and John Mellor, who wrote the piece, he was one; not sure who else.
Wheels, the shadow of its former self, which is now run by the former advertising sales guy, erupted with deafening silence on the story. Drive.com.au (formerly CarAdvice - remember them?), a microscopic division of Costello’s Nine, didn’t run anything. And Carsales, well. Who?
Thus my determination that motoring so-called journalists are typically not journalists at all. They’re mediocre wannabe car reviewers at best, doing poor man’s Top Gear. And their main job is not informing you, in the public interest. It’s writing nice fluffy puff pieces for advertisers, so that morally bankrupt carmakers can feel warm and fuzzy enough to hand them revenue in exchange for advertising space with zero criticism.
That sound you hear is you, consumers, getting thrown under the bus, because you’re just a number to sell ads against. It’s disgraceful. If you actually want to be a journalist, you have to report stories that matter, and that includes stories about people whom are going to get upset over that, from time to time.
Harden up, journalists.
Motoring journalism has been neutered, especially in Australia. It can’t even remember having balls. If you’re out there in the audience and you want the truth, you have to come out here to the fringe, and get it from some horrible bald bastard who doesn’t give a shit what the industry thinks.
Am I here to be friends with car manufacturers, or do I really want to expose their underbelly when they act like unprincipled villains toward consumers?
Someone has to do this, I’d suggest. Epic governmental whip-cracking from people in power on unscrupulous carmaker behaviour - that demand oxygenations. It just does.
The important stories, the ones starring corporate misadventure, telling bare-faced lies, conflict, innuendo, disasters, vested interests, conflicts of interest, blood, sweat, tears - these are the stories that scream to be told.
The CX-60 combines performance, batteries and SUV-luxury to beat Lexus, Mercedes and BMW while Mazda refuses to go fully electric in favour of big inline six-cylinder engines. If your family needs lots of legroom, a big boot, and grunt, the CX-60 needs to go on your shortlist.