Will Genesis have return customers

[Gene2]

Maybe/ maybe not.
Here is why they may have a problem, unless they learn from cars like the KIA K900.
The Genesis is a great car, have you noticed the sales are slipping? Genesis is so intent
on expanding their line up, They are forgetting about those of us who have already
purchased a car. They must keep the cars already being sold up to date and attract
customers to these cars also.
Successful brands give updates in the form of software and firmware in existing cars.
There are already advances in some of the features which could be updated. These advances
will appear in much cheaper cars and newer cars that Genesis will put out. Existing
car owners want to feel like the brand still cares about them and not just new sales.
Keeping returning customers is what will make the brand a success.
I'm retired, have the finances to purchase a more expensive car, but also want to save money.
targeting a certain group of people for sales can only attract so many. There are a lot of us who
look for something new, but unless we feel this is a luxury brand that will care about us and
want to give us the best over our entire ownership. Some will not return

 

[Mcc]

Some will not return

But where will they go? Most brand don’t sell more cars by offering updates but instead by offering new models.

 

[EdP]

Successful brands give updates in the form of software and firmware in existing cars.
There are already advances in some of the features which could be updated. These advances
will appear in much cheaper cars and newer cars that Genesis will put out.

I've owned both old and new cars for 56 years. None offered me any upgrades. Not even from 8 track to cassette. I guess I never got on the list.

I have, however, purchased 5 Hyundai/Genesis cars and each had more than the last in goodies. I think that is their plan. Technology is changing fast and upgrades cannot always work on older hardware.

 

[CP1]

I have a C7 Corvette. There are NO backward software upgrades available. The only way to get current goodies is to totally swap out your hardware for that of a newer car and hope that it all works.

 

[Mr. Incredible]

I worked in the industry at both the dealer and corporate levels for GM and Chrysler for 20 years and I can say with a great deal of confidence that car manufacturers do not have an R&D department to research and develop updates for existing models. the only time firmware is upgraded is to address a known issue for safety reasons, and occasionally for customer satisfaction reasons.

upgrades and changes are left to new models as ways to entice new buyers or existing buyers into upgrading. Aside from Tesla who regularly sends OTA updates to their vehicles occasionally adding new features, I don't know of any other manufacturer that do this, and even Tesla can only do so much with older hardware, and they aren't adding anything that they didn't originally plan for the model, they simply sold their cars with the notion that some features will be made available at a later date.

 

[Gene2]

But that is why Tesla is going strong

 

[Mr. Incredible]

But that is why Tesla is going strong

no Tesla is not a profitable company, and they are not "going strong", They no longer have government subsidies to cover 20% of the cost of the vehicle and are reporting even bigger loses in the last year than in the 4 years previous,

Tesla has never reported gains and has actually reported losses for the last 21 quarters, (5 years, 3 months), Tesla Stock is artificially inflated and not representative of the true value of the company, and without government subsidies, they starting to bleeding money, I would guess a bankruptcy is on their horizon within the next 5 years.


Tesla keeps losing money. So why is it worth more than Ford?

Why Investors Love Elon Musk, Even Though Tesla Is Losing Money

Tesla Hasn't Made A Profit in 15 Years – And It's Not Alone

 

[Mcc]

But that is why Tesla is going strong

Because they sold their cars with the notion that some features will be made available at a later date or because they aren't adding anything that they didn't originally plan for the model?

 

[Starflyer]

Because they sold their cars with the notion that some features will be made available at a later date or because they aren't adding anything that they didn't originally plan for the model?

Are you SERIOUS? You think someone buys a Tesla because the autopilot will be improved with software down the road. For my money, the Tesla X is one of the ugliest luxury SUV's out there. The "E" looks like a 50-60K unstylish whatever. Yeah, I know it starts a 35K, but that's stripped. IMO, the "E" the front end and that interior dash completely sucks. I will give the "S" credit although the price point is a bit high, but even the S is starting to look a little long in the teeth.

My neighbor on the left has the X and my neighbor on the right has the S, so see them cruising in and out almost everyday. I just bought my Genesis G80 Sport ($57.5K) and didn't once think of even looking at the Tesla. I might view the Tesla a bit more favorably if Musk wasn't such a loudmouth.

 

[Mcc]

Are you SERIOUS

No I’m not. Starflyer, I actually agree with you. I just could not understand why anyone would think Tesla is going strong. Sorry that was not apparent in my post. Too much sarcasm

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Starflyer]

No I’m not. Starflyer, I actually agree with you. I just could not understand why anyone would think Tesla is going strong. Sorry that was not apparent in my post. Too much sarcasm

Hey Mcc, I like sarcasm. Sorry I didn't pickup on your's. I'll do better next time.

 

[Mr. Incredible]

Nice to know I’m not the only one out there that feels this way about Tesla.


I’ll admit the full blown model s p100d is a fun car to drive, I have a long time customer with one and he’s let me play with it a few times, but for the $140k or so it costs it is horribly uncomfortable, and frankly if I was to ever spend that kind of money on a car it would have the name Porsche or Aston Martin.

 

[Starflyer]

What annoys me about the Tesla is the Federal Government giving these richie owners a $7500 tax credit. I just read that Tesla sales have passed a marker (200,000 units) and now the tax credit is being reduced by 50% and will be further reduced when another sales goal is reached. Now Tesla is lobbing in Washington to extend the $7500 tax credit for gawd knows how long. I have nothing against the Tesla owners but why do the rest of us have to pony up this tax credit?

 

[Mr. Incredible]

What annoys me about the Tesla is the Federal Government giving these richie owners a $7500 tax credit. I just read that Tesla sales have passed a marker (200,000 units) and now the tax credit is being reduced by 50% and will be further reduced when another sales goal is reached. Now Tesla is lobbing in Washington to extend the $7500 tax credit for gawd knows how long. I have nothing against the Tesla owners but why do the rest of us have to pony up this tax credit?

almost all electric cars and hybrids get this credit.

what annoys me is States like California that have been pushing and pushing for alternative fuel vehicles with asinine laws requiring them, then because there are so many on the road, the realization sets in that their government coffers for road repair and maintenance are losing money so they raise taxes on fuel and vehicle registration to punish ICE owners again.

Then they continue to reward people that purchase alternative fuel vehicles with tax credits and incentives, without any type of tax or fee to offset the loss of money to the Transportation Funds. Hybrid, Electric, Fuel Cell vehicles share the road, therefore they should share the cost of maintaining it. The taxes shouldn't only come from fuel.

Same illogical mentality with solar panels on homes. They push and push for people to install them, essentially having home owners pay for and build their infrastructure for them offering incentives and rebates, and the promise of net metering (you earn the same amount for generation and you pay for usage) thereby offsetting your electric fees, then they realize we are losing money because people are no longer paying electric bills, so lets now tax those people and make sure they pay a minimum amount each month whether or not they use any electricity.

I have 40 panels on my roof, I installed them myself and it cost me 1/3 of what any solar installer/seller was charging, I recouped my investment in 2.9 years, I've had them for 7 years now, and up until this year my electric costs per year were near zero, I generated nearly what I used so I was essentially off grid. Now with the new law I have to pay a minimum of $10 per month if I don't use a minimum of $10 of electricity, so I will always have an annual bill of $120 no matter how much I generate/use, and next year they are floating a bill to remove net metering and force those of us that installed solar to pay retail rates for use, but only get paid wholesale rates for generation, essentially putting me back on the grid at normal electric rates. Right now I get 25 cents per kilowatt for generation and pay 25 cents for usage, IF this new bill passes (and it likely will with the liberal idiots in Sacramento) I will pay 25 cents per kilowatt for use, but only get paid 5-7 cents for generation, so what's the point of paying $20K to install solar if you aren't going to see a benefit from it? Another scam by the government to get the middle class to finance their infrastructure, sadly I fell for it.

 

[EdP]

next year they are floating a bill to remove net metering and force those of us that installed solar to pay retail rates for use, but only get paid wholesale rates for generation, essentially putting me back on the grid at normal electric rates. Right now I get 25 cents per kilowatt for generation and pay 25 cents for usage, IF this new bill passes (and it likely will with the liberal idiots in Sacramento) I will pay 25 cents per kilowatt for use, but only get paid 5-7 cents for generation, so what's the point of paying $20K to install solar if you aren't going to see a benefit from it? Another scam by the government to get the middle class to finance their infrastructure, sadly I fell for it.

Not sure I'm understanding this right. If you generate for your own use you should be paying zero. If you don't generate enough, you pay 25 cents for what you buy. If you generate a surplus you sell it back to the power company. If they can buy it from an existing generator for 7 cents I don't see why they would want to give you more. At peak times, if they don't generate enough, I can see them paying you a premium. Am I missing something?

My guess is they now have plenty of capacity now that solar is popular and don't need much from the solar generators.

Getting back to cars, electric cars use the roads and should pay towards the upkeep, same as the rest of us. I don't see why I should subsidize a guy buying a 100+k car no matter the fuel.

 

[Gen127]

But that is why Tesla is going strong

They no longer have government subsidies to cover 20% of the cost of the vehicle and are reporting even bigger losses in the last year than in the 4 years previous...I would guess an bankruptcy is on their horizon within the next 5 years.

Ouch!

 

[pmckechnie]

Back to the original question.
If Genesis is going to get new customers and keep the current ones will depend on customer service. They have a great car and poor service. My experience has not been good so far and if they don't get better my next car will not be a Genesis. I 'm a funny old goat. All I want is for them to be honest and tell the truth. If there is a problem, talk to me about it, let me know they care, and try to make it right and I will be satisfied and happy.

 

[EdP]

Back to the original question.
If Genesis is going to get new customers and keep the current ones will depend on customer service. They have a great car and poor service. My experience has not been good so far and if they don't get better my next car will not be a Genesis. I 'm a funny old goat. All I want is for them to be honest and tell the truth. If there is a problem, talk to me about it, let me know they care, and try to make it right and I will be satisfied and happy.

I think that will be better once they have a limited number of dedicated dealers. They have 350 Hyundai dealers, some that have little interest in a low volume brand and the things that should go with a luxury brand.

Seems like there are some good dealers, but not enough of them based on stories here. They have to set a higher standard and enforce it.

 

[Mr. Incredible]

Not sure I'm understanding this right. If you generate for your own use you should be paying zero. If you don't generate enough, you pay 25 cents for what you buy. If you generate a surplus you sell it back to the power company. If they can buy it from an existing generator for 7 cents I don't see why they would want to give you more. At peak times, if they don't generate enough, I can see them paying you a premium. Am I missing something?

My guess is they now have plenty of capacity now that solar is popular and don't need much from the solar generators.

Getting back to cars, electric cars use the roads and should pay towards the upkeep, same as the rest of us. I don't see why I should subsidize a guy buying a 100+k car no matter the fuel.

See in CA I am not generating for my "own use". As a grid tied system I am generating for the grid, as it stands now I get paid the same for use and generation. At the end of the year I am pretty much a net zero, I use what I generate and seldom over use or over generate. Solar customers are only billed once a year on their install anniversary date.

But there are months like Feb-June usually where I am highly negative (over generate), and months like July-Sept where I am highly positive (over use), the over-generation offsets the over use and I end up close to zero at the end of the year.

The proposal is to not allow customers like myself to over generate during part of the year and then offset those credits with over use the other part of the year. Essentially I would no longer be saving credits to be used during peak months, I would get paid wholesale on all my generation and pay retail on all my use on a month by month basis.

There is also a proposal to make backup batteries tied to solar systems illegal for personal residences, if passed I would not be able to store my solar generation for off hour use (in urban areas), the solar would have to feed the grid, and the battery backup could only be used in the even of a power outage and it cannot be tied to the grid or solar in any fashion that would make my home "independent" of the power company.

Nevada has already done this and screwed their solar customers, My brother in law installed solar in Henderson under the same guise as I did, Net Metering, he was balanced and billed annually up until 2016, now he is billed monthly, paid only wholesale and billed retail rates, so his solar is essentially useless for him directly, he is feeding the grid and basically paid out of his own pocket for the electric companies infrastructure.

He does save a bit over a non-solar home, but when you factor in the money he put up to install the solar, he is paying about what he paid without solar.

 

[EdP]

See in CA I am not generating for my "own use". As a grid tied system I am generating for the grid, as it stands now I get paid the same for use and generation.

The proposal is to not allow customers like myself to over generate during part of the year and then offset those credits with over use the other part of the year.
There is also a proposal to make backup batteries tied to solar systems illegal for personal residences,

Ah, thanks for the explanation. Yes, that would screw you good. It would negate any reason to have solar in the first place. Even with batteries you'd not do well at those rates.