July sales data creates an interesting comparison point because some brands are still producing strong months despite the broader affordability problem. It would be useful to compare the brands gaining share against those struggling and look at three things: transaction price, incentive support and product mix below $35,000. Maybe the bigger issue isn't simply “more incentives,” but whether the OEM has enough vehicles customers can realistically finance in the first place.

It’s refreshing to see Reply 36 call out the "management issue" gaslighting. We can’t manage our way out of high floorplan costs and rising MSRPs while the OEM hides. If the associations don’t step up with hard data soon, smaller stores are in real trouble.

The disconnect between the factory and the showroom is wild. Calling it a "management issue" while floorplan costs skyrocket is just insulting. Reply 36 is spot on—this is a structural failure. Unless dealer associations push back with hard data, the squeeze on smaller stores will only get worse.

Reply 36 is spot on. This is a structural squeeze, not a management failure. When rates and MSRPs make payments impossible, dealers shouldn't be the ones subsidizing the OEM’s balance sheet. It’s time for the associations to actually use our collective data and push back hard.

The latest call-conversion data suggests dealers should probably separate OEM affordability problems from dealership execution problems. If 60% of sales reps are not even asking callers for an appointment, adding another $1,500 of incentive support will not fix every lost opportunity. Stores should absolutely challenge poor OEM pricing and allocation, but they also need clean conversion data before concluding inventory is the only problem. Should dealer councils compare model-level affordability and store-level appointment conversion when diagnosing weak sales?

Hyundai’s new strategy may be a useful test of whether product can solve some problems incentives cannot. The company expects hybrids to reach roughly half of its North American sales by 2030 and is adding extended-range EVs with more than 600 miles of combined range. If customers naturally prefer those products, OEMs may need less money to force demand toward vehicles shoppers do not really want. Should incentive effectiveness be measured partly by how much support a model requires to achieve a competitive turn rate?

The latest U.S.-Canada tariff escalation makes this even harder for dealers because pricing can now change for reasons completely disconnected from retail execution. If tariffs on Canadian-built vehicles rise dramatically, dealers could suddenly be sitting on one model with competitive economics and another with a major cost disadvantage. Should OEMs start providing dealers with model-level tariff exposure so inventory managers understand which vehicles carry the greatest pricing risk before they accept future allocation?