![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Chrysler - or the government (it's hard to tell these days) - is eliminating about a quarter of Chrysler's dealerships around the country, according to an AP article I read at the Cybercast News Service.
What I particularly found interesting about the article - bylined by two Associated Press reporters - was the following information:
If this is really the case, you'd figure Chrysler would want to keep those 600 dealerships who account for 14% and junk the 600 who contribute essentially nothing to the company's bottom line, right? What gives?
One could posit all sorts of other questions at this point, but such an exercise would in all likelihood be a waste of time, as I think it almost certain that the numbers in this "news" article are totally unreliable, the result of acute innumeracy on the part either of the AP flacks or Chrysler management (or both). This kind of sloppiness makes me wonder what else is wrong in the article and gives me the feeling I wasted my time reading it.
For example, did the company really say something as stupid as the following?
Someone oughta tell these guys that there's only so much one can do with a sow's ear, y'know?
Cheers...
What I particularly found interesting about the article - bylined by two Associated Press reporters - was the following information:
Chrysler LLC wants to eliminate roughly a quarter of its 3,200 U.S. dealerships by early next month [...]Gee, let's do the math...
Many of the dealers' sales are too low, the automaker said, with just over 50 percent of dealers accounting for about 90 percent of the company's U.S. sales.
[...]
More than half of the dealerships being eliminated sell less than 100 vehicles per year, they said, and account for 14 percent of U.S. sales.
- Let's assume that "just over 50%" is actually 62.5%. Therefore, according to the article, (3200 x 0.625 =) 2000 dealerships account for 90% of sales.
- Assume that "more than half" really means 75%, so (800 x 0.75 =) 600 dealerships account for another 14% of sales.
If this is really the case, you'd figure Chrysler would want to keep those 600 dealerships who account for 14% and junk the 600 who contribute essentially nothing to the company's bottom line, right? What gives?
One could posit all sorts of other questions at this point, but such an exercise would in all likelihood be a waste of time, as I think it almost certain that the numbers in this "news" article are totally unreliable, the result of acute innumeracy on the part either of the AP flacks or Chrysler management (or both). This kind of sloppiness makes me wonder what else is wrong in the article and gives me the feeling I wasted my time reading it.
For example, did the company really say something as stupid as the following?
Chrysler said in its filing that dealers are not competitive enough with foreign brands. Chrysler sold an average of 303 vehicles per dealer in 2008, according to its filing. By contrast, Honda Motor Co. sold about 1,200 vehicles per dealer, while Toyota Motor Corp. sold nearly 1,300 per dealer. [emphasis mine]I suppose one could go try to hunt down the filing, but if the quote accurately reflects what is in there, then allowing Fiat to take over the company might well be construed as a casus belli by the Italians.
Someone oughta tell these guys that there's only so much one can do with a sow's ear, y'know?
Cheers...
