Wave 2 order invitation emails being delivered. PRO trim unavailable.

[TaxmanHog]

200,000 reservationists US & Canada
12995, members on this forum or 6.5%
15,000 Builds for 2022
3,000 of the builds are DEMOS
12,000 builds for Special Order makers
Not all the members of this forum were able to place an order
1621 forum members shared their reservation status, of those

~600 forum members shared their order data which is 600/12000 or 5% of the grand total

~42 forum members ordered Pro's, it is statistically possible there are more Pro's in Georgia, but they are not members here and there are many square miles in the peach state for which one member who has a Pro, has not crossed paths which said rare bird.

If you want to pay Georgia DMV a research fee, I bet they could pull data of the number of Lightning models if they properly classified the data by trim style, I fear they have not, but one could dig a little deeper into the data and parse it by reported sale price (sales tax data), then stratify that into the relative buckets based on value of vehicles registered so far that might give us an accurate head count of Pro's in Georgia.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

I wonder if Ford has considered the long term costs of the choices they made with their prioritizations of certain states and dealors

You’re wondering aloud if a Fortune 25 company has people who consider financial decisions?

The “long term” cost is that they kept their dealers happy (their number #1 customers), and they kept their dealer’s top clientele happy (their number #2 customers), at the cost of breaking a few eggs along the way.

The alternative was to instead piss off their #1 & #2 customers, to not break a few eggs.

It’s a decision they made pretty clear-headed it, I think - as much as we lament the broken eggs.

 

[orangefirefish]

I

You’re wondering aloud if a Fortune 25 company has people who consider financial decisions?

The “long term” cost is that they kept their dealers happy (their number #1 customers), and they kept their dealer’s top clientele happy (their number #2 customers), at the cost of breaking a few eggs along the way.

The alternative was to instead piss off their #1 & #2 customers, to not break a few eggs.

It’s a decision they made pretty clear-headed it, I think - as much as we lament the broken eggs.

I get it. But it’s still as short sighted as dealers charging egregious ADMs. If they truly want to pivot on the dealership model, then they need to stop giving the impression that they’re still bending over backwards for them.

 

[cvalue13]

I

I get it. But it’s still as short sighted as dealers charging egregious ADMs. If they truly want to pivot on the dealership model, then they need to stop giving the impression that they’re still bending over backwards for them.

that’s my intuition, too - but I’m coming to terms with it being a bad intuition

currently, Rolex boutiques have display cases full of hollow “display” watches, because boutiques don’t have stock to sell, much less to normal buyers off the street

and Rolex is only selling more than ever

In the luxury world, they call it “building frustration” in the buyer - which, as it turns out, actually on average creates greater desirability and demand, ensures every unit produced is sold, and sold quickly, thereby erasing the usual risks of manufacturing-based businesses

Turns out, knowing you can quickly sell 10,000 units for full MSRP is more profitable in real terms than hoping you can eventually sell 20,000 units near MSRP

And it seems the auto manufactures have caught on

I don’t like it, but I’m trying to adjust expectations accordingly

 

[Blainestang]

You’re wondering aloud if a Fortune 25 company has people who consider financial decisions?

To be fair, the same Fortune 25 company has had to double their Lightning demand estimates twice, and they're probably still low.

Whoever did their original estimates thought that Ford should be building like ~40k Lightnings in 2024. lol

 

[cvalue13]

To be fair, the same Fortune 25 company has had to double their Lightning demand estimates twice, and they're probably still low.

Whoever did their original estimates thought that Ford should be building like ~40k Lightnings in 2024. lol

Don’t believe that for a minute.

RE Omega X Swatch “MoonSwatch”: “Omega and Swatch released a collaboration of watches, modelled after the former’s iconic Moonwatch, hence the name MoonSwatch. What was surprising was a demand, so tremendous even regular national news sites picked it up. There were queues that made the lines for the first iPhones back when they were a novelty seem like a deserted island. Could this have been foreseen? Was this a marketing gimmick?

RE anything released by Supreme: “The takeaway: Intentionally release every product in limited quantities to ensure sellout and engineer viral content around your brand. (Supreme does this by limiting the quantity of every product they sell and varies the number available depending on the product and collaborators.)”

RE Starbuck’s “Unicorn Frappachino”: “After stating on its website that the specialty drink would only be available for a few days, Starbucks was flooded with unicorn frappuccino orders -- which sold out within the first day. There are no sales numbers available for the specialty drink, but there are nearly 160,000 #unicornfrappuccino posts on Instagram.”

RE Nike’s hype sneakers: “It's obvious both Nike and resellers thrive off limited releases, but the Swoosh is so adept at forecasting demand that the volume for big drops (like the ever-popular Jordan Retro series) is so expertly calculated that … drops may sell out instantly - keeping Nike and Jordan at the forefront of the sneakerhead conversation.”

Ask Nike, Starbucks, Omega/Swatch, and they’ll all officially respond “we couldn’t have possibly anticipated this demand.” Ask Supreme, and they’ll be more honest: the CEO just describes that the point is not making enough.

Invoking the scarcity principle to promote and sell a product works only if you phrase the product scarcity as if there used to be a large supply, but due to increased demand, only a few products were left - or reframed instead to say that only a few were made because such ultimate demand was surprising and couldn’t be anticipated. (If instead product scarcity is explained as only a few units of product were made, scarcity isnt effective at generating sales.)

I don’t buy for a moment that Ford genuinely misunderstood demand.

Even Ford’s non-“halo” products are being limited in production in order to accomplish full MSRP. The Lightning is the bleeding edge of that marketing strategy.

 

[bryan995]

Sucks about the pro. Same for 22 ordering. Only wave 1 had a chance.

If you really want a Lariat - go for the SR.

99% of people won’t notice ER vs SR on 99% of days.

 

[Sealevel]

Spotted a Lightning in the Wild this morning - about 4:30 a.m. on my way to work. Memphis area getting on Highway 40 at Stage. Kept pace in my MMe for a bit, but let it run away as I limit my speed on the highway due to high police presence. It was white and had the front lightbar, so it was at least an XLT - I couldn't read the badging in the dark, and it had a company name stenciled on the door. Good looking even in the dark, I'm anxious to get my order moving forward. GLTA.

 

[Blainestang]

Don’t believe that for a minute.

I agree it’s partly marketing, and maybe they’re just totally making up these “double” announcements for stock pumping or hype. Hard to say.

I would say, though, that they definitely want there to be more demand than supply, but they’re still way, way short on supply vs demand, so they can go way higher on supply before there’s an oversupply situation. Even ~150k/yr will still be demand crushing supply, IMO, especially if they actually build the cheaper trims.

 

[cvalue13]

I would say, though, that they definitely want there to be more demand than supply, but they’re still way, way short on supply vs demand, so they can go way higher on supply before there’s an oversupply situation. Even ~150k/yr will still be demand crushing supply, IMO, especially if they actually build the cheaper trims.

I think the desired balance of supply/demand might be a bit different than our intuitions first suggest.

From the perspective of the manufacturer, I think there are two main drivers in this - what I’ll call “new” style of - marketing and supply that is becoming more standard across industries:

(1) in the near term, have absolute certainty of supply and timing to market; that is, it is nearly invaluable to manufacturers to have a direct and 100% confident line of sight on all three of (A) an ability to sell every unit, (B) to sell it at full MSRP, and (C) to sell it as soon as manufacturing is completed. In the converse, manufactures of high-cost/low margins goods can be absolutely devastated by unsold units, units sold below MSRP, or units left as stranded stock for extended periods - all causing “bullwhip” effects in the manufacturing chain. So, compared to the alternatives, the relative value of being 100% certain to sell, say, 100 units at MSRP instantly is hard to overstate - in important ways, more valuable than being “mostly” certain you could instead sell 200 units.

(2) the second driver is almost philosophical and a bit harder to nail down: here’s the thing, it is possible that the reason there is so much extra demand is precisely because there is so little stock; not only is it possible, it’s increasingly the apparent world-view of manufacturers; as a result, it’s not as you say that “they can go way higher in supply” and not effect the correlating over-demand, but instead that as supply increases ~linearly, demand decreases ~exponentially.

So, on this manufacturing view, there is a sweet spot, errored toward significant under-supply, that almost paradoxically increases demand to levels that provide manufactures derisked certainty that they’ll sell every unit at MSRP instantly.

FYI, I come to all this from working in luxury manufacturing industries, where - like Birkin bags, stainless steel Rolex watches, ‘hype’ sneakers and clothing, NFTs, etc., etc., etc., these rules of manufacturing and managing supply-demand has become uncontroversial.

Perhaps the best singular example I can give: I know a manufacturer for certain products with Hermès, who in English (from their French) roughly translate this dynamic as “maintaining frustration in the client.” It’s an amazing little instance where the inexact translation actually creates rather honest phraseology.

So, “maintaining frustration in the client” is exactly what you see around this forum, and - and with Hermès and others - I suspect has Ford reading with great pleasure exactly the dynamics they hoped to create:

• a small group of “golden ticket” owners, thrilled not only with the product but especially the “golden ticket” attention it attracts

• a larger group of aspiring owners, all thinking regularly and positively about how they might one day become “golden ticket” owners

• another larger group of aspiring owners, all surface-level irritated and grumpy about not her being “golden ticket” owners, but still yet thinking regularly about achieving it, and despite their irritations almost undoubtedly committed to purchasing if given the chance

• a small group that have such irritation they would, if offered the chance to own, turn it down on principle

Meanwhile, all four of the above groups are interacting, talking, thinking, about a product in ways that never occur if instead Ford simply built a truck en masse.

Turns out, having money to buy something is no longer how luxury is best defined - having access to buy something, is far more attractive and seemingly attainable.

Sorry for the soap box, but from my vantage coming from the luxury manufacturing sector, I see nothing about the Lightning roll-out that suggests Ford is doing anything other than following the modern day marketing and manufacturing rule book.

 

[Nick Gerteis]

I think the desired balance of supply/demand might be a bit different than our intuitions first suggest.

From the perspective of the manufacturer, I think there are two main drivers in this - what I’ll call “new” style of - marketing and supply that is becoming more standard across industries:

(1) in the near term, have absolute certainty of supply and timing to market; that is, it is nearly invaluable to manufacturers to have a direct and 100% confident line of sight on all three of (A) an ability to sell every unit, (B) to sell it at full MSRP, and (C) to sell it as soon as manufacturing is completed. In the converse, manufactures of high-cost/low margins goods can be absolutely devastated by unsold units, units sold below MSRP, or units left as stranded stock for extended periods - all causing “bullwhip” effects in the manufacturing chain. So, compared to the alternatives, the relative value of being 100% certain to sell, say, 100 units at MSRP instantly is hard to overstate - in important ways, more valuable than being “mostly” certain you could instead sell 200 units.

(2) the second driver is almost philosophical and a bit harder to nail down: here’s the thing, it is possible that the reason there is so much extra demand is precisely because there is so little stock; not only is it possible, it’s increasingly the apparent world-view of manufacturers; as a result, it’s not as you say that “they can go way higher in supply” and not effect the correlating over-demand, but instead that as supply increases ~linearly, demand decreases ~exponentially.

So, on this manufacturing view, there is a sweet spot, errored toward significant under-supply, that almost paradoxically increases demand to levels that provide manufactures derisked certainty that they’ll sell every unit at MSRP instantly.

FYI, I come to all this from working in luxury manufacturing industries, where - like Birkin bags, stainless steel Rolex watches, ‘hype’ sneakers and clothing, NFTs, etc., etc., etc., these rules of manufacturing and managing supply-demand has become uncontroversial.

Perhaps the best singular example I can give: I know a manufacturer for certain products with Hermès, who in English (from their French) roughly translate this dynamic as “maintaining frustration in the client.” It’s an amazing little instance where the inexact translation actually creates rather honest phraseology.

So, “maintaining frustration in the client” is exactly what you see around this forum, and - and with Hermès and others - I suspect has Ford reading with great pleasure exactly the dynamics they hoped to create:

• a small group of “golden ticket” owners, thrilled not only with the product but especially the “golden ticket” attention it attracts

• a larger group of aspiring owners, all thinking regularly and positively about how they might one day become “golden ticket” owners

• another larger group of aspiring owners, all surface-level irritated and grumpy about not her being “golden ticket” owners, but still yet thinking regularly about achieving it, and despite their irritations almost undoubtedly committed to purchasing if given the chance

• a small group that have such irritation they would, if offered the chance to own, turn it down on principle

Meanwhile, all four of the above groups are interacting, talking, thinking, about a product in ways that never occur if instead Ford simply built a truck en masse.

Turns out, having money to buy something is no longer how luxury is best defined - having access to buy something, is far more attractive and seemingly attainable.

Sorry for the soap box, but from my vantage coming from the luxury manufacturing sector, I see nothing about the Lightning roll-out that suggests Ford is doing anything other than following the modern day marketing and manufacturing rule book.

Interesting write up, thank you! If true, a great example of how easily we’re all manipulated. Large companies have had decades of practice at this after all. OTOH it’s also entirely possible that Ford really is just simply screwing up because the transition to EVs caught them flat footed and it’s hard to turn around a supertanker sized corporation like F.

 

[cvalue13]

OTOH it’s also entirely possible that Ford really is just simply screwing up because the transition to EVs caught them flat footed and it’s hard to turn around a supertanker sized corporation like F.

And mindful of the law of excluded middle, too, imagine instead both are true:

Imagine an internal pitch some few years ago about whether to attempt to be first to market:

PITCH MAN: “look, I get we’re behind here, but we don’t have to make many of these frame-on-body EV trucks to generate massive corporate benefits - let me tell you how Nike, Hermès, Rolex, and others make more net profit by selling fewer units…”

 

[Blainestang]

Sorry for the soap box, but from my vantage coming from the luxury manufacturing sector, I see nothing about the Lightning roll-out that suggests Ford is doing anything other than following the modern day marketing and manufacturing rule book.

It's an interesting thought experiment, and I imagine to some extent, it's true. It's better for the Lightning to be "rare" and desirable than to OVERflood the market with them. But, considering they could probably sell 10x as many as they're building this year, I would think they would prefer to be making more than they are. It could still be very rare and desirable at substantially higher output than it is right now.

 

[cvalue13]

It's better for the Lightning to be "rare" and desirable than to OVERflood the market with them. But, considering they could probably sell 10x as many as they're building this year, I would think they would prefer to be making more than they are. It could still be very rare and desirable at substantially higher output than it is right now.

Though, the exact same thing can be said with respect to Hermès handbags, stainless steel Rolex sports watches, Nike hyped tennis shoes, and just about everything else that is fairly straightforwardly over-restricted in availability by design and intent.

and being myself more plugged in to the luxury wrist watch world than this one here, I’ve every day for years seen the comments just like yours but about Rolex stainless steel watches, but by fewer and fewer people over the years as the reality piles up in front of them. Rolex boutiques no longer even carry functioning watches, but instead hollow dummy units, because boutiques don’t have watches to sell one to anyone on a “walk in” basis.

And Rolex is a good example of the sort of end-goal of this supply-demand approach:

despite the fact there are no Rolex watches at boutiques anymore, and no one can purchase one on a “walk in” basis, all signs point to Rolex currently manufacturing more watches annually than ever before.

How does that work? How can it be simultaneously true that they don’t make enough but make more than ever before?

It seems that the real trick is to patiently, year-over-year, continue generating such increases in demand-by-scarcity that you can nonetheless incrementally ramp up production to slowly chase but never catch that ever-increasing demand.

It does not seem like an easy thing to pull off, though, and I would say totally unclear how it works in the vehicle manufacturing space.

But a quick look at the broader vehicle market says they’re trying: car manufacturer analysts seem all in broad agreement that manufacturers are presently restricting production in order to drive up retail prices and demand.

If that’s broadly true across models, I think it reasonable to view the Lightning and similar specialty vehicles as the “halo” products at the spear tip

anywho, none of this is to assert absolute certainty of fact or detail. But instead only to inject into any conversation involving “they aren’t making enough” the real world examples from other industries that suggest “not making enough” is at least as likely to be intentional as it is to be a mistake.

 

[Blainestang]

anywho, none of this is to assert absolute certainty of fact or detail. But instead only to inject into any conversation involving “they aren’t making enough” the real world examples from other industries that suggest “not making enough” is at least as likely to be intentional as it is to be a mistake.

The other wrench to throw in here is that clearly Rolex is making substantial margins on their watches and Hermes on their bags, but what's the REAL margin on the Lightning Pro, for instance?

It's the perfect item to hype like crazy, but then only sell a handful of... because you're making little or nothing on each one, so you can't make it up on volume that you don't have the capacity to build even if you wanted to.

There are certainly a lot of moving parts here.

Sponsored