Question of moral agency

I read your article about the industry switch to an agency retail model (Business, 23 March) with a mixture of amusement and irritation.

Tony Whitehorn said “customers don’t really enjoy haggling” and “the agency model is completely transparent”. Yep, it certainly is, because if you want a certain brand of car, you will know you have no chance of getting a better deal by trying a different dealer or a broker. And we haggle in order to save our hard-earned money; forcing us to pay what the manufacturer wants is hardly a good solution to this.

I found the peppering of management speak amusing, in particular Whitehorn’s “almost monetise the asset”. Yes, I love my asset being monetised. And: “It will be what the customer wants, because the customer is king.” Mmm, I’m not sure that the king has asked for this or likes the idea of having his purchasing process controlled in this way.

Duncan Mcphee appeared to let the cat out of the bag when he said: “Agency is a very simple model that’s very transparent. Customers like that ease and, importantly, this is very, very profitable.” Yes, it’s all about taking control and increasing profits. Customers can make buying a car easy now. Just phone a dealer and say you’re happy to pay full list. Easy!

Jonathan Goodman said: “The start point for us was you actually get more fun back into buying a car.” Oh, the joy of ordering online at full list.

Where I think (hope) the agency model will fail in the longer term is as a result of supply and demand. Once the present supply chain constraints ease, the temptation for manufacturers to go for more volume will lead back to a position of demand constraint. How will the model work then? Nigel Macleod

Via email