I’m probably going to ramble for a minute, so bear with me.
One thing I often try to do is dilute down the difference between a good value and a good deal. A vehicle with large incentives, low mf, high rv, etc is an easy candidate for being a good value. The programs are such that the lease payment is likely to be low. A good deal, on the other hand, would represent a negotiated deal on a vehicle that is very aggressive for the current market. A 3 sigma outlier to the right of the curve, if you will. One can have a lease that is an amazing deal, but still a poor value. Likewise, one can have a lease that’s a good value, but a pretty poor deal considering the current market conditions. With these two terms defined, there becomes more reason to differentiate between incentives/rebates and dealer discount. It’s the lease programs that make for a good value. When you start negotiating numbers with a dealer, you trying to achieve a good deal.
Now, generally the goal here, at least when it comes to the really popular deals that get posted, is to find something that’s both an excellent value AND and excellent deal.
I’m leasing a Palisade currently. I believe that for the time I leased it, I got an excellent deal on it, but compared to some of the competition, it wasn’t an excellent value. Unfortunately, it’s also a vehicle where we see lots of people get offered deals that are very poor values and poor deals.
As a customer, my goal when I start negotiating is to do everything I can to maximize the quality of my deal. At a basic level, I don’t care if the dealer makes money or not. I’m not entering into the transaction with their best interests in mind, I’m not responsible for paying their bills, etc. That doesn’t make me greedy, that makes me realistic. With that said, I do understand that the dealer needs to make a net positive income or they would cease to exist, so them making money is a reality. My personal goal is to minimize the amount of work I expect a dealer to do, in turn minimizing the amount of profit they need to make to justify the transaction. Market conditions and incentive structures will dictate the opportunity cost to the dealer of not having the inventory. I want to get to the lowest possible number I can where the dealer will still say “yah, this deal makes sense to do”. They get to define where that number is; all I can do is offer the path of least resistance. The more of their time I waste, the higher the opportunity cost goes.
I do always find the dealer pulling the “it’s only dinner once a week difference… don’t even worry about the $40!” line funny. Cool, if it’s no big deal, then you should have no problem eating the $40/mo and agreeing to my price… after all, it’s only dinner once a week.
I don’t think greed really plays into this at all. The dealer wants to maximize their profit. The customer wants to minimize their costs. Anything in between is a concession to facilitate the transaction. A customer fighting for a significant amount less than what the dealer is willing to do isn’t being greedy, they’re just being unreasonable.