This post is in partnership with Entrepreneur. The article below was originally published at Entrepreneur.com.

    From Georgia to New Jersey, states have attacked Tesla’s direct sales model, in some cases banning sales of the company’s electric vehicles entirely. Through it all, founder Elon Musk has stayed committed to the dogma that franchising would destroy its business model.

    Soon, that may change.

    In an interview with Autoline Daily last month, Musk implied that the company might be easing up on the anti-franchising policy. The industry publication quotes him saying, as the company grows, “we may need a hybrid system, with a combination of our own stores and some dealer franchises.”

    Coming from the CEO of the company that has referred to the direct sales model as “vital,” this is a big deal. Tesla has faced off against auto dealers associations across the country who have argued that the company’s direct sales model violates state laws. Since every state has slightly different laws to deal with auto franchises, every time a new state takes up the cause, the issue can seem more convoluted.

    In October, Michigan became the fifth sate to ban direct sales of Tesla vehicles, as all new-car dealers are required to provide a franchise agreement. Auto dealers in states including Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri have argued that Tesla’s direct sales model undercuts the franchise model and threatens consumers’ ability to utilize dealers as advocates separate from manufacturers. As Tesla is forced to tangle with more and more state, it looks like Musk may have to temper his dedication to direct sales.

    “I think eventually they will have to [franchise],” says Lou Chronowski, a Chicago-based attorney with Dykema who has worked on automotive and franchise industry cases. “I think that the powers of the dealers and the dealer bodies are so strong, they can keep them at bay for a while, but eventually, they will need to have franchise dealers.”

    Chronowski says that dealers are worried that Tesla and other potential entrants in the auto industry using a direct sales model could provide major competition, with the ability to sell cars at lower prices than the competition. Plus, some dealers would like the opportunity to own a Tesla franchise themselves.

    “I think that this has always been just a timing issue. I think the reality is that Tesla did it the way they had to do it, being in the startup mode,” he says. “They really couldn’t start a dealer network and then start selling cars. There just isn’t enough money in the world to do that.”

    A Tesla spokesperson emphatically denies any franchising rumors (“There are no plans to franchise in any capacity”), but says the car maker may be open to a different, “hybrid” model.

    本文是与《创业者》杂志的合作内容，原载于Entrepreneur.com。

    从乔治亚州到新泽西州，美国的不少州都打击了特斯拉（Tesla）的直销模式，有些州甚至完全禁止特斯拉电动汽车的销售。但尽管如此，特斯拉的创始人埃隆•穆斯克仍然坚持认为，开放特许经营将损害特斯拉的业务模式。

    但是这种情况可能很快就会发生变化。

    穆斯克上个月在接受《汽车日报》（Autoline Daily）采访时暗示，特斯拉或许会放松其一贯反对特许经营的政策。该刊物引述穆斯克的话称，随着公司的发展，“我们可能需要一个混合型体系，其中既有我们自己的门店，也有一些特许经营的经销商。”

    这番话出自于一位视直销为“命根子”的CEO之口，可谓是一件大事。之前全美各地的汽车经销商协会都指责特斯拉的直销模式违反了各州法律。由于美国各州有关汽车业特许经营权的法律稍有不同，每次有新的州参与进来，问题都会变得更复杂一些。

    今年10月，密歇根成为第5个禁止特斯拉电动汽车直销的州，理由是该州所有的新车经销商都要递交特许经营协议。乔治亚州、纽约州、宾西法尼亚州、俄亥俄州和密苏里州等地的汽车经销商也纷纷指责特斯拉的直销模式对特许经营模式造成了损害。随着特斯拉要应对的州越来越多，穆斯克似乎也只得稍稍放松他对直销的执著。

    位于芝加哥的Dykema律师事务所的律师卢•克鲁诺瓦斯基曾经接手过一些汽车业和特许经营行业的案例，他表示：“我认为最终他们必须走（特许经营）这条路。我觉得经销商的力量和经销商网络是很强大的，他们可以一时令他们没有办法，但最终他们还是需要特许经营经销商的。”

    克鲁诺瓦斯基表示，广大经销商们担心，特斯拉和其他可能杀入汽车行业的“黑马”，会凭借直销模式造成极为激烈的竞争，因为直销模式下的汽车售价能够显著低于竞品。此外，有些经销商自己也乐于拥有一家特斯拉的经销门店。

    克鲁诺瓦斯基说：“我认为这就是个时间问题。我认为特斯拉以往的做法是因为他们不得不这样做，因为它一直处于创业模式。所以他们不可能一开始就通过建立一个经销商网络来卖车，因为他们没有足够的资金。”

    特斯拉公司的一位发言人坚决否认了任何有关特许经营的传闻（“目前没有任何特许经营计划”），不过同时他也表示，特斯拉可能会推行一种所谓的“混合型”模式。

    What could that mean? The spokesperson maintained that there are “no details at this point,” and that it would be inaccurate to say that the company was considering franchising.

    Industry insiders posited a hybrid model could mean franchising on a state-by-state basis, focusing on states with the strictest pro-franchising policies, like California and Texas. Or, it could mean adjusting to meet some aspects of existing auto franchising regulations, while continuing to fight other aspects of state regulation.

    “The fairy tale is going to have to evolve,” says Nick Powills, a member of the International Franchise Association Board and CEO of public relations firm No Limit Agency. “The critics are going to hate it for a moment, but as long as the general public or those that are willing to buy a Tesla support it and the demand is there it won’t matter.”

    If it’s inevitable, then why is Tesla still denying claims that it will franchise? Powliss says brand reputation has something to do with it. “[Tesla not franchising] probably matches the brand perception… of up-class, upscale, state of the art, everything else that comes with a Tesla vehicle.”

    In other words, for now, Tesla has to keep fighting against franchising and auto franchises because its brand as the alternative to the traditional auto industry depends on it. However, don’t be surprised if, once Tesla wants to ensure its national presence, a “hybrid model” emerges that looks a lot like franchising.

    那么这意味着什么呢？该发言人坚称，“目前还没有任何细节可供透露”，并表示现在说特斯拉正在考虑特许经营是不准确的。

    有行业内幕人士表示，所谓的“混合型”模式可能意味着以州为单位开展特许经营，也就是说在那些最严厉反对直销的州里开放特许经营，比如加利福尼亚州和得克萨斯州。或者它可能表示特斯拉将针对现有特许经营法规做出某些调整，以满足现行法规的某些方面，同时继续与有关各州法规的某些方面保持对抗。

    国际特许经营协会理事会（International Franchise Association Board）的成员、公关公司No Limit Agency的CEO尼克•鲍威尔斯指出：“这个童话也要与时俱进了。虽然有些评论人士可能会反感一阵子，但是只要公众或是那些想买特斯拉的人支持这种转变，需求又放在那里，就没什么关系。”

    如果开放特许经营是不可避免的，那么特斯拉为什么还在坚决否认自己会搞特许经营？鲍威尔斯认为这可能与品牌声誉有关。“（不开放特许经营）可能符合它的品牌认知……即高档、高端、先进等等特质。”

    换句话说，目前特斯拉之所以一直反对特许经营，独自力斗各大经销商，就是因为它要塑造与传统汽车品牌不同的形象。不过一旦特斯拉想要确保它在全美范围内的存在，“混合型”模式的出现或许就不可避免，而这种“混合型”模式看起来很像特许经营。（财富中文网）

    译者：朴成奎