-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
I'm pretty sure ALL delays due to time.
ZachShahan
Active Member
ZachShahan
Active Member
I totally agree.
Current marketing approaches are great, but they are very different from traditional advertising and reach a different audience.
If we want older people who are less active on social media yet have money and would like to drive a safe, high-performance, American car to find out about Tesla or have confidence that it's a "real" company, I think some TV advertising could go a long way.
It's simply making people aware of a product that they don't otherwise hear about because the are 7 full connections away from Kevin Bacon.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Yes - I don't think advertising on traditional media to counter FUD works well. May be auto specific publications - but not general media.
But targeted online ads to convert leads to sales, guaranteed to have great ROI.
ZachShahan
Active Member
I'm pretty sure ALL delays due to time.
hehe.
I mean: it takes a long time to test the roof because it has to just sit there in the sun for a long time.
ZachShahan
Active Member
There are also many rational people willing to make logical choices but who are not on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc.
They may well get their news from TV. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have a real block against Tesla.
The important thing, imho, is that this population is very different than the current Tesla market yet is also attracted to the things that make Teslas great.
Run a few TV ads for a while and see how much that wakes up people who have learned very little about the company, if anything.
Remember that a HUGE portion of Tesla sales are still in California. In many other places, it's hard to even see a Tesla in a parking lot.
Menifeer
Member
Be careful about letting that idea get out. I can just imagine Elon's response...
"I could bore a hole to the center of Mars and install a bank of Powerwalls fed by some solar tiles on the surface. Then all I have to do is provide a large current down there that would generate the magnetic field. Hmmm. I can have it working late next year."
I lament the fact that FUD and combating FUD has come to as prominent place as it has on this thread. But it unfortunately does seem to have become relevant at this point to an investors roundtable. I try to avoid stepping into the debate online because of its often polarized and vitriolic nature, but I read an article today that I just could not let pass without posting a response.
Here's the article, in case others wish to respond.
Why Bloom is Off Environmental Rose for Tesla and Other Electric Vehicles
it's not all that hard to find my response (it's the really long one), but I can't seem to find a way to link directly to it, so am including below. (Now would be a good time to skip to the next post if you don't want to read something that's long). And while you'll see that I'm not an unadulterated fan of Elon or the Paris Agreement, I think it does its own small part to balance the one-sided narrative.
- - - - -
I come to the Daily Signal because it serves as a voice of reason. But it has badly, and sadly, failed here. At its best, the Daily Signal is an antidote to news that begins with an ideological premise and then gathers up an appropriate collection of "facts" to reach a pre-ordained, foregone conclusion. This article, however, serves as a cautionary tale that even the best intentioned efforts can still fall into the very rhetorical trap which it seeks to counter.
Anyone that has read my writings knows my libertarian, traditional virtues orientation. As well as my disdain for using climate change (whatever the nuances of the scientific data and models) as a trojan horse for big government intervention. But I drive a Tesla Model 3, and it is not because I am one of those "Tesla owners [who] sip their lattes at the Supercharger" or a "wealthy environmentalist." I don't even drink coffee, and a quick glance at my bank account woud disabuse anyone of the notion that I am wealthy.
I drive a Model 3 for a different set of reasons. Based on data from the IIHS, its occupants are safer in a crash than every other car ever tested [https://www.tesla.com/blog/...]. Think about that for a moment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, or whether one is left- or right-leaning. Its total cost of ownership is comparable to a Toyota Camry (my previous car) or Honda Accord [https://cleantechnica.com/2...]. And while I am disappointed in Tesla's selective use of statistical data to justify how safe its autopilot features are, even its informed critics view it as having by far the most advanced self-driving features available to the public [ https://insideevs.com/news/...]. As a driver I would never even consider going back to a non-autopilot car, as when it is used as intended, it makes me a far safer and less-stressed driver than left to my own devices. None of these things have to do with climate change.
In addition to ad hominem attacks that seek to stereotype and demean Tesla supporters, the author employs a mix of selective facts and confounding Tesla with other electric vehicle efforts to make his case. For example, a lengthy section of the article talks about the problems with sourcing cobalt, an ingredient in some batteries. First, Tesla sourcing is well documented and very sensitive to child labor issues. Second, Tesla usage of cobalt in its batteries is the lowest in the industry. And finally, Tesla is moving quickly to a battery that uses zero cobalt. That's zero as in none. [https://cleantechnica.com/2...]
Next, to the environmental impact of using electricity from the U.S. national power grid. This is well-trod ground but the best available data leads to just the opposite conclusion the author wishes to draw, both for marginal per mile usage [https://afdc.energy.gov/veh...], as well as in considering the complete life cycle, from manufacture to disposal [https://www.ucsusa.org/clea...]
One could go on about the viability of the company (Hint: it's going to be just fine), "the federal government pouring money into companies such as Tesla," and other misrepresentations, but this response has already gone on too long.
The interested reader can check these other points by simply spending some time on google and reading more than one side of the argument. Let me instead conclude with two points of caution. First, I agree with the author completely when he says "it’s more important than ever that we get to the truth." But the way of truth is humility, something in short supply in most polemics. Humility sifts through a variety of sources to get a balanced view of the facts and theses. As a scientist by training (Ph.D. in physics from Stanford) I am reminded of Sir Francis Bacon's caution about the true nature of science "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties."
Second, my antennae go up whenever I hear an argument from the left, or the right, that seems to relish in schadenfreude, rather than treating presumed opponents empathetically, giving them the benefit of the doubt as to motives, and assuming that they are thoughtful but perhaps not well informed. Searching for hypocrisy in others does not have a great pedigree [https://www.lds.org/scriptu...]. David Brook's recent book, Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt, is highly recommended here.
I'd be happy to get together over lunch with the author to hear him out, and then go for a ride together in my Model 3.
- - - - -
Here's the article, in case others wish to respond.
Why Bloom is Off Environmental Rose for Tesla and Other Electric Vehicles
it's not all that hard to find my response (it's the really long one), but I can't seem to find a way to link directly to it, so am including below. (Now would be a good time to skip to the next post if you don't want to read something that's long). And while you'll see that I'm not an unadulterated fan of Elon or the Paris Agreement, I think it does its own small part to balance the one-sided narrative.
- - - - -
I come to the Daily Signal because it serves as a voice of reason. But it has badly, and sadly, failed here. At its best, the Daily Signal is an antidote to news that begins with an ideological premise and then gathers up an appropriate collection of "facts" to reach a pre-ordained, foregone conclusion. This article, however, serves as a cautionary tale that even the best intentioned efforts can still fall into the very rhetorical trap which it seeks to counter.
Anyone that has read my writings knows my libertarian, traditional virtues orientation. As well as my disdain for using climate change (whatever the nuances of the scientific data and models) as a trojan horse for big government intervention. But I drive a Tesla Model 3, and it is not because I am one of those "Tesla owners [who] sip their lattes at the Supercharger" or a "wealthy environmentalist." I don't even drink coffee, and a quick glance at my bank account woud disabuse anyone of the notion that I am wealthy.
I drive a Model 3 for a different set of reasons. Based on data from the IIHS, its occupants are safer in a crash than every other car ever tested [https://www.tesla.com/blog/...]. Think about that for a moment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, or whether one is left- or right-leaning. Its total cost of ownership is comparable to a Toyota Camry (my previous car) or Honda Accord [https://cleantechnica.com/2...]. And while I am disappointed in Tesla's selective use of statistical data to justify how safe its autopilot features are, even its informed critics view it as having by far the most advanced self-driving features available to the public [ https://insideevs.com/news/...]. As a driver I would never even consider going back to a non-autopilot car, as when it is used as intended, it makes me a far safer and less-stressed driver than left to my own devices. None of these things have to do with climate change.
In addition to ad hominem attacks that seek to stereotype and demean Tesla supporters, the author employs a mix of selective facts and confounding Tesla with other electric vehicle efforts to make his case. For example, a lengthy section of the article talks about the problems with sourcing cobalt, an ingredient in some batteries. First, Tesla sourcing is well documented and very sensitive to child labor issues. Second, Tesla usage of cobalt in its batteries is the lowest in the industry. And finally, Tesla is moving quickly to a battery that uses zero cobalt. That's zero as in none. [https://cleantechnica.com/2...]
Next, to the environmental impact of using electricity from the U.S. national power grid. This is well-trod ground but the best available data leads to just the opposite conclusion the author wishes to draw, both for marginal per mile usage [https://afdc.energy.gov/veh...], as well as in considering the complete life cycle, from manufacture to disposal [https://www.ucsusa.org/clea...]
One could go on about the viability of the company (Hint: it's going to be just fine), "the federal government pouring money into companies such as Tesla," and other misrepresentations, but this response has already gone on too long.
The interested reader can check these other points by simply spending some time on google and reading more than one side of the argument. Let me instead conclude with two points of caution. First, I agree with the author completely when he says "it’s more important than ever that we get to the truth." But the way of truth is humility, something in short supply in most polemics. Humility sifts through a variety of sources to get a balanced view of the facts and theses. As a scientist by training (Ph.D. in physics from Stanford) I am reminded of Sir Francis Bacon's caution about the true nature of science "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties."
Second, my antennae go up whenever I hear an argument from the left, or the right, that seems to relish in schadenfreude, rather than treating presumed opponents empathetically, giving them the benefit of the doubt as to motives, and assuming that they are thoughtful but perhaps not well informed. Searching for hypocrisy in others does not have a great pedigree [https://www.lds.org/scriptu...]. David Brook's recent book, Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt, is highly recommended here.
I'd be happy to get together over lunch with the author to hear him out, and then go for a ride together in my Model 3.
- - - - -
Last edited:
chiller
Member
Choose no panel gaps. Choose a manufacturer with a lot of dealers near by. Choose a ****ing thick paint. Choose a HUD, foot-operated tail-gate, and electrical tow-hooks. Choose three years free oil changes, tire rotations and free winter tire storage. Choose the same old mind-numbing boring stuff that kills the planet, stuffing it full of Co2. Choose rotting away at the gas-station, pushing your last dollar into the petrol pump. Choose our demise.... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose demise. I chose something else. I chose the future:
With "commercials" like that. nothing else matters.
With "commercials" like that. nothing else matters.
OK although at least half the US population believes the climate change message is nonsense. Teslas are good cars that stand on their own with or without a climate change message. Of course there are also many people who believe the climate change message and that's a powerful reason to go Tesla. So I guess the answer would be different ads that make an effort to align with the audience of the medium.
But I don't believe traditional commercials are the best use of Tesla's funds at this time. Google ads yes, and a much better Tesla web site, and a daily media message as part of a stronger PR initiative, and I like the idea about home-made ad contests. There is a lot that can be accomplished without buying TV commercial time which is expensive.
Totally disagree with the climate change angle. Tesla needs to be promoted on its own superiority as opposed to some politically charged issue. No way.
Shanghai GF will follow the model of a simple line and will try to avoid the mistakes of the earlier overly-complex Model 3 lines.Things change.
The way I understand situation with M3 production (from @DaveT info) is that massively automated line is as expensive to maintain, as is building cars much more manually in tent. Plus, there is all sunk cost that needs to be amortized, and is screwing up COGS.
I could have misunderstood that. But if not, fundamentally, one quick write-off of $2-3B (the whole M3 prod. line) could be all we need to clear books, and offer different, better vantage point into operations - though I'm not sure if that's possible based on accounting rules. One time write-off may hurt, but WS is usually understanding if that clears air. This opens another debate, concerns re Tesla's ability to win through automation; but I doubt that angle would be too damaging, and I'm sure Tesla will eventually evolve their experience into a win.
Or you know, EM could borrow 1-2B by pledging SpaceX shares, and buy 5-12M shares, I'm sure that'll put floor under SP
We must be approaching levels where he and Board are ready to do something a bit more substantive than twit and write emails.
EDIT: Huh, I meant this post to be optimistic; yet, Engineer in me wants to put in all disclaimers, and yeah, I diluted message.
Message is: things are not even remotely as bad as SP indicates, and there are many ways forward that will validate Tesla's future.
You are basically saying that your co-worker and your own father trust the advertising more than they trust you!! What a dystopian world!
God, I don’t want Tesla to contribute to what Noam Chomsky calls “Manufacturing consent”.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I don't see your response in the comment section at all. Was it moderated?
very strange. It was up there for a while, but I don't see it either...
BoerumHill
not great not terrible
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
