what the %@$@ happened to Tesla's marketing?

[xhawk101]

Pretty classic marketing. Better to pique interest and disappoint than to never pique their interest at all. Sales, ads, news headlines, etc all follow the same pattern for well researched sociological reasons.

Agree....it's foolish for tesla to think it should reinvent every wheel and somehow reinvent marketing too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[lolachampcar]

I've worked with "today's marketing" and marketing based on trust. I prefer the results of marketing based on trust. Sure, it is harder to do but the results are durable.

 

[derekt75]

Do you all feel the rest of Tesla's target market is the same?

Regarding effective marketing, I do feel that the majority of Tesla's target market is different from the typical car market. I think many of us are engineers/scientists/nerds.

I feel that when selling to the general public, aggressive marketing can be effective, where you blast out a bunch of stuff that's technically true but perhaps misleading, and then keep on pushing with a "so you can see you'd be a fool to choose anything else, right?" and a "all you need to do is sign here". "If you sign right now, we'll give you 10% off!"

However, I feel that nerds are usually turned off by aggressive marketing. We like to be given straightforward data and come to our own conclusions. It's fine to provide a calculator tool where we can plug in different numbers to compare the total cost of ownership, but keep the calculator fair (e.g., business tax deduction), and not start by claiming a $500 lease. I got solar panels on my roof a couple years ago from SolarCity, and mentioned the idea to a couple colleagues (both engineers). They talked to SolarCity and both immediately rejected them because they seemed too "used car salesman"ish. One went with Verengo and the other gave up on Solar. It's a shame that she gave up on Solar because it would save her money and help save the environment. If the salesman had only allowed her time to come to that conclusion, she would have. Instead, the salesman kept trying to push her to sign, which made her feel like something was wrong about the deal, and she walked away. Give nerds in the Bay Area (where the marginal electric rate is $0.35/kWh for many of us) the facts, and solar will sell itself. All you can accomplish by bending the truth is to make people feel that you're not a trustworthy company.

I feel the same way about Model S. Let the car do the talking and get out of its way. Give us the facts ($7500 tax rebate, etc), but don't start out with a quoted monthly payment that's lowered by $59/month because there's a guaranteed resale value. Don't imply that you can charge at 62 miles per hour at any outlet in the country. It comes across as slimy, and sullies your reputation.

I don't think this is new for Tesla, either. Back during the Broder kerfuffle, why did Tesla have to assume Broder's intent? Why not just give us the facts (he said he was driving 45 mph, but was actually driving 55 mph), and let us determine if he was acting in good faith or not? When you assume that driving around a parking lot was only done to run out of juice and he provides a somewhat reasonable reply (he was looking for the charging station), it weakens your whole case. The case is strong when you don't try to stretch nothings into somethings, and when you're caught stretching, all of the clear cut arguments are weakened.

Anyway, Tesla doesn't have much of a reputation right now. Why not establish an honest and straightforward reputation? I think this would help their sales to nerds, and I think nerds make up a disproportionate share of their target market.

 

[qwk]

Yep, I couldn't have put it better. Marketing a $100k Tesla is worlds different than marketing an Ipad or Iphone or clothes at the Gap. I hope Tesla realizes this before it's too late. The car sells on it's own merits, all you have to do is get it out there and people with the means will buy it. It's that good.

It made absolutely no sense to have people that are interested have to put a deposit on the car in order to have a test drive. Now that the backlog is evaporating and Tesla will actually need reservations at some point, a cheesy way to calculate a fake lease will help some, but will it be enough? Time will tell. IMO, it's much better/easier to take care of potential customers from the get go, than piss them off and then get more later.

 

[bonnie]

Regarding effective marketing, I do feel that the majority of Tesla's target market is different from the typical car market. I think many of us are engineers/scientists/nerds.

I feel that when selling to the general public, aggressive marketing can be effective, where you blast out a bunch of stuff that's technically true but perhaps misleading, and then keep on pushing with a "so you can see you'd be a fool to choose anything else, right?" and a "all you need to do is sign here". "If you sign right now, we'll give you 10% off!"

Anyway, Tesla doesn't have much of a reputation right now. Why not establish an honest and straightforward reputation? I think this would help their sales to nerds, and I think nerds make up a disproportionate share of their target market.

i don't disagree with your post - just saying that I believe Tesla will ultimately be marketing to the non-nerd market . The current market is as you describe, but I would argue that the future market is much broader. And the time is right to start creating the desire in that market segment (ie, Gen III) to create the backlog at the right time.

 

[Ocelot]

Regarding effective marketing, I do feel that the majority of Tesla's target market is different from the typical car market. I think many of us are engineers/scientists/nerds.

I feel that when selling to the general public, aggressive marketing can be effective, where you blast out a bunch of stuff that's technically true but perhaps misleading, and then keep on pushing with a "so you can see you'd be a fool to choose anything else, right?" and a "all you need to do is sign here". "If you sign right now, we'll give you 10% off!"

However, I feel that nerds are usually turned off by aggressive marketing. We like to be given straightforward data and come to our own conclusions. It's fine to provide a calculator tool where we can plug in different numbers to compare the total cost of ownership, but keep the calculator fair (e.g., business tax deduction), and not start by claiming a $500 lease. I got solar panels on my roof a couple years ago from SolarCity, and mentioned the idea to a couple colleagues (both engineers). They talked to SolarCity and both immediately rejected them because they seemed too "used car salesman"ish. One went with Verengo and the other gave up on Solar. It's a shame that she gave up on Solar because it would save her money and help save the environment. If the salesman had only allowed her time to come to that conclusion, she would have. Instead, the salesman kept trying to push her to sign, which made her feel like something was wrong about the deal, and she walked away. Give nerds in the Bay Area (where the marginal electric rate is $0.35/kWh for many of us) the facts, and solar will sell itself. All you can accomplish by bending the truth is to make people feel that you're not a trustworthy company.

I feel the same way about Model S. Let the car do the talking and get out of its way. Give us the facts ($7500 tax rebate, etc), but don't start out with a quoted monthly payment that's lowered by $59/month because there's a guaranteed resale value. Don't imply that you can charge at 62 miles per hour at any outlet in the country. It comes across as slimy, and sullies your reputation.

I don't think this is new for Tesla, either. Back during the Broder kerfuffle, why did Tesla have to assume Broder's intent? Why not just give us the facts (he said he was driving 45 mph, but was actually driving 55 mph), and let us determine if he was acting in good faith or not? When you assume that driving around a parking lot was only done to run out of juice and he provides a somewhat reasonable reply (he was looking for the charging station), it weakens your whole case. The case is strong when you don't try to stretch nothings into somethings, and when you're caught stretching, all of the clear cut arguments are weakened.

Anyway, Tesla doesn't have much of a reputation right now. Why not establish an honest and straightforward reputation? I think this would help their sales to nerds, and I think nerds make up a disproportionate share of their target market.

well said.

 

[neroden]

I agree with everything said by derekt75, and with what lolachampcar said.

I think one problem is that Tesla has hired people who are used to doing marketing for other companies. Frankly, Apple has a bit of a record as a dishonest marketer. And where did Tesla get their head of 'customer experience'?...

Yeah, anyway, I'm not expecting Tesla to improve its marketing in the way derek suggests. But I'd like it if it did.

Anyway, Tesla doesn't have much of a reputation right now. Why not establish an honest and straightforward reputation? I think this would help their sales to nerds, and I think nerds make up a disproportionate share of their target market.

 

[Norbert]

It's fine to provide a calculator tool where we can plug in different numbers to compare the total cost of ownership, but keep the calculator fair (e.g., business tax deduction), and not start by claiming a $500 lease.

It doesn't actually start by claiming a "$500 lease". The term next to $500 is 'cost of ownership'. The calculator then clearly states in the "Finance" row, very much to the top, the monthly payment for the financing package.

Tesla is not advertising a lease, it is advertising a cost of ownership. It isn't even a "lease" at all, and Tesla doesn't claim it is, and doesn't call it that.

Give us the facts ($7500 tax rebate, etc), but don't start out with a quoted monthly payment that's lowered by $59/month because there's a guaranteed resale value

I'm assuming the $59 ($40 for the 60 kWh) is the difference between the resale value, and the loan payoff, distributed over 36 months. In terms of 'cost of ownership', which is the headline of this calculator, this should definitely be part of the calculation. Why should this page not calculate that value for you, depending on 60, 85 or P85 versions, and make it part of the cost-of-ownership value?

The finance payment however, is a fixed value. And it appears as that on this web page, without if or but, depending only on the Model S version you pick. No matter what the tax rebate, you still have to make that payment each month.

You say "Give us the facts ($7500 tax rebate, etc)", however what this page does is to compare the tax rebate against the down payment, and distribute the difference over 36 months. That's a useful calculation if you are interested in the cost-of-ownership as a per-month value.

I think I know what you mean with what you say, but actually I think you haven't understood the function of that page.

From the top of the page:

We also encourage you to think about Model S ownership in terms of true out of pocket cost.

 

[derekt75]

actually I think you haven't understood the function of that page.

It’s true that I don’t understand the function of the page.
It’s trying to tell me about total cost of ownership, but I can’t figure out what it means by that.

It’s obviously not total cost of ownership compared to a bicycle because in that case energy usage would be positive, not negative.

I don’t think it’s the total cost of ownership compared to a Prius because they don’t talk about tire costs.

I certainly hope it’s not the total cost of ownership compared to a BMW M5, because if it is, the Model S is way too expensive.

So what is it? Well it’s kinda the total cost of ownership of a Model S compared to an ICE car if you ignore some of the costs of each (such as the service cost of the Model S and the purchase price of the ICE). I think the intent is to allow me to compare a Tesla car payment against an ICE car payment, but even there I think it fails, and that’s what irks me.

I don’t think the business tax benefit is different between Model S and an ICE, so why include that? Or why include that and state specific rebates but not include state specific taxes? When I think of an ICE car payment, I don’t usually subtract out the resale value after 3 years, so it seems unfair that the Tesla calculator always subtracts it out. Worse, the default electricity vs. gasoline uses 15k miles per year, but the guaranteed resale value stays at the 12k miles per year number. The fuel cost won’t change sign if you have a 50 mpg car, a marginal electric rate of $0.34/kWh (like I do), and $4.50 gas. Why not include the service costs of 3 years with the Tesla ($1800/38k miles) compared to 3 years with an ICE ($800/38k miles?)

Everything just feels a little sketchy to me, like the way some try to argue that BEVs emit more carbon by cherry picking the data that supports their case.

I think if someone could just barely afford a $500 car payment on an ICE, they’d likely be poorly served by buying a Tesla. I want folks buying Teslas to be surprised at how great the car is. I don’t want them to feel like they got suckered.

 

[Norbert]

It’s true that I don’t understand the function of the page.
It’s trying to tell me about total cost of ownership, but I can’t figure out what it means by that.

I don't see it suggesting "total" anywhere. It is obviously not "total" because it doesn't include maintenance, for example. Or difficulties due to current lack of infrastructure.

However it does bring a few points to your attention which may be a relevant part of the "value" the car may have for you, however are often overlooked in comparisons.

I don’t think the business tax benefit is different between Model S and an ICE, so why include that?

Probably one reason is that with an ICE you may use an actual lease, whereas the Model S financing package is "lease-like", and so has different business tax benefits. So in reality this may very well be a difference when comparing to an ICE (or even in comparing to a Leaf or Volt, if such a comparison makes sense in the first place.)

When I think of an ICE car payment, I don’t usually subtract out the resale value after 3 years, so it seems unfair that the Tesla calculator always subtracts it out.

I think you misunderstood that. I wish there was an explanation for the "guaranteed resale value" number, but my interpretation is that it refers to the difference between the guaranteed resale value, and the loan pay off (what you have to pay to close the loan before its "usual" end after 63 months). (It's a relatively small value if multiplied by 36 months). With a lease, there is no such difference.

Worse, the default electricity vs. gasoline uses 15k miles per year, but the guaranteed resale value stays at the 12k miles per year number.

Yeah, that seems to kinda suck, if I may say so. My average used to be around 15k.

Why not include the service costs of 3 years with the Tesla ($1800/38k miles) compared to 3 years with an ICE ($800/38k miles?)

I suppose comparing service costs is a can of worms. Also I'm not sure how much Elon wants to "re-engineer" service, so maybe they didn't want to prematurely bring in changing numbers not decided yet. Or maybe that's just a weak part of that page.

I think if someone could just barely afford a $500 car payment on an ICE, they’d likely be poorly served by buying a Tesla. I want folks buying Teslas to be surprised at how great the car is. I don’t want them to feel like they got suckered.

I don't have hard data to make that point, but it seems quite a few bought a Model S out of enthusiasm, who would usually not spend more than $500 on a lease. And they seem to be very happy with their purchase.