Photo: Tesla Motors
Sales expectations are not good for U.S. auto companies. Automakers are resorting to fairly radical promotional programs to spur sales. Chevrolet is offering a 60-day money back guarantee. And Chrysler is offering 90 day delayed financing. These incentives are designed to make you want to buy a car, when you really don’t want to buy a car. At least, not the cars they are selling.
On the other hand, the barely known, small and far from mainstream Tesla motors gave one of its new Model S cars to Wall Street Journal reviewer Dan Neil last week, and he gave it a glowing testimonial. He went so far as to compare this 4-door all-electric sedan’s performance with the Lamborghini and Ford GT supercars; and its design with the Jaguar. And he spent several paragraphs on the Tesla Model S’s comfort, quiet, seating and storage – much more aligned with a Mercedes S series.
There are no manufacturer incentives currently offered on the Tesla Model S.
What’s so different about Tesla and GM or Ford? Well, everything.
Tesla is a classic example of a disruptive innovator, and GM/Ford are classic examples of old-guard competitors locked into sustaining innovation. While the former is changing the market – like, say Amazon is doing in retail – the latter, entrenched fogies, keep laughing at it – like, say Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City and Barnes & Noble have been laughing at Amazon.
Tesla did not set out to be a company that would make a slightly better, or cheaper car. Or even an alternative car, but similar to what most U.S. companies make. Instead it set out to make a superior car.
Tesla’s initial offering was a car that provided remarkable 0-60 speed performance, top end speed around 150mph and superior handling. Additionally it looked great in a 2-door European style roadster package. Simply, a wildly better sports car than anything else made in the USA – and most of Japan. Oh, and to make this be superior they chose to make it all-electric, as well.
It was easy for Detroit automakers to scoff at this effort – and they did.
In 2009, while Detroit was reeling and cutting costs – as GM killed off Pontiac, Hummer, Saab and Saturn – the famous Bob Lutz of GM laughed at Tesla and said it really wasn’t a car company. He proclaimed Tesla would never really matter, because as it tried to grow up it would never compete effectively. According to Mr. Lutz, nobody really wanted an electric car, because it didn’t go far enough, it cost too much and the speed/range trade-off made them impractical. Especially at the price Tesla was selling them. And who would want a roadster?
But, in 2009 Tesla sold 100% of its production. And opened its second dealership. As manufacturing plants, and dealerships, for the big brands were being closed around the world.
Like all disruptive innovators, Tesla did not initially make a product for the “mass market.”
Tesla made a great car, that used a different technology, and met different needs. It was designed for people who wanted a great looking roadster, that handled really well, had really good fuel economy and was quiet. All conditions the electric Tesla met in spades. The Roadster wasn’t for everyone, but it wasn’t designed to be. It was meant to demonstrate a really good car could be made without the traditional trade-offs people like Mr. Lutz said were impossible to overcome.
Now Tesla is introducing a car that is much more aligned with what most people buy. A sedan. But the Model S nothing like any gasoline (or diesel) powered sedan you could buy. It is much faster, it handles much better, is much roomier, is far quieter, offers an interface more like your tablet and is network connected. It has a range of distance options, from 160 to 300 miles, depending upon buyer preferences and affordability.
In short, it is nothing like anything from any traditional car maker – in USA, Japan or Korea.
Again, it is easy for GM to scoff.
After all, at $97,000 for the performance model it is a lot more expensive than a gasoline powered Malibu. Or Ford Taurus. Entry level Model S at $57,500 don’t perform like a Lamborghini, and are significantly more expensive than gasoline powered Chevrolet sedans.
But, it’s the premium model is a fraction of the price of a supercar Ferrari – or even a Porsche Panamera, Mercedes S550, Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, or Jaguar XF or XJ – which are the cars most closely matching size, roominess and performance.
And, it’s only about twice as expensive as a loaded Chevy Volt – but with a LOT more advantages. And the low-end model, at $57,000, is only $17,000 – or over the MSRP (manufacturer’s suggested retail selling price) for a Volt. Potentially comparable on affordability.
In short, Tesla is demonstrating it CAN change the game in automobiles. While not everybody is ready to spend $100k on a car, and not everyone wants an electric car, Tesla is showing that it can meet unmet needs, emerging needs and expand into more traditional markets with a superior solution for those looking for a new solution. The way, say, Apple did in smartphones compared to RIM.
Why didn’t, and can’t, GM, Ford or Toyota do this?
Simply put, they aren’t even trying. They are so locked-in to their traditional ideas about what a car should be that they reject the very premise of Tesla. Their assumptions keep them from really trying to do what Tesla has done – and will keep improving – while they keep trying to make the kind of cars, according to all the old specs, they have always made.
Rather than build an electric car, traditionalists denounce the technology. Toyota pioneered the idea of extending a gas car into electric with hybrids – the Prius – which has both a gasoline and an electric engine. But that wasn’t an effort to make a superior car. It was an effort to modify the gasoline car so it had electric capability. There’s a big difference.
For example, because there are now two power stations the Prius is more expensive than a similar sized (and performing) gasoline (or diesel) car. And, like most “hybrid” ideas the Prius ends up being a compromise on all accounts. It isn’t fast, it doesn’t handle particularly well, it isn’t all that stylish, or roomy. And there’s a debate as to whether the hybrid even recovers its price premium in less than 4 years – which is primarily dependent upon gasoline prices. Prius isn’t a superior car, it is a set of compromises intended to make a gasoline car go further between gas fill-ups – and at a significant price premium.
Ford’s approach was so clearly to defend and extend its traditional business that its hybrid line didn’t even have its own name! Ford took its existing car line, and reformatted some as hybrids – the Focus Hybrid, Escape Hybrid andFusion Hybrid. How is any customer supposed to be excited about a new technology when it is clearly displayed as a trade-off; “gasoline or hybrid, you choose”? Hard to think of hybrids as a technological leap forward. Instead it sounds exactly like what it is – an old car with something added.
GM gave the market Volt. Although billed as an electric car, it also has a gasoline engine. And again, it has all the traditional trade-offs. High initial price, poor 0-60 performance, poor high-end speed performance, doesn’t handle all that well, isn’t very stylish and isn’t too roomy. Although it is the car Tesla-hating Bob Lutz put his personal stamp on. Volt does achieve high mpg – compared to a gasoline car – if that is your one and only criteria.
Investors are starting to “get it.”
There was lots of excitement about auto stocks as 2010 ended. People thought the recession was ending, and auto sales were improving. GM went public at $34/share and rose to about $39. Ford, which cratered to $6/share in July, 2010 tripled to $19 as 2011 started.
But since then, investor enthusiasm has clearly dropped. realising things haven’t changed much in Detroit – if at all – GM and Ford are both down about 50% – now roughly $20/share for GM and $9.50/share for Ford.
Meanwhile, in July, 2010 Tesla was about $16/share. Since then it has slowly doubled to about $31.50. Why? Because it isn’t trying to be Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda or any other car company. It is emerging as a disruptive alternative that could change customer perspectives on what they should expect from their personal transportation.
Like Apple changed perspectives on cell phones. And Amazon did about retail shopping.
Tesla set out to make a better car. It is electric, because the company believes that’s how to make a better car. And it is changing the metrics people use when evaluating cars. Just like the smartphone isn’t like an old cell phone, or a tablet isn’t like a PC, the Tesla is considerably different. For many people it is simply better.
Meanwhile, Tesla’s dominance in electric cars is virtually unchallenged as existing competitors – all of which are multiples bigger in revenue, employees, dealers and market cap of Tesla – keep trying to defend their existing business while seeking a low-cost, simple way to extend their product lines. They have chosen to ignore Tesla’s Roadster and Model S because those cars don’t fit their historical success formula of how you win in automobile competition.
The exact behaviour of disruptors, and sustainers likely to fail, as described inThe Innovator’s Dilemma (Clayton Christensen, HBS Press.) And as the good professor points out, choosing to be ignorant is likely to prove very expensive for the shareholders and employees of the traditional companies.
Why would anybody ever buy shares in GM or Ford? One went bankrupt, and the other barely avoided it. Like airlines, neither has any idea of how their industry, or their companies, will create long-term growth, or increase shareholder value. For them innovation is defined now like it was in 1960 – by adding “fins” to the old technology. And fins went out of style in the 1960s – about when the value of those companies peaked.
NOW WATCH: Executive Life videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.