Find Reviews by Make:
Electric car makers like to make a big fuss about how their clean-green automobiles are going to “change the industry.” Sometimes those instincts lead to hubris and overreach (ahem, Tesla), while other times the changes make you long for the relative simplicity of the new car dealer fandango we all go through to buy “regular cars.” In the case of Think, the business innovations (namely the innovation of relying on accumulating local tax credits to get the price to seem as low as possible) are enough to make the world of dealer markups and delivery charges seem downright quaint and homey. And that’s not the way to change this business…
20 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: How Not To Change The Industry Edition...”
Read all comments
Yep, that’s a definite marketing and PR facepalm right there.
You gotta get in the black before you can change the world, and that means selling cars, and that means helping your customers take advantage of incentives. What’d you expect, unicorns and rainbows?
If you want to change the world for the better, not just change it, you really also ought to get in the black by selling cars for more than their design and manufacture soak up in input cost. Instead of simply relying on some thug band to rob your neighbor to make up for the shortfall.
A prime example of the P.T. Barnum marketing method on display…
I don’t see what the issue is with the website providing this information on incentives; if they’re available it makes sense to use them to make your transaction cost as small as possible. What bothers me is that $17k or more ($24k here in Connecticut) gets you not much more than a glorified weather-proof golf cart. The marketing slight of hand comes elsewhere on the Th!ink site, where there are very few pictures with the entire car in shot. Most clip off parts of the car to give the impression that the car is too big to fit in the image.
I think the “change” they are referring to is the change to electric and other alternative energy vehicle, not a change to the sales process.
Is it that hard to go to http://www.thinkev-usa.com/why-think-city/exterior-gallery/ and see a wide variety of shots that show how small the car is?
To add to the fun the specs page has this prominent picture that makes it painfully obvious how small the car is. http://www.thinkev-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/specs1.png
Thanks for the link, but did I actually misspeak?. If you actually go through the gallery many (most) of the pictures are taken from low angles with a cityscape or other background off in the distance with part of the car out of shot. The idea is the minimize how minimal the car is. Yes there are shots of the entire car that show that it is tiny, which is why I said there are “very few pictures…” “Very few pictures” isn’t “no pictures”.
“If you actually go through the gallery many (most) of the pictures are taken from low angles with a cityscape or other background off in the distance with part of the car out of shot.”
That describes 4 of 13. (Ok, maybe 5, one has very minimal “cropping”.)
The kind of people who buy these horrible little things really don’t care about that anyway.
It’s the early adopter price.
http://www.fiscalfizzle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/technology-adoption-life-cycle.png
If you want the newest green tech you gotta pony up the bling. Just like the first iPhone was priced at $600 and people shit themselves to get one. Four years later the same phone is something like $50.
What’s wrong?
I checked all the states in the drop down list, and the lowest price was in California at $19,995.00
What’s wrong in this picture? Even with incentives, the $17,995 price doesn’t even exist.
Looks like they figured this out since this screen captured. The “as low as” price is now $19,995 and footnote #3 referencing an Oregon credit has been removed.
What’s wrong is the over-reaching Federal government forcibly taking personal income from its citizens and using it trying to coerce a few people into buying a product that would otherwise not be commercially viable. Our tax system should not be a tool for agenda-driven politicians to induce behavior modification.
Yes it should.
Brilliant argument. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter and/or publication.
http://www.FairTax.org
Beats the heck out of the federal government forcibly taking personal income and using it to build weapons systems to fight on a battlefield that no longer exists… or to pay legislators to fight over social issues that have nothing to do with getting people back to work or creating an environment for business growth…
Our tax system has been used by agenda driven politicians to induce behavior modification ever since the first dime of tax was taken in by the government.
The only thing worse are those dealer ads saying the price is $14,995, then in the fine print saying “after $7500 cash or trade”
Have you ever tried to scrounge up all the tax credits yourself? It’s a PITA. This just simplifies it.
My question to you Ed, is how do you think EV car makers could/should “change the industry.” Because at the end of the day, they’re still just car dealers, trying to make a buck at a time when EV’s are becoming ever more politicized.
I’d really like to see the $7,500 tax credit apply to the Roehr elecric superbike. $10k would be the price of a normal motorcycle, it’s 67hp and has 75 mile range and can hit 100mph. Very usable on the highways. At $18k, It’s a bit pricey. All the “mainstream” electric bikes (like Zero…) seem to only have dealerships in California, while Roehr itself is in my state.
I used to have a 65HP BMW F650GS, and I assure you 67HP is not “very usable” on the highway. At times it was downright frightening. An electric bike would have vastly superior torque, but I also expect it would be enormously heavier, so I’m not sure about the fairness of the comparison.
If the states offering such lavish subsidies for EVs begin charging EV owners for per-mile taxes that they’re losing by not selling gasoline to these owners, the EV payback becomes even worse, or non-existent.