Why Tesla is Right, and GM and Ford are Not

by | Jul 11, 2012 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in

The news is 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.  Incentives 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, 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 its 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 case 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 keeps laughing at them – like, say Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City and Barnes & Noble have been laughing at Amazon.

Tesla did not set out to be a car company, making a slightly better car.  Or a cheaper car.  Or an alternative car.  Instead it set out to make a superior car. 

Its initial approach was a car that offered 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.  Oh, and to make this happen 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.  Tesla would never really matter because as it grew 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. 

Meanwhile, 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 make a car 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.  It 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 has a car that is much more aligned with what most people buy.  A sedan.  But it'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 up on 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 top-end model) it is a lot more expensive than a gasoline powered Malibu. Or Ford Taurus. 

But, it's 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.  The Model S starts at just over $57,000, which isn't that much more expensive than a $40,000 Volt.

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 or Ford 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 done.

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. 

Hmm, no wonder that's more expensive than a similar sized (and performing) gasoline (or diesel) car.   And, like most "hybrid" ideas it 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, say, 4 years.  And that is all dependent upon gasoline prices.

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 the existing cars, and reformatted them as hybrids, with the Focus Hybrid, Escape Hybrid and Fusion Hybrid.  How is any customer supposed to be excited about a new concept when it is clearly displayed as a trade-off; "gasoline or hybrid, you choose."  Hard to have faith in that as a technological leap forward.

And GM gave the market Volt.  Although billed as an electric car, it still 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.  The car Tesla-hating Bob Lutz put his personal stamp on.  It 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, realizing things haven't changed much in Detroit – if at all.  GM and Ford are both down about 50% – roughly $20/share for GM and $9.50/share for Ford.

Meanwhile, in July of 2010 Tesla was about $16/share and has slowly doubled to about $31.50. Why?  Because it isn't trying to be Ford, or GM, Toyota, Honda or any other car company.  It is emerging as a disruptive alternative that could change customer perspective 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. 

Meanwhile, it is practically being unchallenged as the 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 largely 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 behavior of disruptors, and sustainers likely to fail, as described in The Innovator's Dilemma (Clayton Christensen, HBS Press.)

Choosing to be ignorant is likely to prove very expensive for the shareholders and employees of the traditional auto companies. Why would anybody would 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 today 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 these companies peaked.

Building scenarios effectively – Zipcar, I-Go, Hertz, Enterprise, GM, Chrysler, Ford

by | Sep 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness

How many cars do you own?  Odds are, it's at least 1 more than you need.  There are more licensed vehicles in the USA than there are licensed drivers – so it's clear America is loaded with cars. Now it looks like a permanent shift is developing, to less auto ownership, and it will change competition significantly.

In places as far ranging as Detroit/Ann Arbor, Chicago and San Francisco increasingly people are opting for a new approach to transportation.  Take the bus and train – yes.  Take a cab – sometimes. And for a lot of folks they are joining car-sharing companies.  According to Freep.com, "Service Lets Users Borrow a Car Whenevery they want."  Pay a flat annual fee, as low as $30 to $150, then you rent a car in your neighborhood for as little as $8.00/hour.  Right.  No monthly insurance fee, no gas charge, no parking bills.  You rent cars when you need them, and only as long as you need them.

To those of us, mostly older, this may seem heretical.  How can you give up your car?  It's long been a status symbol.  What you drive is supposed to say something about who you are.  But this is getting turned upside down.  People, lots of people, are renting by the hour and they want something very cheap and easy to park.  Cars have a place, but not in your personal parking spot at an enormous cost.

Implications are powerful.  Firstly, recognize that the USA is increasingly an urban country.  Every election we are reminded that while most the people live in cities, the electoral map is by state.  Thus, a President can be elected while losing the popular vote!  Just like the tendency across the globe, as agriculture makes less and less importance to the economy people gravitate to major urban centers.  Likewise, as manufacturing jobs move offshore from America, people shift to office work which is more centralized in urban areas than the former "factory towns."  These demographic trends have been developing for over 30 years, and show every sign of accelerating – not decreasing. 

Thus, watching what the "early movers" are doing in urban areas is really important.  We have to develop our scenarios about the future, and we can see that what happens in cities is becoming even more important than it was just a couple of decades ago.  And in cities, people are opting not to buy cars.  Nor even rent them for a day or two.  Nor are they relying on ever more costly taxis.  They are going for hourly rentals they can preschedule.

GM, Chrysler and Ford are getting very little of this business because the renters, 80%, prefer small hybrids. Hertz and other big rental car companies were being shut out, because their model was the daily rental — largely from an airport location for a traveling business person or vacationer.

In a real way, this shows all the signs of a classic Clayton Chrstensen "Disruptive Innovation."  An unserved, or underserved, customer who cannot obtain personal transportation is able to get it.  An unconventional solution, perhaps, but it's working.  What does that tell us?  As the business grows expect the leaders to develop better and better solutions, leading to more and more people accessing the solution.  This is how we get to a very large market shift – not from the people currently served suddenly changing, but rather from the underserved market creating a new solution which gets improved and refined until it meets the needs of the majority of customers – who shift much later – but cut the legs out from under old Success Formulas.  Meaning we could get back to families having one car (circa 1948) and when a second is needed they rent by the hour – even in the suburbs!!  With insurance costs often topping $100/month for a second car, plus the cost to license and maintain it, it's less clear that multi-car ownership is as beneficial as it once was.  If a viable new solution comes along – well it just might work!

This, of course, is not a good thing for auto companies dependent on a demand rebound to fix their recent woes.  Their "good case" scenarios have people returning to adding to their personal fleets, while also returning to new car acquisition every 2 or 3 years.  If instead buyers go the direction of less ownership and less frequent purchases it will be impossible for these companies to repay the government loans.

Markets shift.  Often quickly and violently.  Far too oten, we ignore these shifts.  Because they look so different, so odd, that we believe it must be a short term phenomenon.  We expect that things will soon get "back to normal."  We have future scenarios – they are extensions of the past.  But in the post-millenial global economy people are starting to do a lot of things differently.  They aren't trying to return to old patterns.  They are developing new ones.  And if you want to compete, it's becoming crystal clear you have to change your assumptions about the future, your scenarios of the future and your approach to markets.  Before you get left so far behind you fail.