“Consumers are dense and need EVs slowly explained to them,” so seems to say Audi’s head of sales and marketing, Ms. Hildegard Wortman, in a recent interview with a leading automotive trade publication.
Automotive News reports:
“I want the customers to be aware that there is a choice and that they can go for an electric car, and that this electric car does offer 300 miles, does offer fast charging, which I think is more important than actually the range,” Wortmann told Automotive News here. But, she said, automakers need to educate consumers in an entertaining way that “there is nothing to be afraid of. It’s natural that you need to get acquainted with it, and there are a lot of things in an electric car that you need to be aware of.
She said brands should aim their marketing to tell consumers “why we are doing this. Not to sell another technology; we are doing this to decarbonize, and we need to come to an end with fossil fuels.
Hearing that a move to electric is without apparent tangible advantage for the consumer is a tough sell — especially when “decarbonization” emits from the mouths of the Fathers of Smog at Volkswagen Group, of which Audi is but one badge.
Really, when looking to explain why people aren’t buying one’s wares (outside of logistical issues), there are two possibilities. The first reason could be that no one knows of your superior product: so you advertise, and now aware of the product’s usefulness (e.g. Scrub Daddy), consumers reward your enterprise. But EV producers spent $228 million on ads through Q3. People are aware of the option. The second possibility is that consumers know your product and don’t want it: either because it’s garbage, it doesn’t fit their needs, or because the value proposition is poor. EVs fit all three categories here: they have alternative needs (charging location/operation), have practical drawbacks (range and altered cockpits), and cost dearly for entry models.
Note: Were it not for the U.S. government and other political entities demanding a rush job, there’d be no need to gripe about EVs. Normally, EVs would be the province of your uncle, the one who wears octagonal glasses, listens to vinyl through his Magnepan speakers, and adopts all tech early and often — most of which is doomed to be neatly organized and forgotten in his basement after a few weeks. Guys like your uncle help iron out the deficiencies.
So, electric vehicles are undercooked, and that’s to be expected. It’s a young technology — not in the underlying tech per se, but rather in scale and inferiority relative to what it’s replacing, the noble internal combustion engine (ICE). The problem here is one of forced timelines that cannot accommodate the feedback necessary for net improvement.
While happy to grumble about meddling bureaucrats, auto groups have their marketing departments to blame for some of the pressure they’re experiencing. Take Audi’s “House of Progress,” the company’s marketing website that talks of “electromobility,” the availability of charging sockets, and “design by radical indigenism.” Take the page at face value, and a man would depart thinking that electric vehicles aren’t just obviously superior, ready for mass production, and wicked cool, but legitimately morally superior. Johann Tetzel called and said indulgences now come in the form of an All-Wheel-Drive crossover.
After all, as the Audi site reports:
The colonial mythology of technology that saw us as superior to nature and shepherded only the Eurocentric technologies through to the present was wrong. Rather than continuing a narrow view of technology informed by our distance from nature, we must acknowledge that the Enlightenment mythology of technology was just one way and not the only way for humankind to progress.
Automakers are complicit in their own regulation and give governments the cover they need to set unreasonable expectations by promising the future is electric and setting ridiculous goals for themselves to generate press. Then, when governments take those boasts and make them policy, the auto manufacturers come crying to free-market types to argue against such policies on their behalf. Don’t worry, I’ll be that flack, but how about you end the liberal arts work program you’ve got infesting the marketing offices while I do that?
Ultimately, for EVs to take off, a few things need to happen. One, the auto industry has to make every part of purchasing and owning an EV more pleasant and intuitive than owning an ICE vehicle. The consumer base trends older — ditch the iPad in the console and bring back dials, buttons, and a gauge cluster. Do the grandma test: If it takes more than 15 minutes to teach a kind-hearted older lady how to start and operate the vehicle, you’re wrong. There should not be apps, log-ins, or new processes.
Electrification should make an automobile simpler, as there are no longer the precious fluids and machinery an engine requires to support its operation. The ideal EV should be little more than an enclosed golf cart — and there’s a willingness to incorporate small, local conveyances using that tech. A sub-$20k EV that can get people around town with climate controls and a Bluetooth speaker would suffice . . . going slowly over short distances is where batteries are best.
The best solution for a relatively clean, comfortable, and economical automobile is the hybrid (ICE and battery pack working in tandem). The battery assists the ICE during acceleration, and the ICE takes over at speed. Consumers fill up at the same Kwik Trip gas pump they’ve always used, and everyone makes it home safely with money in their pockets and Glazer boxes in hand. Toyota has done remarkable work on the latest iteration of the hybrid Prius — which now has zip (0-60 in 6.4 seconds), finally isn’t a visual embarrassment, and is well-provisioned for under $40,000. But even it is soon to be considered “too dirty.”
We already have the answer to cleaner, quieter cars that people are comfortable operating. What’s missing is telling marketing teams “No,” and disarming the EPA. Consumers aren’t stupid, and that’s precisely why they avoid EVs.