marketing
yvrvp123
MarketingCase_TheglobalizationofTeslaMotors-astrategicmarketingplananalysisJournalofStrategicMarketing.pdf
The globalization of Tesla Motors: a strategic marketing plan analysis
Myles Edwin Mangram*
SMC University, Baarestrasse 112, 6302 Zug, Switzerland
(Received 7 October 2011; final version received 10 January 2012)
This case study provides analysis of the strategic marketing plan of electric vehicle manufacturer, Tesla Motors. It has profound marketing management implications, as it addresses this investigation from the unique perspective of Tesla’s ‘new technology’- based approach to automobile marketing and relates it to the successful marketing model of Apple Computer. This marketing approach is counter to the traditional automobile industry’s marketing management approach which favors mass marketing and mass production. A qualitative, exploratory research approach was adopted for this analysis. Research was conducted via extensive secondary literature collection and data analysis, as well as in-depth examination of case studies focusing primarily on Apple Computer. Key findings conclude that: (1) the battery electric vehicle industry is poised for explosive growth; (2) Tesla Motors is uniquely positioned to capitalize upon this growth opportunity; and (3) a ‘new technology’-based approach to marketing management is central to Tesla’s current and future growth.
Keywords: Tesla Motors; Apple Computer paradigm; strategic marketing plan; qualitative marketing analysis; international marketing management; battery electric vehicles
Introduction
Tesla Motors (‘Tesla’) is a global enterprise that designs, produces and markets electric
powered vehicles and components. Presently, it is the only vehicle manufacturer selling
zero-emission sports cars in serial production (as opposed to concept vehicles or prototypes).
It is now expanding this technological advantage to the luxury vehicle sedan market. Tesla’s
strategy of selling sleek, eco-friendly designs at high margins echoes Apple Computer’s
business model, and differs greatly from its industry peers Chrysler, Ford and General
Motors in Detroit, which have been struggling to evolve their aging lines to meet the
increasing demands for electric and hybrid vehicles (Sun, 2011).
In spite of the global strides made by Tesla in terms of technological developments,
global branding and market adoption, it remains a relatively young company within a
nascent industry – compared to the 150-year-old internal combustion vehicle industry.
Not surprisingly, the amount of literature and research devoted to the company and the
electric vehicle industry in general is limited. Further exacerbating current research
gaps, existing research and analysis of Tesla has focused almost exclusively on the
technological strides made by the company. As such, an even more serious research gap
exists related to the marketing and business aspects of the company and its products.
In light of these research gaps, the central issues addressed in this research report
include: (1) the major developments within the electric vehicle ecosystem that have
ISSN 0965-254X print/ISSN 1466-4488 online
q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2012.657224
http://www.tandfonline.com
*Email: [email protected]
Journal of Strategic Marketing
Vol. 20, No. 4, July 2012, 289–312
created a unique market environment for Tesla; (2) Tesla’s response to capitalize upon this
market opportunity; and (3) analysis of Tesla’s unique marketing strategy – current and
prospective – to expand upon this market opportunity. Additionally, this writing
represents the first in-depth research report to analyze Tesla from a strategic marketing
perspective using Apple Computer as a comparative new technology marketing model.
Investors and analysts remain deeply divided on the future of Tesla. Many detractors
view the company, which has experienced only limited profitability since its inception in
2003, as an ‘emperor with no clothes’, while more bullish proponents are calling it the
‘Apple of automakers’ (Sun, 2011).
Situation analysis: electric vehicles
A new generation of vehicles – powered by electric drivetrains with energy from electric
storage batteries – has emerged over the past several years. These vehicles include
advanced gas electric hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles (BEVs)
(Mintzer, 2009). Gas electric hybrids, such as the pre-2004 Toyota Prius, are powered by
gasoline and batteries but are not considered true ‘electric’ vehicles since they do not have
a ‘plug-in’ charging feature. Plug-in hybrids (e.g. the Chevrolet Volt), rely in part on
conventional fuels but are still designed to be recharged via the power grid. BEVs, such as
Tesla’s Roadster, rely entirely on electricity and will be the focus of this report.
Electric vehicle market overview
Analysis of some of the most credible recent forecasts indicate that BEVs could account
for as much as 53% of all electric vehicle sales through 2020 and 5% of total global
automobile sales (Ashtiani et al., 2011; Week in Review, 2010). (See Figure 1.)
At this stage of BEV industry development, forecasting future sales volumes is
complicated and speculative. The sales prospects of the market are highly contingent upon
various market drivers, which are discussed later. In any event, two leading studies
detailing projected BEV production by the Boston Consulting Group and Deutsche Bank,
predict annual sales of up to one million BEVs by 2015 in North America alone
(Cunningham, 2009). Table 1 highlights several additional, credible medium-term average
annual BEV global sales estimates.
It should be noted that the above forecasts reflect fairly conservative projections since
they are based upon technology developments which reflect a fairly limited BEV range of
Electric vehicle market share
BEVs
Other Evs
53% 47%
Figure 1. Electric vehicle market share. Source: EnTech Capital Ltd.
M.E. Mangram290
about 100 miles – and, therefore, reveal more limited market adoption. However, Google
(2011), in its comprehensive ‘Impact of clean energy innovation’ report, predicts that
battery breakthroughs reflecting a range of 300 miles on a single charge could propel
BEVs’ market share of the total automobile industry to over 30%. As noted, Tesla’s
breakthrough battery technology is already capable of this range objective.
A central argument in favor of rapid electric vehicle adoption is the positive
environmental effects. Unlike emissions from gasoline powered vehicles, which contribute
an estimated 56.6% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions, BEVs emit zero
emissions into the atmosphere (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). Hardester
(2010) notes that the argument can be made that while BEVs do not emit any pollution, the
power sources used to charge the vehicles emit pollution. Counter to this position, much of
the power necessary to charge BEVs could be produced by zero emissions pollutions
sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen and even nuclear power plants.
Market forecasts aside, the BEV industry continues to evolve in an unusual and uneven
manner, with premium sports models, mini-cars and commercial vehicles leading the way
prior to the technology being targeted toward the mainstream consumer. However, given
the characteristics of BEVs and the underlying factors driving this ‘new technology-
driven’ industry, such a market beginning was not only likely, but also well anticipated.
BEV market drivers
A driver is a major factor that contributes to the growth or change of a particular industry.
Four key market drivers will have the greatest impact on the competitive position of BEVs
in the vehicle market: (1) technological developments (advances in battery technology,
vehicle performance improvements); (2) infrastructure developments (spread of
recharging stations, smart-grid developments); (3) public policy; and (4) energy
economics (price of electricity and gasoline). (See Figure 2.)
Technological developments
The advancement of the BEV market is highly contingent upon continued improvements
in core technologies including vehicle batteries and overall vehicle performance. This
includes improvements in battery characteristics such as range/power, production costs,
safety and reliability. It also comprises vehicle performance improvements such as torque,
efficiency and reliability.
Battery innovation
Two of the biggest factors inhibiting the mass adoption of BEVs are battery range
limitations and high battery costs. In that regard, there are promising prospects for battery
technology advancements that will continue to improve range performance and reduce
costs. The original acid-based electric vehicle battery was extremely heavy and had a limited
Table 1. Select global battery electric vehicle forecasts.
Forecast source (date) BEVs sales Sales period
Strategy Analytics (3/09) 500,000/Yr By 2015 Goldman Sachs (7/10) 1.7 million/Yr By 2020 Pike Research (9/10) 340,000/Yr Thru 2015 Pricewaterhouse Coopers (10/09) 300,000/Yr By 2015 J.D. Power & Assoc. (10/10) 1.3 million/Yr By 2020
Journal of Strategic Marketing 291
range of only about 60 miles. Comparatively, lithium-ion batteries weigh substantially less,
are about the same size and have nearly five times the range (Eberhard & Tarpenning, 2006).
Tesla’s leading-edge lithium-ion based battery, for instance, is 500 pounds lighter and has
a range of up to 300 miles.
While breakthroughs in advanced battery technologies have already resulted in
meaningful cost reductions, BEV batteries are still very relatively expensive (Ashtiani
et al., 2011). Lithium-ion batteries can account for up to 50% of the cost of a BEV, with
current battery prices estimated at around $15,000 (Ramsey, 2010). A major concern is the
high demand and short supply of battery component parts, including rare metals such as
cobalt, manganese and nickel. Figure 3 illustrates a typical production cost breakdown for
a lithium-ion battery.
Continued advances in R&D and anticipated economies of scale are likely to spur the
type of significant battery price reductions necessary to make BEV prices more
competitive. The US Department of Energy has established an attainable vehicle battery
cost reduction goal of 70% between 2010 and 2014 (Ramsey, 2010). By comparison,
the Gale encyclopedia of U.S. economic history reveals that computer processors
(a comparable new technology development) were introduced at high relative prices, but
steadily declined by an average of 20% per year since 1950 (Carson, 1999).
BEV improvements
The primary manner in which a BEV dramatically outperforms a gasoline powered vehicle
(aside from obvious emissions advantages) is its high torque ratio. A gas engine has
diminished torque capability in the low ‘rpm’ range and only delivers limited horsepower
within a narrow rpm range. By comparison, an electric motor has high torque capabilities
even at zero rpms, delivers near continuous torque within the 6000 rpm range and continues
Technology
BEV Market Drivers
Energy economics
Infra- structure
Public policy
Figure 2. BEV market drivers.
M.E. Mangram292
to deliver exceptional power beyond 13,500 rpms (Eberhard & Tarpenning, 2006). What
this means is that electric vehicles are extremely fast at any level of rpm output.
In terms of efficiency, electric vehicles are six times as efficient and produce less than
one-tenth the pollution than the most efficient gasoline powered vehicle (Eberhard &
Tarpenning, 2006). BEVs are mechanically much simpler (10 times fewer moving parts,
no engine, no transmission, etc.) than both gasoline powered vehicles and hybrid electric
vehicles. The BEV motor has only one moving part, has no clutch and boasts a highly
simplified transmission.
Moreover, due to a technological advancement known as ‘regenerative braking’, even
the friction brakes experience little wear. Service for a well-designed electric car is limited
to routine vehicle inspection, possible simple software updates and tire maintenance, for
the first 100,000 miles.
Infrastructure development
Charging stations
The prevailing theory is that in order for the BEV industry to gain significant global market
share, a supportive charging station infrastructure needs to be developed that is on a similar
scale as that of the gasoline powered vehicle infrastructure (Hardester, 2010). This translates
into a viable network of quick-charging stations which are capable of rapid charging a BEV
in less than 30 minutes, as opposed to home chargers which take up to eight hours.
What the above theory fails to factor is that the public infrastructure issue is neither new
nor unique. In the early stages of the gasoline powered vehicle, fueling stations were few
and far between. Moreover, the automobile was an unproven technology and was more
costly than the horse drawn carriage. In spite of that, the number of automobiles on
American roads grew from only 8000 in 1900 to over 17.5 million in 1925 (Wynn & Lafleur,
2009). The above theory also fails to factor rapid advances in battery technology (see earlier
‘BEV improvements’). Tesla, for instance, has already developed battery technology which
extends the range of BEVs to 300 miles. This gives rise for optimism for similar growth of
the BEV industry and the development of a supportive charging station infrastructure.
Besides charging stations, there are a number of viable charging options that could spur
sector growth including: the availability of plug-ins in parking garages, restaurants and
Lithium-ion production cost By %
Parts 31%
R&D 15%
Materials 12%
Other 31%
Labor 11%
Figure 3. Lithium-ion production cost by %. Source: Tesla Motors, Inc.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 293
other commercial establishments, as well as the rapid evolution of workplace recharging
facilities (Ashtiani et al., 2011; Wynn & Lafleur, 2009). Another innovation, battery
swapping stations, provides yet another potential solution. In that regard, a partnership
between Israel, Nissan/Renault and Silicon Valley-based Better Place was formed with the
objective of building a nationwide battery swapping and charging infrastructure with the
capacity to handle 100,000 electric vehicles by late 2011 (Cunningham, 2009). In any
event, overcoming consumer ‘range anxiety’ is a critical factor in quickening the adoption
rates of BEVs (Patel & Aalok, 2010).
Smart-grid development
Even a partial shift from gasoline to electricity as a transportation fuel will have major
ramifications on the demands and operation of electric grid power systems. One potential
solution to these issues is the development of smart-grid technologies which incorporate
advanced distribution, transmission, metering and consumer technologies (Ashtiani et al.,
2011). Smart-grid technologies include two-way communications processes between
electricity users and energy providers, enhanced electricity load monitoring and
management of two-way electricity flows.
In a joint study released by Better Place and PJM, it is argued that another viable
solution for maintaining lower BEV-related electricity grid costs is via a central charging
infrastructure managed by a single independent system operator (Schneider et al., 2011).
Additionally, Ashtiani et al. (2011) assert that policies aiming to optimize electric
power systems must be adopted, including the acceleration of smart-grid standards and
implementation and the expansion of lower-priced, off-peak pricing.
Public policy
The transportation sector has become a focal point for international policymakers because
it accounts for nearly 57% of all environmentally damaging greenhouse gases and up to
70% of petroleum consumption (Ashtiani et al., 2011; US Environmental Protection
Agency, 2007). (See Figure 4.)
As a result, governments around the world are encouraging electric vehicle adoption as
an alternative transportation technology. This encouragement comes in the form of
government subsidies for electric vehicle producers, consumer price incentives, tax credits
for producers and consumers and sponsorship of technological research and development
(R&D) (Cunningham, 2009; Week in Review, 2010). Other countries, including the
European Union, have focused on promoting technology-neutral measures such as strict
new vehicle carbon emissions standards.
A significant degree of governmental support is necessary because of private sector
underinvestment in critical areas such as electric vehicle R&D and infrastructure
development (Ashtiani et al., 2011). Public policy measures have been implemented to
counter this underinvestment, including support for production and infrastructure, R&D
grants, loan guarantees and public – private partnerships. China, for example, is currently
committed to supportive policies and annual government investments of $150 billion a year
into the clean energy industry – citing the ‘emerging’ electric vehicle sector as a core
strategic industry component (Week in Review, 2010). Moreover, many countries, including
the United States, China and Japan, have established near-term electric vehicle production
targets which serve to drive investment and resource focus into the industry sector.
M.E. Mangram294
Energy economics
The economics of the electric vehicle industry entail comparative analysis between the
price of electricity on one hand, and the price of gasoline on the other. Both are subject to
change, but crude oil price volatility serves to undermine investment in alternative energy
sources (Ashtiani et al., 2011). The average price of gas in the United States, for example
is expected to increase from below $2 per gallon for most of the 1990s to an estimated
$3.60 per gallon in 2011 and beyond in the United States and nearly twice as much in
countries such as Norway, Denmark and Germany (Ashtiani et al., 2011, p. 53). At the
same time, the US Energy Information Administration (2011) forecasts crude oil prices to
rise from an average $79 per barrel in 2010 to over $100 per barrel in 2011 and beyond.
The price of gasoline is tightly linked to global oil prices, but electricity prices in most
major countries are only weakly related to oil prices (Ashtiani et al., 2011). Electricity
prices in these countries are more directly related to the prices of natural gas and coal.
Overall, energy economics trends and the other major market drivers are highly favorable
to BEV commercialization.
In terms of the economics of purchasing an electric vehicle, the total cost of ownership gap
between electric vehicles and gasoline powered vehicles should continue to narrow as countries
worldwide scale back the estimated $300 billion in fossil fuel subsidies currently provided to
oil companies. As a case in point, leaders of the Group of 20 Nations in November 2010
re-affirmed their prior commitments to this type of subsidy phase-out (Week in Review, 2010).
Situation analysis: Tesla Motors
Company overview
One battery electric vehicle manufacturer, Tesla Motors, is particularly well suited to
capitalize upon the discussed market drivers, and is the focus of this marketing plan analysis.
Company background
Tesla Motors Inc. (Tesla) is a Silicon Valley-based company that designs, manufactures
and markets battery electric vehicles (BEVs), as well as lithium-ion battery packs, and
electric vehicle powertrain components. Founded in 2003, Tesla was the first new
Transportation sector impact
80
60
40
20
0
Greenhous gases Petroleum
consumption
Transportation Other
Figure 4. Transportation sector impact. Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (2007).
Journal of Strategic Marketing 295
American automobile manufacturer to emerge in decades. It was also the first automaker
to manufacture and sell highway-capable BEVs in serial production.
The company’s culture and marketing approach are more ‘Silicon Valley’ than ‘Detroit’,
reflective of an approach that is highly innovative, extremely competitive and very efficient
(Aden & Barray, 2008, p. 84). The company has grown from a single retail store (through
which it markets its vehicles) in 2008, to 18 stores worldwide, a 350,000 square-foot production
facility and global sales in at least 30 countries (Tesla Motors, 2011a). On 29 June 2010
Tesla (TSLA) successfully launched its initial public offering, raising over $226 million.
Company sales
Since 2008, Tesla has sold 1650 of its signature Tesla Roadsters worldwide at a base price
of around $109,000. The company’s financial statements for the three months ended 31
March 2011 show total revenues of $49 million and a net loss of $48.9 million (Tesla
Motors, 2011b). Tesla’s medium-term sales volume projections are fairly conservative –
a 2% market share of the global mid-size luxury vehicle sedan market by 2013 (Patel &
Aalok, 2010). Tesla’s longer-term success is highly contingent upon overall consumer
adaptation of electric vehicles and the company’s ability to broaden its brand.
Even though Tesla has yet to earn a steady profit, it has a market cap of about $2.24
billion and currently trades at around 20 times earnings, with per share prices consistently
trading in the $25/share range – off its all-time highs, but at the high end of its historical
range (LaMonica, 2011; Seeking Alpha, 2011).
Corporate strategy
Tesla’s primary goal is to increase the number of electric vehicles available to mainstream
consumers in three ways:
sales of its vehicles through its expanding network of company-owned showrooms and online; 2) sales of its patented electric powertrain components to other automakers to stimulate overall electric vehicle interest and sales; and 3) serve as a catalyst and positive example of how ‘fun’ and ‘social responsibility’ driving are mutually compatible. (Logan, 2011)
Tesla’s overall strategy is to first establish a foundation for electric vehicle sales via its
high-end Roadster model – an objective it has already accomplished. Next, by 2012 it
plans to begin mass production of its new Model S Sedan, a more affordable (around
$57,000) BEV targeted at middle to upper-middle class consumers (Seeking Alpha, 2011).
Finally, by 2015 Tesla plans to build and market a BEV (BlueStar) available for under
$30,000, bringing its BEV lines into the mass-market consumer price range.
Product analysis
Tesla Roadster
Tesla’s flagship vehicle is the $109,000 (base price) Tesla Roadster (see Figure 5). This
high-performance BEV, with a range of up to 250 miles, uses a proprietary lithium-ion
polymer battery pack that stores as much as twice the energy – hence twice the range – of
batteries used in older electric vehicles and hybrids present in the market today. Another
distinguishing feature of the Roadster is its speed – capable of acceleration from zero to 60
mph in less than four seconds, with a self-limited top speed of 125 mph (Logan, 2011).
A final major distinction of the Roadster is its modern, sporty appearance, designed to
attract consumers in the luxury sports vehicle market occupied by automakers such as
Ferrari and Porsche (Aden & Barray, 2008).
M.E. Mangram296
Tesla reports sales of 1650 Roadsters worldwide as of the end of April 2011. In spite of
the fact that the Roadster accounts for most of Tesla’s revenue to date, the company plans
to discontinue its production by the end of summer 2011 in order to focus on the debut of
its next generation of BEVs – the Model S sedan.
Tesla Model S
Tesla’s next generation vehicle is the Model S sedan, which the company has targeted for
consumer delivery by mid-2012 (see Figure 6). Priced at around $57,000, the Model S is
positioned to compete in the luxury sedan market (e.g. Audi A6, Mercedes E-Class and
BMW 5-Series) (Kanellos, 2011; Patel & Aalok, 2010). It will seat up to seven people when
equipped with an optional third-row of rear-facing seats. The Model S will incorporate
battery technology similar to the Roadster and will be available with batteries ranging
from 160 miles to 300 miles. Consumers will pay extra for the larger battery range options.
A significant feature of the Model S is that it will be capable of quick battery swaps and
recharging capabilities using 100V, 200V and 480V power sources (Cunningham, 2009).
Tesla expects Model S to be a large volume driver for the company. Accordingly, it
plans to build between 5000 to 7000 Model S vehicles in 2012. Tesla will then increase
Model S manufacturing to 20,000 vehicles a year starting 2013 (Kanellos, 2011).
BlueStar
Tesla’s longer-term product objectives include development of a $30,000 sedan by 2015
(codename ‘BlueStar’), as well as a crossover/SUV-type vehicle (codename ‘Model X).
These cars will be targeted more toward an even larger, mass-market (middle-class)
consumer segment (Kanellos, 2011; Sun, 2011).
Figure 5. Tesla Roadster. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/ gallery/view/5135. Reproduced with permission.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 297
Tesla Energy Group
Tesla has formed a special products division, the Tesla Energy Group, that is charged
with developing and marketing its proprietary powertrain components, custom
designed battery packs, battery chargers, and supply power management technology
(Aden & Barray, 2008). It also generates revenues from the sale of zero-emission vehicle
credits.
New product development
In 2009, Tesla announced medium-term plans to build electric SUV crossover vehicles,
family-sized minivans and electric fleet vans for municipal governments (Logan, 2011).
Additionally, it has entered into strategic partnerships with Daimler, Panasonic and Toyota
to develop a line of electric vehicle-related products.
Partnerships
Tesla manufactures and markets its own BEVs, but unlike many traditional manufacturers
it also operates as an original equipment manufacturer, producing electric powertrain
components that other automakers may purchase and retail under their own brand names
(Aden & Barray, 2008; Seeking Alpha, 2011). Tesla currently has confirmed strategic
partnerships with two major automakers (Daimler and Toyota), a partnership with
electronics manufacturer, Panasonic, and a manufacturing partnership with Lotus Cars.
Figure 7 highlights the nature of these partnerships.
In addition to the above partnerships, Tesla maintains strategic relationships with
dozens of suppliers for various parts for its vehicles, including Tesla’s carbon fiber body
panels which are made in France by Sotira. Tesla’s proprietary powertrain, however, is
designed and built exclusively in Tesla’s California factory.
Figure 6. Tesla Model S. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from http://www.teslamotors.com/models/ gallery#2. Reproduced with permission.
M.E. Mangram298
Competitor analysis
The overall electric vehicle industry, including BEVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles, has
grown significantly from Tesla’s single premium sports car offering in 2009. It has
expanded to include four additional current and future electric premium sports vehicle
lines, three planned luxury sedan vehicles (including Tesla’s Model S), 18 different
current and future models slated for the mass-market consumer segment and two new
commercial electric truck entries (Ashtiani et al., 2011). Table 2 summarizes this
competition landscape and notes the competitive implications for Tesla.
Tesla will continue to experience direct competition from other BEV entrants, indirect
competition from existing and emerging plug-in hybrid vehicle manufacturers and
competition from BEV ‘substitutes’ including gasoline hybrid and gasoline powered
vehicles. The areas in which it has the greatest competitive advantages and the least
amounts of direct competition are the premium sports car and the luxury sedan markets.
Tesla’s competitive advantages include: superior BEV technology; first mover market
position; brand recognition; and unique component product lines (e.g. powertrains, vehicle
batteries, etc.). While the company’s indirect competitors (BMW, Mercedes Benz, Jaguar,
etc.) within the traditional luxury vehicle market are firmly entrenched and have typically
loyal customer bases, a combination of Tesla’s competitive advantages and aggressive
marketing could result in the capture and sustainment of a significant percentage of this
market share.
Getting back to the Apple Computer marketing model comparison, Tesla is
particularly well positioned to capture and sustain a significant share of the high-end
luxury sedan ‘niche’ market because of its competitive advantages. Apple adopted and
maintained a similar marketing strategy (premium computer market segment) with highly
notable and profitable results.
Figure 7. Tesla Motors Partnerships. Source: Tesla Motors Inc.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 299
T a b
le 2
. T
e sl
a M
o to
r’ s
e le
c tr
ic v
e h
ic le
m a rk
e t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n su
m m
a ry
.
C o
m p
a n
y B
E V
M o
d e ls
(t im
e li
n e )
C o
m p
e ti
ti o
n su
m m
a ry
a n
a ly
si s
A u
d i
Y e s
e -t
ro n
(2 0
1 2
), A
1 e -T
ro n
(2 0
1 2
) L
im it
e d
, sm
a ll
b u
il d
p ro
d u
c ti
o n
o u
tp u
t. P
ri c e :
$ 1
2 3
,3 0 0
. R
a n
g e :
1 5
0 m
il e s.
D ir
e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a R
o a d
st e r
B M
W Y
e s
M IN
I- E
(N /D
) * ,
A c ti
v e -E
(N /D
), M
e g
a c it
y (2
0 1
3 )
O n
ly 5
0 0
M IN
I- E
s sl
a te
d fo
r p
ro d
u c ti
o n
. A
c ti
v e -E
sc h
e d
u le
d fo
r m
a ss
p ro
d u
c ti
o n
. P
ri c e
$ 5
0 0
/m o
. R
a n
g e :
1 0
0 m
il e s.
D ir
e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a M
o d
e l
S ,
b u
t T
e sl
a e n
jo y
s te
c h
n o
lo g
y a n
d ra
n g
e a d
v a n
ta g
e s
B Y
D Y
e s
E 6
(2 0
1 2
), S
6 D
M (N
/A )
P ro
d u
c ti
o n
o u
tp u
t o
b je
c ti
v e s
u n
k n
o w
n .
P ri
c e :
$ 3
5 ,0
0 0 .
R a n
g e :
2 0
0 m
il e s.
S ig
n ifi
c a n
t d
ir e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
p ro
d u
c t
li n
e C
O D
A Y
e s
C O
D A
S e d
a n
(2 0
1 2
) T
o p
ro d
u c e
1 4
,0 0
0 c a rs
w it
h in
1 2
m o
n th
s o
f d
e b
u t.
P ri
c e :
$ 4
0 ,0
0 0
. R
a n
g e :
1 2
0 m
il e s.
S ig
n ifi
c a n
t d
ir e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
p ro
d u
c t
li n
e C
h ry
sl e r
Y e s
D o
d g
e C
ir c u
it (2
0 1
1 )
P ri
c e d
in th
e sa
m e
ra n
g e
a s
T e sl
a ’s
R o
a d
st e r.
R a n
g e :
2 0
0 m
il e s.
L o
w p
ro d
u c ti
o n
n u
m b
e rs
a n
ti c ip
a te
d D
ir e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r R
o a d
st e r.
T e sl
a w
il l
b e
a b
le to
c o
m p
e te
o n
te c h
n o
lo g
y a d
v a n
ta g
e s
a n
d ra
n g
e D
a im
le r
Y e s
S m
a rt
E V
(2 0
1 2
) M
e rc
e d
e s
A -C
la ss
E -C
e ll
S m
a rt
E V
p ro
d u
c ti
o n
sc h
e d
u le
– 1
5 0
0 g
lo b
a l
sa le
s in
2 0
1 1
. P
ri c e :
$ 3
6 ,0
0 0
. R
a n
g e :
6 5
m il
e s.
M e rc
e d
e s
A -C
la ss
in se
ri a l
p ro
d u
c ti
o n
. P
ri c e
T B
A .
R a n
g e :
1 2
5 m
il e s.
B o
th m
o d
e ls
a re
li k
e ly
si g
n ifi
c a n
t c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
li n
e F
is k
e r
N o
K a rm
a (2
0 1
1 ),
N in
a (2
0 1
2 )
P lu
g -I
n H
y b
ri d
. T
o p
ro d
u c e
1 5
,0 0
0 K
a rm
a s
a n
n u
a ll
y . C
o m
p a n
y fo
c u
se d
o n
p ro
d u
c in
g sp
o rt
s lu
x u
ry p
lu g
-i n
h y
b ri
d v
e h
ic le
s. P
re se
n ts
su b
st it
u te
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n to
T e sl
a ’s
R o
a d
st e r
m o
d e ls
D e tr
o it
E le
c tr
ic Y
e s
e 6
3 (2
0 1
1 )
e 4
6 (2
0 1
1 )
T o
p ro
d u
c e
2 7
0 ,0
0 0 þ
v e h
ic le
s b
y 2
0 1
2 .
P ri
c e :
$ 2
5 ,0
0 0
. R
a n
g e :
1 1
0 –
2 0
0 m
il e s.
S ig
n ifi
c a n
t d
ir e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
p ro
d u
c t
li n
e A
p te
ra Y
e s
2 e
P ri
c e :
$ 3
0 ,0
0 0
. R
a n
g e :
1 2
0 m
il e s.
M a n
u fa
c tu
re r
c u
rr e n
tl y
e x
p e ri
e n
c in
g se
ri o
u s
so lv
e n
c y
is su
e s.
L ik
e ly
b a n
k ru
p tc
y p
ro sp
e c t
F o
rd Y
e s
F o
c u
s B
E V
(2 0
1 1
), u
n n
a m
e d
P H
E V
(2 0
1 2
) T
o p
ro d
u c e
5 ,0
0 0
– 1
0 ,0
0 0
B E
V s
a n
n u
a ll
y .
N o
p ri
c e
in fo
rm a ti
o n
a v
a il
a b
le .
R a n
g e :
1 0
0 m
il e s.
S ig
n ifi
c a n
t d
ir e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
p ro
d u
c t
li n
e
M.E. Mangram300
G M
N o
C h
e v
ro le
t V
o lt
(2 0
1 1
) P
lu g
-I n
H y
b ri
d .
T o
p ro
d u
c e
1 0
– 1
5 ,0
0 0
in 2
0 1
1 ;
u p
to 6
0 ,0
0 0
in 2
0 1
2 .
P ri
c e :
$ 4
1 ,0
0 0
. S
ig n
ifi c a n
t su
b st
it u
te c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n to
T e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
li n
e H
o n
d a
N o
U n
k n
o w
n N
o p
u b
li c
in te
re st
in B
E V
s. C
u rr
e n
tl y
e x
p a n
d in
g in
v e st
m e n
ts in
h y
b ri
d ,
h y d ro
g e n -p
o w
e re
d a n d
n a tu
ra l
g a s
v e h ic
le s
M it
su b
is h
i Y
e s
iM iE
V (2
0 1
1 ),
P X
-M iE
V (2
0 1
3 )
P ro
d u
c ti
o n
o u
tp u
t o
b je
c ti
v e s
u n
k n
o w
n .
P ri
c e :
$ 4
3 ,0
0 0 .
R a n
g e :
1 0
0 m
il e s.
S ig
n ifi
c a n
t d
ir e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
p ro
d u
c t
li n
e N
a v
is ta
r Y
e s
e S
ta r
(2 0
1 1 )
C o
m m
e rc
ia l
c la
ss e le
c tr
ic v
e h
ic le
tr u
c k
. C
u rr
e n
tl y
in se
ri a l
p ro
d u
c ti
o n
. P
ri c e :
$ 1
5 0
,0 0
0 .
R a n
g e :
1 5
0 m
il e s.
D ir
e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
c o
m m
e rc
ia l
v e h
ic le
e x
p a n
si o
n p
la n
s N
is sa
n Y
e s
L E
A F
(2 0
1 1
), N
V 2
0 0
(N /D
), In
fi n
it i
E V
(N /D
) L
E A
F is
c u
rr e n
tl y
in se
ri a l
p ro
d u
c ti
o n
. T
o p
ro d
u c e
5 0
0 ,0
0 0
/y e a r
g lo
b a ll
y b
y 2
0 1
2 .
P ri
c e :
$ 3
2 ,7
8 0
. R
a n
g e :
1 0
0 m
il e s.
S ig
n ifi
c a n
t d
ir e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
li n
e S
m it
h E
le c tr
ic V
e h
ic le
s Y
e s
N e w
to n
(2 0
0 8
) C
u rr
e n
tl y
in se
ri a l
p ro
d u
c ti
o n
o f
c o
m m
e rc
ia l
tr u
c k
s. P
ri c e :
$ 8
5 ,0
0 0
. P
ro d
u c ti
o n
c a p
a c it
y o
f 3
0 /w
e e k
a s
o f
2 0
0 8
. D
ir e c t
c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
c o
m m
e rc
ia l
v e h
ic le
e x
p a n
si o
n p
la n
s T
h !n
k Y
e s
C it
y E
V (N
/D )
C o
m p
a n
y c u
rr e n
tl y
in C
h a p
te r
1 1
b a n
k ru
p tc
y T
o y
o ta
Y e s
P ri
u s
P H
E V
(2 0
1 2
), T
o y
o ta
S c io
n iQ
(2 0
1 2
) T
o p
ro d
u c e
‘t e n
s o
f th
o u
sa n
d s’
o f
P ri
u s
P H
E V
s a n
n u
a ll
y .
IQ R
a n
g e :
5 0
m il
e s.
P ri
c e :
T B
A .
B o
th m
o d
e ls
a re
li k
e ly
si g
n ifi
c a n
t c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
li n
e V
o lk
sw a g
e n
Y e s
G o
lf B
lu e
e -M
o ti
o n
(2 0
1 4
) P
ro d
u c ti
o n
o u
tp u
t o
b je
c ti
v e s
u n
k n
o w
n .
P ri
c e :
T B
D .
R a n
g e :
9 0
m il
e s.
L ik
e ly
si g
n ifi
c a n
t c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
li n
e Z
A P
Y e s
A li
a s
(N /D
); Z
A P
-X (2
0 1
3 )
A li
a s
R a n
g e :
1 0
0 m
il e s.
A li
a s
P ri
c e :
$ 3
0 ,0
0 0
. C
u rr
e n
tl y
ta k
in g
o rd
e rs
fo r
li m
it e d
e d
it io
n v
e rs
io n
. Z
A P
-X R
a n
g e :
u p
to 3
5 0
m il
e s.
P ri
c e :
T B
A .
B o
th m
o d
e ls
a re
li k
e ly
si g
n ifi
c a n
t c o
m p
e ti
ti o
n fo
r T
e sl
a ’s
p la
n n
e d
B lu
e S
ta r
(m a ss
m a rk
e t)
li n
e
N o
te :
* (N
/D ) ¼
N o
D a te
. T
h e
a u
th o
r d
o e s
n o
t c la
im a n y
ri g
h ts
to th
e re
sp e c ti
v e
c o
m p
a n
y se
rv ic
e m
a rk
s d
is p
la y
e d
h e re
in .
S o
u rc
e :
E n
T e c h
C a p
it a l
L td
.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 301
Tesla’s current business model does not position it well to compete directly in the BEV
mass-market consumer segment. There are too many current and prospective entrants in
this space, several of which already enjoy major manufacturing and economies of scale
advantages that would make such an endeavor highly prohibitive and costly.
SWOT analysis
A SWOT analysis is a simplified business model that provides direction for a company and
serves as a basis for marketing plan development (Ferrell, Hartline, & Luck, 1998). The
following provides a summary assessment of Tesla’s strengths and weaknesses, in
addition to its opportunities and threats.
Strengths
A company’s strengths include an analysis of its capabilities and resources that can be
utilized as a foundation for competitive advantage development. Tesla’s major
strengths/advantages in the BEV industry include:
. leading-edge proprietary technologies (vehicle design, powertrain technology, battery technology) (Binkiewicz & Czubakowski, 2008);
. superior products in terms of exceptional vehicle performance (i.e. vehicle range capabilities) and unique/attractive vehicle designs;
. forward-thinking corporate leadership;
. BEV market ‘first mover’ advantage;
. solid brand name foundation;
. good reputation among customers and positive reviews from press;
. unique business model and innovative distribution/sales network;
. solid capital base and strong access to capital markets (public, private and government).
Weaknesses
Tesla’s primary weaknesses in the BEV market include:
. relatively high cost structure due to lack of significant economies of scale;
. immature industry focus (nascent nature of electric vehicle market in general);
. growing but limited brand name recognition within the mass-market consumer segment;
. possible component supply problems if demand increases significantly (Binkiewicz & Czubakowski, 2008);
. potential production output problems if consumer demand in targeted luxury sedan market increases significantly (current manufacturer, Lotus has limited production capacity);
. consumer concerns over electric vehicle market infrastructure (‘range anxiety’, limited number of charging stations, limited other available charging options, etc.).
Opportunities
Numerous changes, external to the BEV environment, are occurring that directly impact
the BEV industry and create opportunities for properly positioned industry market
participants, such as Tesla. These changes occur primarily within ‘the competitive,
economic, political/legal, technological, or sociocultural environments’ (Ferrell et al.,
1998). Some of the key changes creating opportunities for Tesla include:
M.E. Mangram302
. momentous advances in vehicle battery technology (led by Tesla);
. significant barriers to entry in the BEV market which serves to limit the number of viable new entrants (witness the recent failures of TH!NK, Aptera, Venture One and
Venture Vehicles) (Binkiewicz & Czubakowski, 2008);
. rising consumer awareness of cost and environmental benefits of BEV ownership;
. substantial increases in the price of gasoline, driving producers and consumers to look to alternative sources of power;
. global ‘peak oil’-related pressures;
. increasing governmental focus on infrastructures necessary to support widespread BEV adoption;
. mounting anxieties about environmental pollution and global warming;
. swelling global concerns over energy security and fossil fuel dependencies;
. growing number of government mandates and regulations favorable toward BEV adoption (i.e. electric vehicle subsidies, phase-out of fossil fuels subsidies, etc.);
. increasing number of government incentives worldwide in support of electric vehicle adoption (e.g. rebates, tax breaks, low-interest loans, grants, etc.);
. certain market sectors are ‘niche’ and largely untouched (i.e. electric vehicle sectors within the premium sports vehicles and luxury sedan markets).
Threats
In spite of numerous positive changes in the competitive, economic, political/legal,
technological and sociocultural environments, significant threats remain and must be
considered or overcome by Tesla, including:
. significant increase in the number of direct BEV competitors;
. growing number of substitutes for BEVs (i.e. plug-in hybrids, gasoline-powered hybrids, natural gas vehicles, ethanol-fueled vehicles, more fuel efficient non-
electric vehicles);
. entry of large automobile companies into the BEV market with greater economies of scale capabilities;
. possible major breakthrough by competitor(s) in vehicle battery technologies that could diminish Tesla’s current BEV technology advantages;
. potential major breakthrough by competitor(s) of related alternative energy technologies such as hydrogen powered vehicles;
. resurgent consumer apathy driven by historically demonstrated ‘status quo’ attitudes when upwards gasoline pricing pressures are eased in the short term;
. possible dramatic short-term decreases in the price of oil that could discourage consumer adoption of BEVs as a substitute to gasoline powered vehicles.
It will not be enough for Tesla to simply identify its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats. In order to optimize its potential within the BEV industry, Tesla should apply
lessons learned from this kind of SWOT analysis to the implementation of the type of
strategic global marketing plan discussed next.
Tesla Motors – strategic marketing plan
Marketing goals
As stated in Tesla’s Registration Statement (Tesla, 2011b), the company’s primary
marketing goals are to:
Journal of Strategic Marketing 303
(1) generate demand for its vehicles and drive leads to its sales teams;
(2) build long-term brand awareness and manage corporate reputation;
(3) manage its existing customer base to create loyalty and customer referrals; and
(4) enable customer input into the product development process.
Until Tesla’s introduction of the Roadster, previous efforts in the United States to sell
battery electric vehicles had failed, due in large measure to a combination of high prices,
unattractive vehicle designs and limited battery range. Faced with these challenges, Tesla
adopted a unique marketing approach which takes its cues more from Silicon Valley than
from Motor City/Detroit. Tesla’s marketing plan is highly reflective of Apple Computer’s
(‘Apple’) strategic marketing of the Macintosh Computer and its implementation of a
‘crossing the chasm’ marketing strategy of premium pricing combined with limited
production within intelligent brackets (Sun, 2011).
The success of Apple’s Macintosh computer lines set the stage for massive growth of
the company and expansion of product lines including world-leading hardware products
such as the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad, as well as leading-edge software products such
as the Mac OS X Operating System, the iTunes media browser, the iWork suite of
productivity software. Apple currently enjoys a solid 3% market share of the computer
hardware industry, operates 301 company-owned retail stores in 10 countries and manages
an online store through which its products are also sold. As of May 2011, Apple had
overtaken Microsoft and Google as the most valuable technology company in the world,
with an estimated brand worth of $153 billion (Cowell, 2011).
Apple had enjoyed a great deal of success marketing the Apple II to computer enthusiasts,
but it was clear that its future growth was contingent upon reaching out to larger consumer
segments. Apple’s introduction of the Macintosh computer ushered in an evolutionary new
level of high-technology marketing sophistication. It introduced a unique set of marketing
practices that have been widely emulated in Silicon Valley, and, conversely, by Tesla.
Marketing strategy
Tesla’s business model reflects a marketing strategy that is clearly adoptive of Apple’s
marketing approach to innovative technologies. It begins with the premise that new
technology is often very expensive and very rich customers are typically the first to adopt
it. Accordingly, Tesla targeted its first production vehicle, the Roadster, to ‘early adopters’
within the premium sports car consumer segment in order to optimize the technology
before cascading it down to less expensive, more mainstream BEVs (Logan, 2011).
However, this marketing approach is somewhat of a rarity in the global automobile
industry, where predominant business models favor mass production and mass marketing
of low priced vehicles. In this case, Tesla is competing with 150 years of technology
development and trillions of dollars invested in gasoline powered vehicles.
As Tesla shifts its production and marketing emphasis toward the Model S, it is using
the same marketing strategy of targeting the high-end auto segment (LaMonica, 2011).
Similar to the Apple Macintosh marketing plan, in order to achieve its major marketing
objectives, Tesla must capture the hearts and minds of several key groups: its customers;
its dedicated sales force; industry analysts; and the press.
Brand/product positioning
The definition of ‘positioning’ typically varies between individuals (Aaker & Shansby,
1982). Savary and Elberse (2006, p. 3) define positioning as ‘a marketer’s attempts to
M.E. Mangram304
identify a product’s unique sales proposition’. It is ‘arranging for a product to occupy a
clear, distinctive, and attractive position relative to competing products in the minds of
target consumers’ (2006, p. 3). They argue further that positioning addresses various
customer identification issues, needs fulfilled by the product and the best way for
company’s product to meet those needs.
Tesla’s image and positioning for its BEVs embodies the characteristics of being high-
tech, attractive, reliable and environmentally friendly. With this in mind, a recommended
positioning statement might be along the lines of ‘Tesla’s vehicles represent a high-tech,
attractive, reliable and environmentally friendly transportation alternative for forward
thinking consumers.’
Market segmentation
The process of market segmentation encompasses the division of potential consumers into
market segments that share distinct needs or behaviors (Savary & Elberse, 2006). The goal
of this process is to cluster buyer prospects who share a high degree of homogeneity, but
who can also be plainly distinguished from other consumer groups. A company can better
address the needs of consumers by clustering large heterogeneous markets into smaller,
more manageable segments.
Tesla has targeted three key consumer segments for each stage of its product adoption
strategy:
(1) High-end sports car market: relatively small niche market segment targeted to
introduce the Tesla brand.
(2) Luxury vehicle sedan market: substantially larger, but highly competitive
consumer segment targeted for broader-based consumer adoption.
(3) Mainstream vehicle consumer segment: targeted for mass vehicle production and
market penetration.
Product design strategy
Product design relates to the look, feel and functionality of a product in relation to
consumer demands. With increasing competition for global markets, product design offers
an effective way to differentiate and position a company’s products and services (Kotler &
Keller, 2009, pp. 325 – 326). Tesla’s Model S, as a ground-breaking vehicle in terms of
design and technology, will readily differentiate and position Tesla’s latest product line.
Tesla’s main design objective for the Model S was to create a mid-sized sedan that
seats seven people (including their luggage) in a vehicle package that is ‘environmentally
friendly, extremely functional and attractive’ (Holzhausen, 2009). In regards to being
environmentally friendly, the Model S touts a ‘zero emissions’ standard. In terms of
functionality, the vehicle boasts a stunning roomy interior built around a state-of-the-art
17-inch touch screen vehicle interface and control center described as the ‘iPhone of the
auto industry’, and a battery with ranges from 160 miles to 300 miles and a useful life up to
seven years (Holzhausen, 2009). In terms of its ‘attractiveness’, the New York Times
(Gairthwaite, 2011) compares Model S to the striking Maserati Quattroporte sedan, which
sells for more than twice the Model S base price.
Product pricing strategy
A company’s pricing decisions need to be supportive and reflective of its specific
marketing strategies. More precisely, pricing must be in line with a firm’s target market
Journal of Strategic Marketing 305
objectives and positioning strategies (Hollensen, 2010). Much like Apple Computer, Tesla
represents a premium brand and can adopt premium pricing strategies for its products.
Since new technologies are generally always expensive, it made sense for Tesla to start out
with a high-end, relatively high-priced ($100,000 þ) model – the Tesla Roadster. This
strategy better accommodates the high unit costs/low unit volume of a typical new
technology marketing model (Wynn & Lafleur, 2009).
Tesla’s premium branding notwithstanding, its ultimate goal is to sell BEVs to more
mainstream consumers at affordable prices. Tesla’s market pricing regression is similar to
what happened when laptop computers hit the market (including Apple’s MacBook).
Apple computers started as luxuries and eventually became widely affordable.
Tesla’s next pricing steps include the introduction of the new, more affordable Model
S sedan, which is priced in the $57,000 range. Tesla then plans to launch a third generation
BEV based on its proprietary technologies within the $30,000 price range.
Branding strategy
Branding is a tool used by marketers to help differentiate products in a concrete manner
(Savary & Elberse, 2006). It is important for marketers to effectively manage the local,
regional and global characteristics of their brands. This is critical for companies such as
Tesla who understand the importance of product expansion into lucrative foreign markets.
Tesla has already achieved sales in 30 countries and has established retail stores in eight
foreign markets, with plans for immediate expansion. As a relatively new brand operating
within a quickly evolving world of ‘brand-savvy’ consumers, building a firm brand identity
is vital to Tesla’s future. Tesla’s Roadster established a solid brand foundation. The Model S
will create a volume platform through which Tesla can dramatically expand its brand.
Tesla’s Model S vehicle design reinforces a BEV brand that is ‘gender-neutral,
advanced and unique – but not strange, futuristic or overly avant-garde. It’s ready-to-
wear, not runway haute couture’ (Holzhausen, 2009). The strength of its brand has already
been reinforced by independent authorities. For instance, Advertising Age (2009) selected
Tesla as one of ‘America’s hottest brands’ in a special report focusing on the year’s top-50
brands (Tesla, 2011b, citing Advertising Age).
Taking a cue from Apple’s highly successful branding strategy, Tesla is creating
innovative products aligned with a ‘technology hub’ strategy, whereby Tesla’s Roadster
and Model S BEVs function as the technology hub for its other technology-driven product
lines, including battery packs, powertrain components, supply power management
technology and additional BEV lines. By comparison, Apple’s branding strategy involved
the creation of innovative products and services aligned with a ‘digital hub’ strategy. Here,
Apple Macintosh computer products functioned as the digital hub for various digital
devices such as the iPod, iPhone and other electronic devices (Marketing Minds, 2008).
Sales and service strategy
Counter to the traditional auto industry’s sales model of franchise dealerships, Tesla
markets and sells its vehicles directly to consumers. It sells online, through its global
network of company-owned stores, over the telephone or in-person at its headquarters and
via corporate events (Tesla, 2011b). In this regard, Tesla’s sales strategy takes yet another
cue from Apple Computer. In fact, in 2010 Tesla hired former Apple executive, George
Blankenship as Vice President of Design and Store development to build its retail strategy
and network (Tesla, 2010). While at Apple, Blankenship was, in large part, responsible for
M.E. Mangram306
one of the most successful retail growth strategies in history, for which Apple was
repeatedly recognized by Fortune Magazine as ‘America’s Best Retailer’ (Tesla, 2010).
While still in its early stages, Apple improved and expanded its sales/distribution
capabilities by opening company-owned retail stores in key cities throughout the world in
quality shopping venues located in up-scale markets (Marketing Minds, 2008) The highly
successful Apple retail stores provided customer prospects with a ‘hands-on’ experience
of Apple’s brand values within a stimulating, no-pressure environment and allowed them
to leisurely learn more about the Apple family of products.
Like Apple sales outlets, Tesla stores are located in highly visible, premium outlets in
major ‘trend-setting’ metropolitan markets. As of April 2011 it had opened 18 Tesla stores in
the United States, Asia and Europe, located in Boulder, Chicago, Copenhagen, London, Los
Angeles, Menlo Park, Miami, Milan, Monaco, Munich, New York, Newport Beach, Paris,
San Jose, Tokyo, Washington, DC and Zurich. It plans to open a total of 50 stores worldwide
over the next several years to coincide with the rollout of the Model S (Tesla, 2011b).
Its company-owned stores also operate as showrooms and are designed to engage and
inform potential customers about electric vehicles in general, and the specific advantages
of owning a Tesla vehicle. The showrooms feature free snacks, coffee bars, high-speed
internet access and comfortable couches. Additionally, customer prospects can test-drive
Tesla vehicles with a salesperson. Tesla customers deal directly with a Tesla-employed,
highly trained and knowledgeable sales and service staff, creating a differentiated buying
experience from the typical buying experience customers have with traditional automobile
franchise dealers and service centers.
Generally, Tesla outlets have combined retails sales and service, but it plans to build
separate sales and service locations in several markets in the near-term. Tesla’s service
options will also include convenient ‘Tesla Mobile Service Vans’ focused on servicing
Tesla vehicles in remote locations.
Marketing communications plan
To achieve Tesla’s primary goal of increasing the number of electric vehicles – preferably
Tesla BEVs – available to mainstream consumers, the company must weave a focused,
consistent marketing communications message throughout all communications media.
This message, derived from its product positioning statement, must be consistent, concise
and frequently communicated. Further, it should be designed to educate sales prospects as
to the benefits of Tesla vehicles versus other electric, hybrid or gasoline fueled vehicles,
and encourage them to visit Tesla stores for a hands-on trial of the product.
As a company, Tesla must speak with a unified voice to four key groups, each with
separate needs. The groups include the company’s customers, its in-house retail sales
force, industry analysts and the press. This marketing communications strategy has much
in common with Apple’s communications strategy – minus the need for communicating to
an outside dealer network or third party developers (Apple Computer Inc., 1983).
Advertising strategy
Tesla recognizes the importance of global advertising for a new technology product.
Accordingly, Tesla presently utilizes a degree of traditional advertising including product
placement in a variety of media outlets, in conjunction with pay-per-click advertisements
on websites and media applications relevant to its target demographics (Tesla, 2011b).
Given the fact that Tesla’s target markets currently exist within fairly homogeneous
environments, standardized advertising is likely the most valid near- to medium-term
Journal of Strategic Marketing 307
marketing approach (Mayur, 2009). Standardized advertising involves advertising designed
from inception for its use in multiple countries, taking into consideration both market
similarities and market differences (Onkvisit & Shaw, 1999). As the company progresses
toward its broader-based mass-market objectives, more heterogeneous market variables are
likely to arise, which may warrant consideration of a more localized advertising approach.
Taking a page from the Apple advertising playbook, Tesla should focus much of its
advertising efforts around ‘specialist events’ and conferences on a par with Apple’s
MacWorld Expo and the Apple Expo – events used to successfully launch Apple’s iPhone
and iPad. These events typically draw a sizeable gathering of sales prospects and media
representatives (Marketing Minds, 2008). Another Apple strategy that could be employed
by Tesla is the use of highly creative themed advertising campaigns such as Apple’s
hugely successful ‘1984’ campaign, the 1990s ‘Think Different’ campaign and the ‘iPod
people’ campaign of the 2000s. One possible campaign angle might involve Tesla building
a campaign around the theme, ‘Drive Different’, which would appeal to the type of
innovative, discriminating automobile consumer Tesla is looking to engage.
Public relations strategy
Tesla’s main public relations objectives are to: (1) introduce its line of BEVs with
maximum media impact and reinforce its position as the leader in the electric vehicle
industry; (2) reinforce the importance of electric vehicle technology and demonstrate that
it is now available to a wider market base; and (3) reinforce and clarify Tesla’s product line
strategy (i.e. leading with the Roadster and following up with the Model S). These were
similar objectives for Apple in regards to the introduction of the Macintosh computer,
except Apple’s strategy was geared toward the high-tech computer industry (Apple
Computer Inc., 1983).
By positioning itself as the first company to commercially produce an all-electric
vehicle that is federally compliant and achieves a market-leading range on a single charge,
Tesla has been successful in generating significant media coverage of the company and its
vehicles. This media coverage interest has been aided by a growing list of celebrity Tesla
owners, including George Clooney, Matt Damon and Leonardo DeCaprio (an official
Tesla spokesperson). To date, according to its Registration Statement (Telsa, 2011b),
media coverage and word-of-mouth have been the primary drivers for the company’s sales
leads and have helped Tesla achieve sales without significant advertising and maintain
relatively low overall marketing costs (Telsa, 2011b). It is likely that this approach
will continue.
Additional public relations efforts should include coverage in major media outlets geared
toward high technology, green technology, automobile technology and automobile enthusiasts
in general. A particular aspect of this campaign might include public accolades given to
members of the Tesla design team. Prior to Apple’s public relations focus on its Macintosh
design team, designers, engineers and other key technical contributors received very little
public attention in marketing campaigns. Conversely, Macintosh engineers were almost treated
like rock stars – featured in publications such as Rolling Stone magazine and photographed
by the same team that had worked with Fleetwood Mac (Marketing Minds, 2008).
Sales promotion strategies
Sales promotion refers to a number of incentive types and techniques directed toward
consumers with the intention of producing immediate or short-term sales effects
(Karray, 2011). Generally, sales promotion includes some type of incentive offering
M.E. Mangram308
or interest-creating activities which are typically short-term marketing events – other than
direct marketing, advertising, publicity or personal selling. To date, Tesla’s promotional
efforts have essentially included events where its vehicles are prominently displayed and
demonstrated. These events range from broadly attended public events, such as the
Frankfurt, Los Angeles and Detroit auto shows, to smaller private drive events oriented
toward sales promotion (Telsa, 2011b).
Taking yet another page from the Apple playbook, Tesla should focus on bold,
innovative ‘Apple-type’ promotional strategies that might include:
. creating annual specialist events and conferences on a par with Apple’s ‘MacWorld Expo’ and the ‘Apple Expo’;
. partnering with an influential car magazine such as Car and Driver or Motor Trend to support the publication of its own specialty magazine geared toward the electric
vehicle industry (similar to Apple’s MacWorld magazine efforts), that is
TeslaWorld or EVWorld;
. partnerships with leading green, clean energy non-profits and corporate campaigns, to jointly promote the benefits of BEVs and ‘driving green’;
. partnerships with governmental programs, which promote the adoption of electric vehicles and reinforce the various regional and local incentives available to
purchasers of electric vehicles.
Additional Tesla marketing strategy recommendations
The above Marketing Analysis demonstrates how Apple’s arsenal of global attention-
grabbing marketing tools holds lessons for a new technology company such as Tesla.
Apple’s ‘buzz machine’ has helped it continually generate record profits and grow to one
of the most valuable global technology companies. Some additional lessons Tesla could
learn from the Apple marketing manual (Apple Computer Inc., 1983), include:
. Continue to make innovative products: like Apple, Tesla must continue to push the envelope in respect to innovation and design. It must continue to emulate Apple’s
history of inventing and designing products (most technology competitors
outsource). Tesla’s cutting-edge development of electric vehicles, BEV battery
technology and electric vehicle powertrains represents a solid start.
. Keep it simple: while typical automobile competitors are likely to spread their development efforts among a confusing array of gasoline powered, electric and
hybrid vehicles, Tesla must remain focused on developing a narrow line of
memorable products of exceptional quality. Apple Computer used this simple
approach with great success within its Macintosh, Mac Mini, MacBook, iMac and
PowerMac product lines.
. Create truly memorable ads: while Tesla continues to adhere to a highly selective and limited advertising strategy, the ads that it does produce should be uniquely
themed, ‘hip’ and highly effective – with a focus on quality ads, not quantity. By
example, Apple continues to regularly receive industry awards and accolades for its
creative and innovative advertising campaigns. More importantly, the ads continue
to reinforce the company’s brand and drive sales – two objectives Tesla must
continue to strive for.
. Find an enemy: over the years, Apple has never shied away from brazenly distinguishing itself from its competitors, inspiring the world in its advertising to
‘Think Different’ by adopting its products. Similarly, Tesla should aggressively
Journal of Strategic Marketing 309
seek to distinguish itself from its competitors (particularly the eco-damaging
traditional automakers) in its marketing efforts. Perhaps Tesla could encourage the
world to ‘Drive Different’ by buying its environmentally friendly and attractively
designed vehicles.
. Work the taste makers: with a relatively small market share (3%) of the global computer industry, Apple had to work harder than its major, more entrenched
competitors to bring its products to the attention of the public. Like Apple, Tesla has
already established an aggressive rollout of Tesla retail stores in ‘taste maker’
metropolitan areas. Additionally, it must continue to adopt a very ‘PR-centric’
approach to getting its vehicles reviewed, and engage in other tactics such as
product placement in motion pictures and television shows.
. Offer surprises: Apple’s efforts to keep product launches close to the vest are well documented (i.e. iPhone at the MacWorld expo). This type of secrecy could pay off
for Tesla as well, as technology products shrouded in secrecy often generate
massive news interest and valuable word-of-mouth activity.
. Put on a show: technology companies often stage splashy events to unveil their products. However, only Apple has consistently succeeded in turning those events
into major headlines. Tesla could take this final page out of Apple’s marketing
manual and put on the type of attention grabbing events that are merit-worthy of its
leading-edge, high-tech and environmentally friendly BEVs – that happen to look
as ‘cool’ as they perform.
Conclusion
Considering the litany of unique market drivers, the battery electric vehicle market is
poised for explosive growth. In that regard, Tesla is faced with a couple of critical
questions: Should their primary objective be to establish the Tesla brand as a high-end,
lower volume electric vehicle marque comparable to BMW or Mercedes’ market positions
in the traditional automobile industry? If so, what is the best strategic marketing plan to
achieve that objective?
In view of the available market research and data, the above primary objective should
indeed be Tesla’s focus. Tesla’s business model, available resources and current
marketing strategy all buttress this perspective. Moreover, competitive analysis indicates
that a prospectively large number of automobile companies are positioning themselves
within the mass-market BEV plug-in hybrid and hybrid consumer segments. Several of
these manufacturers are considerably larger than Tesla and will have decisive ‘economies
of scale’ pricing, marketing and production advantages.
An alternative strategy for Tesla to consider might be to broaden the Tesla brand
within the luxury vehicle market segment as planned and then position themselves to be
bought out by a large automobile manufacturer that might be better positioned to expand
that brand into the broader mass-market consumer segment. However, Tesla should be
cautious of this approach. Jaguar (then partnered with Ford), lost a significant amount of its
prestige and market share as a luxury vehicle brand when it ‘cheapened’ its brand by
introducing the X-Type in the hope of capturing a broader market. The X-Type was
ultimately abandoned by Jaguar in 2009.
From a marketing perspective, Tesla must continue to focus on building brand
recognition, optimizing its cost structure and establishing its ‘Apple-esque’ sales/distribution
infrastructure. Like Apple, who revolutionized the computer buying experience, Tesla is
poised to revolutionize the automobile buying experience – more specifically the BEV
M.E. Mangram310
buying experience. In an ‘Apples to Apple’ comparison, it can be reasonably concluded that
in the case of Tesla Motors, the emperor is not only clearly fully attired, but more
appropriately ‘dressed to kill’.
References
Aaker, D., & Shansby, G. (1982). Positioning your product. Business Horizons, May – June, 56 – 62. Aden, E., & Barray, A. (2008). Go green in the automotive industry (Master’s thesis). University of
Kalamar. Apple Computer Inc. (1983, October). Macintosh production introduction plan. Papers, Series 7,
Box 13, Folder 12. Retrieved July 1, 2011, from http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/docs/ pip83.html
Ashtiani, C., Cullen, G., Davis, P., Greenwald, J., Hardigan, P., Eladio, K., . . . Zimmerman, D. (2011, February). Plug-in electric vehicles: A practical plan for progress. Expert Panel Report, School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University.
Binkiewicz, N., Chen, J., & Czubakowski, M. (2008, June). Tesla Motors. Unpublished document. Carson, T. (Ed.). (1999). Gale encyclopedia of U.S. economic history. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale
Group. Cowell, D. (2011, May). Apple usurps Google as world’s most valuable brand. Reuters. Retrieved
July 1, 2011, from http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/Apple-usurps-Google-world-reuters- 1493248688.html?mod¼pf-sp14c&x¼0
Cunningham, J. (2009). An analysis of battery electric vehicle production projections (Thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Eberhard, M., & Tarpenning, M. (2006). The 21st century electric car. Report, Tesla Motors. Ferrell, O., Hartline, M., Lucas, G., & Luck, D. (1998). Marketing strategy. Orlando, FL: Dryden Press. Gairthwaite, J. (2011). Tesla prepares for a gap as roadster winds down. New York Times. Retrieved
July 16, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/automobiles/08TESLA.html?_ r¼2&emc¼eta1
Google.org. (2011, June). The impact of clean energy innovation. Report. Analysis by Google.org using McKinsey & Company’s US Low Carbon Tool.
Hardester, E. (2010). The profitability of the electric car (Thesis). Brigham Young University. Hollensen, S. (2010). Marketing management: A relationship approach (2nd ed.). New York:
Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Holzhausen, F. (2009, April). Building Model S: A perfectionist defines Tesla’s design language.
Tesla Motors Enthusiasts/Blog. Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/ building-model-s-perfectionist-defines-teslas-design-language
Kanellos, M. (2011). Tesla puts prices, delivery date on Model S. Greentech Media. Karray, S. (2011). Effectiveness of retail joint promotions under different channel structures.
European Journal of Operational Research, 210, 745. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from http:// www.scribd.com/doc/55215721/A-5
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2009). Marketing management (13th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. LaMonica, M. (2011, June). Tesla’s next act: Cheaper electric cars . . . and a profit? CNET. Retrieved
July 12, 2011, from http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20074055-54/teslas-next-act-cheaper- electric-cars . . . and-a-profit/
Logan, J. (2011, May). Tesla Motors. Analysis. Retrieved July 5, 2011, from http://johnloganfund. com/2011/05/tesla-motors/
Marketing Minds. (2008). Apple computer marketing strategy. Retrieved July 1, 2011, from http:// www.marketingminds.com.au/branding/apple_branding_strategy.html
Mayur, V. (2009). International advertising. Bukisa.com. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www. bukisa.com/articles/24315_international-advertising
Mintzer, I. (2009). Look before you leap. In D.B. Sandalow (Ed.), Plug-in electric vehicles: What role for Washington? (pp. 107 – 129). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. (1999). Standardized international advertising: Some research issues and implications. Journal of Advertising Research, November – December, 19 – 24.
Patel, H., & Aalok, V. (2010, August). Tesla Motors: Electrifying luxury. Report. J.P. Morgan Securities. Ramsey, M. (2010, October). High battery cost curbs electric cars. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved
July 16, 2011, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487037358045755362429 34528502.html
Journal of Strategic Marketing 311
Savary, M., & Elberse, A. (2006, April). Market segmentation, target market selection, and positioning. Module Note 9-506-019.
Schneider, S., Bearman, R., McDermott, H., Xu, X., Benner, S., & Huber, K. (2011, May). An assessment of the price impacts of electric vehicles on the PJM market. Joint study by PJM and Better Place.
Seeking Alpha. (2011, February). Is Tesla Motors ready to accelerate? Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://seekingalpha.com/article/253638-is-tesla-motors-ready-to-accelerate
Sun, L. (2011). Tesla Motors (TSLA) is more Silicon Valley than Motor City. Investor Guide, February. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.investorguide.com/article/7896/tesla- motors-tsla-is-more-silicon-valley-than-motor-city/
Tesla Motors. (2010, July). George Blankenship to build Tesla’s global store network in advance of the Model S. Press Release.
Tesla Motors. (2011a, January). Tesla exceeds 1,500 Roadster deliveries worldwide. Press Release. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-exceeds- 1500-roadster-deliveries-worldwide
Tesla Motors. (2011b). Form S-1 Registration Statement [as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2011].
US Energy Information Administration. (2011, June). Short-term energy outlook. Release, US Energy Information Administration, Independent Statistics & Analysis.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). EPA global greenhouse gas data. Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html
Week in Review. (2010). Electric vehicles hit the accelerator, from Washington to Tokyo and Beijing. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (VI), issue 60, November.
Wynn, T., & Lafleur, S. (2009, October). A free market perspective on electric vehicles. Portland, OR: Cascade Policy Institute.
M.E. Mangram312
Copyright of Journal of Strategic Marketing is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
