3 ms·

We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss. You're either cool with it, or Tesla is completely off the table. And nobody will

We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss. You're either cool with it, or Tesla is completely off the table. And nobody will likely be switching camps at this point.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
Can someone be cool with it but also admit that it definitely affected the market share? I can do that with Bud Weiser's trans campaign, even if I agree with it.
- watwut 1y ago
  They had no trans campaing. There was a single short video with a single personalized can. Calling it campaign is just validating conservative lies again. Truth is, a single trans got a can of beer with own face, made short video and rught wing decided to make it into a campaing, because trans must be destroyed. That is it.
  - andriesm 1y ago
    Very expensive beer! That six pack cost them a lot of market share. But I think the wishy washy interview with the marketing person in charge of that decision did not exactly help, with the typical beer chugging target demo.
    - nebula8804 1y ago
      It was a single can of beer. The brand was already declining. Americans are drinking less beer and when they do, its higher quality beer. Imagine you are brought in to grow the business. What avenues do you have? Lower the price? Its already low end product. Move upmarket? Its difficult since the brand has been around as low priced product for decades and it would risk other higher quality brands in the parent companies portfolio. Whats left? Expand the user base to people that typically don't drink the product. Once things fell apart, the fact that management overrode the marketing person's decisions and tried to backpedal pissed off the potential new customer base. Meanwhile the existing base continues to decline either way. Maybe some items just can't grow no matter what you do. We see this with a lot of processed food junk. People are waking up to how unhealthy a lot of pre packaged food is so companies are trying all sorts of nonsense to keep people (Just look at an account like @snackolator).
sdesol 1y ago
> We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss I don't agree, as we are not quantifying the emotional aspect of the purchasing process. If people "love" the brand, they are willing to overlook a lot of things. Tesla was a status symbol and is now seen as a regret purchase and a toxic brand for many (see Europe and Canada for examples). I can't see how "politics" should not be considered as it does play a critical role in how people spend money. There is a reason why a lot of companies are not open about politics and I don't think I've ever seen a CEO that was so forth coming with their beliefs as Elon Musk.
- rainsford 1y ago
  It's particularly interesting because cars are probably one of the most emotional purchases for a lot of people. Car makers know this and put a huge amount of effort into brand identity. It's also hard to think of another company of any kind where the CEO is so synonymous with the company and so public facing. Maybe Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in their heydays, but even they had a lower public profile relatively speaking. And finally, it's hard to think of another CEO of a major company who has so aggressively adopted and broadcast very polarizing political views. Tesla is such a perfect storm that it's actually kind of amazing the stock hasn't completely tanked, which itself makes it an interesting discussion topic. They make a product where brand identity is super important, have a CEO who is unquestionably the public face of the company, and said CEO continues to go out of his way to try to alienate a significant portion of the potential customer base. I frequently see Teslas driving around with anti-Elon bumper stickers, which I've certainly never seen before for a car company. It's hard to imagine a world in which such consumer sentiment among any non-trivial percentage of your customer base isn't a death knell for the company.

johnnyanmac 1y ago

Can someone be cool with it but also admit that it definitely affected the market share? I can do that with Bud Weiser's trans campaign, even if I agree with it.

watwut 1y ago
They had no trans campaing. There was a single short video with a single personalized can. Calling it campaign is just validating conservative lies again. Truth is, a single trans got a can of beer with own face, made short video and rught wing decided to make it into a campaing, because trans must be destroyed. That is it.
- andriesm 1y ago
  Very expensive beer! That six pack cost them a lot of market share. But I think the wishy washy interview with the marketing person in charge of that decision did not exactly help, with the typical beer chugging target demo.
  - nebula8804 1y ago
    It was a single can of beer. The brand was already declining. Americans are drinking less beer and when they do, its higher quality beer. Imagine you are brought in to grow the business. What avenues do you have? Lower the price? Its already low end product. Move upmarket? Its difficult since the brand has been around as low priced product for decades and it would risk other higher quality brands in the parent companies portfolio. Whats left? Expand the user base to people that typically don't drink the product. Once things fell apart, the fact that management overrode the marketing person's decisions and tried to backpedal pissed off the potential new customer base. Meanwhile the existing base continues to decline either way. Maybe some items just can't grow no matter what you do. We see this with a lot of processed food junk. People are waking up to how unhealthy a lot of pre packaged food is so companies are trying all sorts of nonsense to keep people (Just look at an account like @snackolator).

sdesol 1y ago

> We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss I don't agree, as we are not quantifying the emotional aspect of the purchasing process. If people "love" the brand, they are willing to overlook a lot of things. Tesla was a status symbol and is now seen as a regret purchase and a toxic brand for many (see Europe and Canada for examples). I can't see how "politics" should not be considered as it does play a critical role in how people spend money. There is a reason why a lot of companies are not open about politics and I don't think I've ever seen a CEO that was so forth coming with their beliefs as Elon Musk.

rainsford 1y ago
It's particularly interesting because cars are probably one of the most emotional purchases for a lot of people. Car makers know this and put a huge amount of effort into brand identity. It's also hard to think of another company of any kind where the CEO is so synonymous with the company and so public facing. Maybe Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in their heydays, but even they had a lower public profile relatively speaking. And finally, it's hard to think of another CEO of a major company who has so aggressively adopted and broadcast very polarizing political views. Tesla is such a perfect storm that it's actually kind of amazing the stock hasn't completely tanked, which itself makes it an interesting discussion topic. They make a product where brand identity is super important, have a CEO who is unquestionably the public face of the company, and said CEO continues to go out of his way to try to alienate a significant portion of the potential customer base. I frequently see Teslas driving around with anti-Elon bumper stickers, which I've certainly never seen before for a car company. It's hard to imagine a world in which such consumer sentiment among any non-trivial percentage of your customer base isn't a death knell for the company.