I don’t see how that’s a mistake at all from a customer perspective. You’re asking a consumer to buy something very expensive that in the past could do a whole bunch of things like go long distances, but now does less of those things. In exchange you provide them with more fuel efficiency? Maybe a good feeling about being environmentally sound? That’s not a good trade off in most customer’s minds.
Your response seems to be, “then rent for those occasions.” But that means the customer has to change their mindset, break long established habits. That’s a big ask.
If you’re Tesla you build a car that is better in every way than an old car EXCEPT mildly less convenient on range. Clearly that has legs, but lots of Tesla owners have a house/garage, and lots have another car, it’s not viable for a lot of people.
Hopefully alternative vehicles will improve to the point where there are no compromises, but until then I think it’s a fools errand to argue customers should just change how they think. They won’t unless forced to by outside pressures such as regulation or a massive change to the pricing structure of owning a regular car.
Your response seems to be, “then rent for those occasions.” But that means the customer has to change their mindset, break long established habits. That’s a big ask.
If you’re Tesla you build a car that is better in every way than an old car EXCEPT mildly less convenient on range. Clearly that has legs, but lots of Tesla owners have a house/garage, and lots have another car, it’s not viable for a lot of people.
Hopefully alternative vehicles will improve to the point where there are no compromises, but until then I think it’s a fools errand to argue customers should just change how they think. They won’t unless forced to by outside pressures such as regulation or a massive change to the pricing structure of owning a regular car.