Why is California so Anti-Tesla and pro foreign auto makers?

[DesertSprings]

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen.

Do you know why? Does the state have a long-term plan, or have they been taken-over by the H2 industry, or? I wan to understand why they're pro-H2. Thanks!

Lobbying money, plain and simple. Toyota, Honda, (and yes even Nissan), have invested a lot of money into fuel cell technology, and the petroleum industry needs to sell all the hydrogen they capture from Natural Gas production plus the fear that some day most EV charging will be done at home, vs hydrogen where you'll still need to "pump it" at a station. These are big lobbying groups with decades old relationships with the various politicians and bureaucrats who run things.

Versus Telsa, who only has a tiny fraction of the lobbying money to throw around and who else? Nissan, maybe, they're conflicted. The Electric Utilities, maybe. They seem to be slow to coming around to the benefits of EVs for them. The other car vendors who are only producing EVs because they're forced to? Probably not.

 

[AndyH]

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen.

Do you know why? Does the state have a long-term plan, or have they been taken-over by the H2 industry, or? I wan to understand why they're pro-H2. Thanks!

Lobbying money, plain and simple. Toyota, Honda, (and yes even Nissan), have invested a lot of money into fuel cell technology, and the petroleum industry needs to sell all the hydrogen they capture from Natural Gas production plus the fear that some day most EV charging will be done at home, vs hydrogen where you'll still need to "pump it" at a station. These are big lobbying groups with decades old relationships with the various politicians and bureaucrats who run things.

Versus Telsa, who only has a tiny fraction of the lobbying money to throw around and who else? Nissan, maybe, they're conflicted. The Electric Utilities, maybe. They seem to be slow to coming around to the benefits of EVs for them. The other car vendors who are only producing EVs because they're forced to? Probably not.

Can you support that with data, proof, a policy, anything?

I asked evchels because I suspect she's better placed than any of us to have access to reliable information, and I expect she's got the experience to properly interpret the info she can share.

 

[Nubo]

Lexus claims plug-in hybrids and electric cars "actually hold you back"

It is clear that Toyota considers plug in vehicles as competitors
very clear

"Turn off radio to conserve power" -- Sorry Toyota, pure bullshit.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The state of California's official position is that we will be 80% hydrogen transport by 2050, about 15% EV, and 5% remainder (gasoline, diesel, natural gas).

You'll have to do your own web search to get further details.

Our state doesn't work in a "seekrit" concerning their love of hydrogen. It's all out there, including $20 million PER YEAR to support hydrogen.

 

[mbender]

[ img ]

"Turn off radio to conserve power" -- Sorry Toyota, pure bullshit.

I agree that that is one nasty ad (which I will not present again). And there's no reason to single out Step 2 -- they're all bs... pathetic.

If an "advertising war" developed between BEV and FCEVs, can you imagine the equivalent poster that could be made by Nissan or BEV manufacturer? Very bad "opening salvo" for Toyota to make if the(ir) enemy really is ICEs and petroleum, imho.

 

[mbender]

The Electric Utilities, maybe. They seem to be slow to coming around to the benefits of EVs for them.

I wonder why electric utilities have been slow. In some states (including California), could it have to do with decoupling? You'd still think these states (if not the utilities) would see the benefits of keeping transportation "fuel" dollars within their state, not to mention any localized/urban environmental benefits.

And even if there is an economic rationale for some states (those with a refining industry, perhaps), you'd think we'd hear more from national outfits such as EPRI, EDTA or the Electrification Coalition encouraging the transition to electricity. We've heard some, but nothing as visible and persistent as one might hope for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling_(utility_regulation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=1250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-Map_utilities_decoupling_for_electric_utilities" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.epri.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.http://electricdrive.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.electrificationcoalition.org/policy/electrification-roadmap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit: their<->there, dammit!

 

[evnow]

This is the binary argument that I think is painfully wrong. They're not competitors - they're both electric transportation.

It is not painfully wrong - it is painfully obvious. We are talking about FCV vs BEV - not motor vs motor.

There are limited dollars - and every dollar spent on FCV is a dollar not spent on EV infrastructure. It is very clear CA regulators are bending over backwards to accommodate and promote FCV, even though
- Domestic companies favor BEV/PHEV
- FCV are painfully less efficient
- FCV infrastructure is painfully more expensive

Give me ONE example where state regulators are so in favor of a technology supported by foreign companies that are naturally in competition with domestic ones.

Update : Just compare to what Japan is doing. They are giving such huge discounts to Toyota FCV that they are practically free. This is how companies support the largest domestic auto company.

 

[evnow]

Now I'm beginning to come over more to "your" side evnow*, but the state did help Tesla with the NUMMI plant as described....

I could be less provocative and title the thread "CA air quality board" or whatever is the official name. My guess is the agency offering assistance to Tesla on the plant is not the same agency.

 

[AndyH]

Lexus claims plug-in hybrids and electric cars "actually hold you back"

It is clear that Toyota considers plug in vehicles as competitors
very clear

"Turn off radio to conserve power" -- Sorry Toyota, pure bullshit.

Be careful Nubo - I posted an image of a "BS" stamp in another thread and drees banned me for a week for 'swearing'... :roll:

I agree with your assessment, unfortunately. But that's exactly what marketing does - it's straight from the text:

First, remind the customer about the pain they currently feel or the pain they will feel when they use a competitors product. Once they're in distress, show them your product and remind them of how perfect their life will be. Carry them from pain to bliss, then hand them the order to 'authorize'.

Of course it's BS, but it's more a reflection of the concerns of the general public than a reflection of a company that successfully sells ICE, hybrid, PHEV, BEV, and soon FCEV.

 

[AndyH]

This is the binary argument that I think is painfully wrong. They're not competitors - they're both electric transportation.

It is not painfully wrong - it is painfully obvious. We are talking about FCV vs BEV - not motor vs motor.

And you think I'm talking about the motor why, exactly? :shock:

There are limited dollars - and every dollar spent on FCV is a dollar not spent on EV infrastructure. It is very clear CA regulators are bending over backwards to accommodate and promote FCV, even though ...

evnow, you and others keep repeating the message - but every single time I've asked for proof - some data that supports that view - it's gone unanswered. Please - can this thread rise above birthers and anti-vaxers? Is there proof that there's a war in CA and only a few insiders were invited?

 

[mbender]

First, remind the customer about the pain they currently feel or the pain they will feel when they use a competitors product. Once they're in distress, show them your product and remind them of how perfect their life will be. Carry them from pain to bliss, then hand them the order to 'authorize'.

"I'm sorry", but I must take exception to this. I know next to nothing about marketing, but what I remember from when I was 'forced' to watch commercials is how little, how infrequently, one product's ad mentioned another competing product. Once in a while there was an exception (Coke-Pepsi taste tests, or "vs another leading brand", e.g.), but it was and still is rare. One "genre" bashing another (the other white meat, [I'm surer there's another]) might be more frequent, but it's still rare. I think it has to do with the fact that corporations are all playing the long game and never die*; normal rules and strategies of competition change when there's no clock (as it were). They want it to seem as though they are the only "cure for the pain" out there, and don't want the target's attention to stray or even know of any other possibilities.

So, pain to bliss, and removal of pain, and everything else, yes; but "the pain they will feel when they use a competitor's product"? No. But as I said, I know almost nothing about this game, so I'm all ears though if you have examples that prove me wrong.


I'd give Toyota a lot more credit and 'props' if instead of that poster they made one that did the equivalent to ICEs and at the bottom/end said, "We have to leave these polluting engines behind us as soon as possible; please move to an alternative -- be it a battery electric or fuel cell electric vehicle -- also as soon as possible." Or even 'please move to one of our fuel cell vehicles', etc.

I think it's very difficult to defend Toyota's overall "post-carbon" strategy in general, and this ad in particular.


* Who was it who first said, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."? :-\

 

[Nubo]

Of course it's BS, but it's more a reflection of the concerns of the general public than a reflection of a company that successfully sells ICE, hybrid, PHEV, BEV, and soon FCEV.

True enough. I'd like to think that the folks in charge at Toyota know how things work.

But it's interesting to see them fire the first salvo. Seems a bit premature. What are they worried about, I wonder. Is it competition from EVs? Or rallying public support to influence policy-makers?

The former will arrive. So far Tesla has no need to compete in the advertising arena. It will be interesting when the time comes.

 

[AndyH]

First, remind the customer about the pain they currently feel or the pain they will feel when they use a competitors product. Once they're in distress, show them your product and remind them of how perfect their life will be. Carry them from pain to bliss, then hand them the order to 'authorize'.

"I'm sorry", but I must take exception to this. I know next to nothing about marketing, but what I remember from when I was 'forced' to watch commercials is how little, how infrequently, one product's ad mentioned another competing product. Once in a while there was an exception (Coke-Pepsi taste tests, or "vs another leading brand", e.g.), but it was and still is rare. One "genre" bashing another (the other white meat, [I'm surer there's another]) might be more frequent, but it's still rare. I think it has to do with the fact that corporations are all playing the long game and never die*; normal rules and strategies of competition change when there's no clock (as it were). They want it to seem as though they are the only "cure for the pain" out there, and don't want the target's attention to stray or even know of any other possibilities.

So, pain to bliss, and removal of pain, and everything else, yes; but "the pain they will feel when they use a competitor's product"? No. But as I said, I know almost nothing about this game, so I'm all ears though if you have examples that prove me wrong.

The classic go-to text on advertising is "Ogilvy on Advertising" http://www.amazon.com/Ogilvy-Advertising-David/dp/039472903X One of the truths therein is that "advertising is salesmanship." In a minute I'll give a view of 'salesmanship' from a well-known and well-respected salesman and sales trainer. But first, I'd like to hear your opinion of this headline:

At 60 miles an hour the loudest noise from this new Rolls-Royce comes from the electric clock.

Can you feel the silence here? The sense of being wrapped in your mother's womb, secure, safe, relaxed? In a single sentence this headline reminds you via words spoken/typed and via those unsaid that your car sucks and that a new Rolls-Royce will deliver you to your mothers arms.

Advertisements are written to plant a seed of desire that when combined with other seeds and influences results in a sale. The overall sales process is full of psychology and human nature - and salespeople are trained in manipulating base human desires in order to increase their own sales at the expense of their competition. The first book I'll recommend is Tom Hopkins "How to Master the Art of Selling". Another is Harry Beckwith's "Selling the Invisible". Another is anything written by Zig Ziglar. Salesmanship is a multi-part process. Hopkins breaks the parts into five basics: Prospecting, making contacts, qualification, overcoming objection, and closing the sale. Here's one short overview:

Of course, the diagram is highly simplified. The greeting phase, for example, might include lengthy getting-acquainted small talk to establish rapport. Unless you're selling something over a counter, you'll have to ask more questions and respond well to many more objections than we've shown. But the essential elements are there, and it's the concept that's important. It expresses the simple essence of sales. The function of the professional salesperson is to know what a prospect might ask or object to, what information and responses will best meet the expected questions and objections, and what closes will guide the prospect toward approving the purchase. It boils down to them saying this, you answering that for a while, and then they walk out carrying the video recorder you just sold them. Why did that happen?

Because you learned exactly what they would say and what you should say.

Giving a powerful presentation or a deft demonstration should never be your purpose in and of itself - you're not there to win an award, you're there to close the sale. The only purpose for presenting or demonstrating is to get the prospect ready to approve the purchase. Except for its value as a training exercise, there's absolutely no point in giving a splendid presentation unless it results in a sale.

There's no essential difference between a presentation and a demonstration. Both are processes by which you prove the reality of the benefits that the prospects are seeking. In the presentation, you do it with graphs, numbers, and words; in the demonstration, you do it with tests, samples, and performances. The result should be the same: the implanting in their minds of the conviction that you are their best source for the benefits they want.

Let's go through the tactics or methodology of presentation and demonstration:

1. You control them constantly with questions
2. You don't lose to objections, you win by handling objections
3. You say it in words they want to hear

One example of a base level sales tactic is used regularly selling clothes. Walk into many mid- and upscale woman's shops and you'll find racks with a few examples of different dresses in mostly unpopular sizes. The shopper sees a dress they like and asks the clerk if the dress is available in their size. "Oh, I don't know if we have that or not. Let me go in the back and check." That statement is designed to trigger the fear of loss. Even if they weren't sure they wanted the dress, standing out there hoping it's available is dramatically increasing the odds of a sale - and the sense of relief the customer will feel when they're 'safely' leaving the store with their new dress.

What's the pain here?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbOinAiLXOY[/youtube]

Look at Nissan's ads that show the Chevy Volt being tied to a gas pump. This is another take on the 'highlight the pain and show the antidote' method. How many other sources of pain can you see in this ad?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn__9hLJKAk[/youtube]

The graphic linked here from the Toyota ad shows objections - they are the most common complaints or concerns from people driving ICE and wondering about BEVs. If you're tasked with selling a BEV, you'll generally not lead your ad campaign with those - you'll handle them on an as needed basis during the sales process. If you want to highlight the flexibility of your hybrid drive system, though, as Toyota was doing in the ad, you'll highlight the objections to BEVs as they're currently the least flexible cars on the market.

Welcome to sales, marketing, and manipulation. We're awash in these currents 24/7/365. Isn't it fun?

 

[TonyWilliams]

If you want to highlight the flexibility of your hybrid drive system, though, as Toyota was doing in the ad, you'll highlight the objections to BEVs as they're currently the least flexible cars on the market.

Toyota's Lexus division is getting its ass handed to them on high end, high profit margin cars by our friends at Tesla (you remember that company... they call hydrogen cars "bullshit").

Welcome to sales, marketing, and manipulation. We're awash in these currents 24/7/365. Isn't it fun?

Every time I hear a hydrogen "promoter" like yourself spewing how H2 cars are "just like electric cars", I'm reminded how deep that manipulation goes. I was talking to your female equivalent at the California Energy Commision when she interrupted to claim just that.

I asked if I could refuel that hydrogen car with electricity.... dead silence.

Ya know, I've never heard any EV advocate claim that "their" cars were "just like hydrogen cars".

 

[TonyWilliams]

evnow, you and others keep repeating the message - but every single time I've asked for proof - some data that supports that view - it's gone unanswered. Please - can this thread rise above birthers and anti-vaxers? Is there proof that there's a war in CA and only a few insiders were invited?

I suspected that you might have a close affiliation to "anti-vaxer"!

Hopefully, nobody would waste their time "proving" anything to you. The references to our state are easy to find, even with a casual look. Besides, aren't you the guy who continually derides Califorina as having no impact to the 3rd Reich of Hydrogen?

 

[AndyH]

If you want to highlight the flexibility of your hybrid drive system, though, as Toyota was doing in the ad, you'll highlight the objections to BEVs as they're currently the least flexible cars on the market.

Thanks for discussing the facts, Tony, instead of attacking someone speaking from 12+ years of sales experience and communicating honestly about the view from the other side of curtain. I am not a 'hydrogen promoter' - I'm very pro electrification and am a repeat EV 'offender'. What I will not do - and will not tolerate from anyone - is lying, twisting, or obfuscating (via sins of commission or omission) - in order to push their agenda. This is yet another example of why you'll remain on my ignore list.

 

[GRA]

Meanwhile, back in the world:

California Considers Reducing Sales Tax On Electric Cars

http://insideevs.com/california-considers-reducing-sales-tax-electric-cars/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

California has returned back to the idea of lowering sales tax on all-electric, plug-in hybrid, hydrogen fuel cell and compressed natural gas cars as another incentive to increase adoption of such vehicles.

 

[AndyH]

Of course it's BS, but it's more a reflection of the concerns of the general public than a reflection of a company that successfully sells ICE, hybrid, PHEV, BEV, and soon FCEV.

True enough. I'd like to think that the folks in charge at Toyota know how things work.

No doubt. I expect that the same can be said about the advertising agency that conducted or drew from public polls and crafted the message. I think we can expect to see more ads along these lines if Toyota hired them for a full campaign.

But it's interesting to see them fire the first salvo. Seems a bit premature. What are they worried about, I wonder. Is it competition from EVs? Or rallying public support to influence policy-makers?

I'm certainly not on the inside at either Toyota or whatever agency 'built' the ads so cannot answer your questions. Unfortunately, due to the nature of advertising, I don't expect anyone else here can either.

At the end of the day, Toyota exists to make money for their shareholders, not catalyze a revolution. I expect that's why they and other car companies are hedging their bets and keeping their options open. Corporations don't want to be forced to change, and don't want to change, because change is expensive and there are too many unknowns scattered about.

As all of this seems to keep coming back to the behavior and/or choices from the CA lawmakers, I really do hope someone with solid info from as close to the 'inside' as possible will report back - because I really would like to know what's behind their decisions.

 

[TonyWilliams]

If you want to highlight the flexibility of your hybrid drive system, though, as Toyota was doing in the ad, you'll highlight the objections to BEVs as they're currently the least flexible cars on the market.

Thanks for discussing the facts, Tony, instead of attacking someone speaking from 12+ years of sales experience and communicating honestly about the view from the other side of curtain. I am not a 'hydrogen promoter' - I'm very pro electrification and am a repeat EV 'offender'. What I will not do - and will not tolerate from anyone - is lying, twisting, or obfuscating (via sins of commission or omission) - in order to push their agenda. This is yet another example of why you'll remain on my ignore list.

I'm not sure what quote you attributed to me, but claiming you don't hand out your smug smack down to future transportation that doesn't include hydrogen is typical delusional on your part.

I don't lie, but I always know that I'm getting close to hearing the pig squeal when folks like you accuse me of lying.

If I'm on your "ignore" list, then why on God's earth would you respond to my posts? (I'm not looking for a real response... it's a rhetorical question).