1. Home
  2. >
  3. Car News
  4. >
  5. Hot News
  6. >
  7. Superbroadcast: Is Tesla's rights...

[YesAuto New Energy] Super broadcast, every week. At the beginning of this week, the rights protection incident of Tesla owners immediately made the “people who eat melons” lively. Unlike other rights protections due to product quality, Tesla owners pointed the contradiction point to “fraud concealment” this time. Consumers believe that Tesla’s sales “deliberately concealed” the release time of the domestically produced Model 3 long-range rear-drive version, which made many consumers “unconsciously” choose the standard endurance version with a range of about 200km. However, after the rights protection incident, the attitudes of netizens were quite different. This also made us want to look at the rights protection incident in a dialectical manner. Where did the problem lie?

On April 10th, Tesla’s domestic Model 3 long-range rear-drive version and Performance high-performance all-wheel-drive version were officially launched. Compared with the standard model 3, which was delivered as early as January this year, the long-range version can be described as popular. It is expected that although the price is higher (after the subsidy is 339,050 yuan, which is 40,000 yuan higher than the standard battery life version), it will actually get a mileage increase of more than 200km compared with the standard battery life version. It is precisely because of the higher cost-effectiveness that some owners of the standard battery life version have emotions, believing that Tesla “deliberately” concealed the release time of the new car.

In the rights defense video, the car owner said that when he bought the car before, he did not know that Tesla would soon launch the domestic Model 3 long-life rear-wheel drive version. Some sales even told him that “it will be launched at the end of the year.” At the same time, some car owners said that sales are for Encourage consumers to order the standard battery life version, and even advance the delivery time of the vehicle to “lead.” Click to review the news report: Did not tell the new car will be issued domestically produced Model 3 owners to defend their rights

As the saying goes, Tesla’s rights protection incident quickly spread on social media this Monday, but unlike other brand rights protection incidents, many people who eat melons have a relatively neutral attitude in this incident, although many people stand on the consumer’s side. From a standpoint, there are voices who believe that this is a normal market behavior and business method, and has nothing to do with “fraud.”

In the news we tracked and reported, the voices in the comments were also relatively neutral, because the rights protection this time was not because of product quality issues, but a rights protection for Tesla's marketing behavior and consumer car purchase decisions. But in fact, this kind of incident is not the first in the industry, especially in the new energy vehicle market. Consumers have difficulty accepting the difference in battery life and prices of new and old products, but on the contrary, brands think this is a normal and reasonable product iteration behavior.

Comparison of the price of each version of the domestic Model 3
Model Domestic price (ten thousand yuan) Imported version price (ten thousand yuan) Price difference (ten thousand yuan)
Standard endurance rear drive upgraded version 29.905 (after subsidy) 36.39 6.485
Long battery life rear drive version 33.905 (after subsidy) 42.10 (after subsidy) 8.195
Long battery life all-wheel drive version Not listed 43.99 (after subsidy)
Performance high-performance all-wheel drive version 41.98 (before subsidy) 50.99 (after subsidy) 9.01
Note: If you need to purchase and install charging piles for all domestic models, you need to pay an additional 8,000 yuan, and the imported version is standard.

In this Tesla rights event, the new long-life version of the domestic Model 3 does not eliminate the standard battery life version. Both are sold on the official website. At the same time, there is a significant price difference between the two configurations. From the perspective of market behavior, this is not “same price but different quality” or “malicious marketing” as some people understand, and Tesla has not adjusted the price of the standard battery life version, so in theory, it has previously purchased the standard battery life version. The car owner was not directly harmed by his interests. So where is the problem in a situation where consumers and brands have their own reasons?

Behind the rights protection, is the brand behavior legal but unreasonable?

Users who often follow new car reports must understand that there will generally be notices before the release of new cars, and the notices of individual brands will be announced to the market 2-3 months in advance. As for Tesla's incident, before the release of the long-life rear-drive version of the domestic Model 3, the official did not release any notice information on various channels. Many people found it “suddenly airborne” on the official website on the day of listing.

I believe that the sudden “airborne” of the new product is obviously a huge blow to some users who have just purchased the old version of the product, especially when the price of the new product is significantly higher than that of the old product. Therefore, the cause of this Tesla rights defense incident also broke out because of this. But in the comments, some netizens said that the brand did not inform the release plan of the new product that there is no “product information concealment”. This is also a normal business method at the legal level, and consumers have the right to choose independently.

Some netizens said: “New product iteration is a normal market behavior. Brands are not obliged to inform in advance. For consumers, it is also reasonable to buy early and enjoy early, and there is a discount for late purchase, and this time Tesla did not appear The act of reducing prices for old products.” However, the owners of rights activists believe that this is a misjudgment in consumer decisions caused by sales deliberately concealing information about new products. So, in this incident, is Tesla's approach “legal and unreasonable”?

There are also views that brands should make corresponding “goodwill reminders” in terms of user rights and interests. After all, user reputation is the foundation of the brand's lasting development. Between brand interests and user interests, Tesla's new product “airborne” has more or less harmed some consumers who trust the brand in terms of “humanity”.

  Objective reason: the iterative speed of new energy products is too fast

As mentioned earlier, Tesla's rights protection incident is not the first case. In the new energy vehicle market, this kind of user psychological gap caused by product iteration has also appeared in other brand products. But after all, it is because: the battery life of new energy products is the technical point that users are most concerned about, and every new product iteration, the battery life will also change significantly, causing a serious psychological gap.

Since 2017, affected by the subsidy policy, the iteration speed of new energy products in the Chinese market has continued to accelerate. In the past year, the average cruising range in the market has also moved from about 350 kilometers to the 500-kilometer mark. This means that when some consumers bought a car two years ago, the endurance of the product was still in the middle and upper reaches, but nowadays, the endurance of some old products is on the verge of being eliminated in new products.

What does it mean that the cruising range is too low and being eliminated by the market? This means that the second-hand residual value rate of the product will also be significantly affected. Take this Tesla rights protection incident as an example. When the long battery life version has a higher price/performance ratio, it is obvious that for car owners who purchase the standard battery life version without knowing it, the standard battery life version in their hands will face a serious residual value impact. .

In fact, auto brands themselves are very aware of this embarrassing market situation. Pushing new products quickly will hurt old car owners, but if they don’t push new products, the brand itself will also be affected by sales. Judging from some existing market cases, when some brands launch new products, they will compensate old car owners relative to their rights, including price increases for new products, insured recovery of old products, and other compensation measures in terms of charging and car services. .

Do consumers have to pay for “risk”?

In the field of fast-moving consumer goods, the distribution and promotion of new products and other marketing methods are too normal. Consumers have long been accustomed to the difference in the cost performance of new and old products. Starting the purchase can also be “enjoyed” in advance, and those who are willing to wait will eventually be able to “buy the bottom” to obtain benefits.

However, in the automotive field, the unit price of products is too high, especially for consumers who have insufficient budgets for car purchases. Most people hope to buy the most cost-effective products at the best time, “early adopters”. Awareness may only exist in some mid-to-high-end products in the automotive field.

Model 3, as a product that plays a “volume role” in the Tesla brand, makes Tesla no longer a high-end pure electric vehicle brand. Especially the launch of the domestic version, after entering the “200,000 yuan” range (29,905 million after the standard endurance version subsidy), the consumer group has also been greatly expanded. There are obviously many users who are very cost-effective, and they will bear the price of the product. The risk capability of lack of cost-effectiveness is also relatively weak.

As mentioned above, perhaps in the automotive industry, this normal product iteration market behavior, user acceptance and risk-taking awareness in the mid-to-high-end market exists, but as the price of products drops, the user’s affordability also Will gradually decline. Appropriate consumption warnings or user care are given to help users reduce risk exposure. This is obviously beneficial to both the brand and consumers, and it also makes things both legal and reasonable.

Super broadcast summary

Tesla CEO Musk is a maverick, which also makes the Tesla brand often do not follow the routine. There are surprises and disappointments. There is an old saying in China: buying and selling is not righteous. Although Tesla has been in the Chinese market for many years, the launch of the domestic Model 3 can be regarded as truly taking root in the Chinese market. So, some localized marketing methods obviously need to have a good relationship with consumers, and it is precisely because of Tesla's current influence in the new energy market that more changes should be made in user communication.

In just more than four months into 2020, Tesla has already encountered two public incidents of “autonomous driving chip downgrade and distribution” and this rights protection, or many of them have more or less confirmed Tesla’s marketing and operation methods. “Unacceptable” in the Chinese market. Therefore, more communication with consumers, so that good products can continue to gain reputation in the huge consumer market in China, so that both parties benefit, why not do it?