[sdesol]

> 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]

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.