Motor Mouth: Google isn’t all-seeing, all-knowing when it comes to cars
In which the author learns that there might be more to understanding the automotive market than algorithms
Article content
If one believes the mainstream media, tech giants know everything about us. Absolutely everything. Indeed, in a world increasingly divided by political polemics and cultural divides, probably the only thing we can all agree on is that, thanks to pernicious algorithms and all-embracing data, there is literally nothing about our lives that Google and Facebook have not parsed or dissected. They know the colour of the Jockeys you slipped into this morning, the brand of single malt you’ll tipple before bed tonight, and, if you’ve watched enough Pornhub lately, the exact nature of your connubial relations in the time in between. They are, for lack of a better metaphor, modern-day celestial beings, their “eyes in the sky,” like those of deities past, able to see and know all. At least, that’s what CNN says.
Advertisement
Article content
I’m not so sure. I don’t know nearly enough about underwear or, being a virtual teetotaler, scotch (I will remain mute on the third factor). But I do know cars and, if Google Canada’s latest “Think Auto” survey is any indication, I really don’t think the Gods have anything to worry about. Indeed, other than its monolithic reach, it’s hard to see what in-depth knowledge Google brings to the automotive table.
Oh, there were some interesting tidbits sprinkled though the company’s data. Since it is a sales tool — what, you thought it was a search engine? — its information that, faced with a shortage of their preferred car, some 40 per cent of customers said they would switch brands rather than go with a different nameplate within the same brand, has some veracity. And again, because it is an integral part of the initial sales process, I think we can trust its contention that people now spend less time shopping for their new car than before the pandemic, almost two in five Canadians buying their new car within two weeks of deciding they needed new wheels.
Advertisement
Article content
But the supposed “trend” they see as a result of six times as many Canadians buying their cars online compared with pre-pandemic? Duh, Google. Showrooms shuttered. People panicked. Test-drives were banned. Of course there was an increase in touch-less shopping. But that’s a long ways from boasting it’s a long-term trend in online car purchase — unless, of course, you had something to gain from more people buying their cars sight-unseen via the internet.
Setting new records for mistaking survey for sales pitch, much of the “Think Auto” presentation was little more than a truly naked promotion for YouTube. Now video may well be a formidable force in the online automotive shopping funnel, but devoting one-third of your supposedly informational meeting to pumping the video channel you just happen to own seems a blatant blurring of information and promotion.
Advertisement
Article content
My favourite bit, however, was Google’s contention that, because there will be more than 50 EV nameplates — most of them all-new — for sale by the end of next year, Canada is set to become the next Norway in short order. Now never mind that Oslo’s subsidization of all cars electric makes even Quebec’s EV rebates look like chicken feed. Or that the copious other incentives for parking, road usage, and charging are so plentiful, it’s a wonder even one Norwegian shops petrol. It seems that Google — again, all-knowing and all-seeing — seems to think that more EVs on dealership floors automatically means the transformation to battery-power is fait accompli .
So, just for giggles, I contrasted its research with a somewhat similar report by AutoPacific — The Changing Landscape of Electric Vehicles in the U.S. They too see a significant increase in electric-vehicle sales. But rather than forecast the thoughts of the always-nebulous “intenders,” AutoPacific takes a stab at estimating how many EVs will be sold.
Advertisement
Article content
Its conclusion is that by 2026, sales of battery-powered plug-ins will increase from the approximately 262,000 sold in 2020; to about 1,357,000 in 2026. And even if that represents only a 7.9-per-cent market share, it is still significant growth, if not quite the electrification blitz other prognosticators predict. And like Google, AutoPacific thinks some — I’m not using the word “much” here judiciously — of that growth will be accounted for by new models, which it estimates will grow to as many as 141 different electrified nameplates in five years.
All-knowing, all-seeing Google seems to think more EVs on dealership floors automatically means the transformation to battery-power is fait accompli
But here’s where sales pitch and hard-nosed facts take separate paths. As the American survey points out, 2020’s 262,000 sales were spread out over a total of 18 different nameplates. Do some simple math and that would seem to indicate an average of 14,500 per EV model sold in America. Dig deeper, however, and with 79 per cent of all electric vehicle sales being Tesla only, the remaining 59,800 sales divided by the left over 14 nameplates results in a “paltry” 3,843 sales per nameplate. Hardly profitable.
Advertisement
Article content
Nor does the automakers’ commitment to introducing a brace of new plug-in models over the next few years alleviate that cost crunch much. Even with that increase to 1,357,000 sales in 2026, once you factor in Tesla’s share, the remaining automakers will be averaging just 7,276 sales per electrified model.
Making matters worse is that, even for legacy automakers, that success will incredibly scattered. If Ford’s boasts are true, for instance, 130,000 consumers have already put money down on its F-150 Lightning. Left in its wake, however, are cars like the Chevrolet Bolt and whatever plug-in alternative Honda might have in mind for its fast-selling Civic. However you parse it, the widespread diversification that it will take to be a true EV manufacturer is going to be a huge problem for the automakers left feeding on the scraps that Tesla, Ford, and a few others might leave lying around.
Advertisement
Article content
Indeed, the most obvious uncertainty the AutoPacific study raises is that, even out to 2026, EVs will remain the domain of the well-heeled. In 2026, it still sees 55 per cent of the EVs in America falling into the luxury segment. That compares with just 20 per cent for traditional ICE vehicles.
And even that may be an underestimation of how hard it may remain to sell mainstream EVs. One of the little anomalies that the company’s researchers noted is that future EV intenders plan on spending more than 50 per cent as much for options and accessories — US$17,593 versus US$11,375 — as those shopping equivalent ICE-powered cars. Yet, at the same time, they expect to spend the same total $60,000 as they would on that same equivalent ICE-powered luxury vehicle. Factor in that spread (US$6,218) plus the fact that, despite long-time predictions of lower battery costs, a BEV remains notably more expensive than its gas-fueled alternative, and you have consumer expectations that will probably drive that luxury/mainstream split closer to 65/35 per cent, or even 70/30.
Advertisement
Article content
Leaving discussions of whether that is a feasible road to widespread conversion to electrification for another day, AutoPacific’s comprehensive data raises as many important questions — for instance, what effect the fact three times as many EV intenders want full Level 5 autonomous driving as those shopping fossil fuels will have — as it provides bankable conclusions. That gulf between hard numbers and consumer expectations is just what you’d expect from well-grounded survey results.
In contrast, Google’s 2021 Think Auto was — despite copious use of factoids and percentages — the least informative survey briefing I have ever listened to, the few hard points drowned out by the wishful thinking and hardcore sales pitch. If this be an indication of how much they really know about us, no wonder they don’t know I’ve gone commando since I was 16.