telsa competitive analysis

8/19/2019 Telsa Competitive analysis

1/25

Competitive Analysis of Tesla

Motors


2/25

Outline

Outline

1. Introduction

2. Case for the Electric Car

3. Internal Rivalry

4. Barriers to entry

5. Substitutes and co!leents

". Su!!lier #o$er

%. Buyer #o$er

&. Strate'y


3/25

Tesla Motors

(esla )otors

* California based start+u! co!any

* ,evelo!ed a hi'h !erforance electrics!orts car

* Initial fundin' -"/0 !rovided by #ay#aleBay and oo'le ounders

* Car does /+"/ !h in about 4 seconds

* Car can travel 25/ iles bet$een char'es

* irst 1// vehicles have been sold at theasin' !rice of 1//


4/25

Industry Facts

Industry

acts* (rans!ortation accounts for "3 of Oil

,eand


5/25

Industry FactsIndustry acts


6/25

Industry Facts

Industry

acts * 6S 7utoobile Industry re!resents 5 of#rivate sector ,#

* %" of the aret is ade u! of ord )and Chrysler

* 1& of sales are fro 8a!anese car aers

* "." 7ericans are directly or indirectlye!loyed in the autootive industry.

* 9ybrid sales re!resented 1.2 of thearet in 2//5 1." in 2//" -est0.

* orecasts estiate 5 of car sales $ill behybrids by 2/13


7/25

Market DefinitionCase for the Electric

Car

* Environental friendliness and lo$eissions

* 9i'h !erforance

* I!roved battery technolo'ies anddrivin' ran'e

* Electric cars are ore ener'y e:cient

than 'asoline cars.


8/25

Tesla MotorsE:ciency vs.#erforance


9/25

Internal Rivalry

7 'reen vehicle;• Reduces consu!tion of !etroleu• 6ses rene$able ener'y sources• 9as 'reen vehicle? aret there are fourty!es;• Electric Vehicles• Flexible-Fuel Vehicles• Hydrogen Vehicles• Hybrid Vehicles

Internal Rivalry


10/25


11/25

Internal Rivalry9onda Insi'ht A Early

9ybrid


12/25

Internal Rivalry (oyota #rius + 9ybrid


13/25

Internal Rivalry (esla Roadster +

Electric


14/25

Internal Rivalry@enturi etish +

Electric


15/25

Entry

Barriers to Entry

* Econoies of Scale

* Re'ulation Issues

* (echnolo'ical Innovations* Brand


16/25

Sustitutes

* 9ybrids

* le uel

* 9ydro'en

* ,iesel

* Co!ressed atural as

* )ass (rans!ortation

Substitutes


17/25

Ener!y EfficiencyEner'y

E:ciency


18/25


19/25

ComplementsCo!leents

* overnent ta breas

* 6tility incentive !ro'ras

* ree #arin' at 7ir!orts* Sin'le Occu!ancy use of car!ool lanes

* o !arin' eter fees

* 5/ discount by California utilities for

chan'in' electric cars


20/25


21/25

$uyer "o#er Buyer #o$er

* 7bility of buyer to etract !roDts froseller

* reen aret is eer'in'

* Buyer !o$er is liited due to lac ofco!etition


22/25

Buyer #o$er

$uyer "o#er

Implementation Phase

Vehicle Technology Market

Competiti

ve vehicle

Penetration

across new

vehicle

production

Major

Penetration

Total Time

for impact

Turbocharged

Gasoline ngines

5 years 10 years 10 years 20 years

!ow mission

"iesel

5 years 15 years 10-15 years 30 years

Gasoline #ybrid 5 years 20 years 10-15 years 35 years

#ydrogen Cell

#ybrid

15 years 25 years 20 years 55 years


23/25

ConclusionConclusion

* Short to ediu ter strate'y

* Sell 1// Roadsters

* Create reco'niable !roduct

* Self fundin' of future e!ansion!lans

* Chan'e o!inion of electric vehicles


24/25

ConclusionConclusion

*


25/25

Conclusion)artin Eberhard

CEO %T&ere &ave een tons and tons of companies' for t&elast () years t&at &ave tried to make little commuter

electric cars* T&e troule is t&at' for t&e most part' it

re+uires t&e uyer of suc& a car to c&an!e &is or

&er nature* ,ou-re uyin! a car t&at is not as !ood

as an e+uivalent !as car at all.slo#er' u!lier' #it&

not as muc& ran!e.and t&ey-re tryin! to compete

essentially on price' #&ere t&ey can-t #in* /one of

t&ose cars #ere uilt for people #&o really like to

drive* I !et t&e feelin! t&ey-re for people #&o don-t

really t&ink you s&ould e drivin!' ut t&ink if you do&ave to drive' it s&ould e an electric car* I t&ink if

you uild a car for people as t&ey are' not re+uirin!

t&em to c&an!e t&eir nature' it-s muc& more likely

for you to succeed* And I t&ink our investors a!ree*0

telsa competitive analysis

Documents