Tesla vs GEM (Global Electric Motorcars)
Tesla, Inc. and GEM are two car companies that have developed disruptive innovations within the automotive industry, namely electric vehicles. This paper will compare both car companies, analyze their strategies and provide recommendations for future implementations on their strategies.
COMPANY OVERVIEW:
Tesla, Inc. and GEM (Global Electric Motorcars) compete against each other in the automotive space for their electric vehicles. Below is a brief overview of both companies:
Tesla was founded in 2003 in Silicon Valley with the intent to provide electric cars powered by batteries and a mission to increase sustainable transport. They created electric-powered vehicles as opposed to diesel or gas-powered …show more content…
Some of these included finding locations to charge car batteries, cost and difficulty of replacing batteries every few years, range of batteries, and the time that it took to recharge car batteries. Tesla’s job to be done was to “help me buy a sustainable long-range car that functions like a gasoline-powered vehicle”. As Tesla tried to solve for these obstacles, Tesla rolled out thousands of “Supercharging” stations (similar to gas stations) so owners could plug-into one of these stations as they were on the road. Evidently, the automotive industry is a highly modular market. There are a few large companies who specialized in auto parts and supply the main automotive companies. Tesla has an interdependent architecture. They used a deliberate strategy to open their patents to the competitors and standardized their products. This was a very strategic and clever move because it made Tesla the leader amongst electric vehicles.
Later on, Tesla also released the new Model 3 car which was a “low-end disruption” because this new car targeted middle-income customers who were unable to afford their higher-end and expensive vehicles. This was yet another strategic move made by Tesla because they used a deliberate strategy to open up their target market and increase market …show more content…
They are a low-end disruption because they are used in replacements of gasoline-vehicles. Although GEM cars are cheaper, they are profitable because they are modular and use cheaper materials manufactured by other vendors.
After looking at both Tesla and GEM through the disruptive lens, Tesla takes on a sustaining innovation while GEM is a low-end disruptor. In my opinion, the CEO of Tesla needs to focus on targeting middle-class consumers for their low-end disrupting products such as the Model 3. Most automotive consumers can afford within the price range of the Model 3, thus bringing in a higher revenue for Tesla. On the other hand, the CEO of Polaris should continue to target their low-income consumers and expand within this market. There are many consumers who cannot afford a gasoline-vehicle and GEM can
Recommendations:
1. Recommendations for a future course of action consistent with your analysis and use of the theories.(veryimportantsection~500–800words)Please consider the following:
• What do the theories suggest will happen in the future if the company continues down their currentpath?
• What course corrections (if any) do you recommend for this company?
• Do you see any implementation issues or
Tesla, Inc. and GEM are two car companies that have developed disruptive innovations within the automotive industry, namely electric vehicles. This paper will compare both car companies, analyze their strategies and provide recommendations for future implementations on their strategies.
COMPANY OVERVIEW:
Tesla, Inc. and GEM (Global Electric Motorcars) compete against each other in the automotive space for their electric vehicles. Below is a brief overview of both companies:
Tesla was founded in 2003 in Silicon Valley with the intent to provide electric cars powered by batteries and a mission to increase sustainable transport. They created electric-powered vehicles as opposed to diesel or gas-powered …show more content…
Some of these included finding locations to charge car batteries, cost and difficulty of replacing batteries every few years, range of batteries, and the time that it took to recharge car batteries. Tesla’s job to be done was to “help me buy a sustainable long-range car that functions like a gasoline-powered vehicle”. As Tesla tried to solve for these obstacles, Tesla rolled out thousands of “Supercharging” stations (similar to gas stations) so owners could plug-into one of these stations as they were on the road. Evidently, the automotive industry is a highly modular market. There are a few large companies who specialized in auto parts and supply the main automotive companies. Tesla has an interdependent architecture. They used a deliberate strategy to open their patents to the competitors and standardized their products. This was a very strategic and clever move because it made Tesla the leader amongst electric vehicles.
Later on, Tesla also released the new Model 3 car which was a “low-end disruption” because this new car targeted middle-income customers who were unable to afford their higher-end and expensive vehicles. This was yet another strategic move made by Tesla because they used a deliberate strategy to open up their target market and increase market …show more content…
They are a low-end disruption because they are used in replacements of gasoline-vehicles. Although GEM cars are cheaper, they are profitable because they are modular and use cheaper materials manufactured by other vendors.
After looking at both Tesla and GEM through the disruptive lens, Tesla takes on a sustaining innovation while GEM is a low-end disruptor. In my opinion, the CEO of Tesla needs to focus on targeting middle-class consumers for their low-end disrupting products such as the Model 3. Most automotive consumers can afford within the price range of the Model 3, thus bringing in a higher revenue for Tesla. On the other hand, the CEO of Polaris should continue to target their low-income consumers and expand within this market. There are many consumers who cannot afford a gasoline-vehicle and GEM can
Recommendations:
1. Recommendations for a future course of action consistent with your analysis and use of the theories.(veryimportantsection~500–800words)Please consider the following:
• What do the theories suggest will happen in the future if the company continues down their currentpath?
• What course corrections (if any) do you recommend for this company?
• Do you see any implementation issues or