Criticisms harped on several themes: that he was taking on an even bigger task than building a car company before he'd proven that his car company was viable; that he lacked focus; that the plan was too all encompassing and therefore unrealistic.
Is it possible that this criticism missed the point completely? For this criticism is based in the assumption that Tesla is in the car business. But it never has been. And in fact, 'part deux' is incredibly consistent with statements Mr. Musk made ten years ago.
In revealing his first 'secret master plan' in 2006, he stated that Tesla's purpose was 'to expedite the move from a mine and burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar energy economy.'
Revisiting Tesla's purpose frames 'part deux' in a new light, and diffuses much of the criticism. Moving too fast? Not when changing peoples' mind about what an electric car can be is just a baby step in transforming the mine and burn economy. Lack of focus? Not when focus on the end game hasn't wavered in 10 years. Too all encompassing? Not if you are set to transform an economy.
In his book, The Disruption Dilemma, Joshua Gans makes the case that if disruption is coming from a new way of putting the parts together, the solution cannot be to keep them separate--that you must build your entire organization around the new approach.
Likewise, one might argue that you must build your entire brand around the new approach.
So, as a brand, Tesla must leapfrog the competition bringing forward thinking brand values to the market, to support his ultimate purpose.
Why? Because even though Tesla has excelled in over-delivering in the coveted automotive differentiators of styling, performance and safety, Musk knows that these differentiators are becoming less meaningful. And by shifting his focus beyond the car and driver, Tesla will be the first automotive brand to credibly define the new automotive differentiator...sustainability.
Other automotive brands struggle with this word. They know that increases in use of fossil fuel and coal in smog-choked countries like China is not sustainable. They know that increasing the number of personal vehicles in congested mega-cities like Mumbai and Guangzhou is not sustainable. They know that rising global traffic accident fatality rates beyond the current ~1.24 million per year is not sustainable. Simply put,the current automotive model is not sustainable to the environment, to the economy, or to society.
Yet, most automotive brands, who are in the primary business of manufacturing personal internal combustion vehicles for driver's use, cannot put sustainability at the front and center of their brands. Instead, they relegate it to a CSR initiative, while conveniently taking pieces of sustainable solutions and retro-fitting them into their current brand definitions. That's why BMW's describes autonomous driving as expanding the definition of driving pleasure, while Volvo uses it to support their already strong safety equity.
But the future of our global economy is dependent, not on the rise of personal transportation, but rather, on the rise in clean, safe, efficient forms of transportation that will allow individuals and societies to thrive. And that's why, despite short term investor skepticism, Tesla is really the only sustainable transportation brand in the market.
(authors note: Tesla's stock price has rebounded, and at this writing is up slightly from pre-part deux prices. Is this reaction to the announcement that Tesla will speed up the completion of its gigafactory, seen by most investors as an integral part of Tesla being a viable car company...or perhaps a sustainable transportation brand?...stay tuned.)
