What happened to the Tundra takeover? Toyota's most expensive ute looking like a rare failure for Japanese giant in Australia as it is outsold by RAM 1500, Chevrolet Silverado and Ford F-150
Toyota's most expensive ute – and vehicle – has failed to take flight so far in Australia, with the HiLux-dwarfing Tundra shifting just 60 units in January.
That positions it in last place in its segment, behind the Ford F-150 (230 units), the Ram 1500 (212 units) and the Chevrolet Silverado (171 units). Only the even larger version of Ram's American pickup truck sold less units, with the 2500 moving 34 units.
It's a far cry from the strong start Toyota expected, with the brand in celebrating the model's start-of-sale in November by declaring the Tundra would "hold its own".
- Cars Guide, 9th Feb 2025
I totally get that the various motor publications need to run puff pieces and shill for the various automakers but when I see an article like this, which not only was someone paid to write, but they then had the thought to publish, I really wonder if journalism generally and motor journalism in particular is now so devoid of any and all thought, that the only thing left is utter vapidity. What kind of moron would write a piece like this? Someone writing for Cars Guide, that is who.
Quite frankly, even five minutes of perfunctory research would have given you most of the answer. This article is by means of demonstration proof of the fact that the only stupid question is a question never asked and this spanner never even bothered to ask the single most basic question: Why?
Why did the Toyota Tundra fail in Australia? Again, five minutes of perfunctory research would have given you most of the answer.
I can tell you why the Toyota Tundra failed in Australia. In fact, I can give you 164,733 reasons why it failed.
The machine is probably reasonable of itself. The truth of the matter is that I can't be bothered to look up a spec sheet for the Toyota Tundra; mostly because that is an entirely irrelevant thing at this point. This is a case where function dictates form and form should dictate result. This is a product which Toyota are looking to sell. Okay. If so, then who is this product for? If this product is looking to be sold to tradespeople, then why is it $164,733? No tradesperson has that kind of money to be throwing around on a semi-disposable product. The price would indicate that this product is going to be sold to posh people. If so, then what kind of posh person is going to buy this thing, when they could have TWO Mercedes-Benz Vito vans.
Here's the problem. The kinds of people who buy this thing in the United States, are tradespeople. The price for this product, if I plug it into the price configurator for Lincoln, Nebraska, is $40,090. That means that even if you allow for currency differences, people in America can but THREE of these things.
Tradespeople do no want a luxury product. If you are a builder, or a sparky, or a chippy, or a turd strangler, then a truck like this is a tool. It does a job. It is very likely not only to be scratched, but to wear scratches and dents as badges for a job well done. At $164,733, Toyota are selling a thing which is priced relative to fancy garage queens but hoping to sell them to tradies. It's dumber than a sack full of hammers.
The ideal truck for a Tradesperson, would be one pitched at about $30,000, which has the barest of trim, hard wearing plastics and seats, and maybe useful stuff like Bluetooth connection so that they can pair their phones to be able to do work. That's it. When you buy a hammer, you expect that it can hammer stuff. You expect that it will get scratched. You expect that it will be not just as tough as nails but tougher than the nails that you are hammering. Probably the Tundra is that tough but at $164,733, Toyota are selling a thing which needs to be made fancier to justify paying the more than 1300 budgies extra, that they are asking for it.
This is basic economics 1A stuff. If I go to the supermarket and I see a Whizzo chocolate bar, then the number of Whizzo chocolate bars that I want to buy will go down as the price goes up. It they are 50 cents, then I will buy 6. If they are $1, then I want 3. If they are $2.50, then I want none at all. If you take me as a customer, and multiply me by a million, then map all of our price desires in the aggregate, then you get a curve. Likewise, the Whizzo chocolate would like to sell no Whizzos for 10 cents but if they can get away with selling them for $3, then they want to sell loads. Map all of those price desires in the aggregate, then you get a curve. Those two curves not only slope in different direction but they cross like a pair of scissors; when two curves cross, X marks the spot and we cut through for a sale.
Toyota apparently abandoned looking at the demand curve for trucks. They might very well have the best truck in the world with this but at $164,733, then the potential customers will look at the price and walk away. At that price, what they see is a big, fat, pointless thing, which they can just walk on by. The easiest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket because not only have you saved money but you also have money in your pocket. Who actually cares about this big, fat, pointless thing? Sales figures empirically tell you who cares - Nobody.
What happened to the Tundra takeover? It quite rightly never happened. This thing has sold exactly as it should have done. Selling only 60 units in January is exactly what you should expect for a thing which costs $164,733. In fact as compared with the Ford F-150, the Ram 1500, and the Chevrolet Silverado, even the data as provided by how uncurious motor journalist, suggests that selling a thing with zero marketing at that price, is doing exactly what should have been expected. Even Blind Freddy who should never be allowed to drive a motor vehicle could see that this was a bad idea, before he started doing screechies and doughies in the carpark before crashing into a bin.
No comments:
Post a Comment