Marketing Electric Vehicles: Which Metrics Make Sense?
MIT Mobility Initiative Research Briefing
MIT Mobility Initiative Senior Fellow
October 2024
Executive Summary & Key Findings
This briefing explores the quantitative metrics that automakers share when marketing their electric vehicles to American consumers. For decades, car companies have used metrics such as 0-60 times, miles-per-gallon, and horsepower to differentiate their gasoline-powered vehicles from those of competitors. Such metrics have powerfully influenced the auto industry, guiding consumers’ purchase decisions while also informing carmakers’ design and research strategies. In the nascent electric vehicle (EV) market, an emphasis on particular marketing metrics could hasten or retard the adoption of electric models and influence automaker priorities in the years ahead.
Based on an analysis of the landing pages for top-selling EV models in the US, range, acceleration, and charging time (in that order) are the metrics that carmakers are most likely to “push” toward prospective buyers (i.e., carmakers share these metrics voluntarily rather than through a list of vehicle specifications). Interviews with industry, government, and academic leaders suggest that an emphasis on elongated range and rapid acceleration could lead to suboptimal outcomes in EV market development, with carmakers favoring models whose weight and power raise concerns about efficiency and road safety. The promotion of alternative metrics, particularly those that highlight vehicle efficiency such as standardized charging time and kilowatt hours per mile, could benefit the development of the American EV market.
Background & Motivation
Prior research has found that price and utilitarian considerations heavily influence car purchase decisions. Prieto and Caemmerer (2013), for example, found that household characteristics affect vehicle choice, with larger families typically selecting larger cars and those residing in cities tending to opt for smaller ones. But car purchase decisions are not driven by utility alone. Steg (2005) found that “car use was most strongly related to symbolic and affective motives, and not to instrumental motives,” suggesting that car owners care about the emotional and status benefits of their vehicle at least as much as its practicality.
The collective value of an automobile is remarkably high. Moody et al. (2021) found that most American car owners would need to be paid almost 25 percent more than the total cost of car ownership in order to surrender their vehicle for a year. The authors concluded that much of the benefits derived from car ownership can be considered “non-use value,” such as status enhancements and the perceived freedom to travel where and when desired. Researchers examining car purchase behavior in the developing world have reached similar conclusions. Belgiawan et al. (2011) examined car buyer behavior in Indonesia, finding that “arrogant prestige” influenced model selection, while Nerukar et al (2023) noted the “fashion-conscious” nature of car purchase decisions in India.
Numerical metrics can help consumers differentiate between car models and select those best aligned with their budget and personal preferences, both practical (i.e., a goal of minimizing fuel consumption) and subjective (i.e., a desire for an especially powerful engine). Car companies have long touted these metrics in their advertising, emphasizing those likely to appeal to a particular model’s target market.
Carmakers have favored different metrics over time. Engine horsepower, for instance, was frequently cited in car ads of the1950s and 1960s, but notably less so today. During the oil shock of the 1970s, many car companies boasted of their fuel economy ratings.
Figure 1 - Subaru Ad from 1974
Figure 2 - Austin Healey Ad from the 1950's
One metric that has endured since the 1940s is 0-60 time, which measures the time needed for a stationary vehicle to reach 60 mph. First created by automotive journalist and car dealer Tom McCahill, carmakers boasted of their models’ 0-60 times as early as the 1950s. (Robinson, 2021) Due to vehicle and engine modifications, 0-60 times have plummeted over the last few decades. According to a 2023 report from the Environmental Protection Agency, the average 0-60 time for US models fell 45 percent between 1978 and 2023 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). Among the 220 cars tested by Motortrend from model year 2021, the slowest was the Nissan Kicks SR, whose 10.1 second 0-60 time ws still faster than luxury sports cars of the 1950s like the Austin-Healey.
The journalist Aaron Gordon has questioned whether further advancement in 0-60 times serves any practical purpose for drivers, declaring that using it as a proxy for vehicle quality is “quite honestly, stupid. No one needs that power.” (Gordon, 2022) Still, some car buyers may value acceleration for reasons that have little to do with utility, such as for pleasure or status.
Figure 3 - 0-60 Times by Vehicle Type Trend - EPA 2023 Automotive Trends Report
One metric that has endured since the 1940s is 0-60 time, which measures the time needed for a stationary vehicle to reach 60 mph. First created by automotive journalist and car dealer Tom McCahill, carmakers boasted of their models’ 0-60 times as early as the 1950s. (Robinson, 2021) Due to vehicle and engine modifications, 0-60 times have plummeted over the last few decades. According to a 2023 report from the Environmental Protection Agency, the average 0-60 time for US models fell 45 percent between 1978 and 2023 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). Among the 220 cars tested by Motortrend from model year 2021, the slowest was the Nissan Kicks SR, whose 10.1 second 0-60 time ws still faster than luxury sports cars of the 1950s like the Austin-Healey.
The journalist Aaron Gordon has questioned whether further advancement in 0-60 times serves any practical purpose for drivers, declaring that using it as a proxy for vehicle quality is “quite honestly, stupid. No one needs that power.” (Gordon, 2022) Still, some car buyers may value acceleration for reasons that have little to do with utility, such as for pleasure or status.
Electric vehicles are still in their infancy in the US, comprising 6.5% of new car sales in February 2024. (Edmunds, 2024) The current moment in EV market development could prove pivotal, as many consumers form initial, potentially sticky impressions about the pros and cons of electric models, while automakers develop and hone their R&D roadmaps.
From a marketing perspective, the shift from gas-powered to electric vehicles creates opportunities as well as risks. EVs’ reliance on electricity can allow consumers to save money and time by forgoing visits to gas stations, an obvious plus, but a limited number of operable charging stations has instilled “range anxiety” about the risk of depleting battery power without a working charger nearby. Prospective EV owners may also worry about the time required to charge the vehicle, which is typically lengthier than using a pump to refill a gas-powered car.
Data, research work and methods
Research for this memo consisted of academic literature reviews, expert interviews, and analysis of the websites of the ten most popular EV models in the US in 2023.
Interviews were conducted during the first half of 2024 with 15 EV experts in the government, industry, journalism, advocacy, and academic sectors. These interviews were conducted by phone or web, and some interviewees were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to be quoted due to their regulatory role. Those named in this brief have granted permission to be quoted.
To understand which metrics automakers currently use to market their EVs, this analysis examined the websites of the ten most popular EV models in the US in 2023. (Naughton, 2024) The website landing pages for each model were accessed on March 22, 2024. Metrics that the automakers chose to share with viewers were noted separately from those within an exhaustive (and less visible) list of product specifications.
Key results and takeaway messages
Interviewees agreed that automakers’ EV marketing must balance two goals that may conflict. First, they must differentiate their products from those offered by competitors (just as they would with gas-powered models). Second, they must simultaneously help consumers new to EVs understand how to ascertain the quality of vehicles that are in many ways different from familiar gas models. The prioritization of metrics thus plays an important education role within the EV marketplace. Given the intensely competitive nature of the auto industry, the EV metrics that resonate with consumers could guide significant R&D efforts in the years ahead as carmakers seek an advantage in head-to-head product comparisons.
By law, automakers must affix a label, known colloquially as a Monroney sticker, to the side window or windshield of all new vehicles. For EVs, this sticker prominently shares estimates of miles-per-gallon equivalent (MPGe) and gas savings, with driving range, charge time (using a 240 volt connection), and kW-hrs per 100 miles in a smaller font.
Figure 4 - EV Monroney Sticker
Useful though the Monroney stickers can be, the information listed does not necessarily reflect the priorities of consumers or automakers (as an example, the gas-powered version of the Monroney sticker includes “gallons-per-100 miles,” an inversion of the traditional MPG metric that is largely ignored by carmakers, journalists, and consumer groups). The sticker’s metrics can diverge conspicuously from those that automakers share through their marketing.
Findings from the analysis of EV website are available in Table 1 below.
Table 1 - EV website marketing metrics
Across these ten landing pages, the most popular metric, by far, was vehicle range. All ten of the webpages examined shared it, with eight of them doing so prominently. The next most popular metric was acceleration, almost always in terms of 0-60 times, which was featured in six out of ten (two prominently). The third most popular metric was a tie between charging time, which was measured in a variety of ways, and power, which was almost always measured in horsepower. Both were featured on five websites, with two doing so prominently. Touchscreen size was also featured in five websites, though never prominently (often quite far down on the webpage). The only other metric to receive prominent placement was cargo space, for two models.
Notably, none of the ten websites promoted models’ MPGe, the federal government’s favored metric for EV efficiency, which has a central placement on Monroney stickers. The website of only one model, the BMW i4, mentions kWh. The overall paucity of efficiency metrics on these websites suggests they are not currently a marketing priority among automakers.
Interviewees expressed reservations about the value to consumers of many of the most popular EV marketing metrics, as well as concern regarding the potential impact they could have on the evolution of the EV industry.
Range: Longer range is often at or near the top of consumers’ priority lists for EVs. (Macomb Daily, 2024) “If you can advertise that EVs do have longer range, like up to 300 miles, then consumers are much more willing to purchase EVs and value them equally to gasoline vehicles,” said Kate Whitefoot, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon. However, because the average American driver only traveled around 40 miles daily in her car in 2022, range anxiety may be exaggerated. (Niedermeyer, 2022) Emphasizing range in EV marketing could reinforce consumers’ existing fears about running out of power – and it is not clear that any amount of range is enough to assuage such concerns. “We know that the more range you give people, the more they want,” said automotive journalist Ed Niedermeyer.
Automakers often extend vehicle range by installing a larger battery, which increases the vehicle’s weight and reduces its efficiency. Heavier vehicles are more dangerous in crashes, both because they traverse more distance when braking and because they transfer more force upon impact. For that reason, a future EV market in which automakers compete on range could pose a risk to road safety.
Acceleration and Power: EV powertrains can provide quicker acceleration than contemporary gas-powered engines, which could convince some status-oriented owners of gas-powered cars to switch to electric models. However, since even “slow” gas cars can now accelerate fast enough to meet a driver’s practical needs, an industrywide competition to produce even quicker EVs could be societally counterproductive, wasting R&D resources and introducing safety risks. “It’s helpful to show that EVs have superior performance, but it’s dangerous for competition across carmakers” said Ben Prochazka, Executive Director of the Electrification Coalition. “It’s a real tension.”
Charge Time: Given the novelty of the charging process for many prospective EV buyers – and their familiarity with gas station trips – charging time is an important metric for managing consumer fears of delay and inconvenience. However, the website analysis shows a lack of consistency across automakers when conveying charging time information, which could confuse consumers and complicate modal comparisons.
Opportunities for the Future
Interviewees suggested several marketing metrics for EVs that could attract gas-powered car owners and position the EV market for long-term success. They are summarized below.
Charge Time Standardization: Standardizing charge times would streamline the hodgepodge of charging metrics that automakers currently use to market their vehicles. Industrywide charging times could be shared under a few set conditions, such as “added range after one hour of charging on a Level 2 charger, assuming the battery is 20% full at start and the temperature is 70 degrees Fahrenheit.” Given the widespread use of Level 2 chargers at home, such a metric could prove useful for many consumers. An additional set of conditions could be established for fast-charging times, although the likely emergence of new vehicle architecture and fast-charging technologies could force those conditions to be revised, potentially before they attain widespread public acceptance.
Carmaker competition on charging speed could be constructive, compelling automakers to design vehicles that are relatively efficient and lighter. If so, all else being equal, future EV models would consume fewer resources and pose less danger to other road users.
Regional Information About Range (especially minimum range): Patrick George, the editor-in-chief of InsideEVs, posited that consumers worried about range are less concerned with maximum range than minimum range that proves to be lower than expected or advertised. “If you’re driving on a highway with a vehicle that’s aerodynamic as a brick, and you see your range plummet, I get why people are mad about that,” he said. Range can fall faster in certain weather or driving conditions, such as cold temperatures, hilly terrain, and consistently fast speeds, surprising drivers who may not realize that EPA-estimated ranges presume a certain set of vehicle and road conditions, and that actual range can (and often does) diverge from them.
One way to address such “minimum range anxiety” could be to provide geography-specific marketing information about worst-case range (i.e., “On a flat route in 20-degree temperatures, traveling at 65 mph, the car will still provide at least XX miles of range”). Although such information could mitigate range anxiety (and avoid a destructive automaker race to build ever-bigger batteries), it does carry risks for overall EV adoption. Several interviewees worried that minimum ranges could vary widely depending on a locality’s weather and geography, and that sharing such information could lead carbuyers to further exaggerate the importance of range in day-to-day driving.
Powertrain Efficiency Metrics: As noted previously, automakers seldom mention efficiency metrics in their current EV marketing, although the federal government features MPGe prominently in its Monroney stickers. Several interviewees recommended jettisoning the MPGe metric, which, although modeled on the familiar MPG metric, is based on a unit (energy contained within a gallon of gasoline) that is obscure and will be irrelevant in an EV-dominated future. “We certainly have to make things explainable to customers, but if we dumb things down too much we miss the point,” said Tony Posawatz, a longtime auto executive who led the development of the Chevrolet Volt.
Several interviewees called on automakers to help popularize an efficiency metric that directly relates electricity consumption to range, like the kWh/100 miles metric that also appears (in smaller font than MPGe) on the Monroney sticker. The kWh/100 miles metric would carry two advantages: First, it is based on kilowatt hours, a more intuitive number than MPGe, and second, its placement of kilowatt hours in the numerator would overcome the so-called MPG Illusion which has been found to distort popular perceptions of fuel economy and vehicle efficiency in the US (although not in Europe, where liters per 100 kilometers is the standard metric for fuel consumption). (Larrick and Soll, 2008)
Total Car Ownership Costs: Several interviewees noted that the price of an EV does not capture potential savings from lower maintenance costs and the use of electricity instead of gasoline. Marketing that estimates the long-term financial cost of owning a particular EV model could be enticing to consumers, and it may also provide a useful performance benchmark for automakers. However, creating such estimates could prove challenging because ownership costs can vary widely based on geography and driver habits. Evidence also indicates that consumers systematically underestimate the total cost of owning gas-powered cars, which could lead them to discount potential EV savings. (Andor et al., 2020)
Bidirectional Charging: In theory, a charged EV battery can provide power to appliances and homes when no other power source is available (i.e., during a blackout or while camping). “I've got 72 kilowatt hours in my Tesla here,” said Satish Udpa, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Michigan State University. “Why can't I access it? The circuit is already there.” Several interviewees recommended that automaker marketing emphasize bidirectional charging ‘s availability in order to entice otherwise disinterested consumers to consider electric models. (Of the ten EV vehicle websites reviewed, only the F-150 Lightning noted a capacity for bidirectional charging.) Notably, for bidirectional charging to become widespread and popular, carmakers will need to revise their warranties to reflect charge cycles rather than miles driven. Questions about potential degradation of battery quality must also be addressed.
Conclusion
Ideally, EV metrics will educate the public about useful product differentiation while also inviting constructive industry competition. This analysis suggests that those goals are not currently being met.
In the long run, an EV market that revolves around vehicle efficiency would be societally advantageous, as it would minimize resource consumption and road safety risks that rise with vehicle weight. Although the federal government has made one efficiency measure, MPGe, a central EV metric, carmaker marketing has largely ignored it – perhaps with good reason, given the skepticism that it has received from many outside observers. Other metrics, like kWh/100 miles or standardized Level 2 charge times, may better accomplish the goal of orienting EV market development around efficiency.
The two most popular EV marketing metrics, acceleration and range, are intuitive to consumers, but they carry societal risks. Emphasizing range may lead consumers to overemphasize its importance, while further advances in acceleration create road safety risks (and provide negligible added utility to drivers). A focus on range as well as acceleration could produce EV models that are less efficient and more dangerous.
Notably, changes to the EV charging network could have a major impact on marketing metrics. Fast chargers that are more powerful, reliable, and widely available could assuage rage anxiety, allowing automakers to deemphasize range as a marketing metric. Such an outcome is likely to be societally advantageous. “More range is not the answer,” said Posawatz. “You should put that money in the infrastructure.”
A final question is how new EV marketing metrics could be promulgated. The apparent failure of MPGe to catch on with the public suggests that the federal government plays only a limited role inculcating awareness of vehicle metrics among American carbuyers. One federal official suggested that the choice between private employers voluntarily adopting new EV metrics and the government forcing them is a false one, because any federal-approved metrics would be developed in tandem with the auto industry.
Given the enormity of their advertising budgets, automakers themselves may be the actors best positioned to shape consumer perceptions of EV quality. Looking beyond marketing, they could also explore product design measures that reinforce constructive metrics like kWh/100 miles, such as drawing the vehicle’s attention to the cost of each charging session (akin to drivers observing the price of filling up a gas tank at a gas station, which underscores the importance of vehicle fuel economy).
Thoughtful, industrywide development of constructive EV metrics could help maximize the speed at which Americans adopt EVs, and also enhance the likelihood that carmakers’ huge investments in EV technologies ultimately pay off.
References
Andor, Mark, Andreas Gerster, Kenneth Gillingham, and Marco Horvath. 2020. “Running a car costs much more than people think—stalling the uptake of green travel.” Nature. Comment: April 20,2020.
Barry, Keith. 2023. “CR’s Real-World EV Range Tests Show Which Models Beat EPA Estimates.” Consumer Reports, December 15, 2023.
Belgiawan, Prawira Fajarindra, Jan-Dirk Schmoker, and Satoshi Fujii. December 2011. “Psychological Determinants for Car Ownership Decisions.” Conference: 16th International Conference of Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies.
Floyd, Michael. 2021. “The Slowest Cars and SUVs We Tested in 2021.” Motortrend, December 28, 2021.
Forsythe, Connor, Kenneth Gillingham, Jeremy Michalek, and Kate Whitefoot. 2023. “Technology advancement is driving electric vehicle adoption.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 30, 2023.
Gordon, Aaron. 2022. “It’s Time to Talk About 0-60 Times.” Vice Motherboard, March 3, 2022.
Hardesty, Chris. 2024. “Average Miles Driven Per Year: Why Is It Important?” Kelley Blue Book, May 8, 2024.
Larrick, Richard and Jake Soll. 2008. “The MPG Illusion.” Science. Volume 320, June 20, 2008: 1593-4.
Macomb Daily. 2024. “EV Shoppers Care Most About Driving Range.” Macomb Daily, February 27, 2024.
Montoya, Ronald. 2024. “What is the Percentage of Electric Cars in the U.S.?” Edmunds, January 12, 2024.
Moody, Joanna, Elizabeth Farr, Marisa Papagelis, and David R. Keith. 2021. “The value of car ownership and use in the United States.” Nature Sustainability. 4: 769-774.
Naughton, Nora. 2024. “Americans bought a record number of EVs last year. These were the 10 most popular electric models.” Business Insider, January 17, 2024.
Nerurkar, Varad, Prashant Barge, Vimal Bhatt, Shailesh Rastogi, and Bhakti Agarwal. 2023. “Factors Influencing Consumer Decision to Buy a Car.” Marketing and Management of Innovations. 1: March 31, 2023.
Niedermeyer, Edward. 2022. “You Want an Electric Car With a 300-mile Range? When Was the Last Time You Drove 300 Miles?” New York Times, August 27, 2022.
Preston, Benjamin. 2020. “Consumer Reports Survey Shows Strong Interest in Electric Cars.” Consumer Reports, December 18, 2020.
Prieto, Marc and Barbara Caemmerer. 2013. “An exploration of factors influencing car purchasing decisions.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. September 2, 2013.
Robinson, Peter. 2021. “Who Invented 0-60 MPH? Why, It Was Tom McCahill, Of Course.” Motortrend, May 26, 2021.
Steg, Linda. February -March 2005. “Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Volume 39, Issues 2-3.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. 2023 EPA Automotive Trends Report. December, 2023.