Energy Musings - October 17, 2025
The idea of hybrids showed up in the comments of two CEOs from vastly different industries. Their comments suggest their business strategies, being adjusted, ignored basic consumer research.
Blame It On The Message
We do not often follow up one Energy Musings quickly with another, touching on the same topic. However, today we read two stories – one about autos and the other about food – that both referenced “hybrids” as a solution to their problems—the solution to what, you ask. Poor messaging is the answer. However, it is possible that these industry CEOs were drawn to narratives and messages that failed because they lacked a solid understanding of what consumers wanted.
One article discussed the recent comments by Ford Motor Company’s CEO, Jim Farley, about the electric vehicle market (EV). The headline on the newsletter Slashgear’s article was Ford CEO Admits EV Market Will Be “Way Smaller Than We Thought.” This is a difficult reality for a CEO to accept, having bet on the EV market and the government’s $7,500 per-vehicle subsidy.
Max Miller, the author of the Slashgear article, quoted Farley about the problems of the EV market. “Customers are not interested in a $75,000 electric vehicle. They find them interesting. They’re fast. They’re efficient. You don’t go to the gas station, but they’re expensive.” Without government handouts, these cars are uncompetitive in today’s automobile market. EV cost has always been a problem.
In March, an AAA survey of 1,128 potential car buyers found that only 16% said their next car was likely to be an EV. To the contrary, 63% said they had no interest in an EV, citing concerns about battery repair costs and the vehicle’s price. According to Kelly Blue Book, in August, the average price for a new EV was $57,245. That is nearly 17% higher than the average price of all vehicles, which is $49,077, and is inflated by the inclusion of the expensive EVs.
Miller summed up the problem of EVs, besides just the cost issue. “Electric cars have always been a tough sell, which is why the EV tax credits have historically existed. EV makers are asking people to give up a reliable and familiar internal combustion engine for a newfangled electric one, and getting people to leave their comfort zone is difficult. Moreover, the infrastructure needed to support wider adoption has struggled to materialize. There are more EV charge points than ever, but they tend to be clustered near population-dense areas, which makes switching harder for those who don’t live near a city. That’s an issue, since consumers often worry about the range they’ll get from an EV.”
EV proponents dismissed these concerns. They said EVs were inevitable because climate change mandated getting rid of internal combustion engine vehicles with their emissions-emitting tailpipes. This inevitability, although repeatedly questioned by car buyers and analysts who understood the nature of American driving needs, led Farley in 2022 to increase Ford’s EV capital spending through 2026 from $30 billion to $50 billion. Climate change was part of the Ford message.
Farley has now gotten the EV market assessment correct. He said, “I think it’s going to be a vibrant industry, but it’s going to be smaller, way smaller than we thought.” He has suggested that rather than a 10% share, it may only be 5%. The market that is growing, as we wrote about recently, is hybrid vehicles, because they overcome the concerns of buyers, as explained by Miller.
Auto buyers globally are telling auto executives that hybrids are a better answer – they cut emissions, cost less, and don’t require a radical change in driving habits. After reading about Farley’s newfound understanding of the message coming from auto consumers, rather than the narrative that climate change demands EVs, we were struck by another CEO in a totally different industry acknowledging the same points.
Impossible Foods CEO Peter McGuinness admitted that the plant-based artificial meat industry made a critical “mistake” by introducing its products as a climate change solution. Some years ago, we were persuaded to try one of the Impossible Burgers by someone who favors climate change actions, although he elected not to eat one at the restaurant. The taste was neither flavorful nor juicy, and it was the last artificial meat we ever ate.
McGuinness told the audience at the World Economy Summit that the artificial meat industry was “mismarketed and mislaunched.” Therefore, it didn’t stand a chance against the better-funded and better-organized Big Beef. Quite likely, the problem the artificial meat industry has is that “people don’t want to eat tech food or climate food,” said McGuinness. “They just want to eat delicious, nutritious food, so that’s what we’re trying to get back to,” he went on to say. In our own experience, the burger he was offering failed to meet either of those qualities. As we recall, when this product was launched, many others were dissatisfied with the taste. We have since learned that its carbon footprint may be higher than that of traditional beef and that it may create health concerns.
So, now Impossible Meat’s strategy is to focus more on UK and European consumers, who are supposedly more receptive to alternative meats than U.S. consumers. Perhaps that strategy is a reflection that the “climate change” movement is waning, and the UK and Europe are among the last to acknowledge that reality.
We did laugh, though, when we read that McGuinness’s view on a potential “hybrid” burger that is half real beef. “If that got meat eaters to try it and like it, I think it’s a win.” Once again, we are left to wonder about Impossible Meat’s market research, much like Ford Motor’s, which ignored the criticisms of their products and failed to address the concerns of potential customers, and now must shift strategies.