“Deliberate Incompleteness" -- Why Doing Things Differently Can Be An Advantage When It Comes To Indifferent Potential Buyers

Then there was that upstart Tesla which, when it went public in June 2010, was at $17 per share and started growing like the beans that Jack planted. In mid-2020 it was in the three figures. In August of that year it had a 5-for-1 stock split. And the numbers have been remarkably high since.

Traditional OEMs wanted some of that. And they undoubtedly thought that offering EVs would be a way to make them seem to Wall Street that they were tech companies, too.

Then there was something else that was generating a lot of interest pre-COVID: people were ordering Lyfts and Ubers on their phones to take trips around town. Car ownership wasn’t as exciting as it had once been. It seemed as though teens, instead of waiting outside the DMV on their 16th birthday like it was an Apple store when a new iPhone was being launched, were delaying getting their licenses.

They simply weren’t interested in what they perceived as the hassles of car ownership. What’s more, there was a decreasing amount of brand loyalty compared to what there had been when there were rivalries between Chevy, Ford and Dodge.

When they’d order an Uber, it really didn’t matter what brand vehicle showed up, so it got to be the case where not only were these young riders exposed to a whole lot more brands than they had been (even if they’d take a yellow cab, odds are it was a Ford Crown Vic), and they probably concluded one brand is as good as another.

So part of the thinking of the traditional OEMs was that if they could come out with EVs like Tesla, they’d be more appealing to the market as well as to the young people who cared less about what was under the hood.

There was a whole lot of interest among OEMs in the concept of “customer lifetime value,” so given that young people had a whole lot more potential vehicles in their futures than their parents, something needed to be done to get them in the doors of dealerships.

So, EVs.

But while Tesla was turning out innovative and stylish vehicles, the OEMs were basically retrofitting existing cars with electric propulsion system that, no surprise, didn’t appeal to many. And Tesla didn’t even have dealerships, which undoubtedly made sense to a generation that made plenty of purchases on Amazon.

All of which is to say that while Tesla has continued to prosper, the others haven’t really achieved the traction they were hoping for.

(Although people often say that Tesla’s sales are declining, which is true, given that through the third quarter, according to Cox Automotive, Tesla’s EV sales are 43.2 percent of the market, with the next closest being Chevy at 8.3 percent, it is still doing fine.)

Now the government incentives for EVs are gone. So OEMs are going to need to find something else that might get them more customers.

Last week at the Japan Mobility Show, Toyota rolled out a number of fascinating vehicles, including, of course, the highly impressive, super-luxury Century Coupe Concept.

But there was something else, far more plebian, that could gain some traction, although perhaps more elsewhere than here (assuming that here is a possibility, but that’s unlikely).

In fact, when describing the IMV Origin, Koji Sato, president and CEO of Toyota Motor Corp., said the company was focusing on “people living in rural villages in Africa.”

He explained the vehicle was developed with two ideas foremost:

“The first idea was: ‘We will ship this vehicle from our production plant unfinished.’

“This vehicle leaves its plant before it is ready to be driven. It is the local people who assemble and complete it. This brings new local jobs in the form of assembly work.

“The second idea was that customers would define the vehicle on their own terms, even after it’s assembled.

“Will it carry people or cargo? Will the cargo be boxes or something else?”

The customers will answer those questions, not the OEM.

Sato described the IMV Origin from Toyota’s perspective as being “deliberate incompleteness.”

Sato continued:

“We just build the base. From there, each customer completes the vehicle to fit their needs. As a carmaker, not finishing this vehicle was frustrating. However, not finishing it is what makes it a ‘for you’ car, because people have different needs in their daily life and work.”*

To be sure there are undoubtedly all manner of safety regulations in the U.S. that would make something like the IMV Origin difficult if not impossible.

But this whole notion of truly building one’s vehicle—beyond placing selections on an order sheet for the color of the interior or exterior trim packages—might appeal to a certain segment of the population in a way that the original Model T, which could be transformed into things ranging from tractors to snowmobiles.

In the developing world, where there is a lot of DIY on vehicles based on necessity, the IMV Origin makes a whole lot of sense.

It might be that some variant could do the same in the U.S. market, appealing to everyone from urban hackers to farmers, who are interested in having something they can build specific to their needs.

One example, albeit a comparatively small one versus what Toyota is talking about with the IMV Origin, is the Ford Maverick’s Ford Integrated Tether System (FITS).

As Ford puts it:

“Using your own 3D printer or a third-party service, you will be able to design accessories to use with FITS that fit your needs, meaning the options are endless to make your Maverick pickup your own.”

The company even offers CAD files to create accessories.

Arguably, the concept behind the IMV Origin cranks the dial to 11.

The point is this.

More of the same is going to get more of the same.

Same = same.

Doing something different changes that equation.

The IMV Origin is certainly different.

Again, while there are probably restrictions that make the specific vehicle that Toyota may ship to Africa un-sellable in the U.S. market, it is the overall concept that should be embraced.

Nowadays it seems that OEMs figure that the more screens and apps they can get in their vehicles, especially those that are based on their proprietary systems, the better.

Which is like stuffing an electric propulsion system into an existing model. That’s not what people are looking for.

Some people want the same. And some people want different—really different.

If the industry has passed Peak Auto as some argue, then even getting people at the margins will become all the more important.

*You may recall that not long ago Toyota was being widely criticized for its not being fully invested in an EV strategy. Toyota’s position is there are different needs for different people, so where one type of powertrain/propulsion system makes sense, it might not make the same sense elsewhere—and elsewhere means other parts of the world, not just the U.S. or Europe. So it continues to offer an array of options in various markets—even a diesel in a Lexus.

Long-time automotive journalist Gary Vasilash is co-host of "Autoline After Hours" and is a North American Car, Truck & Utility of the Year juror. He is also a contributor to Wards Auto and a juror for its 10 Best Interiors UX and 10 Best Engines & Propulsion Systems awards. He has written for a number of outlets, ranging from Composites Technology to Car and Driver.

The TTAC Creators Series tells stories and amplifies creators from all corners of the car world, including culture, dealerships, collections, modified builds and more.

Check out Gary's Substack  here.

[Image: Tiko Aramyan/Shutterstock.com]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.