What we found
Practicality decided it, not the environment.
More than four in ten respondents intended to acquire an EV within three years. But they did not want the same things. They divided into three mindsets, none of them a majority, and what separated them was practical: where you charge, what it costs to run, and whether you can see the car before you buy it.
Fielded 28 January - 10 February 2022. EV pricing, range and charging infrastructure have moved since; the mindset structure is the durable part.
Method
How the study was run
Respondents each rated 24 short vignettes combining different EV attributes, rather than answering questions about attributes one at a time. The analysis then separates respondents into mindsets by which attributes mattered most to them.
- Instrument
- ProspX.ai Optimize
- Respondents
- 201, national
- Vignettes per respondent
- 24
- Vignette evaluations
- 4,824
- Screening
- A18-76, 50/50 male to female, HHI $35K+
- Quotas
- Age, income and employment
- Survey length
- 5 minutes on average
- Fielding
- 28 January - 10 February 2022
Finding one
Intent was real, and so was hesitation
A classification question set the baseline: when do you intend to buy or lease an EV? Nearly half could not say, which is itself the finding.
When respondents intended to acquire an EV
Share of 201 respondents
The groups behaved differently by distance from purchase. Respondents intending to acquire within a year were significantly less likely to want to buy online. Those four or more years out wanted EVs priced like gas-powered cars, were not interested in true self-driving, and doubted that an EV is cheaper to maintain.
Finding two
Three mindsets, and no majority
No single argument reaches this market. The largest group is under 40% of it.
How future EV adopters divided
Share of 201 respondents
- Prove Its · 38.3%
- Tentatives · 32.3%
- ICE, ICE Babies · 29.4%
38.3%
Prove Its (Pragmatists)
Knowledgeable about EVs, and needing every box ticked before acquiring one.
Rated highly
- Fast charging
- Owning an EV even without a charger at home or work
Rated poorly
- The claim that an EV costs much less to maintain than a hybrid or gas-powered car
- Buying or leasing strictly online
32.3%
Tentatives (Basics)
Concerned about the limitations that might come with an EV.
Rated poorly
- Manufacturer-only charging networks, of the Tesla Supercharger kind
- Claims of up to 400 miles on a single charge
29.4%
ICE, ICE Babies (Traditionalists)
Happy with the car they have, and unwilling to take on the hassle of switching.
Rated highly
- A charging solution at home or at work, a precondition, not a perk
Rated poorly
- Charging at shops or hotels
- Tax incentives for EV buyers
Finding three
One charging offer led, but it did not win the market
Respondents were asked which monthly fast-charging subscription they would be most interested in, assuming they had an EV. Fast charging was defined as a full charge in under an hour.
Preferred fast-charging arrangement
Share of 201 respondents
Two years of free fast charging led the five arrangements tested, but at 39% it was the choice of well under half the sample. The other four options each drew between 11% and 17%, a spread, not a runner-up.
Why it matters
The market looks like one demand curve and behaves like three
A manufacturer or dealer group reading 42.8% as a single addressable audience will write one message for a group that disagrees about what would persuade it. The practical arguments that moved one mindset were the ones another dismissed: fast charging convinced the Pragmatists, while the Traditionalists treated charging at home or work as a condition of entry and rejected public charging outright.
The commercial point sits in the timeline finding. The respondents closest to transacting were the least willing to buy online. For a brand deciding how much of the purchase journey to move to digital, that makes the retail network a conversion asset for near-term buyers rather than a cost to engineer out, the opposite of the conclusion an overall "consumers want to buy online" reading would support.
How to apply it · ProspX.ai recommendations
Where this changes a marketing or retail decision
These are our recommendations, drawn from the findings above. They are actions to consider, not outcomes the study measured.
- Write three messages, not one. Pragmatists want evidence: charge time, real range, running cost, stated plainly. Tentatives need the limitation answered before the benefit is claimed. Traditionalists need the home or workplace charging question settled first, because nothing else registered until it was.
- Lead acquisition advertising with charging access, not emissions. Practicality decided this market in 2022; the environmental case was not what separated the groups.
- Price the charging offer as a choice, not a bundle. The leading arrangement was preferred by 39%, so building its cost into every vehicle charges the other three in five for something they ranked below an alternative. A selectable option avoids that, and tells you which structure each buyer actually wanted.
- Keep the dealer in the path for near-term buyers. Use digital for research, comparison and configuration, and treat the showroom as the step that converts the segment closest to buying.
- Answer three questions above the fold on the vehicle page: where do I charge, what does it cost to run, and can I see one. Those were the practical barriers respondents named.
- Segment by mindset in media planning, not by age or income. The mindsets cut across demographics, so demographic targeting alone will mix all three into the same audience.
From the original report
What the 2022 study concluded
The implications stated in the original report, in its own terms.
- A one-size-fits-all strategy will not work: three mindsets, none a majority, each need their own message.
- The practicality of ownership outweighed environmental impact in the decision.
- EVs should not be sold solely online in the near term. Dealers have a role in educating buyers and giving them physical access to the cars.
- Offer a menu of charging options rather than a single arrangement.