AUTOMOTIVE WRITING: Porsche Profits Apply The Big Stoppers

Porsche, once the golden child of German engineering and luxury performance, has hit an unexpected crisis in 2025. After years of record profits and unmatched prestige, the carmaker has reported a devastating fall in earnings, with operating profit plunging by more than 99 percent. The decline raises urgent questions about Porsche’s electric strategy, global sales slump, and future in an increasingly uncertain automotive market.

There was a time when the air in Zuffenhausen smelled of success and the confidence of endless growth. Porsche was the brand that never stumbled, the company that made perfection seem routine. Yet this year the balance sheets told a very different story.

For the first time in living memory, Porsche has posted a loss. Not a minor dip or a brief misfire, but a full-blown financial skid. In the third quarter of 2025, the company recorded an operational loss of nearly one billion euros. Across the first nine months of the year, profits collapsed from around four billion to just forty million. The figures landed like a crash through the guardrail at La Source.

The roots of Porsche’s decline lie in its costly electric gamble. Determined to lead the luxury EV revolution, the company poured billions into its own battery programme and an ambitious range of electric cars. The goal was clear: by 2030, eighty percent of new Porsches would run silently rather than roar. The market, however, had other ideas.

Buyers loved the Taycan’s design and speed, but hesitated at the price and limited range. High costs and lukewarm demand forced Porsche to retreat. The battery division was scrapped, new electric SUVs cancelled, and the firm took a three billion euro write-down. The pivot back to hybrids and combustion engines restored a little sanity, but the damage was done. Investors saw indecision. Customers saw confusion.

External pressures made things worse. In America, new tariffs on European luxury cars have already cost Porsche hundreds of millions of euros. Prices have risen, and demand has fallen. Across the Pacific, China’s once-booming market for Western prestige cars has cooled sharply. Sales dropped by more than twenty-five percent as domestic electric brands took centre stage.

Europe offered no comfort either. Economic fatigue and tighter emissions laws have hit the high-end market. Even the 911, the timeless heartbeat of Porsche, faces an uncertain future in a world determined to phase out petrol. Volkswagen Group, Porsche’s parent company, has reported its own steep drop in profit, much of it linked to this turmoil in Zuffenhausen.

The response has been fast and severe. Around four thousand jobs have already gone, and restructuring costs have topped three billion euros. Meetings that once celebrated lap times now focus on cost savings. Michael Leiters, Porsche’s new chief executive and a former McLaren man, has inherited the unenviable task of restoring confidence while steering a bruised and bewildered company back to growth.

Behind the scenes, engineers are refocusing. Porsche will rely on its most loyal strengths: craftsmanship, performance, and the feel of quality that no algorithm can reproduce. Future cars will blend petrol and electric power rather than replace one with the other. The idea is to rebuild gradually, balancing innovation with identity.

For decades, Porsche was defined by certainty. Every car, from the 911 Turbo to the Macan, carried the same message of precision and purpose. But the modern world is no longer so simple. Customers expect luxury, performance and sustainability in a single package. Governments demand cleaner cars. Markets demand profit. Somewhere in that storm, Porsche lost its footing.

Yet history suggests the brand knows how to recover. In the early Eighties, Porsche faced a similar reckoning. Sales were weak, costs were high, and purists feared the end of the 911. The company survived by listening to its engineers rather than its accountants. It rediscovered its essence. That may be the lesson Zuffenhausen needs again today.

If Porsche can blend its heritage with a clearer, more measured path to electrification, it could regain its balance. The 911 remains a global icon, and the Taycan, for all its struggles, proved that electric Porsches can still thrill. What the brand needs now is consistency and patience. The next great Porsche story will not be written in spreadsheets but in steering feel, design integrity and engineering bravery.

For now, though, Porsche’s halo has dimmed. The numbers are harsh, the markets unforgiving, and the pressure immense. Yet if any marque can turn a loss into a lesson, it is the one that made imperfection an art form.

What Porsche Could Do Next?

– Refocus the product line: Build hybrids and performance models that maintain the emotional core of the brand while easing customers toward electric power.
– Control production costs: Simplify supply chains, delay unnecessary launches, and invest only in platforms that deliver profit and flexibility.
– Strengthen brand storytelling: Reignite the emotional link between car and driver through heritage design cues and motorsport engagement.
– Win back key markets: Adjust pricing and marketing strategies in the United States and China to match shifting buyer sentiment.
– Prepare for the long term: Develop a steady, sustainable EV roadmap that doesn’t gamble the company’s identity on unproven demand.

If Porsche manages to balance its heart with its head, it will emerge stronger. The figures may be grim today, but the brand’s legacy of resilience remains intact. The brand is used to the smell of victory.

DIGITAL MARKETING: AFFORDABLE AI & SEO HEALTH CHECK

Is your business visible when it matters most?

With Google’s AI summaries now dominating search results, the digital landscape has shifted dramatically – and quickly.

What worked last March might be costing you customers today.

As an SME owner or director, you’re juggling countless priorities. But here’s the reality: whilst you’ve been focused on running your business, the way customers discover and evaluate companies has fundamentally changed. Google’s AI now determines which businesses get featured in those crucial summary boxes that appear before traditional search results.

The question isn’t whether you need a digital presence – it’s whether your current one is working.

Many SME owners assume their website and social media are “sorted” because they exist. But an empirical analysis often reveals:

• Your ideal customers can’t find you when they’re actively searching

• Competitors with weaker offerings are appearing ahead of you

• Your digital messaging doesn’t reflect your actual business strengths

• You’re missing opportunities in channels where your customers actually spend time

This isn’t about expensive overhauls or complex tech solutions. It’s about getting an objective, data-driven assessment of where you stand and what simple changes could make the biggest impact.

The businesses thriving right now aren’t necessarily the biggest – they’re the ones that understand their digital footprint and have aligned it with how customers actually behave online.

If you’ve been putting off that digital review because it feels overwhelming or expensive, consider this: the cost of not knowing where you stand is likely far higher than finding out.

The bonus is that my service is not only invaluable, but very affordable – I’ve started and run SME sized businesses so I understand cost control and value.

Don’t let your competitors steal tomorrow’s customers whilst you’re serving today’s.

Message me to get the ball rolling. 

AUTOMOTIVE WRITING: Tesla In Reverse

Tesla faces its gravest crisis yet with plummeting sales, legal battles, and brand toxicity. Can Musk’s desperate sales intervention save the company he built?

Tesla Sales Slump. A Company In Reverse.
The numbers tell a brutal story. Tesla’s second-quarter deliveries plummeted 13.5% year-on-year to just 384,000 vehicles, whilst European sales collapsed by as much as 45% in early 2025. Even in Tesla’s stronghold markets of China and the United States, rivals including BYD, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are systematically dismantling the company’s once-impregnable market position.

What began as isolated competitive pressure has metastasised into an existential crisis encompassing product stagnation, mounting legal challenges, and a brand toxicity that would have been unthinkable just two years ago. Elon Musk’s response – personally commandeering Tesla’s sales operations from the company’s headquarters – represents either inspired leadership or desperate theatre. The evidence suggests the latter.

Tesla’s troubles extend far beyond routine quarterly fluctuations. Industry analysts point to a fundamental product problem: the company has launched no genuinely new mainstream models since the divisive Cybertruck, leaving its core range looking increasingly antiquated. The Model S and Model X, now approaching their second decade, lack the technological edge that once justified premium pricing, whilst even the refreshed Model 3 and Model Y variants have failed to generate meaningful market excitement.

Manufacturing bottlenecks from Model Y production transitions have exacerbated inventory buildups, creating the paradox of falling sales alongside unsold stock. “Tesla is caught between worlds,” explains one former executive who departed the company last year. “They’re trying to maintain premium positioning whilst competing on volume, and it’s not working.”

The human cost of these missteps extends beyond shareholders. Recent months have witnessed an exodus of senior talent, including the head of North American sales and key battery engineering leaders, suggesting internal recognition that current strategies are failing.

Perhaps more damaging than operational setbacks is Tesla’s reputational crisis. Musk’s increasingly vocal political alignment, particularly his association with Donald Trump, has triggered what industry observers term a “consumer revolt” in traditionally progressive markets where Tesla once dominated.

The “Tesla Takedown” movement, documented across social media platforms, encompasses everything from organised boycotts to physical vandalism of vehicles. Resale values have declined accordingly, with specialist automotive data firms recording measurable drops in Tesla’s brand perception scores throughout 2025.

“We’re seeing something unprecedented,” notes Professor Sarah Davidson, who studies automotive consumer behaviour at Warwick Business School. “Political polarisation is directly impacting purchase decisions in ways we’ve never measured before. Tesla owners are reporting embarrassment about their vehicles.”

Tesla’s troubles extend into America’s courtrooms, where multiple high-stakes cases threaten both immediate operations and long-term viability. California’s Department of Motor Vehicles is pursuing a 30-day sales ban over allegedly misleading advertising of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving capabilities, a move that would devastate Tesla’s largest single market.

Simultaneously, a wrongful death trial in Miami centres on Autopilot’s role in a fatal 2019 crash, with potential punitive damages that could establish precedents for autonomous vehicle liability. Legal experts suggest the outcome could fundamentally reshape how self-driving technologies are marketed and deployed. Tesla’s very own Trolley Car Problem.

Beyond these headline cases, Tesla faces a growing constellation of “phantom braking” complaints, quality control lawsuits, and antitrust challenges to its repair monopoly. Each represents not merely financial exposure but further erosion of consumer confidence in Tesla’s core technologies.

Central to Tesla’s current predicament is a business model that once represented revolutionary thinking but now appears increasingly anachronistic. The company’s rejection of traditional franchise dealerships delivered early advantages in pricing control and customer experience, yet state-level dealership protection laws have created a patchwork of legal restrictions that limit Tesla’s expansion opportunities.

More problematically, Tesla’s insistence on controlling all aspects of vehicle servicing has created what consumer advocates term a “repair monopoly.” Owners face extended delays, higher costs, and limited alternatives when vehicles require maintenance, issues that traditional franchise networks handle through distributed infrastructure and competitive pricing.

“The direct-to-consumer model worked brilliantly when Tesla was a premium niche player with devoted customers,” observes automotive retail consultant James Morrison. “But mass-market consumers expect convenience and choice that Tesla’s current structure simply cannot deliver at scale.”

Industry data supports this assessment. Whilst traditional manufacturers leverage dealer networks to manage demand fluctuations and regional variations, Tesla must shoulder these burdens independently. The resulting bottlenecks in service capacity and inventory management become particularly acute during periods of market stress.

Reports from Tesla’s Fremont headquarters suggest Musk has resumed the hands-on approach that characterised the company’s early years, reportedly employing Musk’ peculiar trademark of sleeping at the facility whilst personally directing sales strategy. The company has rolled out aggressive incentive programmes including discounted financing, complimentary software trials, and targeted offers for military veterans and educators.

These measures represent classic demand stimulation tactics, designed to shore up quarterly numbers ahead of Tesla’s earnings announcement. However, automotive industry veterans express scepticism about their long-term effectiveness.

“Incentives are a sugar rush,” explains former General Motors executive Patricia Williams, now an independent consultant. “They can mask underlying problems temporarily, but they don’t address fundamental issues of product competitiveness or brand perception. Tesla’s challenges are structural, not tactical.”

Stock market analysts echo this assessment, noting that Tesla’s current crisis encompasses precisely the factors that discount-driven sales campaigns cannot address: ageing product lines, manufacturing inefficiencies, legal liabilities, and consumer sentiment.

Tesla’s recovery requires acknowledgement that its original advantages have largely evaporated. The company’s technological lead has narrowed considerably, with competitors matching or exceeding Tesla’s capabilities in areas from battery range to autonomous features. Meanwhile, manufacturing cost advantages have disappeared as established automakers achieve economies of scale in electric vehicle production.

Perhaps most critically, Tesla must confront the limitations of its direct-to-consumer model. Industry experts suggest hybrid approaches, incorporating elements of traditional franchise or agency partnerships, could address current bottlenecks whilst maintaining some operational control.

“Tesla needs to swallow its pride about the dealership model,” argues automotive strategist David Chen. “The best aspects of direct-to-consumer can be preserved whilst addressing the very real scalability and service issues that are alienating customers.”

Similarly, product renewal cannot wait for revolutionary technologies. Tesla requires incremental but meaningful updates to its existing range, coupled with genuinely new models that recapture market imagination.

Where is the Tesla equivalent ‘Dolphin Surf’ or WuLing Baojun’s funky “Yue Ye” a Suzuki Jimny impersonator, on price and desirability?

Tesla’s current predicament represents more than routine corporate turbulence. The company faces simultaneous challenges across every aspect of its operations, from product development to legal compliance to consumer perception. Musk’s personal intervention in sales operations, whilst symbolically significant, addresses none of these fundamental issues.

The electric vehicle market Tesla created has matured beyond recognition, populated by government funded capable competitors offering consumers genuine alternatives. Tesla’s survival depends not on charismatic leadership or promotional campaigns, but on systematic operational reform that acknowledges this new reality.

Whether Musk and his leadership team possess the humility to undertake such reform remains the critical question facing Tesla shareholders, employees, and customers. The company’s next chapter will be written not in boardrooms or Twitter feeds, but in the quotidian work of building better products and serving customers more effectively than increasingly capable rivals.

The Tesla revolution may be ending. What comes next depends entirely on the company’s willingness to evolve beyond the mythology that created it.