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.

AUTOMOTIVE WRITING: China Crisis?

China’s electric vehicle sector has emerged as one of the most significant industrial transformations of our time, fundamentally reshaping global automotive markets through strategic state investment and genuine technological innovation. From Manchester offices to Berlin showrooms, Chinese EVs are capturing consumer attention with competitive pricing and advanced features, whilst raising important questions about trade fairness, data security, and technological sovereignty. This comprehensive analysis examines how coordinated industrial policy, supply chain integration, and genuine market innovation have enabled Chinese manufacturers like BYD and NIO to challenge established Western competitors, exploring both the legitimate security concerns and economic opportunities presented by this automotive revolution.

The rise of Chinese EV Around The World Security Threat

A sleek electric vehicle charges quietly outside a Manchester office block. In Berlin, a young professional considers a Chinese-made EV for half the price of its German equivalent. Across Southeast Asia, affordable electric cars are transforming urban transport. These scenes reflect one of the most significant industrial shifts of our time, driven by China’s remarkable rise in the electric vehicle sector.

This transformation raises important questions about trade, technology, and national security that deserve careful examination beyond the headlines about trade wars and technological threats.

China’s dominance in electric vehicles did not emerge by accident. Following decades of playing catch-up in traditional automotive manufacturing, Beijing identified electric mobility as an opportunity to leapfrog established competitors. The timing was astute: Western manufacturers were still heavily invested in combustion engine technology, creating space for new entrants.

Between 2009 and 2023, the Chinese government invested approximately $230 billion in subsidies across the EV supply chain, from battery research to charging infrastructure. This approach enabled companies like BYD, NIO, and CATL to achieve scale and vertical integration that would have taken decades through market forces alone.

However, this state support, whilst substantial, occurred alongside similar programmes in other nations. The United States has committed over $100 billion through the Inflation Reduction Act, whilst the European Union has allocated €3 billion specifically for battery manufacturing. The difference lies not in the presence of state support, but in its coordination and timing.

China’s approach also reflected genuine domestic priorities. With 70% of oil imports traversing potentially contested sea lanes, electric vehicles offered a path towards energy security that aligned with both economic and strategic interests. This convergence of commercial and security considerations helped sustain long-term investment even when short-term returns remained uncertain.

Chinese EVs succeed internationally because they offer genuine value to consumers. Modern Chinese electric vehicles combine competitive pricing with advanced features, often incorporating software capabilities that rival Silicon Valley products. The price advantage, typically 30-50% below Western equivalents, reflects not just subsidies but also manufacturing efficiencies and supply chain integration.

European consumers increasingly choose Chinese EVs based on practical considerations: lower purchase prices, competitive range, and modern infotainment systems. This market response suggests that Chinese success stems from meeting consumer needs, not merely undercutting competitors through state support.

Yet this consumer appeal operates within a broader industrial context. Chinese manufacturers benefit from controlling much of the battery supply chain, from lithium processing to cell production. This vertical integration creates cost advantages that would be difficult to replicate quickly, regardless of subsidy levels.

The data collection capabilities of modern electric vehicles do raise genuine privacy and security concerns. Contemporary EVs function as mobile data centres, gathering information about location patterns, driving habits, and even conversations through voice assistants. Under China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, domestic companies must cooperate with intelligence gathering when requested.

These concerns apply broadly to connected vehicles regardless of origin. Tesla vehicles collect extensive data, as do European manufacturers increasingly reliant on Chinese components. The issue is not unique to Chinese brands, but rather reflects the broader challenge of data governance in an interconnected automotive sector.

Security analysts have identified potential vulnerabilities in vehicle connectivity systems that could theoretically enable remote interference. However, documented cases of such interference remain limited, and automotive cybersecurity standards are evolving to address these risks across all manufacturers.

The more immediate concern may be economic rather than directly security-related. As Chinese companies gain market share, they increasingly influence technical standards for charging protocols, battery interfaces, and vehicle software. This standardisation power could create long-term dependencies that extend beyond individual purchase decisions.

The rapid expansion of Chinese EV exports has created significant pressure on established automotive manufacturers. In 2023, Chinese firms exported 1.5 million electric vehicles, compared to fewer than 200,000 three years earlier. This growth has coincided with mounting challenges for European manufacturers, from Volkswagen’s plant closures to Ford’s restructuring plans.

However, attributing these difficulties solely to Chinese competition oversimplifies complex market dynamics. European manufacturers also face regulatory pressure to accelerate electrification, supply chain disruptions, and changing consumer preferences that favour software-defined vehicles over traditional automotive engineering.

Some European companies are adapting by forming partnerships with Chinese firms or sourcing Chinese components whilst maintaining design and assembly operations in Europe. This approach suggests that the relationship need not be purely adversarial, though it requires careful management of technological dependencies.

Western governments are implementing various measures to address the challenges posed by Chinese EV expansion. The United States has imposed tariffs exceeding 100% on Chinese electric vehicles and restricted federal subsidies for vehicles containing Chinese components. The European Union has launched anti-subsidy investigations and is considering additional trade measures.

These responses reflect legitimate concerns about fair competition and technological dependency. However, they also risk delaying the transition to electric mobility and increasing costs for consumers. The challenge lies in balancing security considerations with the benefits of technological competition and innovation.

More constructive approaches might focus on strengthening domestic capabilities whilst maintaining open markets. This could include accelerating investment in European and American battery manufacturing, developing robust cybersecurity standards for all connected vehicles, and creating reciprocal market access agreements that ensure fair competition.

China’s success in electric vehicles occurs within a larger context of technological competition between major powers. Similar dynamics are visible in renewable energy, semiconductors, and artificial intelligence. The question is not whether such competition will occur, but how it can be managed constructively.

The electric vehicle sector demonstrates both the benefits and risks of economic interdependence. Chinese innovation has accelerated global EV adoption and reduced costs for consumers worldwide. Simultaneously, the concentration of production capabilities raises questions about supply chain resilience and technological sovereignty.

China’s rise in the electric vehicle sector represents a significant shift in global industrial capabilities that reflects both strategic planning and genuine technological achievement. Whilst legitimate concerns exist about data security and market dependencies, addressing these challenges requires nuanced policies that distinguish between different types of risks.

The success of Chinese EVs demonstrates the effectiveness of coordinated industrial policy combined with genuine innovation. Rather than simply restricting market access, Western nations might focus on strengthening their own capabilities whilst developing frameworks for managing technological interdependence constructively.

The electric vehicle revolution will continue regardless of trade disputes or security concerns. The question is whether this transformation can occur in ways that benefit consumers whilst addressing legitimate national security considerations. This balance requires sophisticated policy responses that move beyond simple narratives of technological conflict towards more constructive approaches to managing global industrial competition.

The Chinese EV challenge is real, but it is also an opportunity to develop better frameworks for technological cooperation and competition in an interconnected world. How we respond will shape not just the automotive sector, but the broader relationship between economic integration and national security in the twenty-first century.

AUTOMOTIVE WRITING: Enter The Dragon

China’s EV brands are conquering the UK market faster than Japan did in the 1970s. How BYD, MG, and others are reshaping British motoring through technology, pricing, and perfect timing.

Chinese EV Surge In U.K.

How China’s U.K. EV Assault Surpasses Japan’s Seventies Invasion.

There’s a familiar tremor running through the British motor trade. A certain déjà vu. The showroom floors, now electrified with pixel-heavy infotainment and suede-trimmed crossovers bearing names like BYD, Omoda and Jaecoo, are humming not just with battery current – but with history. We’ve seen this play out before. Back in the oil-slicked, strike-riddled 1970s, when Japanese badges like Datsun and Toyota crept into British driveways while the unions down at Cowley and Longbridge were still arguing over tea breaks.

But here’s the kicker: this isn’t just a rerun with better batteries. It’s something bigger, bolder, and infinitely faster.

Let’s rewind to the early 1960s. Britain was still clinging to its imperial swagger, and its car industry was a global heavyweight. We were second only to the Americans in output, churning out Cortinas, Minxes and Victors at a blistering pace. But beneath the bonnet lay a wheezing, smoke-belching machine that hadn’t seen a proper rebuild in decades. Chronic underinvestment, fractious management, and mass walkouts meant the rot was deep-set long before anyone uttered the word “Datsun”.

By the close of that decade, Japan had quietly overtaken us, not with muscle cars or motoring romance, but with small, efficient, no-nonsense machines that started every morning and didn’t eat their own gearboxes. British Leyland, our great white hope, was a bureaucratic Frankenstein built to paper over the cracks. The Japanese, meanwhile, had mastered kaizen, built factories that ran like Swiss watches, and tapped into a global shift toward smaller, thriftier motoring just in time for the 1973 oil crisis.

Now? Britain’s car industry still exists, but mostly as an assembly annex for global players; Jaguar Land Rover (Indian-owned), Mini (German), Nissan (Japanese). There’s no national champion, no coherent industrial policy, and certainly no answer to what’s happening in 2025.

If the Japanese invasion of the Seventies was a creeping tide, China’s EV offensive is a tsunami and it’s already at the top of the high street.

Brands like BYD aren’t interested in mimicking Europe. They’re not building cut-price Golfs or knock-off 3 Series. They’re building next-generation tech ecosystems, cars integrated with their own batteries, software, semiconductors and AI platforms. Vertical integration gives them control over cost, quality, and pace that would’ve made Soichiro Honda weep with envy.

MG, once the darling of leafy Home Counties motoring is now a Chinese spearhead, its ZS EV undercutting legacy rivals by thousands while offering more kit, more range and fewer reasons to say no. Omoda and Jaecoo, still unfamiliar to British tongues, are bringing cars that wouldn’t look out of place in a Mercedes showroom but cost the same as a base Focus.

Unlike the Japanese back in the day, these newcomers don’t need to earn trust through decades of reliability reports and mechanically sound mediocrity. They’ve entered a market that wants disruption. Today’s car buyer shops online, trusts tech reviews more than showroom patter, and is more concerned with charging speed and infotainment updates than whether the badge has a Le Mans win.

The Seventies were no picnic; oil shocks, inflation, a government more concerned with surviving until Thursday than with industrial strategy. But crucially, consumers shifted toward Japanese imports because of price and economy. The Datsun 120Y, the darling of driving school cars, wasn’t just cheaper, it went further on a gallon, didn’t need fettling every weekend, and looked vaguely modern compared to a Maxi.

Today, the driver isn’t petrol prices, it’s policy. The UK’s net-zero mandate has lit a fire under EV adoption, and with the 2030 ICE ban looming, demand is being turbocharged not by market whim, but by regulation.

The Chinese have timed it to perfection. While European and Japanese marques scramble to electrify ICE platforms and untangle semiconductor bottlenecks, Chinese firms are shipping fully electric, ground-up platforms by the boatload. And they’re doing it without the millstone of legacy dealerships or brand baggage.

The UK, still licking its post-Brexit wounds, has kept tariffs off the table. Although just this week has excluded Chinese EV from the £3750 EV Subsidy redux. Unlike the EU, which has slapped Chinese EVs with duties up to 45% and minimum pricing, Britain remains wide open. The logic? Lower prices accelerate EV adoption. There’s no domestic champion to shield, and Downing Street would rather see a car plant in Swindon even if it flies a red star than an empty field.

In the Seventies, faced with growing Japanese dominance, the UK government tried the polite approach: voluntary export restraints, 20% tariffs, and veiled threats in Hansard. It didn’t work and by the time ministers finished their brandy, Nissan was already laying foundations in Sunderland.

This time, we’re not even pretending to resist. Open markets, loose regulation, and generous tax incentives make the UK a Chinese dream. While Brussels rattles sabres, Whitehall rolls out the red carpet.

Strategically, it’s a gamble. We’re hoping that in return for market access, Chinese brands will localise production, build battery plants, and create jobs. It’s industrial policy by osmosis. If it works, we’ll get investment without picking winners. If it doesn’t, we’ll be left with a forecourt full of imports and no local stake in the future of motoring.

Let’s put it in context. Japanese brands took a decade to crack the UK market. Chinese brands have done it in less than five years. BYD sells more EVs than Volkswagen globally. Their battery division, CATL, probably supplies half the industry. This isn’t incremental progress it’s industrial domination.

Technologically, the difference is night and day. Japan gave us better-built Escorts. China is giving us cars that update over-the-air, offer Level 2 autonomy, and come with smartphone apps that track your tyre pressure from Tenerife, they’re also safe with the top 5 Star NCAP safety rating. The EV isn’t just a new drivetrain – it’s a software platform, and China with 1.5 Billion inhabitants to test new tech on is miles ahead on that front. They can launch in foreign markets with proven new tech.

British car buyers in the 1970s were brand-loyal, suspicious of imports, and only changed their tune after being burned too many times by dodgy electricals and engines that were engineered to throw con-rods for fun at sixty five thousand miles (cough Ford). Today’s buyers are patently open to new brands and don’t care where a car is built – they care if it syncs with Spotify and charges in under 30 minutes.

Younger buyers, the key demographic for EVs, have no nostalgic attachment to Ford or Vauxhall. They trust influencers more than dealers. They’re digital natives in a world where Tesla has already redefined what a car can be and how it’s sold. Chinese brands, with their TikTok-savvy launches and online sales funnels, get this. The legacy players mostly don’t.

Will Chinese EVs kill off what remains of the British car industry? Unlikely, it’s already on life support. But they will dictate the pace, the technology, and the price point of Britain’s motoring future. That, more than anything, is the lesson we should have learned in the Seventies.

Then, we tried to shield British brands behind tariffs and pride. Now, we’ve flung the gates open and invited the dragon to dinner.

POSTSCRIPT:

In the Eighties, the Japanese built factories here. They hired local. They became part of the landscape. The Chinese? That’s still up in the air. The smart money says we’ll see BYD or Chery setting up UK operations soon – if not for patriotism, then for EU access via a tariff-free back door.

And when they do, remember this: we weren’t conquered. We just let them in. Smiling, silent, and WiFi-enabled – and that, is another story.

COMMENTARY: No Mate, 12 Weeks Minimum.

Why the best businesses don’t need social media (and what that means for the rest of us)

I’m knee-deep in renovating a nearly 50-year-old property on the south coast U.K.

The place is solid as a stick of rock but needs everything doing after years of neglect.

Here’s what’s fascinating: every tradesman I’ve contacted is booked solid for months. No fancy websites, no Instagram presence, barely even a Google listing or review. They survive entirely on word of mouth, repeat customers and replying to messages. Quality work speaks louder than any marketing campaign.

Meanwhile, a talented abstract artist friend in Hove with 12,200 genuine Instagram followers is lucky to get 50 views on her posts. The algorithm has throttled her reach to nothing unless she pays to play. She’s not alone. Countless creative professionals are watching their organic reach disappear.

It’s the same story on LinkedIn. Despite upgrading to Premium, my posts struggle to reach even 50 people. The platform that promises professional networking seems more interested in pushing paid promotion than genuine connection.

There’s a lesson in this contrast. The trades flourish because they’ve built something social media can’t replicate: trust through consistent quality. But for those of us trying to grow beyond our immediate network, the digital landscape feels increasingly pay-to-play.

I help businesses navigate this challenge through strategic digital marketing that focuses on building genuine relationships rather than chasing vanity metrics.

Sometimes the old-school approach of quality and referrals is exactly what modern marketing needs.

How are you finding social media for your business? Are you seeing the same decline in organic reach, or have you found strategies that still work?