So Hertz is continuing their narrative to blame EV's for their own executive mistakes.
If you dig deeper you'll find that:
- most of their EV's were rented to Uber drivers.
- All Uber rentals, gas and EV, have higher milage, higher maintenance costs and lower resale values.
In other words this state of affairs was highly predictable. That it wasn't taken into account is the fault of Hertz executives. They're trying to shift blame off of their own shoulders.
But hey, they hired Tom Brady (who also got paid to shill for FTX) to do their EV-focused commercials. Surely it's a good business when their commercials don't, you know, extol the benefits of their company and products, but instead hire a celebrity in a pretty low-brow disgusting way to try to sell a product: by pandering to the people with "hey, this famous person is in our commercial and for money he says our product is cool, so that means you should like it too, if you want to be cool like Tom Brady". Surely their fundamentals are rock solid.
Yes, that sounds likely to be good business. The purpose of a commercial isn't to provide a thorough and unbiased technical brief, it's to cause more people to buy a product.
From what I read, they were mostly only able to rent them to existing ev owners, after which, they rented them to Uber drivers to try to at least get some revenue from them.
If you dig deeper you'll find that:
- most of their EV's were rented to Uber drivers. - All Uber rentals, gas and EV, have higher milage, higher maintenance costs and lower resale values.
In other words this state of affairs was highly predictable. That it wasn't taken into account is the fault of Hertz executives. They're trying to shift blame off of their own shoulders.