A fund manager, who is a person that helps people invest money, thinks Tesla should try something different because their plan to lower prices didn't work well. The price cuts made it harder for Tesla to make money and sell more cars. The fund manager wants Tesla to make a cheaper car, under $30,000, so more people can buy it. But Tesla is focusing on making self-driving cars instead of cheaper ones right now. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and sensationalist, as it implies that Tesla's price cut strategy has failed, when in reality, it depends on the perspective and time frame one considers. Price cuts can be a temporary measure to boost demand or sales, but they also reduce profit margins and may have long-term consequences. The title should reflect this nuance and not imply that Tesla's strategy is inherently flawed.
2. The article cites fund manager Black as an authority on Tesla's market position and strategy, without providing any evidence or context for his claims. It does not mention his track record, the performance of his funds, or how he is qualified to advise Tesla on EV pricing and demand. This creates a bias in favor of Black's opinion and undermines the credibility of the article.
3. The article assumes that Tesla needs to lower its prices to compete with other automakers, without considering the potential advantages of differentiation, innovation, and brand loyalty. It also ignores the possibility that Tesla may be pursuing a different business model or market niche than its competitors, such as robotaxis or full self-driving technology. The article should explore these alternative scenarios and their implications for Tesla's strategy and profitability.
4. The article uses vague and inconsistent terms to describe Tesla's price cuts, such as "started in China in late-2022" and "extended to other geographies since the start of 2023". It does not specify which markets, how much, or for how long Tesla has lowered its prices. This makes it difficult for readers to understand the magnitude and scope of the price cuts and their impact on Tesla's financial performance. The article should provide more specific and detailed information about Tesla's pricing actions and their effects.
5. The article relies heavily on Black's opinions and predictions, without providing any supporting data or evidence. It does not cite any research, surveys, or analyses that show the demand for sub-$30,000 EVs, the willingness of consumers to pay more for autonomous features, or the profitability of Tesla's current and potential competitors. The article should present some facts and statistics to back up its claims and arguments, rather than relying on anecdotes and opinions.

Negative

Explanation: The article discusses how Tesla's strategy of undercutting competition with price cuts has backfired and hurt its core auto gross margin and profitability. It also mentions that the demand outlook hasn't improved despite efforts to launch a sub-$30,000 EV. Additionally, it suggests that Tesla may have prioritized full self-driving technology and robotaxis over the low-end EV project. These factors contribute to a negative sentiment for Tesla in this article.