EV Pickups Are a Bust for US Carmakers — What That Teaches Us About AI in recruiting

In a recent segment with Bloomberg Technology, I walked through why electric pickups haven’t yet captured the American market the way many expected — and why that matters beyond the auto industry. As we examine supply, demand, and buyer psychology, there are surprising parallels to other workplace transformations, including how companies evaluate AI in recruiting and other new technologies.

Outline

• Introduction: the hype and the reality
• Reservations, tooling up and unmet expectations
• Range loss when towing and real-world utility
• Pricing, value and buyer priorities
• Political and cultural factors
• How automakers are pivoting to lower-cost models
• Lessons for other industries — and the odd tie to AI in recruiting
• Conclusion: what to watch next

Introduction: the hype and the reality

When EV makers like Tesla, Rivian, Ford and GM announced electric pickups, the reaction was immediate: this is where the U.S. market is — and if even a small slice of pickup buyers went electric, the volumes would be huge. Companies announced massive reservation numbers and geared up production lines. Yet monthly unit sales for EV pickups remain unexpectedly small. I’ve been following these companies closely, and the contrast between early enthusiasm and current sales figures is striking.

Reservations, tooling up and unmet expectations

Early headlines screamed about reservation counts — Tesla reportedly saying a million; Ford and others reporting hundreds of thousands. That led manufacturers to invest billions to build dedicated platforms and factories. But reservations, as it turned out, were not a reliable predictor of conversion to sales. Why? The reasons are multiple and often practical.

Firstly, many reservation-holders were driven by curiosity, a desire to be early adopters, or a belief in a future ecosystem. But when the purchase decisions approached, entrenched behaviors and doubts about capability became barriers. Second, supply chain realities and manufacturing ramp-up hiccups meant long wait times that cooled enthusiasm. Third, and most important, the vehicles themselves started to reveal trade-offs that mattered to buyers.

Range loss when towing and real-world utility

One of the clearest technical limits is simple physics: hauling or towing dramatically reduces electric vehicle range. As I said, "pickup trucks lose a lot of their range when you're towing or hauling something." That’s not a marketing line — it’s an operational limitation rooted in increased energy consumption and aerodynamics.

For many pickup owners, the psychological value is as important as the practical one. The majority of pickups probably never tow or haul heavy loads on a regular basis, yet owners prize the capability for the few times they do need it. Commercial users and contractors, however, need reliable range while towing and report the EVs currently don’t meet their workday needs. For them, losing hundreds of miles of range under load can mean downtime, range anxiety, and lost productivity.

Even where automakers have engineered long-range pickups — GM’s Silverado and Sierra EVs can be rated up to roughly five hundred miles in ideal conditions — real-world towing can cut that significantly. A truck that gets five hundred miles on a flat test cycle might see that fall to around three hundred miles when hauling. That’s better than some, but it’s still a trade-off when the electric version costs more than its gasoline sibling.

Pricing, value and buyer priorities

Price is a central problem. EV pickups frequently carry a substantial premium over comparable internal-combustion models. For many buyers — both commercial fleet buyers and individual consumers — that extra ten to twenty thousand dollars is hard to justify. You don’t necessarily gain more payload, a bigger towing window, or a more robust service network. What you do gain are benefits like lower maintenance and a different driving experience, which aren’t dominant decision factors for many truck buyers.

There’s also a cultural dimension: many truck owners value the sound and character of a V8. Some enjoy the emotional connection to a traditional engine and the community around it. The quiet of an electric motor can be seen as a minus, not a plus, for that cohort.

That’s why the current response from automakers is logical: reduce price and accept lower nominal range for many buyers. Ford’s announced midsize electric pickup, intended to be built in Kentucky for around thirty thousand dollars, is a strategic attempt to reach the middle of the market where Ranger and Colorado buyers reside. GM has taken a similar tack, trimming range expectations in exchange for a lower price point. The hypothesis is straightforward: if the electric pickup can match the purchase price of a comparable gas truck, buyers will be more willing to switch.

Political and cultural factors

There’s a political overlay here that cannot be ignored. Pickup buyers statistically skew more conservative; EV buyers lean more liberal. That partisan split can amplify hesitancy because vehicle choice becomes a cultural signal, not just a functional one. Automakers have to contend with brand identity, regional loyalties, and politicized media narratives that complicate a pure, rational market shift.

Put together — range anxiety under load, high price premiums, cultural preferences, and political signaling — and you get a situation where the mass-market breakout that many predicted hasn’t happened. Each factor by itself might be manageable; combined, they make for a tough market environment.

How automakers are pivoting to lower-cost models

Manufacturers are responding. The strategy is to chase the mid-market with lower-cost, midsize electric pickups and to accept more modest range numbers. Price targets in the low-to-mid thirty-thousand-dollar range are intentional: they’re trying to meet buyers where they already spend and remove the most visible barrier to entry.

This pivot has operational consequences. Lower-cost EVs require simplified architectures, different battery chemistry or capacity choices, and often fewer high-end features. That can mean smaller battery packs — which reduce range but also lower cost and weight — and a more utilitarian interior that aligns with many truck buyers’ expectations. It’s a pragmatic rebalancing of what buyers actually need versus what marketers hoped they’d want.

Lessons for other industries — and the odd tie to AI in recruiting

There is a broader lesson here about technology adoption that goes beyond cars. Whether you’re selling a pickup truck or a HR software suite, buyers evaluate a mix of functionality, price, social signaling, and risk. That’s why conversations about AI in recruiting matter as a parallel case study.

First, early buzz and high levels of interest — reservations, sign-ups, and pilot projects — do not guarantee long-term adoption. Just as many EV truck reservations didn’t convert into purchases when buyers confronted real trade-offs, many organizations experiment with AI in recruiting without integrating it into core hiring processes. Pilots can be seductive but fail to address the practical needs of end users.

Second, practical constraints matter. For pickups it’s range loss under load; for hiring teams it might be data quality, integration with ATS systems, or bias concerns. If an AI in recruiting tool delivers flashy features but cannot reliably improve downstream metrics like retention or quality-of-hire, hiring managers will not adopt it at scale.

Third, cost versus value is central. Buyers will pay more if they get more — not just novelty. A fleet manager will pay for a truck that shaves hours off operations or reduces fuel cost dramatically. An HR director will invest in AI in recruiting only if it demonstrably shortens time-to-hire, reduces cost-per-hire, or improves candidate quality. Premiums have to be defensible in real metrics.

Fourth, cultural fit and trust matter. Truck buyers may prefer the rumble of a V8; hiring teams may distrust an opaque AI model that can’t explain decisions. The human element — preferences, trust, political or cultural signals — often trumps technical capability when adoption decisions are made.

And finally, the path to scale often requires compromise. Automakers are dialing down range in exchange for lower prices to hit a broader market. Similarly, vendors building AI in recruiting tools may need to focus first on reliable, explainable features that solve narrow but important problems before promising an end-to-end autonomous hiring process.

These parallels aren’t perfect, but they illuminate a central truth: technology alone does not create adoption. Practical design, cost alignment, cultural fit, and trust do.

Conclusion: what to watch next

The electric pickup story is far from over. Automakers’ pivot to more affordable midsize EVs shows they’re listening to the market and adjusting strategy. Watch for how price reductions change buyer calculus, how battery and towing technology evolve, and whether charging infrastructure matures to support heavier-duty use cases.

Meanwhile, the broader lesson applies to any industry pushing new tech, from manufacturing floors to HR departments exploring AI in recruiting. Early enthusiasm is useful, but conversion requires solving real-world constraints, aligning costs with value, and building trust with end users. Those are the elements that move an experiment into mass adoption.

Keep an eye on product economics and real outcomes. Whether you’re evaluating an electric pickup or debating the merits of AI in recruiting, the same set of questions will tell you whether a technology is ready to win in the market: Does it solve a pressing problem? Is the price right for the value? Do users trust it? Can it scale reliably? Answer those, and you’ll be closer to predicting winners.