A recent survey underscores a shifting tide for Tesla’s self-driving ambitions: a sizable portion of U.S. consumers remain unconvinced that Full Self-Driving (FSD) will be a selling point, even as the company doubles down on marketing autonomous driving as a core differentiator. The findings come as Tesla grapples with a sales slowdown tied to an aging vehicle lineup and intensifying competition, alongside reputational headwinds connected to its CEO’s public persona and governance decisions. The numbers show a nuanced picture: a minority would be more likely to buy Tesla because of FSD, while a larger share would be deterred or remain indifferent. Taken together, the data illuminate both opportunity and risk for Tesla as it tries to convert interest in autonomous technologies into tangible vehicle purchases, while navigating a regulatory and safety environment that could reshape the economics of FSD deployment.
Survey reveals mixed consumer sentiment on FSD and buying intent
A comprehensive poll conducted in the United States sought to quantify how much influence Tesla’s FSD technology exerts on consumer purchasing decisions. The poll queried 8,000 Americans about their attitudes toward FSD, specifically the Supervised version that Tesla markets today. The results showed that a relatively small share of respondents believed FSD would tilt their decision toward buying a Tesla: only 14% of those surveyed indicated that FSD would make them more likely to purchase a Tesla. In contrast, 35% said the feature would make them less likely to buy, signaling a clear tendency for FSD to deter rather than attract certain buyers. The remaining 51% stated that the presence or absence of FSD would not affect their decision; they would buy or not buy based on other attributes of the vehicle or the brand.
The survey’s implications extend beyond the immediate target of FSD acceptance. Nearly half of respondents expressed the belief that FSD technology should be illegal, a striking indicator of public concern about safety, trust, and the appropriate boundaries for autonomous systems. This sentiment highlights a broader caution around automated driving, even among individuals who recognize the potential benefits of reduced road incidents and improved mobility. The data suggest that even as Tesla promotes FSD as a benchmark in the field, public appetite for fully autonomous operation remains constrained, particularly when the technology is framed as either a driver assist or a substitute for human attention.
Among respondents who were actively considering a purchase of an electric vehicle, the numbers were slightly different but still revealing. Only 20% said they would be more likely to buy a Tesla due to FSD, while 33% said they would be less likely to do so. This divergence implies that even among the EV-curious, FSD is more often viewed skeptically than with enthusiasm. Several experts connected these attitudes to a lack of clear, consistent messaging around what FSD can and cannot do, as well as concerns about whether the technology would actually perform safely in real-world driving across diverse conditions.
Evan Roth Smith, Slingshot Strategies’ head of research, pointed to marketing clarity as a key issue. He noted that a lack of transparency and consistent communication about FSD’s capabilities could undermine consumer trust. In addition to consumer sentiment, the survey explored regulatory preferences. A clear majority of respondents favored stronger regulation of autonomous driving technology, including stricter rules for advertising and accountability for accidents involving automated systems. The Slingshot report underscored a desire for a well-defined framework that holds manufacturers responsible for the performance of their autonomous features and ensures that safety standards are enforceable and visible to the public.
A notable element of the findings concerns the perceived safety and reliability of FSD. Slingshot reported rising concern about the safety profile of Tesla’s autopilot and automated systems. The proportion of respondents who viewed Tesla cars as unsafe increased to 36% from 34%, while the segment perceiving Tesla as very safe declined to 13% from 17%. In contrast, traditional automakers such as Honda, Toyota, and Chevrolet were perceived as safer by the largest portion of respondents. These shifts in attitude contribute to a broader narrative: even as Tesla emphasizes automation as a future-proof advantage, consumer confidence in the current generation of automated features remains uneven.
The survey also touched on a subset of potential buyers who specifically focus on fully electric vehicles. Within this group, 20% said they would be more likely to purchase a Tesla because of FSD, and 33% said they would be less likely. The resulting net sentiment remains negative for this subset, suggesting that the combination of high expectations, perceived risk, and a lack of universal trust in automated systems dampens the appeal of FSD as a differentiator. Slingshot’s analysis suggests that marketing and education gaps may be contributing to these attitudes, creating a barrier to broader adoption even as technology matures.
In a broader sense, the consumer sentiment data reinforce the idea that FSD is not an automatic driver of demand for Tesla vehicles. While some enthusiasts and early adopters may be drawn to the prospect of advanced automation and the potential convenience of autonomous operation, the majority of prospective buyers appear to weigh safety, reliability, and regulatory scrutiny more heavily than marketing messages about the transformative potential of FSD. The survey’s scope across a diverse cross-section of the U.S. population provides a useful snapshot of the public mood, illustrating why Tesla’s FSD strategy remains contentious and subject to ongoing debate among policymakers, industry observers, and consumers who are watching for tangible, real-world demonstrations of autonomous driving at scale.
The full implications for Tesla’s marketing and product strategy are significant. If the brand intends to drive higher adoption of FSD, executives may need to reframe communications, emphasize proven safety outcomes, and align pricing and education initiatives with a clearer, more credible roadmap for autonomy. Conversely, if the industry trend toward stricter regulation and heightened risk awareness continues, the economic advantages of deploying FSD may hinge on ensuring that adoption occurs in a manner consistent with consumer expectations and public safety standards. For Tesla, the challenge is to translate a technical achievement into a trusted, affordable, and accessible feature that resonates with a broad audience, while navigating a landscape that increasingly prizes transparency and accountability over spectacle.
Market performance, competition, and the broader implications for Tesla’s strategy
Tesla’s sales performance has come under pressure from a confluence of factors. An aging lineup of electric vehicles has become more evident to consumers, while competition from a growing roster of rivals has intensified. The company’s European sales portion has faced a pronounced decline, highlighting how shifts in demand across regions can magnify the impact of product cadence and perception. In Europe, July year-over-year sales fell sharply, reflecting a 40% decrease that marked the seventh consecutive month of declines. This downturn is not occurring in isolation; it sits within a larger pattern of market headwinds for the company as external competition increases and consumer expectations evolve.
Beyond the European market, Tesla faces a difficult positioning puzzle in the robotaxi arena. The company lags behind Alphabet’s Waymo and Baidu’s Apollo Go, two established players with substantial investments in autonomous taxi services. Tesla has signaled that it is in the early stages of testing a ride-hailing service, initially in Austin, Texas, and in the San Francisco Bay Area. The aim is to expand to additional cities later in the year. Notably, the current deployments in Austin and San Francisco operate under different conditions: in Austin, a human supervisor is aboard the vehicle to monitor the system, while in San Francisco, a driver remains at the wheel. This approach underscores the incremental, staged path Tesla is taking toward autonomy in public operating environments, while competing firms advance their own autonomous service offerings with varying levels of automation and safety oversight.
Musk has repeatedly stated that the success of Tesla hinges on its ability to deliver autonomous driving capabilities and the related services that accompany them. He has framed FSD as a pivotal differentiator, a strategic asset that could set Tesla apart in a crowded field of electric vehicle manufacturers. His public communications have also touched on product development timelines and the potential for new variants to influence production and market strategy. For instance, Musk recently referenced the introduction of a new variant of the Model Y that launched in China, noting a deliberate shift in the production calendar for the United States. He suggested that production in the U.S. might not begin until near the end of the next year, and that there is a possibility—“might not ever”—that it will precede the broader adoption of self-driving technology in the American market. This type of messaging reflects the strategic tension between vehicle development and autonomous technology readiness, as well as the risk that timing ambiguity could complicate investor and consumer expectations.
In the current landscape, Tesla continues to rely primarily on vehicle sales for the majority of its revenue. While Tesla has consistently highlighted FSD as a major advantage, the economics of FSD adoption—particularly the pricing model and the reliability of the software—play a central role in whether the technology can unlock meaningful value for the company. The FSD product today is marketed as a “Supervised” version with a subset of autonomy features designed for use on residential streets and in city driving scenarios. It is offered to customers through a monthly subscription or an upfront purchase, with pricing that remains a point of contention for potential buyers who weigh the perceived benefits against safety concerns and the cost of ownership.
Tesla’s promotional activity in support of FSD recently included financing incentives designed to stimulate orders. The company announced a promotional offer featuring 0% APR financing for buyers who place an order for a new Model 3 by a specified date and include FSD Supervised as part of the package or transfer an existing FSD subscription from a previously owned Tesla. Executives have indicated that such promotions are part of a broader attempt to spur education and adoption of FSD, even as some customers remain cautious about the technology’s readiness for broad consumer deployment. The pricing structure for FSD remains a focal point for many observers, with the current option priced at $99 per month or available as an upfront purchase, reflecting Tesla’s attempt to balance accessibility with the high development costs associated with autonomous driving software.
The thrust of Tesla’s message, as articulated by company leadership, positions FSD as a life-changing technology capable of operating under a wide range of conditions and potentially saving lives in the long run. Musk has shared user-generated content illustrating drivers relying on FSD with minimal hands-on interaction, a narrative that resonates with enthusiasts while triggering scrutiny from safety advocates and regulators. Yet, the company’s owner’s manuals clearly articulate limitations and require drivers to maintain hands-on control and be prepared to take over at any moment. This dual messaging—ambition paired with strict safety caveats—illustrates the complexity of communicating a sophisticated, evolving technology to a broad consumer base.
A significant takeaway from the market education perspective is that many potential customers do not fully understand FSD or its operating parameters. Musk acknowledged on the company’s earnings call that the majority of people are unaware FSD exists, and that even among Tesla owners, a substantial portion has never tried it. The firm has signaled plans to improve customer engagement by initiating outreach during service visits, sharing instructional videos that demonstrate how the system works, and directly contacting drivers to encourage hands-on experience with FSD. The goal is to transform curiosity into experience, which in turn could translate into broader adoption and greater willingness to pay for the feature.
Price and value perception continue to influence decision-making. Tesla’s premium FSD option provides a “personal chauffeur” experience for a daily cost that some customers evaluate favorably as a long-term mobility solution, while others view it as a luxury upgrade with uncertain return on investment. The monthly pricing of $99, and the option for an upfront purchase, remain central to how the market perceives the affordability and practicality of FSD in normal driving conditions. The ongoing promotional strategies—such as financing incentives—signal Tesla’s willingness to leverage financial engineering to soften the cost barrier and foster a broader discussion about autonomous driving as a service.
As the market matures, the degree to which FSD becomes a decisive factor for vehicle buyers will hinge on several variables. Consumer understanding of the technology’s capabilities and limitations will be shaped by education efforts, marketing clarity, and the reliability demonstrated in real-world usage. Regulatory developments and safety frameworks will set the boundaries within which FSD can operate and be marketed. The reputational dimension—how the brand is perceived in relation to safety, trust, and accountability—will interact with broader macroeconomic factors, including commodity prices, supply chain conditions, and global competition. Tesla’s ability to align its autonomous driving narrative with demonstrable safety outcomes, credible customer education, and a transparent regulatory posture will be critical to translating FSD’s technical promise into durable competitive advantage.
FSD product specifics, pricing, and consumer education
Tesla’s FSD offering today is marketed as a Supervised system, designed to operate on city streets and residential roads with a defined set of capabilities. The price structure for this feature includes a subscription path at $99 per month or an upfront purchase option, reflecting a blended approach intended to attract both casual adopters and committed enthusiasts willing to invest in ongoing software improvements. The system’s current iteration emphasizes supervised autonomy, meaning the driver must remain attentive and ready to assume control whenever the system indicates it cannot safely proceed. In practical terms, this means FSD is not a fully autonomous solution ready for unlimited hands-off operation in all driving scenarios. Yet, Tesla’s messaging around FSD often highlights transformative possibilities and the potential for the technology to reduce the burden of driving and improve safety outcomes over time.
Tesla has also conducted promotional activity to stimulate adoption, including a financing offer that allows customers to order a new Model 3 with FSD Supervised by a fixed date and to secure 0% APR financing. This type of promotion is designed to lower the effective cost of ownership and to entice customers who may be on the fence about adding FSD to their configuration. The company’s incentive strategy reflects a broader attempt to accelerate market education, as executives have acknowledged that a substantial portion of the consumer base remains unaware of FSD’s existence or its capabilities. In practical terms, educating customers about what FSD can and cannot do is a critical step in shaping demand and ensuring that buyers have realistic expectations about the technology’s performance.
Musk has publicly described FSD as capable of operating in all conditions and as a technology that will save lives, presenting it as a life-changing product for many people. He has also shared user-generated videos showing Tesla owners using FSD without their hands on the wheel, a move that bolsters the perception of FSD as a breakthrough. However, Tesla’s official manuals and safety documentation emphasize that FSD may not be reliable in all scenarios, and they warn users to keep their hands on the steering wheel and be prepared to take over. This tension between aspirational marketing and practical safety guidance is a defining feature of Tesla’s communications strategy around FSD, as it seeks to balance enthusiasm for autonomy with the responsibility to set accurate expectations.
Inside the company, there is a push to enhance consumer education around FSD. During earnings discussions, executives have emphasized that most people do not realize FSD exists, and a sizable portion of Tesla owners who could benefit from the feature have not tried it. To address this, Musk has proposed a more proactive approach: engaging customers when they bring their vehicles in for service, sharing targeted videos that illustrate how the system operates, and directly reaching out to drivers to encourage hands-on trials. This strategy acknowledges that familiarity with FSD is a prerequisite for adoption, and it recognizes that the perceived complexity of the technology can hinder willingness to subscribe to or purchase the option.
From a pricing perspective, FSD Supervised represents a carefully calibrated compromise between the high costs of developing sophisticated autonomous software and the need to deliver value to consumers. The monthly fee of $99 translates into a long-term commitment that, over time, can offset the substantial investment required to improve and validate the system’s capabilities. The upfront purchase option provides another pathway for buyers who prefer ownership and a one-time cost rather than ongoing subscription payments. The discrepancy between the marketing claims of “hands-free” operation and the validity of supervision reflects a broader reality: FSD is an evolving system with safety limitations that must be respected by drivers who rely on it as a mobility aid rather than a wholesale replacement for human control.
Tesla’s approach to promoting FSD also includes communications about its potential to support safer driving outcomes and to improve mobility for a broad spectrum of users. Musk’s public statements emphasize the system’s potential to operate in diverse conditions and to contribute to life-saving outcomes. The company’s position statements about FSD are designed to convey both a sense of confidence and a recognition of current constraints, aligning expectations with the demonstrated capabilities of the software. The contrast between optimistic projections and cautionary reminders in manuals highlights a deliberate strategy to manage risk while pursuing long-term gains in autonomy.
Consumer education remains a pivotal factor in FSD adoption. The Slingshot report includes a candid assessment that a lack of clarity and honesty in marketing could contribute to consumer hesitation. The study’s authors advocate for clearer regulatory guardrails and more transparent advertising practices to prevent misperceptions about what FSD can deliver. They also suggest that regulations providing clearer safety and accountability standards would enhance consumer confidence and create a more predictable market environment for autonomous driving technology. In practice, this means Tesla and other automakers may need to align their marketing narratives with verifiable safety outcomes and rigorous testing results to build trust and drive adoption.
There is also a broader industry context to consider. Several automakers and technology firms are actively pursuing autonomous driving capabilities, with varying approaches to levels of automation, testing environments, and service models. The competitive landscape includes players with more established ride-hailing operations and extensive regulatory experience, which could influence consumer perceptions of who will deliver the first scalable, safe, and affordable autonomous mobility solutions. Within this dynamic, Tesla’s FSD remains a focal point of debate, as the company strives to convert engineering prowess and early-mover advantages into sustainable commercial success.
The regulatory environment will continue to shape how FSD can be marketed and deployed. Public sentiment in favor of more stringent oversight, combined with a desire for clearer accountability in the event of accidents, points toward a future in which autonomous-driving claims must be anchored to demonstrable safety data and independent validation. This regulatory trajectory may affect pricing, feature availability, and the pace at which FSD deployments scale across cities and regions. Tesla’s ability to navigate this landscape—balancing aggressive innovation with conservative safety practices—will be crucial to maintaining momentum in a market that is increasingly skeptical about autonomous driving promises.
Safety, liability, and the regulatory landscape shaping autonomous driving
The safety profile of autonomous systems is at the center of ongoing public discourse and regulatory scrutiny. The Slingshot survey found an uptick in anxiety about the safety of Tesla’s vehicles among respondents, contributing to a perception that FSD may not yet meet the threshold of reliability that consumers expect from automotive safety systems. This concern is compounded by recent legal developments involving Tesla and its autopilot-related technologies. A jury decision in early August held Tesla partially liable for a fatal crash in which the driver relied on its autopilot. The court ordered Tesla to pay approximately $243 million in damages to victims and survivors, a verdict that Tesla plans to appeal. The ruling has added to perceptions that autonomous driving technologies carry meaningful risk and that the outcomes of such systems are not fully predictable, especially when drivers rely on automation without full disengagement of the driving task.
Public sentiment around safety continues to evolve. The Slingshot report notes that the proportion of respondents who view Tesla cars as unsafe rose to 36% from 34%, while those who consider Tesla very safe declined from 17% to 13%. The results position Tesla below traditional automakers in perceived safety among a large segment of the survey population. Honda, Toyota, and Chevrolet received the highest safety ratings among the brands included in the survey, underscoring a broad preference for legacy automakers when it comes to perceived safety. These perceptions are not only a reflection of product quality but also of reputational dynamics and media narratives surrounding Tesla and its founder. The combination of a high-profile safety incident and ongoing litigation can amplify concerns about the safety of automated systems even as manufacturers continue to refine their technologies.
In response to the safety and liability environment, the industry is calling for clearer standards and more robust enforcement mechanisms. A central theme across the survey responses is the desire for stronger regulatory guardrails around autonomous features, including explicit guidelines for advertising, user training, and the conditions under which automated systems can operate without driver intervention. The call for accountability extends to ensuring that manufacturers are responsible for the performance and safety outcomes of their autonomous features in real-world use. This regulatory emphasis is likely to influence not only how FSD and related technologies are marketed but also how they are tested, validated, and deployed at scale.
The reputational dimension cannot be overlooked. Over the past year, Tesla’s brand image has faced notable headwinds, including higher scrutiny of product liability matters and the outcomes of related lawsuits. The Slingshot report notes a deterioration in Tesla’s brand reputation within the U.S. market, which could have long-term implications for demand, pricing power, and the company’s ability to attract and retain customers in a competitive environment. Evan Roth Smith highlighted the reputational contrast between Tesla and its peers, suggesting that the company’s image is more vulnerable to negative press and legal outcomes than those of its major competitors. This reputational dynamic interacts with consumer sentiment toward FSD and overall trust in automated driving technologies, illustrating how public perception can influence the speed and breadth of adoption.
Tesla’s approach to addressing safety concerns and liability risks includes a multi-pronged strategy. The company emphasizes the important distinction between driver responsibility and autonomous capabilities. Tesla’s manuals clearly specify that operators must maintain hands-on control and be ready to take over in the event of system failure or unexpected roadway conditions. This approach serves as a precautionary measure to prevent overreliance on automation and to minimize the risk of accidents attributed to automated systems. At the same time, the company communicates a vision of safer roads enabled by autonomous technologies, a message that resonates with safety advocates and technology enthusiasts who see a path toward reduced human error and more efficient transportation networks.
In the broader context of safety and regulation, the market is watching how autonomous driving claims are validated, tested, and reported. Independent testing, standardized evaluation protocols, and transparent disclosure of incident data will become increasingly important as consumers seek clearer evidence of a system’s reliability. The regulatory framework—ranging from federal guidelines to state-level implementations—will shape which features can be marketed, how they can be advertised, and what safety assurances must accompany autonomous driving products. The intersection of consumer perception, safety outcomes, and regulatory expectations will determine the pace at which FSD and similar technologies reach mainstream adoption.
Tesla’s reputation, lawsuits, and public perception
The reputational dynamics surrounding Tesla have become a focal point for investors, customers, and policymakers. Slingshot’s analysis positions Tesla as having one of the poorest reputations among major EV makers in the United States, a stark contrast to the brand strength attributed to traditional automakers known for safety and reliability. The erosion of brand trust is a potent factor that can modulate consumer willingness to adopt new technologies, particularly those that appear to reframe the driver’s role and the responsibilities of automakers in the event of a failure. The data indicate that the brand’s reputation has deteriorated over the current year, a trend that may be driven by a combination of product issues, high-profile legal cases, and the public communications surrounding Musk’s personal and political stances.
The most conspicuous factor contributing to the reputational challenge is the wave of high-profile product liability lawsuits and verdicts. In the recent case referenced by Slingshot, a jury concluded that Tesla bore partial liability for a fatal crash where the driver relied on its autopilot system. The damages—roughly $243 million—are significant not only in monetary terms but also in terms of signaling about the real-world safety implications of autonomous driving features. Tesla has indicated its intention to appeal the decision, which means ongoing litigation and potential future outcomes could continue to shape the public narrative and consumer confidence for an extended period. The legal environment surrounding autonomous driving remains unsettled, and the outcomes of such cases are likely to influence consumer attitudes and regulatory considerations for years to come.
The perceptions of safety and reliability, as well as the brand’s overall appeal, have broader implications for Tesla’s market position. In the Slingshot survey, respondents were asked to rate perceived safety, and the results showed a tilt away from Tesla compared to other automakers. The data revealed that 36% viewed Tesla vehicles as unsafe, an increase from 34% in a prior measure, while the segment considering Tesla very safe fell from 17% to 13%. The negative shift in safety perceptions could reduce consumer enthusiasm for new vehicles and for FSD among prospective buyers who weigh safety as a critical factor in their purchase. In contrast, brands like Honda, Toyota, and Chevrolet were regarded as among the safest by the largest number of respondents, highlighting the ongoing challenge for Tesla to redefine safety in a way that resonates with a broad audience.
Tesla did not provide a public comment in response to the Slingshot survey results, and the company reportedly did not respond to a direct request for comment on the findings. Slingshot stated that it had shared the results with Tesla, but the automaker did not offer feedback or clarification. In a landscape where corporate narratives are scrutinized by a wide range of stakeholders, the absence of a timely response can be interpreted as a missed opportunity to contextualize the company’s safety record, its approach to FSD, and its broader strategy for consumer trust. The lack of engagement with critical industry research can also feed the perception that the company may be reticent about facing uncomfortable questions head-on, thereby reinforcing concerns about transparency and accountability.
Pragmatically, the reputational dynamics interact with real-world outcomes. If consumer trust continues to waver, Tesla’s ability to convert interest in electric vehicles and autonomous features into actual purchases could face persistent headwinds. The brand’s strength—built on innovation, speed, and a distinctive mission—remains a powerful asset, but it must be carefully balanced with credible safety messaging, clear expectations for FSD performance, and demonstrable improvements in reliability. The reputation story also has implications for broader policy dialogues, as public and political scrutiny can influence the pace of regulatory action, consumer protections, and market access for autonomous technologies. For investors, the reputational aspect translates into a risk assessment about whether the company can sustain growth in a more demanding regulatory environment and in markets where consumer caution about automated driving is pronounced.
Global expansion and cross-market dynamics: Australia as a case study
Tesla has recently initiated FSD Supervised availability in Australia, marking a step in its strategy to test and refine autonomous features in diverse regulatory and cultural contexts. The Australian rollout provides an opportunity to observe how FSD performs in a market with different driving norms, road networks, and regulatory expectations compared to the United States and Europe. This cross-market experiment is relevant for understanding the universality of the FSD proposition and the adaptability of Tesla’s software to handle varied traffic patterns, signage conventions, and driver behaviors. The early stages of the Australian deployment will likely yield insights into the practical challenges and user reception of FSD in a market with distinct regulatory oversight and consumer expectations.
The global expansion of FSD is contingent on a favorable regulatory environment and the ability to demonstrate tangible safety and efficiency benefits across multiple jurisdictions. While the United States has its own unique regulatory framework, other markets may impose different requirements for testing, data collection, and disclosure of safety performance. Australia’s approach to autonomous driving regulation, as well as the public and political appetite for advanced driver-assistance technologies, will influence how quickly FSD can be adopted at scale there and in other regions outside North America and Europe. Observers will be watching closely to see whether consumer enthusiasm for autonomous features aligns with the company’s stated product roadmap and marketing communications in these markets.
From a market strategy perspective, Australia represents a potential proving ground for FSD’s viability as a consumer product rather than merely a technology demonstration. If the Australian market responds positively to FSD Supervised, this could generate momentum for a broader global push and could help to offset some of the domestic headwinds faced in the United States and Europe. Conversely, if uptake is tepid or regulatory barriers prove stiff, Tesla may adjust its regional expectations, pricing strategies, and promotional approaches to reflect local realities. The lesson from Australia—and potentially other markets outside the U.S.—is that the success of autonomous driving features depends not only on technology readiness but also on regulatory alignment, consumer education, and market-specific value propositions.
Leadership messaging, public communications, and the marketing mix for FSD
Tesla’s public communications around FSD are marked by bold assertions about the technology’s capabilities and a clear emphasis on the transformative potential of autonomous driving. Elon Musk has consistently highlighted FSD as a “life-changing product” that can operate in all conditions and, in his view, has the potential to save lives. He has also shared user-generated content that shows drivers using FSD with minimal hands-on input, a narrative intended to illustrate the practical benefits of automation and to peak consumer interest. Yet, the official documentation, including owners’ manuals, contains explicit cautions about reliability and safety. The manuals stress that hands-on control is often required and that drivers must be prepared to take over at any moment. This dual approach—high-visibility optimism paired with careful safety caveats—reflects a strategic attempt to balance aspirational storytelling with prudent risk management.
The marketing and education strategy for FSD is undergoing refinement as executives acknowledge the need to improve consumer awareness. On the earnings front, Musk and other company leaders have conceded that a substantial portion of potential buyers do not know FSD exists or understand its current capabilities. To address this, Tesla has signaled that it will engage more directly with customers by bringing information into service channels, distributing instructional videos that illustrate how FSD works, and initiating outreach to drivers to encourage hands-on testing of the system. This approach aims to convert curiosity into direct experience, which is likely to translate into greater acceptance and willingness to invest in FSD.
Critically, the lack of market clarity around FSD—regarding both capabilities and limitations—poses a challenge for achieving widespread adoption. Slingshot’s analysis points to the need for stronger regulatory guardrails and more truthful advertising, arguing that clearer standards would help consumers form accurate expectations and provide a more stable foundation for market growth. Tesla’s ability to respond to these expectations will depend on its willingness to align marketing narratives with verifiable performance data, rigorous safety testing results, and transparent communication about the real-world capabilities of FSD. The industry as a whole benefits when manufacturers prioritize accuracy and accountability, as this reduces the risk of consumer misperception and fosters a healthier market environment for autonomous driving.
The broader competitive landscape also influences marketing strategy. As Waymo, Apollo Go, and other rivals pursue autonomous ride-hailing, Tesla’s messaging must differentiate not only on technology but also on service delivery, safety assurance, and cost competitiveness. The company’s ability to translate FSD’s technical promise into a reliable, user-friendly experience will be a critical determinant of uptake in the face of stiff competition. Pennsylvania to California, or New South Wales to Victoria—the regional differences in regulatory expectations, consumer preferences, and urban design will shape how FSD is marketed and how quickly it can become a mainstream mobility option.
Financing, incentives, and policy implications for adoption
Financing and promotional offers around FSD reflect Tesla’s strategy to lower the perceived barriers to adoption while reinforcing the perception of value associated with autonomously assisted driving. The company’s 0% APR financing promotion tied to ordering a Model 3 with FSD Supervised represents a tactical move to drive orders, increase market visibility for FSD, and accelerate the education process for potential buyers. By bundling the FSD option with financing incentives, Tesla aims to reduce the upfront cost barrier and make the overall ownership proposition more appealing in a market where consumers weigh long-term value against price and risk.
The pricing model for FSD—$99 per month or a one-time upfront purchase—remains central to decisions about whether to subscribe or buy. For some buyers, the ongoing subscription aligns well with the desire to access the latest software improvements and features as they are released, while others see the subscription as an ongoing expense that must be justified by tangible benefits. The decision calculus for buyers is further complicated by concerns about safety, reliability, and the potential for software updates to alter the system’s behavior in ways that differ from the user’s initial expectations. Tesla’s strategy to emphasize the ongoing value of FSD through updates and improvements can be a selling point if the company can demonstrate measurable enhancements in safety and efficiency over time.
From a policy perspective, the survey’s findings point to broad consumer support for stricter regulation and more robust accountability for autonomous driving features. If policymakers respond to public demand by implementing clearer standards for advertising, testing, and liability, the market could become more predictable for automakers and suppliers. A more transparent regulatory environment would likely encourage investment in autonomous driving technology by reducing the risk of sudden changes in compliance requirements and by providing a clear framework within which manufacturers can operate. For Tesla, aligning with evolving regulatory expectations will be essential to maintaining momentum in autonomous driving while safeguarding consumer trust.
The economics of FSD are closely tied to price sensitivity and perceived return on investment. If consumers perceive a strong safety and efficiency dividend from FSD, they may be more inclined to allocate resources to the feature despite higher upfront costs. However, if the value proposition remains uncertain or if safety concerns persist, adoption could stall, even as software continues to improve. Tesla’s marketing and education strategy will need to translate technical progress into widely understood benefits, such as reduced driver workload, potential reductions in travel time, and improved accident avoidance, to justify the cost to a broad consumer base.
Roadmap to a more autonomous future: expectations, risks, and opportunities
Looking ahead, the trajectory of Tesla’s FSD and broader autonomous driving ambitions will hinge on several interlocking factors. First, the maturity of the technology and its real-world reliability in diverse geographies will be central to consumer acceptance. Second, regulatory developments that establish clear safety standards and consumer protections will shape how aggressively automakers can market and deploy autonomous features. Third, competition from established players and new entrants will influence pricing, service models, and the scale at which autonomous mobility can be offered profitably. Fourth, the reputational dynamics surrounding Tesla—driven by litigation outcomes, media coverage, and public statements by leadership—will continue to influence consumer confidence and investor sentiment.
Tesla’s global strategy, including market-specific adaptations and education efforts, will determine whether FSD becomes a meaningful differentiator across multiple regions. The company’s ability to demonstrate safety, reliability, and tangible consumer value will be essential in converting interest in autonomous technology into widespread adoption. The Australia rollout offers valuable insights into regional dynamics and the potential for cross-market learning that can inform strategies in the United States and Europe. If Tesla can sustain a disciplined approach to safety, maintain regulatory alignment, and deliver consistent, transparent communications about FSD’s capabilities and limitations, the company could enhance its position in the evolving autonomous driving landscape.
As the market evolves, stakeholders will watch not only for improvements in system performance but also for evidence of positive safety outcomes and broader societal benefits. The path to a scalable, safe, and equitable autonomous mobility ecosystem will require collaboration among automakers, regulators, insurers, and consumers. Tesla’s role in this ecosystem will be defined by its ability to translate engineering breakthroughs into practical, trusted mobility options that people feel confident using. The company’s ongoing efforts to educate consumers, refine its marketing, and address safety concerns will shape how quickly and how broadly autonomous driving becomes a mainstream transportation modality.
Conclusion
The latest survey and market developments illuminate a complex picture for Tesla’s push into autonomous driving. While FSD remains a high-profile technology with potential to reshape mobility, consumer sentiment is mixed, and a substantial portion of buyers remains skeptical or indifferent. Tesla faces a sales environment challenged by an aging EV lineup, rising competition, and reputational headwinds tied to leadership visibility and legal risk. In Europe, parts of the market show notable declines, underscoring the sensitivity of demand to product cadence and regional perception. In the robotaxi space, the company competes with established players and is testing its approach in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area, where supervision and driver involvement vary by location.
The core questions for Tesla revolve around whether FSD can deliver demonstrable safety benefits, how effectively the company communicates its capabilities and limitations, and whether regulatory clarity can be achieved to reduce consumer uncertainty. The pricing and financing approach to FSD—whether through subscriptions or upfront payments—will continue to influence adoption, particularly if customers perceive a clear path to value through ongoing improvements and safety enhancements. Musk’s ambitious messaging about FSD as a life-changing technology will need to align with real-world performance and the rigorous safety standards that regulators and consumers increasingly demand.
Looking forward, global expansion—such as the recent introduction of FSD Supervised in Australia—offers opportunities to learn from cross-border deployment and refine approaches to education, compliance, and customer experience. The ultimate success of Tesla’s autonomous strategy will hinge on credibility and consistency: credible safety outcomes, consistent marketing that accurately reflects capabilities, and a governance framework that reinforces consumer trust. If Tesla can bridge the gap between aspirational messaging and verified performance, it may convert the current skepticism into a broader, durable market for autonomous mobility—a development that could redefine how people move, commute, and experience everyday transportation.
