If anything it continues to show how out of touch Honda America is with its parent company and siblings. Comparing Honda America's website and Honda Corporate/JP/CN/EU websites shows increasingly divergent values and interests.

This is not something unique to Honda right now either: Nissan America also looks like an entirely different company to the rest of the Nissan Group. At one point Ghosn was trying to rebrand Nissan America as Datsun (again) and jettison the whole thing from the Nissan Group as a ticking time bomb of backwards detritus (deeply focused on a lucrative past of large energy inefficient vehicles with little brand recognition for energy efficiency). Obviously, that plan probably went out the window with Ghosn's whole weird situation, but Ghosn probably wasn't wrong in that Honda America and Nissan America at this point are liabilities/anchors weighing down their parent companies and where their parent companies now see the future of the industry. Unfortunately, Honda America and Nissan America currently still are profitable enough that they can afford to continue to ignore their parent companies and not start turning the ship in the right direction.

Or, alternatively, does it show how Honda's (and Nissan's) parent companies are out of touch with the American buyer? American buyers don't hate energy efficiency -- look at the comparative success of Toyota hybrids in the US. Most of the tech that Nissan and Honda of Japan developed for energy efficiency wasn't engineered for powering the types of vehicles that Americans want to buy. The same goes for Mitsubishi too. Americans aren't going to spend ~$40,000 for a minimalistic sub-compact or microcar.

> Or, alternatively, does it show how Honda's (and Nissan's) parent companies are out of touch with the American buyer?

I would assume that's why Honda/Nissan groups continue to hedge their bets and leave profitable American divisions doing profitable (but I'd say dumb long term) American things. I admitted that I think as much that that's why those anchors are still allowed to "weigh them down"; they are still profitable for the moment. (I also think Ghosn's attempt to jettison Nissan America was a small part of his overall weird ouster; it's actually the easiest part of the whole craziness to understand. Investors rarely want long term plans "sabotaging" currently [short term] profitable sub-units, and scrutiny of that plan lead to scrutiny of other plans and personal matters.)

> Most of the tech that Nissan and Honda of Japan developed for energy efficiency wasn't engineered for powering the types of vehicles that Americans want to buy.

The Nissan Leaf is basically the same size category as Toyota's hybrids. It's lack of success in America seems largely a marketing failure of Nissan America than anything. Especially when you compare Tesla in the same time periods.

The argument is that good marketing tells consumers what they want to buy, rarely vice-versa. The inability to sell sedans/compacts/sub-compacts in today's America may be as much a failure of imagination, and marketing than one of Americans being such a unique exception to world car trends. The marketing of trucks, SUVs, cross-overs, and other very heavy vehicles as the "one true American way" has been extraordinarily persuasive, but it's not the only possible narrative, and it is easy to accuse Honda of America and Nissan America of being marketing trend followers with no spine to push new trends. Which I do; but I also recognize its hard to blame them because those trends they've been following have been successful (or at least profitable).

The Leaf in the US wasn't a marketing communication failure, it was a product placement failure. Americans are willing to compromise on [price] or [interior] or [performance] or [practicality], but not all four.

Americans who drop $40,000+ (in 2020 dollars) aren't the kind of buyers who are willing to drive a vehicle that looks, feels, and performs like a sub $15,000 car, and is less practical than one. You don't need an SUV to be successful either, look at the Model 3, S, Prius, etc.

Americans are perfectly willing to buy economical cars... at an economical price. But if you ask big bucks, it better be something Americans can show off.

Product "placement" failure is a marketing communication failure. If you can't communicate well enough why your product is competing in the price point that it is, that's a classic marketing failure.

"Looks" and "feels" can be addressed by marketing narratives. (And some of the differences between "economy" and "luxury" in cars are marketing more than cost basis. If the American version of the Leaf wasn't tweaked for some of those "luxuries", that can also be a failure of marketing imagination.)

As for performance, I'm assuming you've either never driven a Leaf nor owned a sub-$15,000 ICE car? No EV "performs like a sub $15,000 car", in terms of torque/pickup/handling. That that isn't more well known is itself a particularly larger American industry marketing failure that's left the average American consumer behind the world market.

Communication will get people to the dealership, but if your product doesn't impress people in a test drive, they won't buy it.

> No EV "performs like a sub $15,000 car", in terms of torque/pickup/handling

Torque != power. Low-horsepower EVs like the Leaf feel great in a city where you get the benefit of that torque from 0-30 mph, but that benefit quickly tapers off as speed rises. (aerodynamically, 2x speed requires 4x power) The 2012 Leaf launched with a high-9 second 0-60. The 2012 Prius has a number in the low-10s and the 2012 Yaris has 0-60 times in the low-9s. These are all very comparable vehicles in a highway merge situation. You won't impress your passenger with the performance of any of them on a high-speed American highway. They're fun as heck around a dense city, but most Americans dropping $40,000 on a new car are merging on to divided highways in the burbs.