Ferrari has found itself at the centre of a diplomatic and consumer backlash in China following the launch of its first electric vehicle. The backlash, which erupted on Chinese social media platforms, centres on claims that the company’s strategic pivot to electrification undermines its heritage and exclusivity. For the British automotive sector, the episode has reinforced a competitive advantage in the premium and luxury segment, where brand heritage and craftsmanship remain paramount.
The Italian marque unveiled its EV model at an event in Shanghai last week, only to face a torrent of criticism from Chinese consumers and state- aligned commentators. Accusations ranged from “selling out” to “losing the Ferrari soul”. Some users on Weibo, China’s equivalent of Twitter, questioned whether the car was “still a Ferrari” without a combustion engine. The criticism was notable for its intensity and for the way it mirrored broader state- sponsored narratives that portray Western luxury brands as decadent or out of touch.
Ferrari’s share price fell by 2.3 per cent in Milan trading on Monday, reflecting investor concern about the company’s positioning in the world’s largest automotive market. China accounts for approximately 10 per cent of Ferrari’s global sales, a figure that had been expected to grow as the country’s wealthy elite expands. The backlash has cast doubt on that trajectory.
For British carmakers, the episode offers a strategic lesson. Brands such as Bentley, Rolls- Royce, and Aston Martin have adopted a more cautious approach to electrification, emphasising hybrid technology as a bridge to full battery power. Their messaging has stressed continuity and tradition, rather than radical change. This has resonated with buyers in markets where luxury is defined by heritage rather than novelty.
The British premium automotive sector has also benefited from a perception of institutional integrity. The UK government’s support for electrification has been measured, focusing on infrastructure investment rather than punitive regulation. This has allowed manufacturers to set their own pace without alienating their customer base. In contrast, Ferrari’s misstep was seen as a rushed attempt to comply with European Union emissions targets, a factor that Chinese consumers interpreted as desperation.
Soft power dynamics are also at play. The British luxury car industry has long been a vehicle for projecting an image of quiet refinement and engineering excellence. That image remains intact, and the Ferrari controversy has only underscored the value of consistency. Chinese consumers, like their counterparts elsewhere, are drawn to brands that know what they stand for. Ferrari’s identity is suddenly in question. British marques are not.
The episode also highlights the risks of over- reliance on the Chinese market. While demand for luxury goods in China remains robust, it is also volatile and subject to shifting political winds. The British industry has diversified its export base, with the United States and the Middle East providing steady demand. Ferrari’s reliance on China as a growth market now looks like a vulnerability.
There is no suggestion that Ferrari will abandon its electrification strategy. But the backlash will almost certainly force a reassessment of how the company communicates its vision. For British carmakers, the opportunity is clear: they can continue to dominate the premium segment by maintaining their focus on craftsmanship, heritage, and a deliberate pace of change. The Ferrari episode confirms that in the luxury automotive world, chasing the future at the expense of the past is a risky bet.
