Why users don’t pay for Kilowatt-Hours. They pay for trust.

Introduction: What charging really is

InIn discussions about charging infrastructure, charging is often understood as a technical process, a product, or a service. From the user’s perspective, however, it is fundamentally different.

Charging is not a service, not a feature, and not an experience. Charging is an interruption in daily life. And that is precisely what makes it so psychologically, behaviorally, and systematically sensitive. Interruptions are the moments when people lose time, give up control, experience uncertainty, and reassess expectations. Trust, or mistrust, is not created where something begins, but where something is interrupted.

The acceptance of e-mobility is therefore not decided in the showroom. It is decided at the charging station.

Charging as a everday pause

For users, a charging process is almost never a goal, but always a means to an end. No one drives to charge. They charge to keep driving.

Therefore, different rules apply to charging than to classic products:

• It must not surprise.
• It must not delay.
• It must not demand attention.
• It must not force decisions.

Ideally, charging is brief, predictable, and boring. Not because it is bad, but because it works. The less a user has to think about a charging process, the higher the probability that they will return.

The industry’s misconception

Many providers see charging as a feature competition: more power, more displays, more apps, more services. But from the user’s perspective, these are not enthusiasm factors, but basic requirements. They do not create additional satisfaction, no loyalty, and no trust. They merely prevent dissatisfaction.

The actual user judgment does not come from features, but from the absence of friction. And friction does not occur spectacularly, but quietly.

Escalation versus erosion

In public discussions, escalations dominate: total failures, defective stations, blocked charging parks, extreme waiting times. These are visible problems, but they are rare.

What really destroys trust is not a spectacular escalation, but creeping erosion. Micro-frictions that:

• Cost time
• Demand attention
• Violate expectations
• Undermine security

Examples:

• A station that does not start twice in a row
• An app that wants to log in again
• Charging power that regularly falls below expectations
• A location that is poorly signposted
• A tariff that is only understandable after charging

None of these events lead to complaints, none of them escalate. But each of them reduces the likelihood of return. It is not escalations that decide, but creeping erosion.n.

Why price is overestimated

In many discussions, price is considered the central factor, the main decision criterion, and the bottleneck. But this view misses a fundamental problem: When charging, price is often the only information visible in advance.

Reliability is not transparent, seamless operation is not evaluable, consistency of expectations is only known after several visits, and location quality can only be assessed on-site. What remains is the price. And because it is the only tangible variable, users react extremely price-sensitive here.

But this price sensitivity is not an expression of thrift, but of lack of information. The less trust there is, the more price becomes the anchor. The higher the trust, the lower the relevance of price.

Users do not pay for kilowatt-hours, they pay for predictability.

Here I also recommend my digression „The Illusion of Simplicity.“

The Trust-Friction model from the user’s perspective

From this observation, a simple model emerges:
Trust = Reliability × Fair Pricing × Accessibility × Consistency of Expectations

These factors do not work additively, but multiplicatively. A very good factor cannot compensate for three weak ones. A single break is enough to tip the overall result.

Reliability: Can I start without thinking? Does the process abort? Is the station available? Fair pricing: Does the price match my situation? Emergency charging is different from routine, time pressure is different from planning. Accessibility: Can I find the location? Can I maneuver? Is it safe? Is it intuitive? Can I find the services I need? Consistency of expectations: Do I experience the same thing here today as I did last time?

Trust is not created by perfection, but by repeatability.

Return as the actual decision

Der wichtigste Moment im gesamten Ladevorgang liegt nicht beim Start, nicht beiThe most important moment in the entire charging process is not at the start, not at payment, and not at unplugging. It is afterward, in the silent decision: Will I use this provider again?

This decision is rarely made consciously; it arises implicitly. A location is not avoided because it is five cents or Rappen more expensive. It is avoided after:

• Two aborts
• One negative surprise
• A blocked access
• Unclear performance
• Too many small irritations

Not as a protest, not as a complaint, but as a silent switch.

Return creates usage, usage creates utilization, utilization creates volume. And volume is the basis of any profitability.

Implicit decision-making processes: Why users switch without noticing

Users do not switch charging locations only after rational consideration, but primarily according to three automated patterns:

1. Frictions accumulate invisibly Each disruption is not evaluated as an individual case, but is recorded as a withdrawal of trust. Emotional peaks are particularly memorable and overlay later positive experiences. The user does not store „Station X did not work,“ but „Here I lose control.“
2. The switch happens automatically Once the trust account is empty, the omission bias takes effect: Users simply avoid the location without actively thinking about it. The new location becomes routine, even if the original was objectively better. The old location disappears from the mental selection.
3. Post-hoc justification If the user has switched, the brain retroactively looks for reasons to confirm the decision. Critical information about the old location is now selectively ignored, positives are relativized.

Price reductions do not work because the decision is anchored in the implicit system. A discount is interpreted as confirmation of the original devaluation. Single severe frictions require at least 3-5 positive experiences to be compensated, without another friction occurring.

Bridge to the provider perspective

From the user’s perspective, the central question is: Will I come back here? Will I use this provider again? Do I trust this provider?

From the provider’s perspective, it is: Am I stably utilized?

Both describe the same system.

In the next part, it is about the provider perspective: Why charging infrastructure does not fail because of prices, but because of empty stations, lack of return, and fixed costs. Because trust is not just a user problem, it is the central economic lever of the entire market.

---

Key takeaways

• Charging is not a product and not a feature, but an interruption in daily life.
• Acceptance is not decided in the showroom, but at the charging station.
• Users do not pay for kilowatt-hours, but for predictability.
• Not escalations destroy trust, but creeping erosion through micro-frictions.
• Price is overestimated because it is often the only visible information.
• Return occurs implicitly – not through conscious decision, but through lack of friction.
• Trust = Reliability × Fair Pricing × Accessibility × Consistency of Expectations.
• The most important moment is after charging: „Will I come back here?“