A charger case study convinces when a buyer can check it. The trusted pattern has five parts: a real site named with the customer’s permission, the customer’s problem in their own words, the exact hardware as installed, results that trace to documents or system records, and a date. Anything vaguer reads as advertising.
Key Takeaways
- A trusted case study is checkable: named site, written permission, exact hardware, the customer’s words, sourced numbers.
- Write from records, not memories — models, counts and dates come from the project’s documents.
- A figure the site’s system does not record does not appear in the study.
- Never borrow credibility: a partner’s installation is credited as theirs, with permission, or not used at all.
Anatomy of a Believable Case Study
The document half of trust — certificates and datasheets naming the exact model — is covered in our overview of EV charger certifications. This is the narrative half:
| Element | What makes it believable | The verification behind it |
|---|---|---|
| The site, named | A real place the buyer could visit or call | Written permission from the site owner to name it |
| The starting problem | Stated in the customer’s terms — bays, duty, the constraint that forced the project | The customer’s own description, agreed with them before publication |
| The hardware as installed | Exact models and counts, as installed — not the range’s headline figures | The delivery and installation records for that site |
| The result | Outcomes the site’s own records show | The system log or document each figure comes from, named in the text |
| The customer’s voice | A quotation attributed to a named person or role | The quotation approved by the person quoted |
| The date | When the site went live, and when the piece was last checked | Records that let you update the study — or retire it |
The Write-Up Workflow
- Get permission before drafting. What may be named, photographed and quoted is agreed in writing, before any words are written.
- Pull the facts from records, not memories. Order, delivery and commissioning documents fix the models, counts and dates.
- Interview for the customer’s words, and keep their phrasing. A polished paraphrase reads as the brand talking, not the customer.
- Admit numbers only where a document proves them. If the site’s system does not record a figure, the study does not claim it — the discipline formal programmes apply when they define a measure such as uptime, as the U.S. NEVI standards do in 23 CFR Part 680.
- Send the draft to the customer for factual sign-off before publication, and correct what they correct.
- Publish with the date, and diarise the follow-up that keeps the study true.
What Destroys Trust
- An unnamed site — “a leading hotel group” — that no buyer can check.
- Results with no source: “dramatically improved”, with no record named behind the claim.
- Photographs of a different site presented as this one.
- A partner’s installation — a distributor’s project — presented as the brand’s own work.
- A pilot’s first-month figures presented as a site’s settled performance.
Procurement teams verify references as routine. A borrowed or invented one, once found, ends the relationship it was meant to start.
An Honest Starting Point
EVDANCE’s own publishable record today is documentary rather than narrative: a manufacturer founded in 2011, with its own factory, exports to more than 30 countries and a 3-year standard warranty. It publishes no named case studies, so this article sets the standard such a study would have to meet rather than describing an existing library. At model level, the claims are checkable shapes: the EV-AC03201T is a floor-standing dual-connector station — up to 43 kW shared (22 kW per connector), OCPP 1.6J, RFID, IP54. Brands building a case library on this hardware start from their own documented sites, through the private-label programme, the commercial charging route, or contact us.
Frequently Asked Questions
The customer agrees to be named but will not be quoted. Can the study still work?
Yes. Naming plus records carries the checkability; the voice element can be the customer’s own written words from the project itself — a sign-off note, a review comment — used with permission and attributed as what it is. What you must not do is polish a paraphrase of their views into quotation marks.
What if a new site has no usage record yet?
Publish the installation story: the problem, the hardware, the commissioning, all from records. Add results when the site’s own system has produced them, dated as an update.
Can we use a distributor’s installation as our case study?
Only with the distributor’s and the site owner’s permission, and credited as their installation of your hardware. Presenting a partner’s project as your own is the line buyers punish.
Related Reading
- EV Charger Certifications Explained: CE, UKCA, UL, ETL, CB and What Buyers Should Ask For
- Does EV Charger Brand Matter?
- How Much Does It Cost to Install a Commercial EV Charging Station?
- EV Charger Warranty and After-Sales Terms: A Distributor’s Checklist
