“Sell the sizzle, not the steak”. This old American aphorism, coined almost a century ago, has remained in vogue and seems to go from strength to strength in marketing and selling a product. Based on the perception that customers buy the benefits and feelings associated with a product (the “sizzle”) rather than its core features (the steak itself), much of the advertising and promotion for a product or service is now based on this as the unique selling proposition (USP).
There was a time when the choice of a brand or model was based on its core features, especially for expensive and occasional purchases of products like a car, TV set, or a house. For a car, one checked details about its engine, the fuel consumption (mileage), reliability, maintenance costs, availability of facilities for repairs, and such-like. It was these basic factors which determined the choice within a given budget range. Today, though, car advertisements talk little of these; instead, the focus is on their music system, seat upholstery, and the “massaging (vibrating) seats”.
Apartments, generally a once-in-a-lifetime buy, are marketed through visualisations of the clubhouse, gym, gardens, exclusiveness, etc., and not so much on the robustness of construction, the quality of work, or the layout and design. The ambience, the ancillary facilities — the sizzle — takes precedence over the product which one is buying.
Mobile phones have long ceased being sold based on sound fidelity for calls or superior connectivity in low-signal areas or for long life and robustness. Now, the prime features are related to the camera, the design aesthetics, and their “smartness” (everything is AI-enabled now). Tourist destinations are promoted for being “Instagram-able” and not for their natural beauty or ancient monuments. A restaurant may be popular not for the nutritional value, taste, or price of its dishes, but for how photogenic they are: their “presentation”. Airlines promote their Business Class not for its comfortable seats or additional legroom and space; instead, advertisements are about the quality of food being served.
Other examples abound of marketing the aura rather than the functional features, the sizzle and not the steak, as the USP. Amongst these are restaurants whose USP is “pet friendly”; a liquor shop whose claim to fame is “open till 4 am” and another which announces it is “women friendly”.
Part of the growing emphasis on the non-functional factors may have to do with commoditisation: if all brands offer basically the same functionalities, one must find other differentiators. Amongst these, price, exclusiveness and, therefore, status – that undefinable standing you attain – are key. It is this emotional benefit that sizzle often delivers: the aura of the brand, the sense of making the consumer feel special and privileged, of elevating his/her status amongst peers.
The widespread use and success of this focus for marketing indicates that the importance of emotional benefits derived from the purchase of a product increasingly determine the choice of a brand, rather than the brand’s core functionalities. It is possible that this extends to other areas too. For example, are electoral results decided by the aura around a politician and the party: not their ideology, but the frills of “freebies” promised, the candidate’s oratorial skill and appearance?
Ultimately, does the sizzle matter more than the steak?
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication. |
