On satisficing — a bet on human irrationality

Satisficing:
A cognitive heuristic to explain the behavior of decision-makers under circumstances in which an optimal solution cannot be determined.

When consumers can’t determine the optimal solution, they give a brand the power of their decisions. It’s why many choose Apple, because they’ve abrogated the rationality of choice. This has to be viewed with care though. The corollary of it is valid too. Think about the below statement:

“It’s surely better to fund satisfactory solutions for a realistic world, than perfect solutions for an unrealistic world.”

You can have the ideal product, but it’s probably not satiated the lethargic status quo to choose your over an incumbent. We understand this by saying, “It was ahead of its time,” and bemoan the end of a good product. The onus of the product’s capabilities lies in packaging its marketing efficacy.

In the satsificing world, the non-discerning customer (most folks) buy X over Y not because X is better, but because they’re more certain that it’s probably good. Another heuristic in this decision-making process: Insuring the downside of a bad product is far far important than buying a good product.

Again, the devil’s advocate for this in a hyper-informative world:

A satificing product is also bound to be disrupted. That is precisely why organizations want to be brands. Brands enjoy a certain luxury others seldom can. This argument works both ways. But when you want to build a brand without the base layer of product, you get disrupted.

After all, there’s an entire market dedicated in China to showing the middle finger to your ‘brand’, by producing significantly cheaper alternatives. Over time, these cost arbitrage companies become brands BECAUSE they have product prowess. Xiaomi is a classic example.