For much of what we consume, the increasing number of possible choices can bring more anxiety or paralysis than pleasure.
On streaming services, many of us spend more time searching for what to watch than actually watching something. On food delivery apps, the most indecisive users are weak from hunger by the time their food arrives because they are paralyzed by so many options. On dating apps, perhaps the most emblematic example of how more choices don’t necessarily bring more fulfillment or the perfect match, frustration is so widespread (hello, ensh*ttification) that many people are looking for other ways to meet new people.
This is despite the fact that in all three cases, powerful recommendation algorithms are essential parts of the product. However, there are many purchasing contexts where such resources cannot be used, whether due to very infrequent purchases or third-party controlled non-digital channels.
We think we want abundance — until the excess of alternatives leaves us paralyzed or constantly dissatisfied, thinking we could have made better choices. "The Paradox of Choice," written in 2004 by Barry Schwartz, explains that while autonomy and freedom of choice are critical to our well-being, having too many options is more of a problem than a solution and dives deeply into this topic.
With the abundance of choices becoming more the rule than the exception in consumption, the consequence is that helping people choose is a fundamental task that many brands still underestimate. Shall we discuss some possible paths?
The obvious answer is curation, but the challenge lies in execution. The digital influence market itself was built around the idea of recommendations from someone who seems close and trustworthy. But as the market grows, the biggest influencers are increasingly relegated to brand awareness roles, speaking to audiences too broad to create closeness or identification. In other words, they are increasingly similar to the old and familiar celebrity endorsements, which have their own limitations — does anyone believe Cristiano Ronaldo uses Herbalife? Some suggest the solution is to work with smaller-scale content creators to foster proximity and trust, but the truth is that in most cases, the recommendations that matter most come from people who truly know us. The legitimacy of a recommendation is proportional to how well the context of the recipient is understood.
At the height of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) era, radical streamlining or simplification of portfolios took off as a strategy in categories where the pain of choice is one of the biggest challenges of the journey, such as mattresses.
Emma, Zissou, and Casper all have much leaner portfolios with less technical descriptions than the old school brands. In consumer electronics, Apple still stands out for the simplicity of its lines in a sea of products with alphabet soup names forcing buyers to read and understand specifications to know how they differ.
This path makes sense particularly in categories where buyers are forced to learn technical aspects they may not necessarily be interested in and in products with higher spending and risk of regret (consumer electronics, major appliances, custom furniture, etc.).
In categories where the decision process is complicated and time-consuming, word of mouth and, consequently, recommendations from friends and acquaintances carry even more weight. Investing in not frustrating the expectations of potential recommenders is possibly one of the most effective communication investments you can make. This brings us to…
If satisfaction is the distance between expectation and reality, our ability to set expectations before the sale is directly related to how our delivery will be received by the customer.
The Japanese are masters at this. Besides the legal obligation to represent products proportionally and truthfully on packaging, it’s very common for restaurants to have mockups of dishes and detailed photo menus, eliminating classic frustrations about portion size or not matching customer expectations.
In products involving taste, it’s common to use radar charts with flavor characteristics — everything to ensure buyers know what to expect.
This image has gone viral on LinkedIn numerous times and is already a cliché in some circles, particularly B2B and SaaS — for a good reason.
One problem with selling features instead of results is that we assume the buyer understands the feature, cares about it, and believes it will make a difference in the outcome they are seeking.
Building on the idea that selling is not about pushing the product but helping interested buyers choose, if you don’t truly know where your customer wants to go, why do you think they will let your brand guide them there?
You know those feature matrices with different plans that SaaS companies always use on their pricing pages? They apply to many other circumstances. Below, Western Rise, a menswear brand specializing in travelers, explains the differences between their pants in a way that would be impossible to understand just from photos or individual descriptions:
If a doubt or question derails the journey, forcing the person to search on YouTube, TikTok, or another channel to see a third-party opinion, the brand has already lost control of the narrative and risks being compared with others— why leave this flank open?
In broader product lines or those that might compete with each other, these comparisons should be the norm, at least to avoid doubts within a brand’s offerings. Not explaining characteristics clearly is a missed upsell opportunity and, online, without salespeople and with limited sensory experience, everything that tangibilizes physical and sensory aspects is welcome. Want to reduce returns and exchanges, increase satisfaction, and amplify recommendations? This could be a path.
Your customers should not be forced to know how to evaluate technical qualities (and if they know, chances are your brand is already being directly compared with others). Speaking of technical attributes…
One of the most common misunderstandings companies have about the humans on the outside is overestimating both the interest and repertoire regarding categories and brands. Those who work with paints know the exact difference between satin, matte, and semi-matte and the ideal uses for each. Those who work in textiles know the difference between French terry and flannel. It’s understandable — if we spend all day talking about the same subject, we end up taking our own reference as a rule.
The problem is assuming that potential buyers, possibly first-timers, already know the technicalities or letting them discover through a random third party, or worse, through a competitor. Teaching can be a fundamental part of building trust.
Is the way your offer is presented today helping or hindering your buyers’ choices?
At Zeitgeist, we have worked with all kinds of complex products and services, from neurological medications to highly specialized B2B services, and we have extensive experience in creating bridges between people's needs and expectations and what your brand can offer. Have a similar challenge? Talk to us.
