But what about In-N-Out? Among those knowledgeable about such things, In-N-Out burgers are the best of any fast-food chain in the world (sorry Five Guys, Shake Shack, and Whataburger). However, In-N-Out has a smaller menu than an artisanal farm-to-table restaurant. The In-N-Out menu, excluding the special menu for elite In-N-Out connoisseur, offers three types of burgers that vary only by number of burger patties and cheese slices, fries, shakes, soda, milk, and coffee. That's not much choice!
Somehow, despite its limited selection, In-N-Out maintains the highest perceived quality in the industry, as reported by 90% of Californians. How have they been able to achieve this? Is there value in specialization? Does this laser-focus on quality only work in an industry filled with low quality producers? All I know is, I'd like a #1, please. Yes, with onions.
Alex, I really liked this post! I personally don't love In-N-Out (I'm sorry, I'm a Shake Shack girl!!), but this got me thinking about how many brands or industries operate under the assumption that consumers believe that "more means better" or more sophisticated.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that Riedel has profited from that mentality--with a nearly endless selection of crystal glasses for different varietals and different occasions, they have essentially made their own market for highly specialized wine glasses. Yet, we know that Gabriel Glas is challenging this idea that "more means better" with their singular "one glass to rule them all" (excuse the corny reference).
My sense is that in many industries, the consumer choice pendulum tends to swing from one end of the spectrum to the other, especially when companies need additional marketing gimmicks to boost the bottom line. This observation certainly holds true in the cosmetics industry, especially with respect to facial care. It seems that every few years, skin care companies sell consumers on the idea that they need 10+ different products in their daily facial care routine (SPF, night cream, day cream, eye cream, peels, brightening serum, masks, etc.). Once these companies have stretched our skin care routines (and budgets!) to the point where we can no longer sustain additional products, they start to pioneer a minimalist approach (i.e. one skin care product to take care of all your woes). It's a cyclical sales cycle, and we are suckers that fall for it every time.
This product expansion/reduction cycle may also happen in the wine industry. But somehow, I don't see In-N-Out expanding its menu any time soon.
This is very interesting. I never thought about that. I wonder how different the perception of simplicity and quality is for luxury goods versus basics. I would imagine for more basic items a simplified offering may imply a greater sense of quality.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a fascinating example (even if In-N-Out is disgusting) but I think we can totally come up with more. A number of tech companies purposefully limit the number of items they have to a single product type because they recognize that doing more will dilute the brand of their core product being the single hottest thing on the market - I'd think of how Apple operates with the MacBook or iPhone - They create updated versions here and there but I think it's core to Apple's brand that they don't have 20 different types of phone that you can pick from and many just see the iPhone as the definitive phone on the market.
ReplyDeleteGreat comments by all here. Bottom line: remember that Draganska's chocolate study indicated that the conversion rate to purchase increases when there are less choices (= the choice paradox). As such, Apple, In-N-Out, etc. are drive for conversion- and using other metrics (cult followings, etc.) to elevate brand equity vs. broad selection.
ReplyDelete