The trap of "let's see if it sticks" in marketing

Outside mass retail (farmers’ markets, supermarkets, lower end clothing retailers, etc.), it seems that Brazilian entrepreneurs and brands have a tendency to justify higher prices rather than focus on volume and value. Of course, a history of constant economic instability and one of the highest income concentrations in the world certainly have a role, but since this behavior isn't exclusive to companies, it warrants reflection on what cultural traits of ours might be related to this.

"Let's see if it sticks" might be a cultural norm, but it's not a good pricing or positioning strategy.

A recent study by Quinto Andar (Brazil’s largest proptech) shows that 54% of properties for sale and 37% of those for rent are priced above market level, and the result is that, in addition to taking longer to sell or rent, these properties are more heavily discounted the longer they stay on the platform. This suggests that these owners' strategies have a very different effect than expected. Is it a case of "let's see if it sticks"? Is it trying to pass the bag to a greater fool? Is it an overly dramatic loss aversion? Is sentimental value being factored into the price?

Another bad pricing practice, so universal that it has become a meme, is "price through inbox," (asking the seller privately) which is even prohibited by the Brazilian Consumer Defense Code. Could it be a way to protect the desired price from public negotiation? To inhibit comparison? To price differently based on the seller's affinity with the buyer or to maintain margins when selling to a stranger?

Both in the case of real estate and sales through inboxes, there are traces of Sérgio Buarque de Holanda's (one of the most important Brazilian historians and a cornerstone in understanding Brazilian identity) "cordial man": personalism, emotion over reason, and irreverence. From a more strategic point of view, there is also a somewhat impractical individualism and an inability to see the offer from the buyer's perspective.

The very idea of "gourmetization," which became popular about ten years ago (perhaps as a consequence of our 2014-16 crisis?), has a negative connotation and is linked to price—costs and pretentious discourse rise (which is what would justify the spending), but not necessarily the perceived value of what is being delivered. This is another sign, in business and not just in individuals, of how common this disconnect is, and how overpromising invariably leads to disappointment. Even the idea of a "marketing play," as it is popularly used, suggests a well-told lie and that marketing is more about the promise than the delivery—does it have to be that way?

Nowadays in marketing, where so many people are looking for "triggers" and "hacks" (often euphemisms for ways to deceive others, magical thinking disguised as a shortcut, or both), proposing something that seems fair and has credible appeal to buyers almost seems revolutionary.

On the other hand, there are extremely successful and long-lasting value propositions that go in the opposite direction, such as Costco—there, the offers are so well-evalued that what actually pays the company's bills are the memberships paid by customers, who feel they are making an excellent deal to have access to them.

What if we consider promising less and delivering more?

A value proposition that is only credible within the business itself is a huge risk because the moment it is communicated directly or indirectly, it sets an expectation that is either met or frustrated by the customer's experience, the famous "moment of truth." This is the mental calculation that determines recurrence and recommendation. Every marketer worth their salt should always remember that satisfaction is expectations minus reality.

Nash won a Nobel Prize by mathematically demonstrating that pursuing self-interest alone rewards less than negotiating a win-win. The problem is that reaching a mutually beneficial outcome is more work because it's not about telling others what is good for them, but about understanding exactly (not assuming!) what they truly value. This involves being willing to be wrong, not underestimating the other person's intelligence, and creating contexts that give people space to make sincere and direct criticisms in their own words—somewhat like couples therapy. If this sounds like qualitative research conducted by a neutral and experienced external partner, instead of echoing the false consensus of corporate corridors or performative opinions on social media, it's not by chance.

Long story short, if you're working on something with a premium value proposition or where price is not the main attraction, perhaps the most important thing to do is to ensure it stands up as an offer in the mind of the target audience, not just in your own, especially in a culture where "let's see if it sticks" is so prevalent and giving harsh and direct criticism in person is uncommon or frowned upon. Many customers simply don't provide feedback on frustrating experiences. Like in other types of relationships, those who complain or argue still have hope of resolving or improving things—the disillusioned just take their stuff and leave.