As I’ve said before, price is subjective.
$100 to one person may be nothing, while it can be a lot for another. This is true for activities as well. Hiking a mountain may seem impossible for one person but a rather doable challenge for another. Running a 5k may seem like getting a tooth pulled to one person while looking quite enjoyable to another. The object of focus isn’t changing, but the subjective perception is. Why?
This perception is rooted in the concept of ‘affordance’—how we judge what is possible and relevant to us. This applies directly to how consumers evaluate brands.
→ We don’t see things for how they are, but rather how it is seen by us.
When we see an advertisement or offer, we project ourselves into the situation and see how we might fit. We then exercise through what will enable us to do so and the things that may stop us from doing so. Affordance is determined by the environmental options of what we can do within the context. For example, Disneyland has a lot of affordances, while the DMV is very little. One offers an ample amount of options and potential and the other not so much…
→ Affordance is what is possible or available to us within a given situation. It’s not just about physical capability but also psychological and social fit.
Seeing the affordance, we then assess our suitability for it. This “fit” extends beyond our physical ability; it includes whether we can envision ourselves engaging in that activity in the first place. Thoughts such as “Am I the type of person who…” fill our minds as we cross-reference with our internal narrative and identity.
This fit is also a social mechanism that checks if we are someone who “fits” in with the audience that associates with the offering or brand. This, again, may work as a rejecting force that tells us not to pursue or an aspirational force that pushes us to seek it to obtain a symbol of fitting that identity.
→ As Seth Godin simply states it, “People like us do things like this.”
This fit is a measuring stick for affordance because it ultimately contorts the affordance in our subjectivity.
Although affordance can be easily associated with and understood when it comes to money, we apply the same logic to our health/body, mind/intelligence, and identity/social.
→ The affordance must “math” for us to choose/chase the product or brand.
→ For the affordance to math, the fit must fit.
The main initial hurdle all companies must face is the affordance that they project to their audience and the subjective perception of that.
Obviously, price is a major affordance signal in the alchemy of affordance. Instantly, price has the power to directly show whether something is for everyone or a certain type of buyer because the fit can be very easily determined by the shopper.
Beyond price how can a brand and product show affordance to their ideal audience? To tap into the affordance, we must show fit and explore what fit means for buyers.
Affordance Determined
Kroger and Trader Joe’s virtually offer the same products that the average household needs. Just as one buyer may “fit” the Kroger shopping experience, another may fit the Trader Joe’s experience. Both brands offer many options for their shoppers(affordance), yet only some shoppers fit/choose one brand over the other.
This fit is the collective perception that the audience has of the brand based on those different aspects I mentioned before. This will then influence the desirability of the brand’s influences.
My theory on the cascading construction of this perception is:
Association → Alignment → Relation → Fit → Perceived Viability of Affordance
Association
The cornerstone of humans deriving perception and assigning meaning to things is our use of association. This positioning in the business world and even framing as we use similar things to compare/contrast to obtain information so we can create the foundation of our perception. This is as basic as understanding the category of the product or being able to look at its associations. We gain a lot of insight from associations because what we know about the associations are shortcuts we apply to the associated subject.
Alignment
Based on the association(s), we assess how it aligns with what we know and our beliefs. The fit is determined by the offering/brand aligning with the internal narrative of the audience. This is up to the audience to assess and determine based on what they have experienced. The affordance is taken into consideration and determined eligible for them if it makes sense, but first this alignment must determine one’s relation to the subject.
Relation
After gaining clarity of how the subject aligns with our internal narrative based on the associative information we have gleamed, we calibrate our relation to the subject. When the alignment is very tight, we feel kinship. However, when the the associations lead us to a misalignment the relation is very shallow if any at all.
Fit
When the relation is determined, a byproduct is the established ‘fit’ of the subject to our state, mode, life, needs, aspirations, etc. — this fit is based on the associations, alignment, and relation which then skews and warps our view of the subject. This is our perception grasping the subject and contorting it to our perception. This ultimately tells us if the affordance(options available) of the subject are worth pursuing to us or not.
Viability of Affordance
This perception of affordance is the “math” that takes place to see if the options make sense for us. This considers the content of the previous steps as well as our abilities and capacity as an individual. The end outcome is us determining our interest in the subject. Is it useful, possible, or of value to us.
These 5 elements work together to cascade on one another in the alchemy of affordance. Like a molecular structure, as the different elements combine, we get a different outcome of the perception. This directly impacts the reality of the options offered because we do not see them as they are, but how they are seen by us.