Perhaps no one knows better than I (since I'm in the business of conducting taste tests...) that giving away free food is a seemingly fail proof plan for success. But you'd be surprised how quickly those warm, fuzzy feelings brought forth by the words "free food" are forgotten--in about the same time it takes to consume a piece of chicken.
And hey, just because it's free doesn't mean you have to appreciate it. Which begs the question: does offering free food ultimately decrease the perceived value and taste of that food?
Take IHOP and Denny's for example. Both companies offering free breakfasts, both claiming to have the best breakfast in town, but at the end of the day all the customer remembers is that it was free.
That said, I think holding a nationwide consumer taste test on consecutive days was a brilliant marketing tactic, but at what cost? If EPL wants something that's going to stick, a claim they can stand behind, then their going to have to do more than just bribe the consumer.
EPL gave away two pieces of chicken, two tortillas and free salsa vs. KFC's one skimpy piece of chicken. Which one would taste better to you? Walking away with a full belly or like a dog that's been teased?
Leave a comment