Most value propositions don’t fail at the moment of choice. They fail later, after the product has already taken up residence in someone’s routine and the cost of switching has shifted from hypothetical to annoying.
Marketers celebrate the close: the deal signed, the brand embedded, the words having earned their keep.
What follows isn’t persuasion but exposure, and exposure is unforgiving. The product gets used, something breaks once and then again, and there’s no copy left to negotiate on the brand’s behalf.
That’s when REAL value gets decided.
People don’t reopen the mental file on why they chose a brand. They reassess whether it’s still worth tolerating. That reassessment happens after onboarding, after the free trial converts, after the first support ticket that takes too long, and after the quiet realisation that friction has become part of the deal.
One in three consumers says a single bad experience is enough to abandon a brand entirely, according to PwC’s Global Consumer Insights Pulse Survey. Another dataset shows customer churn spikes are more strongly correlated with service failures than with pricing changes, particularly after the first 90 days of use.
This isn’t a shift in taste or loyalty. Value is no longer assessed at the moment of promise but through repeated contact, under time pressure, when patience is thin, and alternatives are one tab away. The product doesn’t get points for intention, only for holding up under ordinary use.
When Persuasion Stops Working
The traditional value proposition was built for persuasion: differentiate, justify, convert. If a brand could explain itself clearly enough, the consumer was expected to grant attention and, eventually, loyalty.
That assumption relied on distance: distance between promise and proof, and between messaging and lived experience.
Consumers now experience brands continuously. Apps, subscriptions, recommendations, support threads, and push notifications create an interaction stream that never resets—every touch compounds, whether it earns the right to or not.
A single failure might not end a relationship. But repeated friction does. The consumer’s question shifts from: Why did I choose this? to: Why am I still tolerating this?
At that stage, ‘differentiation’ language becomes decorative, and the brand story becomes irrelevant. What matters is whether the product holds up under ordinary pressure, whether support behaves as expected, and whether preventable problems keep reappearing.
The Overextension Trap
As expectations rise, brands tend to respond by promising more. Sustainability is added. Personalisation follows. Then convenience, wellness, transparency, community, ethical sourcing, all layered onto signal relevance.
Every additional promise creates another way to disappoint. Each one widens the gap between what is said and what the brand can reliably deliver.
Over time, the value proposition stops describing reality and starts reading like a list of intentions the brand hopes not to be audited against.
Consumers sense overextension quickly, not because they are cynical, but because they interact with the brand often enough to test it. When a company claims too much, the response isn’t admiration; it’s scrutiny. And scrutiny is rarely satisfied by language alone.
Resilient value propositions are built around constraints.
Digital Didn’t Change Value. It Exposed It
When a digital experience removes effort or uncertainty, the value proposition gets stronger with every interaction. When friction is added, erosion accelerates at the same rate. There’s no middle ground where nothing happens: the brand or product is either paying down cognitive debt or compounding it.
Netflix is often credited for personalization, but its real differentiator is discipline and reliability. Playback is seamless. Recommendations load instantly. The interface is restrained and predictable.
Every design choice removes work from the user.
And it shows: Netflix recently reported churn of 2.17%, compared with Prime Video’s 3.7% over the same period.
That gap cannot be explained by content alone. It reflects a system engineered to collapse mental load, which has quietly become the standard by which consumers judge value.
Sustainability as an Operating Decision
Sustainability followed the same arc as every other brand claim. What began as differentiation has become expectation. Consumers no longer reward participation, but they will penalize insincerity.
The question is no longer whether a commitment sounds thoughtful or aligned with values. The question is whether it changes how the business actually runs ... whether it reduces waste, extends product life, lowers long-term cost, or increases trust through behaviour that can be verified under normal use. If it doesn’t, it registers as noise.
Unilever learned this early. Its Sustainable Living Brands, where environmental and social commitments were built into sourcing, production, and distribution rather than added on in communications, grew 69% faster than the rest of the portfolio and accounted for 75% of total company growth.
Sustainability only holds when it imposes constraints—on materials, on margins, on speed, on optionality. Constraints force trade-offs, and trade-offs are legible to consumers. Without them, sustainability claims unravel the moment the experience is tested.
Case Study: Patagonia and the Economics of Enforced Value
Patagonia’s value proposition did not evolve through creative repositioning. It evolved through constraint.
The company rejects replacement-driven growth. It is designed for longevity and supports products long after they are purchased. Repairs, warranties, and resale programs are not marketing tactics, but structural decisions that slow turnover and build trust.
This reduces unit velocity but increases lifetime value. It stabilizes growth. It protects price integrity. It lowers inventory risk.
And it changes consumer behavior.
Higher upfront prices become acceptable because long-term hassle and cost are lower. Comparison shopping diminishes because trust accumulates. Purchase decisions often become habitual, rather than deliberative.
Sustainability, in Patagonia’s model, is an economic design choice.
Repair centres require skilled labour. Recycled materials raise cost and complexity. Transparency invites scrutiny. These constraints make retreat impossible, not narratively, but financially.
Where many brands stretch their value propositions until they fracture, Patagonia compresses its promise until it endures.
Compression, Not Expansion
Resilient value propositions share one trait: compression.
Compression means choosing fewer promises and standing behind them relentlessly. It narrows relevance so that credibility can deepen. It accepts that not every expectation can, or should, be met.
Expansion feels safer, modern, inclusive, and agile. Compression feels limiting.
In reality, the opposite is true.
Compressed propositions create internal clarity. Tradeoffs surface earlier. Inconsistencies are harder to hide. Execution becomes simpler, and trust compounds.
Consumers don’t reward brands for promising more. They reward brands that promise less, then prove it repeatedly.
Time is now the deciding force in value.
Time reveals whether durability was designed or improvized. It exposes whether convenience was intentional or accidental. It tests whether trust survives friction instead of avoiding it. Nothing pressures a value proposition more effectively than repeated use, without novelty, without explanation, without the benefit of doubt.
That pressure is no longer abstract. A May 2025 Gartner survey shows 73% of Chief Sales Officers now rank growth from existing customers as their top priority, a sharp break from earlier years. Retention has become the clearest proof of whether a value proposition can withstand real conditions and whether it deserves to endure.
And under that kind of exposure, resilient value propositions share one trait: compression.
Compression means choosing fewer promises and standing behind them relentlessly. It accepts that not every expectation can—or should—be met, and that constraint is not a weakness but a requirement.
Consumers don’t reward brands for promising more. They reward brands that promise less, then prove it repeatedly, under ordinary conditions, without asking for patience.
This leaves leadership with an uncomfortable choice. The question is no longer how to refresh a value proposition, as if value can be repackaged without consequence. The real question is what the organization is willing to give up to be believed.
Ready to strengthen your value proposition for today’s consumer?
Our market research helps brands uncover what consumers truly value, where expectations break, and how to build propositions that survive real use.
