Burger King Satisfries: The assumptions behind the failure
This post is part of my 6-month learning journey as a Designlab UX academy student. Module 3, Unit 1, Reflection point: Assumptions and failures

In 2013, Burger King introduced a new menu item to the US market called Satisfries. The product was an alternative to their traditional french fries which contained 40% less fat and 30% less calories. The company achieved this by frying the chips in a less porous batter and this meant that they absorbed less oil when fried.
When introducing and advertising Satisfies, Burger King made a couple of assumptions about the market:
1. Their customers wanted a healthy alternative
In launching a healthier alternative to french fries, Burger King were assuming that the US market had a need and desire for a healthier choice with less fat and calories.
2. Their customers were willing to pay more for a healthier menu item
Satisfies were considerably more expensive than french fries, costing $1.89 for a regular serving versus $1.59. In offering this menu item with a price increase, they were assuming that their market would be willing to pay more for food that was healthier.
3. Great taste would be enough to influence customers to purchase a healthier choice.
In launching a healthier alternative to french fries, Burger King were assuming that as long as the product tasted good (which they believed it did with ‘big taste’ used to describe the item in advertising), people would opt for the healthier choice.
And then it failed…
Ultimately, Satisfries failed to capture the market and in 2014 they were discontinued, around a year after they were launched.
I believe the menu item failed simply because they made market and consumer assumptions that were wrong. While they believed that the US market would be willing to switch to a new item on the menu because it was healthier, the resulting sales indicated that there were other factors such as price which were more important to consumers than calories.