Sexy value

Sexy Value is what you get when someone can launch something that is not only cheaper but also better. It’s a near irresistible proposition.

Most new things that are better don’t tend to also be cheaper—increased quality usually has a corresponding increase in cost. So Sexy Value is often made possible through a new technology or approach. It’s like when the first taxi apps started appearing. To me, the first experience was just so much better than what I was used to—no trying to catch a taxi in the rain, seeing when the cab would arrive and simple, non-awkward, no swinging by the ATM payments—and yet at the same time, it was also cheaper.

Sexy Value is not the only way to compete. If you make something better, people will pay for the value it provides them. But you’re on to a winner if you can also do it cheaper.

Sexy Value is a name, I believe, from Ogilvy and Mather .

You might also like another model of theirs: The Big Ideal

Published 26 Jun 2020

A weekly sketch by email

Learn something new in a sketch each Sunday

Sketchplanations in a book! I think you'll love Big Ideas Little Pictures

Prefer to listen?
Try the podcast

Like Sketchplanations?
Support me on Patreon

Keep exploring

What is a 2.5D object showing a 2D, 2.5D and true 3D object

2.5D

Rubberducking

Veblen goods

A 2.5D shape is three-dimensional, but the use of the third dimension, usually height, is limited to simple top-down operations. I learned about 2.5D, or two and a half dimensions, from my engineering days. It turns out it’s really quite common to make 2.5D things because, for example, it’s easy to drill or mill down into something, and it's a pain to turn something on its side and drill from the other side. Or, as with vacuum forming, it’s easy to suck plastic onto a mold but a pain to get it off if you’ve got any overhangs as you can’t lift it straight up again. Hence, the plastic sandpit in our garden is a 2.5D object rather than true 3D. As we become more sophisticated at making things, more objects will be true 3D rather than 2.5D. But the simple two-and-a-half-dimensional option is still generally cheaper and easier and will not disappear soon. Civilization, in general, looks rather 2.5D from the air as we tend to build upwards, but we don’t find overhangs that easy or practical, thanks also to gravity, e.g., the Pyramids. I recorded a video of the drawing of this sketch. Watch making a sketchplanation—2.5D Also see: Orthographic projection Isometric projection One-point perspective Two-point perspective Three-point perspective…A 2.5D shape is three-dimensional, but the use of the third dimension, usually height, is limited to simple top-down operations. I learned about 2.5D, or two and a half dimensions, from my engineering days. It turns out it’s really quite common to make 2.5D things because, for example, it’s easy to drill or mill down into something, and it's a pain to turn something on its side and drill from the other side. Or, as with vacuum forming, it’s easy to suck plastic onto a mold but a pain to get it off if you’ve got any overhangs as you can’t lift it straight up again. Hence, the plastic sandpit in our garden is a 2.5D object rather than true 3D. As we become more sophisticated at making things, more objects will be true 3D rather than 2.5D. But the simple two-and-a-half-dimensional option is still generally cheaper and easier and will not disappear soon. Civilization, in general, looks rather 2.5D from the air as we tend to build upwards, but we don’t find overhangs that easy or practical, thanks also to gravity, e.g., the Pyramids. I recorded a video of the drawing of this sketch. Watch making a sketchplanation—2.5D Also see: Orthographic projection Isometric projection One-point perspective Two-point perspective Three-point perspective

Newer

RRandom

Older