The company is touting that the new fry option, which features a tagline of "Big Taste. Less Fat," contains 40% less fat and 30% less calories than a similarly weighted serving of McDonald's fries. The Satisfries are an additional option and do not replace Burger King's regular fries.
According to the company, Satisfries are made with thinly-battered whole potatoes and the lower fat and calorie count is achieved by a new batter that doesn't absorb as much oil as regular fries. They're also cooked in the same fryers, for the same amount of time as regular fries.
The suggested retail price for the new fries are slightly higher than regular fries (by about 30 cents) and starts at $1.29 for the value size and goes up to $2.29 for a large order.
I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that "Satisfries," a play on "satisfies," also sounds a lot like "saddest fries," which is a marketing mishap if I ever heard one (and one that Taco Bell recently dodged by not going with the test name of "Flamas Doritos Locos Tacos" for their recent Fiery Doritos Locos Tacos launch).
Satisfries are only being offered for a limited time, so I suppose the "saddest fries" joke will have to peter out at some point unless they do really well, in which case, it would make sense for BK to keep them around and perhaps give them a different name. My vote's on "crinkle cut fries" but I'm just simple like that.
Here's a side-by-side nutritional comparison for reference:
|BK Satisfries||BK French Fries||McDonald's French Fries|
|Serving Size||87g (value)||89g (value)||71g (small)|
|Calories (Calories from Fat)||190 (70)||240 (90)||230 (100)|
|Total Fat (Saturated Fat)||8g (1g)||10g (1.5g)||11g (1.5g)|
|Carbs (Sugar)||28g (0g)||34g (0g)||29g (0g)|
And for your viewing pleasure, a TV spot for the new fries (I'm just imagining the marketing team behind the name was so impressed with the name that they completely missed what it also sounds like):