The Philippine gambling industry operates within a structured but complex regulatory framework, with multiple entities overseeing different aspects of gaming. While legal, state-regulated gambling platforms thrive, underground gambling networks continue to exist, shaping the broader betting environment. Understanding these structures is essential to navigating the evolving landscape of both traditional and online betting.
PAGCOR Regulates Casinos and Online Betting
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) is the chief regulatory body overseeing casinos, integrated resorts, and online gaming platforms. As a state-run corporation, PAGCOR plays a dual role – it licenses gaming establishments and operates its gaming businesses, contributing a significant portion of revenue to national development projects.
- PAGCOR is responsible for issuing land-based and online gambling operators’ licenses and enforcing compliance with national gaming laws.
- The agency has ramped up efforts to crack down on illegal online gambling platforms, which continue to attract unregulated activity.
- PAGCOR generates revenue for education, healthcare, and infrastructure development, reinforcing its economic importance.
However, while PAGCOR controls regulated online betting platforms, it does not oversee all gambling activities in the Philippines.
PCSO Oversees State-Sanctioned Lotteries and Sweepstakes
Separate from PAGCOR, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) manages lotteries, sweepstakes, and Small Town Lottery (STL) operations. Unlike casinos and online betting, which fall under PAGCOR’s jurisdiction, PCSO exclusively handles lottery-based gambling.
- PCSO operates Lotto, STL, Keno, and scratch-card games, which are widely played nationwide.
- Some of PCSO’s revenue funds public health programs, medical assistance, and disaster relief efforts.
- Many Filipino bettors prefer PCSO-backed games because they are backed by the government, have regulatory oversight, and contribute to social welfare.
PCSO’s focus on lottery and sweepstakes means it does not oversee or profit from the growing digital betting industry, which falls under PAGCOR’s jurisdiction.
Illegal Gambling Remains a Shadow Market
Despite government oversight, unregulated gambling activities remain deeply ingrained in certain regions, particularly in lower-income and rural communities. Underground betting networks, such as Jueteng, Masiao, and Sakla, continue to attract players who prefer informal wagering over state-sanctioned alternatives.
- Jueteng, an illegal numbers game, is widespread and operates outside government control.
- Masiao, another underground lottery, thrives in Visayas and Mindanao.
- Sakla, a card-based gambling game, is frequently played at wakes and community gatherings despite legal restrictions.
These informal games persist due to the following:
- Accessibility in rural areas where formal gambling establishments are scarce.
- Perceived fairness due to community-driven prize distribution.
- A reliance on cash-based transactions, avoiding the digital footprint required by legal betting platforms.
How This Framework Shapes Gambling Preferences
The interplay between regulated gambling, state lotteries, and illegal gaming influences how and where Filipinos place their bets.
- Traditional gamblers prefer PCSO-regulated games due to their legitimacy and social impact.
- Skepticism toward online gambling is fueled by concerns over fraud, scams, and lack of oversight.
- The rise of e-wallets is driving gambling toward cashless transactions, but many lower-income players still rely on informal, cash-based betting.
For brands, gaming operators, and financial service providers, navigating this landscape requires balancing digital innovation with credibility. Establishing transparency, security, and regulatory compliance will be critical in shaping the future of gambling in the Philippines.
A High-Stakes Shift in Filipino Gambling Habits
Gambling in the Philippines has moved beyond casinos and betting halls. Mobile platforms and digital payments have broadened access, attracting a diverse range of players across ages and income levels. Yet, despite the digital surge, traditional gambling remains deeply woven into the routines of Filipino bettors.
Who Are the Players?
Gambling in the Philippines is still largely male-dominated, with nearly two-thirds of bettors being men. Yet, participation cuts across generations – from young adults to seniors – highlighting its dual role as a form of entertainment and a potential financial opportunity.
A striking finding from our study is the high participation of non-earning individuals – homemakers and the unemployed make up 18% of gamblers. For many, gambling isn’t just a pastime; it’s seen as a potential source of income despite the inherent risks.
More than half of Filipino gamblers come from lower-income households, earning between PHP 9,000 and PHP 18,200 a month. This underscores how gambling is often fueled by economic aspirations, with many hoping for a financial windfall.
What Drives Filipinos to Gamble

The motivations behind gambling in the Philippines extend beyond entertainment. For many players, betting represents a chance to win big, a way to engage socially, or even a financial strategy during economic uncertainty. Understanding these motivations is critical for brands, gaming operators, and financial service providers looking to navigate shifting consumer betting behaviors.
Winning Is the Primary Driver
Across traditional and online gambling, the biggest motivator for Filipino players is the prospect of high rewards. The possibility of achieving financial gain is the primary motivator for gambling, especially among those with lower incomes, for whom a single win could be life-changing. While entertainment is still a factor, it is secondary to the allure of potential wealth.
Dual Players Show a Clear Preference for Online Betting
Among those who engage in both traditional and online gambling, our findings reveal a clear inclination toward digital platforms. 65% of dual players prefer online games over their traditional counterparts. The reasons behind this shift point to the strengths of digital gambling.

However, the remaining 35% of dual players still prefer traditional gambling, citing factors such as trust and reliability, competitiveness and cost considerations.

The Expanding Digital Divide in Gambling
Despite the surge in digital gambling, a clear divide remains. Younger players and those in Metro Manila are drawn to online betting, while rural and older gamblers stick with traditional formats, reflecting deep-rooted habits and varying levels of digital access.
Trust and accessibility shape where Filipinos place their bets. While online gambling offers convenience, many remain wary of digital platforms due to concerns about transparency and fraud. This skepticism drives players toward government-backed PCSO games, which are seen as more reliable and secure.
What This Means for Brands and the Gambling Industry
Gambling in the Philippines is a blend of tradition and transformation. Digital platforms are on the rise, but they haven’t replaced traditional gambling. Instead, both coexist, appealing to different audiences shaped by factors like access, trust, and personal motivations.
This shift brings both challenges and opportunities for gaming operators and financial service providers. The rise of digital platforms and e-wallets points to a growing cashless gambling economy. Yet traditional gaming’s resilience underscores the need for hybrid strategies that serve both digital-savvy players and those loyal to legacy systems.
Traditional and Online Gambling Compete for Player Loyalty
The Philippine gambling industry is evolving, but the digital shift isn’t absolute. Online betting is gaining ground, yet traditional gambling holds strong, especially among rural and lower-income players. The dynamic market, with both formats thriving on distinct motivations and behaviors.
The Enduring Appeal of Traditional Gambling
Traditional games still dominate among Filipino bettors, with 8 in 10 preferring them over online options. This strong loyalty reflects deep-rooted trust in familiar betting practices. In-person gambling is especially popular among older players, those in rural areas, and individuals at both ends of the income spectrum.
Several factors contribute to this continued reliance on traditional gaming:
- Trust and Credibility: Many players feel more confident betting through PCSO-regulated games, which they perceive as having higher transparency and legitimacy.
- Limited Digital Access: Some bettors lack reliable internet connections, making physical betting outlets more accessible.
- Avoidance of Digital Risks: Concerns about scams and fraudulent online betting platforms keep some players loyal to traditional gambling.
These insights suggest that traditional gaming remains a cornerstone of the gambling industry, not just for legacy players but for those who prioritise trust and accessibility over convenience.
Online Gambling Is Growing, but Old Fears Linger
The growth of online gambling in the Philippines is undeniable, with digital platforms offering ease of access and round-the-clock availability. Our study found that 85% of online gamblers own smartphones, reflecting the strong link between mobile penetration and digital betting.
But despite its rapid growth, online betting hasn’t overtaken traditional formats, largely due to lingering concerns about trust and reliability.
Many traditional bettors remain skeptical, citing:
- Unregulated platforms with questionable security and fairness.
- Unreliable internet access that can interrupt gameplay.
- Lack of personal interaction, a key part of the gambling experience for some.
Still, for younger and Metro Manila-based bettors, the convenience of digital betting outweighs these concerns. The ability to place bets anytime, anywhere, and check results instantly via mobile apps has become a compelling factor in online gambling’s growth.
What This Means for the Industry
The battle between traditional and online gambling is not a case of one format overtaking the other but rather an industry adapting to diverse consumer needs. While online gambling offers accessibility and ease of use, traditional betting maintains a stronghold among players who prioritise trust, regulation, and in-person transactions.
This means balancing innovation with credibility for brands, gaming platforms, and financial service providers. The path forward involves:
- Strengthening consumer trust in digital betting platforms through transparency, regulation, and fraud prevention measures.
- Enhancing accessibility for rural players by integrating hybrid betting solutions that combine digital convenience with physical cash-in points.
- Leveraging mobile technology to attract younger bettors while ensuring safe, fair, and responsible gambling practices.
Understanding player motivations and addressing concerns will determine the trajectory of gambling in the Philippines.
The Role of Financial Constraints and Perceived Value
Interestingly, financial constraints play a different role depending on the format. While some gamblers are drawn to online betting for its lower-cost entry points and flexible wagering, others see traditional gambling as a more secure and controlled way to bet.
- Online bettors appreciate the ability to wager small amounts frequently.
- Traditional gamblers, particularly those in lower-income brackets, may view larger, less frequent bets as a more strategic approach.
This distinction reinforces the idea that the gambling industry in the Philippines is not a one-size-fits-all market. Instead, players’ financial situations, risk tolerance, and perceptions of fairness all shape how and where they choose to gamble.
What This Means for Brands and Operators
For gaming companies, fintech firms, and policymakers, understanding what drives gamblers is key to creating responsible, engaging experiences. Our data points to clear opportunities:
- Boost engagement by highlighting jackpot prizes and adding gamification features to online platforms.
- Build trust through stronger transparency, security measures, and regulatory oversight to ease skepticism among traditional bettors.
- Promote responsible gaming with solutions that reflect players’ financial realities, ensuring gambling stays entertainment – not a financial risk.
While the Philippine gambling market evolves, player motivations remain constant: the pursuit of rewards, the need for trust, and easy access. The brands that balance these factors will shape the industry’s future.
Why Online Gambling’s Boom Faces a Trust Hurdle
Online gambling is booming in the Philippines, but trust remains a major roadblock. Mobile-first platforms, e-wallets, and instant access have fueled its growth, yet concerns about fraud, transparency, and weak regulation continue to shape player behavior. For many, loyalty depends not just on convenience but on feeling secure.
From Occasional to Everyday
Online gambling has shifted from a casual pastime to a daily habit for many Filipinos:
- In 2022, 29% of players gambled online daily, averaging three sessions per week.
- By 2023, that number jumped to 39%, with players betting four times a week on average.
This surge reflects the ease of mobile betting and the appeal of quick, cashless transactions. The ability to place bets anytime, anywhere has made online gambling the go-to choice for a growing audience.
Top Online Games and Betting Platforms Are Gaining Traction
As online gambling gains momentum, specific games and platforms have emerged as clear favorites.

The dominance of e-wallet-powered platforms highlights a critical industry trend: cashless gambling is becoming the norm. With e-wallets enabling seamless deposits and withdrawals, players are gravitating toward platforms that offer frictionless transactions.
Trust Issues Are Slowing Online Adoption
Despite the convenience of online betting, skepticism remains a major hurdle. Our study found that:
- 27% of traditional gamblers choose to avoid online betting because they do not trust digital platforms.
- Concerns about scams, unreliable payouts, and unregulated operators are common deterrents.
- Lack of internet access remains a barrier for 14% of players, preventing them from fully transitioning to digital platforms.
For many, the reliability of PCSO-backed traditional games outweighs the accessibility of online gambling. This signals a need for stronger industry regulation, clearer consumer protections, and better fraud prevention measures to build confidence in digital betting platforms.
What This Means for the Industry
The expansion of online gambling in the Philippines hinges on trust, security, and seamless user experience. While mobile-first gaming is gaining popularity, its long-term success will depend on how well operators address consumer concerns.
To sustain growth, industry players must:
- Strengthen regulatory frameworks to increase transparency and consumer confidence.
- Implement advanced fraud detection and security measures to protect players from scams.
- Leverage fintech partnerships to enhance the credibility of digital betting transactions.
- Improve digital accessibility to ensure all players, regardless of location or financial status, can participate safely.
The future of online gambling in the Philippines will not be determined solely by convenience. Building player trust will be the defining factor in whether digital betting platforms can truly dominate the market.
E-Wallets Are Powering the Future of Gambling in the Philippines
The rise of online gambling in the Philippines is closely tied to the rapid adoption of e-wallets, which have become the dominant payment method for digital betting. With seamless deposits, withdrawals, and integration into popular gaming platforms, e-wallets are not just facilitating transactions—they are reshaping how players engage with gambling.
E-Wallets Dominate Online Gambling Transactions
Our study reveals e-wallets have emerged as the preferred payment method for online bettors in the Philippines. Among the most widely used digital wallets in gambling transactions are:
- GCash (GLife, GGames)
- Maya
- Shopee Pay
These platforms have transformed how players fund their accounts, eliminating the need for physical cash transactions and providing faster, more secure payment options.
How Players Fund Their Gambling Accounts
Despite the shift to digital transactions, cash remains a key entry point into the online gambling ecosystem. Players frequently cash in their e-wallets through physical retail locations, including:
- Sari-sari stores that act as informal cash-in hubs.
- Convenience stores where players load funds onto their digital wallets.
- Cash-in machines that allow seamless top-ups.
- Bank transfers for those with formal banking access.
This highlights an important industry dynamic – while gambling is moving online, cash remains an essential part of the ecosystem, particularly in rural areas.
The Link Between Financial Inclusion and Gambling Growth
The success of e-wallets in the gambling industry reflects a broader trend: the growing reliance on fintech solutions among Filipinos. As cashless payments gain traction across retail, transport, and remittances, digital betting platforms benefit from increased trust in mobile transactions.
However, financial inclusion gaps remain a challenge. While many players can access e-wallets, not all can link them to traditional banking services. This explains why alternative cash-in methods like sari-sari stores thrive alongside digital payment solutions.
What This Means for the Industry
The widespread adoption of e-wallets in online gambling presents both opportunities and challenges for industry players:
- For gaming platforms: Streamlining e-wallet integration will be critical in capturing the growing digital-first gambling market.
- For fintech companies: The demand for secure, seamless gambling transactions presents an opportunity for product expansion.
- For policymakers: Striking a balance between financial inclusion and responsible gambling will be key in shaping regulatory frameworks.
The Philippine gambling industry is not just moving online- it is going cashless. As e-wallets become the backbone of digital betting, the ability to build trust, ensure security, and provide seamless user experiences will define the next phase of industry growth.
The Future of Gambling in the Philippines Will Be Shaped by Trust and Innovation
The Philippine gambling industry is driven by digital transformation, shifting player behaviors, and the rise of cashless transactions. While online gambling is expanding, traditional formats remain deeply embedded, particularly among players who prioritise trust and regulatory oversight. The industry’s challenge is not just to grow digital adoption but also to address the concerns of players who remain hesitant about fully transitioning to online platforms.
Key Trends That Will Define the Industry’s Next Phase
Several key trends will shape the future of gambling in the Philippines:
- Hybrid Gambling Models Will Gain Traction
- While online betting is growing, traditional gambling remains resilient. Future growth will likely blend both formats, offering digital solutions that integrate with physical betting locations.
- E-wallet cash-ins through sari-sari stores and convenience shops illustrate how offline and online gambling ecosystems are merging.
- Regulation Will Become a Decisive Factor in Online Gambling’s Growth
- Trust remains a significant barrier for players hesitant to gamble online. Concerns over fraud, unreliable payouts, and scams continue to slow full digital adoption.
- Stronger government oversight and regulation will be necessary to ensure a fair, secure, and transparent betting environment.
- E-Wallets Will Dominate, but Cash Remains Relevant
- The widespread adoption of GCash, Maya, and Shopee Pay in online gambling suggests that cashless transactions will define the industry’s future.
- However, for many lower-income and rural players, cash remains a critical entry point, reinforcing the need for financial inclusion in digital gambling.
- Younger and Urban Gamblers Will Continue to Drive Online Betting
- Metro Manila and younger players are the primary adopters of online gambling, while rural and older bettors still favor traditional formats.
- The industry’s ability to bridge this gap will determine the speed at which digital gambling replaces—or coexists with—traditional betting.
Balancing Growth With Consumer Protection
Gambling in the Philippines will not be defined solely by technological advancements but by how well the industry builds player trust. While fintech innovations and mobile accessibility drive adoption, addressing concerns around fair play, fraud prevention, and responsible gambling will be critical to long-term success.
For gaming operators, financial service providers, and regulators, the focus must be on:
- Ensuring transparency and security in digital betting platforms.
- Creating a seamless bridge between traditional and online gambling.
- Developing consumer protection policies that balance growth with responsible gaming.
Today’s decisions will shape whether digital betting truly takes over or remains a complement to legacy formats. The key to success will lie in offering players a seamless, secure, and rewarding experience wherever and however they choose to place their bets.
Get regular insights
Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

A bold move into familiar territory – will it pay off?
Chipotle’s announcement to open its first restaurant in the country, which inspired its menu, raises eyebrows and expectations. Partnering with Latin American restaurant operator Alsea, the US-based chain is entering a market where culinary authenticity isn’t a differentiator; it’s the starting point. For Chipotle, this market entry isn’t just about expansion. It’s a litmus test: Can a brand that interprets Mexican cuisine resonate with consumers who live and breathe it?
The answer will depend not just on flavor but also on strategy and whether modern tools like hyper-local research and cultural intelligence can bridge the gap between inspiration and expectation.
Lessons From the First Movers
Chipotle isn’t the first American brand to try its luck in Mexico. In 1992, Taco Bell debuted in the country with ambitions just as bold. It launched with localised menu tweaks and a confident footprint, but the venture didn’t last. The brand ultimately withdrew, not because of a lack of visibility or investment, but because the offering didn’t quite land with local palates.
That chapter is often cited in business schools, but rarely for what it truly was: an early experiment in exporting food culture into a market that didn’t ask for it. The reaction underscored a gap between adaptation and resonance that modern market research now works to close.
Starbucks’ early entry into Australia offers a parallel lesson. Despite its global brand power, the company struggled to gain traction in a country with a deeply rooted, independent coffee culture. The issue wasn’t coffee quality; it was a misread of consumer behavior, expectations, and local identity. Like Taco Bell in Mexico, Starbucks in Australia became a case study in how even the most successful brands can stumble without cultural alignment.
It’s not a failure; it’s a framework, a snapshot of how global ambition once outran local alignment.
The Evolution of Market Entry Strategy
When Taco Bell opened in Mexico City in the early ’90s, global expansion followed a different playbook. Brands leaned on instinct, broad profiling, and the belief that what worked in the US would translate with minimal adjustment.
But exporting a concept doesn’t guarantee acceptance. Back then, cultural nuance often took a back seat to operational scale. Research was high-level. Brands made decisions based on economic opportunity, not emotional alignment.
That’s changed. Today, market entry starts with precision—predictive analytics to map taste profiles, behavioral segmentation to decode subcultures, and AI-powered simulations to test concepts before rollout. Tools like geo-targeted taste testing, cultural immersion labs, and brand mapping techniques that track real-time perception shifts are helping brands decode how products will land before they ever hit shelves.
In Chipotle’s case, these tools offer a sharper perspective on what Mexican consumers want and will not tolerate.
What Chipotle Brings to the Table
Chipotle isn’t entering Mexico as a fast-food chain. It is arriving as a brand that’s always walked a fine line: Mexican-inspired, never quite Mexican. Its menu leans into simplicity—burritos, bowls, and tacos built around a few core ingredients. This model resonated with US consumers seeking customisable, ingredient-forward meals. But in Mexico, where flavor, preparation, and regional identity are sacred, that same simplicity may land very differently.
Chipotle is partnering with Alsea to bridge that gap, a strategic move offering far more than logistics. Alsea operates Starbucks, Domino’s, and Burger King in Mexico. Its distribution networks, real estate expertise, and consumer insight pipelines offer Chipotle a turnkey path to localisation.
This isn’t Chipotle’s first time using a partnership-first approach. In 2023, the brand entered the Middle East through an agreement with Alshaya Group, opening restaurants in Kuwait and the UAE. There, too, Chipotle leaned on a local partner to navigate cultural preferences and consumer habits. The result? A thoughtful, localised rollout that aligned Chipotle’s “real food, responsibly sourced” ethos with regional values.
But even with the right partner, Chipotle must tread carefully. Mexican consumers know their cuisine – and they know when they’re being sold a version of it. For Chipotle, the win won’t come from mimicry. It’s not competing with Mexico’s beloved taquerias; it’s introducing a distinctly Americanised take on Mexican food. The challenge? Making that distinction matter.
It’s still unclear whether Chipotle will localise its menu for the Mexican market or keep its US offerings intact, which is an early test of how much flexibility the brand is willing to show. Will the Mexican consumer see Chipotle as a fresh alternative, or a foreign remix of something they already do better?
Chipotle’s international journey hasn’t been without its challenges. The brand has maintained a limited footprint in the UK, with around 20 locations, primarily in London, serving a niche but loyal customer base. While not a breakout success, its measured expansion offers lessons in pacing, positioning, and the importance of location strategy. That experience appears to have informed a more deliberate and partnership-driven approach in newer markets like the Middle East and now, Mexico.
Chipotle will also enter a market with an established and competitive fast-casual ecosystem. Local players like El Fogoncito and international chains like Carl’s Jr. and Subway already cater to urban consumers with varied prices and menu formats. However, the real competition may come from independent taquerias and fondas, neighborhood staples that offer affordable, regional fare with generational credibility. Chipotle must offer not just quality, but a reason to belong in Mexico’s culinary hierarchy.
Cultural Intelligence as a Competitive Edge
Culture isn’t a box to check—it’s the playing field.
The brands that succeed today don’t just bring a product; they bring a point of view. They understand how they’re seen, how authenticity is defined, and which signals matter. Cultural intelligence is the edge that separates a foreign brand from a familiar one.
For Chipotle, entering Mexico means navigating a minefield of expectations, where a single design choice or flavor decision could spark either loyalty or backlash. What looks neutral on paper can carry deep meaning on the plate.
Urban consumers in Mexico are increasingly drawn to brands that balance tradition with health-consciousness, speed, and sustainability – expectations that Chipotle must meet beyond just flavor.
This is where research evolves from insight to assurance. Ethnographic studies, in-market panels, and social listening help brands anticipate friction points before they go live. Cultural intelligence doesn’t guarantee success, but it’s often the only way to earn a second look in heritage markets.
Chipotle executives remain optimistic. The company points to the country’s familiarity with Chipotle’s ingredients and affinity for fresh food as key reasons for expansion. But that framing may miss the heart of the matter. Mexican consumers don’t reject American chains outright – Starbucks and Domino’s enjoy massive success. What they’re wary of is reinterpretation. When it comes to their culinary heritage, familiarity isn’t enough. It is identity. And that’s sacred ground.
All eyes will be on how Mexican consumers respond, because in markets where food is identity, perception can make or break the plan. Early commentary across Mexican business and food media has ranged from curiosity to skepticism, with some questioning whether Chipotle’s version of “authentic” will resonate or fall flat. That tension may be the most accurate test of the brand’s cultural fluency.
The New Rules of Global Brand Expansion
Chipotle’s Mexico debut isn’t just another store opening; it’s a bellwether moment. In markets steeped in cultural pride, success no longer hinges on menu tweaks or marketing spend. It hinges on mindset. Brands must listen, learn, and adapt before launch and long after the doors open.
Around the world, consumers are demanding transparency, local relevance, and cultural respect. They expect brands to reflect their values, not just satisfy their appetites.
The one-size-fits-all era is over. Whether entering heritage markets like Mexico, culturally complex ones like India, or hyper-digitised ones like South Korea, the strategy must start with ground-level intelligence. Brands need to know who their customers are, what they value, and when they feel seen.
In food-driven markets, that also means understanding how flavors, textures, and even aromas trigger emotional and cultural responses. Sensory research – testing taste profiles, mouthfeel, and multisensory experiences with local audiences – is emerging as a critical tool for brands looking to translate offerings across borders. It’s not just about what’s on the menu, but how it feels, smells, and satisfies in context.
The companies that thrive treat research not as a formality but as their competitive edge. Chipotle’s move into Mexico may be a test, but it could also be the new blueprint for global brand growth.
Get regular insights
Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

In cafés from Stockholm to Singapore, something curious is happening to the humble latte. The milk has changed – but the meaning of what’s being poured has changed even more. Oat milk, once a fringe choice in vegan corners of Brooklyn and East London, now commands entire refrigerator shelves in mainstream supermarkets. In London alone, sales of oat milk have more than doubled in recent years, outpacing almond and soy. But its rise has sparked a question with global implications: is this just a Western infatuation – or the beginning of a broader, localised reinvention?
As plant-based milks grow in popularity, they are revealing more than just a shift in taste. They have become markers of identity, class, health politics, and cultural resistance. For younger generations in Western cities, oat milk is as much a badge of sustainability as it is a coffee additive. But in Asia, where soy and coconut milk have been kitchen staples for generations, Western brands often appear as tone-deaf outsiders. In India, almond milk is aspirational, signifying affluence and global awareness. In Japan, flavoured soy milk is sold in vending machines next to corn soup and iced matcha. Each tells a story – not just of diet, but of what progress tastes like in different corners of the world.
The Western Story: When Climate Guilt Meets Café Culture
In the West, plant-based milk has surged from niche to mainstream at breakneck speed. In the UK, oat milk has overtaken almond as the best-selling non-dairy option, with the market valued at over £146 million in 2023 and projected to reach more than £430 million by 2030—a growth trajectory that reflects not just a change in taste, but in values. In the United States, the plant-based milk market has experienced significant growth, with revenue increasing from $2.71 billion in 2024, more than doubling since 2019. This surge reflects a broader trend, as supermarkets now allocate entire aisles to milk alternatives, accommodating the rising consumer demand.
For Gen Z and Millennials, this shift is as much about values as it is about flavour. The rise of “climatarian” diets—eating based on environmental footprint—has positioned oat milk as the virtuous option. It requires far less water than almond milk (48 litres per litre vs. 1,600) and carries a lower carbon footprint than cow’s milk. Among baristas, oat milk’s texture and foam-ability have cemented its status as the café go-to.
But these motivations are not universal. Among Gen X and Boomers, plant-based milk adoption often stems from health concerns—lactose intolerance, cholesterol, weight management—rather than climate ethics. Many still view oat and almond milk as a wellness product, not a moral choice. And the taste? It’s tolerated more than it is loved.
Despite its early momentum, the plant-based milk category in the U.S. is starting to show signs of fatigue. In 2024, sales declined by 5.2%, driven more by inflation-driven price sensitivity than by waning interest. What we’re seeing at Kadence International is that consumers are making sharper trade-offs at the shelf. While oat milk is still seen as on-trend, its pricing—often double that of dairy—has started to generate real resistance.
Image credit: Minor Figures
Minor Figures, a UK-based oat milk brand, has carved out a niche among creative professionals. Its hand-drawn packaging, minimalist design, and carbon-neutral commitment resonate with urban Gen Z. The brand installed oat milk refill stations in eco-minded cafés in East London, turning sustainability into something tangible. Co-founder Stuart Forsyth emphasises their approach: “We want to grow sustainably, we want to grow ethically and just see where this sort of journey takes us.”
Still, even Minor Figures must contend with growing scepticism about “performative sustainability.” A growing share of younger consumers now want traceability—where was it grown? What happens to the packaging? As oat milk begins to look like the new default, the question becomes: what comes after default?
Southeast Asia: Taste First, Sustainability Later
If oat milk is the sustainability symbol of the West, in much of Southeast Asia, it’s still a curiosity—often priced high, unfamiliar in flavor, and positioned more as a lifestyle accessory than a kitchen staple. Here, taste and tradition are still the gatekeepers, and consumer priorities follow a different rhythm.
Soy and coconut milks remain the dominant non-dairy choices across the region. Long before Western plant-based trends took hold, these ingredients were already foundational in Southeast Asian cuisine. From Indonesia’s tempeh to Thailand’s tom kha, from soy puddings in Vietnam to rich coconut-based curries in Malaysia, non-dairy milk isn’t an “alternative”—it’s the original.
Yet, the surge of interest in plant-based eating is not being ignored. The market for dairy alternatives in Southeast Asia hit USD 3 billion in 2024 and is forecast to reach USD 4.1 billion by 2030. But the motivations driving that growth are not always what Western marketers expect.
For urban Gen Z consumers, the shift is being fueled by café culture and aesthetic appeal. In Singapore, Bangkok, and Ho Chi Minh City, oat milk is showing up in third-wave coffee shops, where latte art meets lifestyle branding. The creamy mouthfeel and mild taste of oat milk plays well with espresso, and baristas often frame it as the more “sophisticated” or “global” option. But the price—often two or three times higher than soy or coconut milk—makes it more of a treat than a household switch.
Health and digestion are also central to plant-based appeal. For Millennials balancing fast-paced urban lives with rising wellness awareness, soy milk retains a stronghold due to its protein content and familiarity. It’s not uncommon to see fortified soy drinks marketed for beauty benefits, gut health, or as part of fitness routines.
Among Gen X and Boomers, however, there’s little appetite for novelty. Traditional dairy is still prized, especially in countries like Vietnam, where sweetened condensed milk remains the heart of the national coffee. Coconut milk is not just nostalgic—it’s seen as natural, trusted, and tied to home cooking.
For Western brands attempting to gain traction here, the learning curve is steep. Oatly’s entrance into the region began with Malaysia and Singapore, distributed via speciality grocers and upscale cafés. The company announced in 2022 that Southeast Asia would form a “growth corridor” as part of its Asia expansion. But by 2024, it had shuttered its Singapore production facility to consolidate manufacturing back to Europe—a sign that demand in the region had not yet scaled fast enough to justify local production.
Oatly continues to maintain shelf presence in Singapore, but its growth in the region faces challenges. In December 2024, the company announced the closure of its production facility in Singapore as part of an asset-light supply chain strategy aimed at improving cost structures and reducing capital expenditures. This move reflects broader operational adjustments in response to evolving market dynamics in Asia.
The plant-based milk market in Singapore is becoming increasingly competitive, with local brands like Oatside gaining traction. In June 2023, Flash Coffee announced it would serve Oatside as the default in all milk-based beverages across its 24 outlets in Singapore. This highlights the growing consumer interest in plant-based options and the competitive landscape Oatly faces.
It’s evident that for plant-based products to succeed in Singapore, they must appeal to consumers in both taste and affordability. The sustainability pitch alone often isn’t sufficient; products need to meet consumer expectations in flavour and be competitively priced to gain widespread acceptance.
Local innovation may hold the key. In Thailand, companies are experimenting with rice milk made from surplus grains. In Indonesia, startups are blending coconut and cashew milk to cater to local palates while improving texture. Unlike oat, which has to be imported and processed, these ingredients are homegrown—offering not just flavor familiarity but economic resonance.
The tension in Southeast Asia isn’t whether consumers will adopt plant-based milk—it’s which ones, and why. Taste leads. Price follows. Sustainability, for now, lags behind. But for a younger class raised on Instagram, global branding, and iced matcha oat lattes, the next shift may arrive faster than expected.
Japan: Tradition Meets Innovation
In Japan, plant-based milk isn’t a trend—it’s tradition. Long before Western oat and almond milks arrived on convenience store shelves, soy was already woven into daily life. From tofu to miso to soy-based desserts, the legume’s liquid form has been consumed for centuries—not as a replacement, but as a cultural staple.
This historical baseline gives Japan a unique position in the global plant-based milk story. While much of the West is shifting away from cow’s milk, in Japan, dairy was never dominant to begin with. Lactose intolerance affects approximately 45% of the population to some degree, and the country’s culinary heritage has long favoured plant-based ingredients.
Yet even here, the landscape is shifting—quietly, and with the precision Japan is known for. In 2024, the soy milk segment still made up the overwhelming majority of plant-based milk sales, but oat and almond are inching upward. Projections estimate Japan’s oat milk market will expand from approximately $51.7 million in 2024 to over $163 million by 2033, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 12.6%.
But growth in Japan doesn’t mirror that of its Western counterparts. Oat milk here is not a lifestyle statement. It’s more likely to be encountered in a café serving Nordic-style pastries than in a supermarket fridge. In Tokyo’s upscale coffee districts—Daikanyama, Aoyama, and parts of Shibuya—young professionals are experimenting with oat lattes, but the movement is still niche.
Soy milk is still the default. People are curious about oat milk, but it’s expensive and unfamiliar. Soy is part of the Japanese identity.
Image credit: Marusan
The soy milk aisle in Japan looks nothing like its Western equivalents. There are over 30 flavours of soy milk in most convenience stores—banana, sweet potato, black sesame, and even matcha. Sold in small, colourful cartons, these drinks are as much a snack as a supplement. They appeal across generations and demographics, from school children to business executives.
Almond milk, introduced in earnest in the early 2010s, is viewed as a beauty product as much as a drink—touted for its vitamin E content and its role in “clean eating” routines. It’s marketed in lifestyle magazines and television ads featuring pop stars and Olympic athletes.
So where does that leave oat? Still finding its place. Japanese consumers value texture and subtlety in flavor—qualities that oat milk sometimes struggles to deliver in traditional dishes or teas. But its creamy body is finding fans in the coffee world, and as more cafés experiment with it, familiarity may breed demand.
What’s clear is that plant-based milk in Japan isn’t driven by environmental activism or dietary rebellion. It’s driven by harmony—with the body, with the palate, with the past. While the West frames oat milk as progress, in Japan, progress tastes familiar—it just might be flavoured with yuzu or kinako.
India: Plant-Based Milk as Urban Status and Spiritual Alignment
In India, dairy isn’t just nutrition—it’s ritual. From temple offerings of milk to the everyday comfort of chai with malai, dairy products are woven into the country’s emotional and religious fabric. The white splash in a steel tumbler holds centuries of symbolic weight. So any conversation about plant-based milk here starts not with a health trend, but with the question: what could possibly replace something sacred?
The answer, for now, is: not much—but something is beginning to stir.
India’s plant-based milk market is still young, valued at around USD 50 million in 2024, but it is projected to grow at nearly 15% CAGR over the next six years. That growth, however, is uneven and tells a story less about dietary shifts and more about social signalling.
For Gen Z in India’s metros, plant-based milk is about cruelty-free living, fitness influencers, and Instagrammed morning routines. It’s not uncommon to see “dairy-free” smoothies and almond milk lattes showcased in the digital lives of young professionals in Bengaluru, Delhi, or Mumbai. These consumers often cite animal welfare, clean eating, and compatibility with lactose intolerance—affecting an estimated 60% of the population—as reasons for switching. But the shift is as much aesthetic as it is ethical. Almond milk isn’t just good for you; it looks good in a glass.
Millennials, especially those navigating careers abroad or within cosmopolitan India, are caught between reverence for traditional staples like paneer and ghee, and a rising curiosity about global wellness norms. Many are not rejecting dairy outright, but are experimenting with substitutes during certain meals, fasts, or fitness cycles. The language of Ayurveda also looms large—“easy on digestion,” “balance for pitta”—guiding product marketing and consumer trust.
For Gen X and Boomers, though, the idea of dairy-free milk is still foreign. Cow’s milk is considered pure in Hindu tradition. To deviate from it can feel like cultural heresy, particularly in religious households. Even within vegan circles, spiritual negotiations are common—almond milk in the smoothie, but cow’s milk in the temple.
And yet, there is movement at the margins.
Image credit: Good Mylk Co.
One company pioneering this shift is Goodmylk, a Bengaluru-based startup founded by Abhay Rangan in his teens. The company produces cashew and oat-based milk, peanut curd, and vegan butter. What sets it apart is its insistence on affordability and accessibility. “If we make it premium, we limit who gets to choose it,” Rangan said in an interview. Goodmylk raised $400,000 in seed funding and has focused on scaling without pricing itself out of the Indian middle class.
The brand also localises its innovation. Mung bean and millet-based milks are in development—grains familiar to Indian households, now reimagined for lattes and cereal bowls. This strategy isn’t just functional—it’s cultural. “People trust what they’ve grown up with,” Rangan notes. “If we can use those same ingredients in new ways, we don’t have to change people. We just meet them where they are.”
What India reveals, perhaps more than any other market, is that the future of plant-based milk may not be about substitution—but about addition. The almond milk doesn’t replace the dairy in the chai. It sits next to it in the fridge, as an option, a symbol, a signal of modernity. Milk, in this context, is not just nourishment. It’s narrative.
Cross-Cultural Observations: What Tastes Like Progress?
From Bangkok cafés to Berlin grocery aisles, plant-based milk carries different meanings depending on where you are—and who you ask. To understand the global arc of milk alternatives, it’s not enough to look at adoption rates. You have to ask what each product represents in a cultural context. Because in the world of milk, progress has many flavours.
In the UK, oat milk has become shorthand for ethical living. It’s the fuel of the “climatarian”—those who select food based on its carbon footprint. It helps that oats grow abundantly in Europe and require far less water than almonds. But this is also about optics. Oat milk in a flat white signals something specific: sustainability without sacrifice. It says, “I’m paying attention.”
In Japan, soy milk is the opposite of a trend—it’s a staple. You’ll find banana soy milk in vending machines, black sesame soy in school lunch trays, and unflavored soy behind the counter of every ramen bar. Oat milk, by contrast, is a foreigner: imported, expensive, and still largely a café novelty. Where Western markets romanticise innovation, Japan reveres the familiar.
In India, almond milk is climbing—but it’s doing so as a marker of status. Its presence in a smoothie bowl or a vegan café menu connotes wellness, modernity, and a kind of cosmopolitan sophistication. It’s aspirational, not essential. Meanwhile, mung bean and millet milks are emerging quietly from startups like Goodmylk, using ingredients that feel both futuristic and deeply local.
In Southeast Asia, coconut milk is tradition in liquid form. It’s thick, aromatic, and the base of comfort food across generations. Oat milk, by comparison, is still figuring out how to earn trust—or at least a spot in the fridge. Soy milk, sold sweet and chilled at street stalls and in grocery chains, continues to dominate the category for its price, protein, and familiarity.
And then there’s the matter of price. Across nearly every market, oat milk carries a premium—often double or triple the price of cow’s milk, and far more than local alternatives. In the UK, it retails for £1.90 per litre compared to £1.20 for dairy. In Southeast Asia, import costs push oat milk into the realm of aspirational indulgence.
This price disparity cuts to the heart of a growing identity tension: who gets to eat for the planet? In many regions, sustainability remains a luxury. And with that, a subtle backlash is brewing against the Westernisation of food. Consumers in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are increasingly questioning why “plant-based” must mean foreign, expensive, and out of touch with local ecosystems.As these questions simmer, the most forward-thinking brands aren’t scaling Western models—they’re turning inward. Instead of exporting oat milk to Jakarta or Mumbai, they’re asking: what’s already growing here? And how do we make that the new norm?
Get regular insights
Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Global demand for chocolate is rising, even as consumer concern over sugar, processed foods and wellness reaches new heights. Across the UK, the US, and key Asian markets, confectionery companies are reporting growth not just in premium segments, but also in functional and “better-for-you” formulations once considered niche.
The shift reflects a broader recalibration of what indulgence means in the modern marketplace. Shoppers are eating less in volume but paying more for chocolate that aligns with evolving personal values-whether that means fewer ingredients, higher cocoa content, or the addition of protein and adaptogens.
Multinational players and local upstarts alike are moving quickly to capture this redefined sweet spot. In the US, dark and portion-controlled chocolates are gaining share despite higher prices. In the UK, new regulations on high-sugar foods have prompted a wave of reformulation and repositioning. And in Asia, where per capita consumption remains relatively low, demand is accelerating as chocolate becomes both an aspirational treat and a vessel for functional benefits.
For an industry once synonymous with excess, chocolate is proving remarkably adaptive. What was once a discretionary snack is now being repackaged as self-care-and that subtle shift in perception is proving to be a powerful driver of growth.
A Global Market Defying Expectations
Chocolate’s commercial momentum is not just anecdotal – it’s backed by hard numbers that defy nutritional orthodoxy. While public health messaging around sugar reduction has grown louder, global retail sales of chocolate continue to expand, particularly in markets where health consciousness and affluence are rising in tandem.
Recent industry estimates place global chocolate confectionery sales at around US$130 billion, with steady value growth driven by pricing power, premiumisation, and consumer appetite for smaller, higher-quality products. In contrast to other processed snack categories, chocolate has retained pricing resilience and cultural relevance – often viewed not as a vice, but as an acceptable reward.
In mature markets like the United States and the United Kingdom, manufacturers are offsetting flat or declining volumes with premium offerings, clean-label positioning, and targeted innovation. In the US, even as unit sales dipped last year, dollar sales rose. UK consumers, faced with inflation and regulatory pressure on high-fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) products, are adjusting by buying smaller formats or turning to private-label options – but they haven’t walked away from the category.
In Asia, the story is different. Markets like China and Singapore are seeing growing interest in chocolate, particularly among urban, middle-class consumers. Premium brands, often imported, are benefiting from rising disposable income and a gifting culture that values quality and presentation. Even in Japan, where the market has been contracting, companies are finding ways to win back consumers through functional formulations and high cocoa content offerings.
Whether as comfort, status symbol, or perceived health supplement, chocolate’s role is being redefined. And with that reframing comes an expansion in both who is buying – and why.
Changing Consumer Drivers
The growth in chocolate sales isn’t coming from nostalgia alone. It reflects a more nuanced shift in consumer mindset – one that doesn’t reject indulgence, but instead reclassifies it. Chocolate is increasingly seen as compatible with modern lifestyles, not in spite of its decadence but because of how consumers are redefining what balance looks like.
Across markets, there is growing tolerance – even encouragement – for what industry analysts term “permissible indulgence.” Rather than eliminating treats, consumers are looking for control: smaller portions, higher cocoa content, and labels that read more like pantry ingredients than chemistry sets. In the UK, more than a third of chocolate consumers say they are consciously limiting sugar – but not abstaining entirely. In the US, 91% say they’re willing to pay more for chocolate that feels like a personal reward.
What has changed is the framing. Where chocolate once sat squarely in the category of “guilty pleasures,” it’s now more likely to be marketed as self-care. Brands have responded with messaging that leans on mood, mindfulness, and mental health – themes that resonate particularly well with millennial and Gen Z consumers. In Asia, products with added collagen or calming botanicals are performing strongly, positioned as part of a broader wellness routine.
Functionality is part of the equation. But just as important is the emotional rationale. In a volatile global climate, consumers are granting themselves small indulgences, so long as they carry a justification – be it clean ingredients, health benefits, or sustainability claims. Chocolate, perhaps more than any other treat, has adapted to meet that need without losing its core appeal.
Market | Primary Positioning | Trending Segments | Notable Retail Behavior |
US | Indulgence-first | Dark, functional, protein-added | Portion control, DTC growth |
UK | Sustainability/Moderation | Plant-based, lower sugar, private label | HFSS-regulated placement, ethical labels |
Japan | Functional-first | Stress-relief, GABA, polyphenols | Mini packs, convenience store dominance |
China | Premium & Aspirational | Imported brands, gift sets | Gifting culture, boutique speciality retail |
Singapore | Luxury meets wellness | Vegan, single-origin, no added sugar | Gifting culture, boutique specialty retail |
Innovation in Product Development
Much of chocolate’s resilience can be traced to how aggressively manufacturers have innovated in recent years. The category has undergone a quiet but significant transformation, with R&D efforts focused on meeting modern expectations around health, quality, and purpose.
Product reformulation is now a baseline strategy. Across the UK and parts of Europe, pressure from HFSS regulations and consumer advocacy groups has accelerated the development of lower-sugar alternatives. Major brands, including Mondelēz and Nestlé, have introduced chocolate lines with 30% less sugar, while also cutting artificial additives and using alternative sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit. In the US, Hershey has expanded its zero-sugar range and invested in cleaner labels across its mainstream portfolio.
The fastest-growing segment, however, isn’t necessarily lower in sugar – it’s higher in cocoa. Dark chocolate continues to outperform traditional milk variants, buoyed by its association with antioxidants, reduced sugar, and a more “sophisticated” profile. Lindt & Sprüngli, Ferrero, and other global players have reported strong growth in dark chocolate sales across both Western and Asian markets, supported by expanding ranges with cocoa content of 70% and above.
In Asia, innovation has taken a more functional route. Japanese confectioners, long known for their product precision, have introduced chocolate fortified with stress-reducing botanicals, dietary fibre, and even blood pressure–supporting polyphenols. In China, new launches incorporate traditional ingredients like ginseng or goji berries, often positioned as “balance-enhancing” or “body-friendly.”
At the premium end, smaller brands are leading with single-origin sourcing, artisanal techniques, and clean-label credentials. Their appeal lies not just in purity of ingredients but in transparency – with packaging that highlights cocoa origin, ethical certification, and handcrafted quality. These innovations are helping redefine chocolate as not just permissible, but aspirational – a snack that delivers on taste, health alignment, and brand values simultaneously.
Some of the most telling examples of how chocolate makers are evolving come from established players experimenting beyond their traditional formulas.
In the UK, Mondelēz launched the Cadbury Plant Bar, a vegan version of its flagship Dairy Milk, using almond paste in place of dairy. The move marked the brand’s first foray into plant-based chocolate in nearly two centuries of operation, reflecting not just a shift in ingredients, but a broader strategy to reach flexitarian consumers. While still a small part of total sales, the Plant Bar represents a growing segment within confectionery where plant-based credentials are seen as a proxy for health, ethics, and modernity.
In the United States, Hu Kitchen has carved out a loyal following by doing less. Its clean-label chocolate bars – free from dairy, refined sugar, palm oil, lecithins, and emulsifiers – have thrived in premium health retailers and online marketplaces. The brand’s minimalist packaging and “Get Back to Human” tagline struck a chord with consumers seeking indulgence without compromise. Hu’s rapid success led to its acquisition by Mondelēz in 2021, underscoring how legacy players are using startup acquisitions to absorb innovation.
In Japan, functionality is a competitive advantage. Meiji’s “The Chocolate” line and Lotte’s “GABA-infused” chocolates target adult consumers seeking both pleasure and health benefits. GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid), a naturally occurring neurotransmitter linked to stress reduction, is featured prominently in Lotte’s marketing, tapping into Japan’s growing demand for mood-supportive snacks. These products are often sold in convenience stores – not as candy, but as part of the functional food aisle.
Taken together, these cases illustrate how manufacturers are navigating a more complex chocolate landscape – where taste is non-negotiable, but health cues, ingredient ethics, and wellness positioning are becoming essential to growth.
Packaging and Positioning as Strategy
As much as product formulation has shifted, so too has the way chocolate is presented – and that evolution is proving just as important in driving consumer uptake. Packaging and messaging have become strategic tools in redefining how chocolate fits into a health-conscious lifestyle. In many cases, what’s on the outside of the bar is doing just as much work as what’s inside it.
One of the most noticeable changes across global markets is the move away from traditional share-size formats toward portion-controlled, individually wrapped offerings. Whether driven by calorie-conscious consumers or regulatory nudges, this shift aligns with broader health narratives. Smaller sizes are marketed not as a cutback, but as a mindful choice. In the UK, major supermarkets have reorganised confectionery aisles to prioritise “treatwise” options, while in Japan and Singapore, individually wrapped squares dominate shelves, reinforcing the idea of moderation and intentionality.
At the premium end of the market, design language has also evolved. Brands are increasingly leaning on matte finishes, minimalist typography, and earthy colour palettes to signal quality and modernity. Sustainable packaging has become a competitive differentiator: compostable wrappers, recyclable boxes, and carbon-neutral claims are now common among premium and artisanal brands. According to NielsenIQ, 72% of global consumers say they’re willing to pay more for products that offer sustainable packaging, and confectionery is no exception. In the UK, where eco-consciousness is deeply embedded in consumer decision-making, this has helped smaller brands gain traction.
Equally important is the messaging printed on the front of pack. Chocolate makers are experimenting with a vocabulary that reshapes indulgence into alignment with health, ethics, or personal care. Terms like “source of antioxidants,” “plant-based,” “no added sugar,” and “ethically sourced cacao” are increasingly used to build trust and justify premium pricing. In Asia, functional benefits take centre stage, with Japanese and South Korean brands promoting relaxation, cognitive support, and gut health directly on packaging. In the US, mood-related cues – “energy,” “calm,” or “focus” – are finding their way onto wrappers once reserved for novelty slogans.
What’s striking is how positioning diverges across markets, reflecting local consumer priorities. In the United States, chocolate is still framed primarily around indulgence, but with an upgraded narrative: it’s an “earned” treat, often marketed with language around self-reward and quality ingredients. In Japan, functionality leads, with packaging that emphasises health outcomes and precision. In the UK, sustainability and transparency are front and centre, with brands competing on cocoa sourcing, packaging recyclability, and sugar reduction metrics.
For multinationals, adapting packaging and messaging to these local nuances has become essential. What resonates in a Los Angeles health food store may not land in a Tokyo pharmacy or a London high street supermarket. But across all regions, the direction is clear: chocolate is no longer sold simply as a sweet. It is being positioned as a curated experience – one that reflects the consumer’s lifestyle, values, and desired level of indulgence.
Regulatory and Retail Landscape
As health concerns reshape consumer expectations, regulatory bodies and retailers are playing a growing role in influencing how, where, and what kind of chocolate is sold. Far from slowing the category, these shifts are prompting structural changes in how brands operate – from formulation to shelf placement.
In the United Kingdom, one of the most ambitious regulatory efforts has been the government’s restriction on the promotion of high-fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) products. Since October 2022, chocolate and other confectionery brands have faced limitations on prominent in-store placements such as aisle ends and checkouts, along with bans on advertising HFSS products during primetime TV and online slots aimed at children. While critics initially forecast a sharp decline in impulse sales, early results from Kantar suggest a more nuanced picture: some volume loss has occurred, but consumers are increasingly switching to HFSS-compliant versions or smaller-format treats that are still allowed in high-traffic zones. Brands that anticipated these changes – either by reformulating or launching reduced-sugar SKUs – have retained shelf visibility and sales stability.
Retail strategy is also evolving in response to both regulation and pandemic-era behavioural shifts. The rise of direct-to-consumer (DTC) models and online artisanal chocolate brands has created a new layer of competition. In the United States, premium players like Dandelion Chocolate and Raaka have built thriving businesses selling craft bars online, complete with subscription models and seasonal releases. In Asia, particularly Singapore and South Korea, social commerce and messaging platforms are enabling local chocolatiers to bypass traditional retail entirely.
At the same time, speciality health retailers such as Whole Foods, Planet Organic, and iHerb have expanded their chocolate assortments, focusing on functional, low-sugar, and vegan options. Their merchandising strategies give these products front-facing visibility – a stark contrast to conventional supermarkets, where legacy brands still dominate shelf space.
Traditional grocers are responding. IGD data shows that major supermarket chains in Europe and Asia are reallocating shelf space toward “better-for-you” indulgences, particularly as demand grows for low-sugar and plant-based chocolate. Some are trialling “wellness treat” zones, while others are integrating chocolate into broader health-and-lifestyle aisles – a sign that chocolate’s category boundaries are shifting.
Taken together, these developments point to a category in flux – not shrinking, but reshaping. Chocolate remains a high-frequency purchase, but how it’s discovered, promoted, and purchased is changing rapidly, driven by policy, platform, and purpose.
Market Outlook and Investment Trends
Chocolate’s continued growth in a health-conscious world is not an anomaly. It is a lesson in the malleability of consumer perception – and a case study in how legacy categories can evolve when indulgence is repackaged as alignment with personal values.
From an investment standpoint, this has not gone unnoticed. The past five years have seen a wave of M&A activity as global FMCG players seek to future-proof their portfolios. Mondelēz’s acquisitions of Hu Kitchen and Lily’s, Mars’ purchase of KIND and Trü Frü, and Nestlé’s investments in functional and plant-based startups reflect a strategic shift: legacy companies are buying their way into health-aligned chocolate because they understand that future growth lies at the intersection of taste, wellness, and ethics.
At the same time, private label competition is intensifying, particularly in markets like the UK and Asia. As inflation pressures persist, consumers are increasingly opting for supermarket-owned brands that deliver on price without abandoning claims like “ethical sourcing” or “no artificial ingredients.” Retailers are capitalising on this, not only by expanding their own lines but also by positioning them as premium, narrowing the gap between store brand and artisanal in both packaging and provenance. In the UK, Tesco’s and Sainsbury’s premium private label chocolates now include single-origin and vegan lines. In Asia, Don Quijote has become a bellwether for how convenience and quality can coexist, with curated chocolate assortments from both domestic and imported brands.
The bigger question is whether the category can continue to bridge the tension between health and indulgence. All signs point to yes – but not without nuance. The hybridisation of chocolate is likely to continue: functional ingredients will gain ground, especially those linked to mental wellness, gut health, and energy support. Meanwhile, classic indulgence will persist, albeit in cleaner formats and more restrained sizes. Consumers are not abandoning pleasure; they are recalibrating it.
The success of chocolate in this new era lies in its emotional elasticity. It can be a gift, a ritual, a moment of calm, or a functional snack – sometimes all at once. Unlike many processed food categories that struggle to justify their place in a health-first world, chocolate has managed to make itself feel essential. That is not just clever marketing; it’s a deep understanding of how modern consumers make trade-offs. They don’t want to eliminate joy – they want to justify it.
For investors, that makes chocolate a rare thing in today’s food landscape: a category with legacy scale, emotional equity, and evolving relevance. For brands, the challenge now is not to follow fads, but to build trust, deliver on new expectations, and never forget that taste is still the gatekeeper. The future of chocolate will belong to those who understand that indulgence and intention are no longer opposites – they are partners in modern consumerism.
Get regular insights
Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

The global tech retail market is slowing. Consumers who once chased every new release are now holding off, thinking harder, and stretching upgrade cycles across devices – from phones to wearables to home tech. What’s changed isn’t just price sensitivity; it’s mindset. The old rhythm of new-for-new’s sake is being replaced by a more deliberate calculation: Is this upgrade worth it?
Behind that shift are macroeconomic pressures that haven’t let up. Interest rates remain high, currencies are volatile, and fresh tariffs – particularly between the US and China – are reshaping buying decisions. Even the major players are feeling it. Apple posted a year-on-year decline in iPhone sales, while Samsung saw a temporary lift as consumers rushed to buy ahead of expected price hikes. In both cases, caution, not innovation, drove behaviour.
The shift is generational too. Gen Z, long viewed as the frontline for early tech adoption, is starting to show signs of saturation. They still care about technology – but now they’re weighing durability, repairability, and long-term functionality over simply owning the newest device. The behavior is less impulsive, more selective.
This isn’t a rejection of innovation. It’s a recalibration. And it has real implications for how the world’s biggest technology companies market, price, and position their next wave of products.
The Shrinking Upgrade Window
Consumers aren’t replacing their tech as often as they used to. The once-standard two-year smartphone upgrade has stretched into a multi-year wait, with buyers holding onto devices for longer – sometimes much longer. It’s not just caution in a soft economy; it’s a growing sense that new releases simply aren’t offering enough to warrant the swap.
At Verizon, leadership recently acknowledged the shift. The average smartphone replacement cycle has crept past 3.5 years, a far cry from the predictable two-year rhythm that once drove steady sales. Apple users, too, are waiting longer, with data showing a noticeable lengthening of ownership compared to five years ago. It’s a trend driven partly by pricing, partly by the reality that last year’s model is still more than good enough.
Laptops are on a similar track. The three- to five-year refresh cycle is no longer a given. Consumers are holding off until their machines physically break or performance lags in a noticeable way. Best Buy’s CEO recently pointed to a lack of meaningful innovation as a reason buyers aren’t feeling urgency. And with cloud computing and browser-based software doing more of the heavy lifting, the need for higher-end specs is flattening for everyday users.
Televisions, too, are staying in homes longer. Improvements in display technology have plateaued from a consumer benefit perspective, and with software updates extending the life of streaming-enabled TVs, most households see no need to upgrade unless there’s a failure. Brands that offer long-term software support – up to seven years in some cases – are winning loyalty from customers who prefer durability over dazzle.
Even wearables, a category once defined by rapid iteration, are feeling the shift. Consumers are growing more selective, favouring meaningful innovation like medical-grade sensors or long battery life over iterative changes in design or interface. Replacement cycles are expanding, especially as prices climb and expectations rise.
In Southeast Asia, a surge in mid-tier smartphones is driving sales, suggesting buyers still want new tech – but they want it to stretch further. In contrast, consumers in the US and UK are sticking with their devices for three or four years, increasingly weighing whether an upgrade will deliver genuine daily impact.
Economic Pressures Meet Consumer Pragmatism
Inflation has eased slightly in some markets but remains a persistent factor shaping consumer behaviour worldwide. In the US and UK, interest rates remain elevated, keeping credit card debt expensive and discretionary spending under pressure. Across Europe and Japan, wages have struggled to keep pace with core price increases, dampening retail confidence. And in high-growth regions like Southeast Asia, India, and China, economic uncertainty is pushing consumers toward more deliberate purchase decisions.
In the US, the impact is already visible. Retailers are reporting softer demand in key electronics categories, while store traffic has declined year-on-year. Online, browsing activity remains strong, but cart abandonment is climbing – particularly for products over the $500 mark. It’s not that consumers aren’t interested; they’re just taking longer to commit. The same story is playing out in the UK, where buyers are increasingly opting for refurbished tech, financing options, or delaying non-essential upgrades entirely.
In India and Southeast Asia, frugality doesn’t mean silence – it means selectivity. Consumers are still engaging, but through a different lens. Mid-tier smartphones and high-functionality budget laptops are outperforming premium models. Retailers in these markets report growing traction for bundled offers and longer warranty terms, as value and reliability edge out brand prestige.
Indonesia offers one of the clearest signals of this recalibrated mindset. Consumers there continue to spend, but with more scrutiny. Brand loyalty is softening, and trial is rising – especially for newer entrants that offer durability and local relevance. Many shoppers are trading up slowly, looking for technology that serves multiple roles, rather than devices that signal status or trend.
China, long a bellwether for tech enthusiasm, has shown uneven recovery in the retail sector. Urban consumers remain engaged, but rural and lower-tier city shoppers are increasingly budget-conscious. Brands with local manufacturing and flexible pricing structures are gaining share.
In Japan, where tech adoption tends to skew practical, the economic slowdown has reinforced existing behaviours. Consumers are delaying replacements, relying more on service programs, and opting for features that serve real lifestyle utility – especially among older demographics.
Retailers and manufacturers across all regions are adjusting accordingly. In-store messaging is shifting from “newest” to “smartest.” Online platforms are pushing price-match guarantees, extended return periods, and loyalty perks over flash launches. What used to be a race for innovation has become a contest of value – and the companies that acknowledge that shift early are seeing steadier results.
Gen Z Hits Pause
For years, Gen Z was seen as the tech industry’s sure bet – the cohort most likely to queue for launches, post the unboxing, and evangelise the next upgrade. But the momentum has shifted. While their interest in technology hasn’t faded, their expectations have evolved. Now, the question isn’t “what’s new?” but “what fits?”
Rising costs have played a role, but this is more than economics. It’s a cultural recalibration. Among younger consumers, there’s a growing rejection of hyper-consumption in favour of intentionality. The latest phone isn’t an automatic buy. The better question is whether it adds something meaningful to life – fewer Gen Z consumers are upgrading for status alone.
That shift is fuelling the refurbished and secondhand tech market, which has seen steady growth in the US, UK, and across Southeast Asia. Platforms offering certified pre-owned devices, especially smartphones and laptops, are seeing strong engagement from younger demographics. For many, it’s not just about price – it’s about extending the life of a product and avoiding unnecessary waste.
Aesthetic trends are moving in parallel. There’s a rise in what some in the industry are calling “tech quiet luxury” – products that prioritise function, minimalism, and long-term reliability over flash. Sleek, understated design is winning out over bold colours or feature overload. The appeal lies in gear that integrates cleanly into life, not tech that dominates it.
Online, the social narrative is shifting too. Gen Z’s digital footprint shows less excitement around launch-day content and more focus on utility. The rise of “why I didn’t upgrade” posts is telling. Influencers now get traction by explaining how they kept the same phone for four years, or why buying secondhand was the smarter move. The underlying message isn’t anti-tech – it’s pro-agency.
Brands are adjusting their messaging in kind. Marketing language has toned down the superlatives. Features are framed around real-life relevance – sleep tracking for mental health, battery life that actually lasts a weekend, cameras that work well in low light for night outs. There’s less interest in what a device can do, and more focus on what it should do, consistently.
Why Selling Smarter Is the New Selling Faster
Retailers and manufacturers are no longer assuming the upgrade cycle will take care of itself. As consumers grow more cautious with their tech spending, the industry is adapting – not by accelerating the push for newness, but by reengineering the value proposition.
Trade-in programs are now a core feature of the sales funnel. In the US and UK, major electronics chains have expanded their platforms to offer instant credit for used devices, with bonuses tied to specific models or upgrade windows. The aim isn’t just to incentivise sales, but to soften the sticker shock and signal circular value. In India, trade-ins have gone further. E-commerce platforms have introduced programs that accept non-functional phones and appliances – opening up access to affordable upgrades even for consumers sitting on obsolete tech.
Manufacturers are adjusting their product mix in parallel. Samsung’s A-series smartphones have become a centrepiece of the brand’s value-tier portfolio, offering everyday functionality without the premium markup. Apple, long a symbol of high-end exclusivity, is now leaning into the same logic. The latest iteration of its SE line – and more recently, the iPhone 16e – has quietly outperformed expectations, especially among younger buyers and in cost-sensitive markets.
Support for longer device life is becoming a differentiator. Retailers are offering extended warranties, low-cost protection plans, and – critically – greater support for self-service repair. The “right to repair” movement, once niche, has reached mainstream awareness in the US and Europe, pushing brands to make replacement parts and documentation publicly available. Some have gone further, offering repair kits and in-store diagnostics to extend product life without voiding warranties.
In Southeast Asia, telcos and electronics retailers are updating their messaging to meet the moment. Campaigns that once emphasised speed, camera quality, or size now lean into durability, battery longevity, and environmental impact. Flipkart, for instance, has repositioned its marketing language to speak to responsibility, not just features. These aren’t surface-level tweaks – they’re recalibrations shaped by a consumer mood that’s moved past launch-day glitz in favour of durability and long-term value.
Retailers that can respond to this shift without undermining revenue goals are likely to retain customer loyalty. The challenge now is delivering upgrades that feel earned, not obligatory – and that means competing not just on innovation, but on usefulness and trust.
Innovation Isn’t Dead. But It’s on Trial.
The appetite for innovation isn’t gone – it’s just more selective. As upgrade cycles stretch and wallets tighten, consumers are no longer lured by incremental improvements. They’re still willing to invest in technology, but only when the payoff feels tangible.
Devices that deliver clear, differentiated value are still commanding attention. Foldables, once a novelty, have matured into a legitimate category. Samsung’s Galaxy Z Flip and Fold lines continue to draw interest, not just for the form factor, but for the utility – larger displays in a pocket-sized profile, and new modes of productivity. Google’s Pixel 8 Pro, powered by its custom Tensor chip, is earning traction for its AI-driven tools that enhance real-world usage – from call screening to image editing – without relying on buzzwords.
Apple’s Vision Pro, meanwhile, may not be a mass-market product yet, but it offers a case study in how anticipation builds when the innovation is clear. Its launch was met with skepticism on price, but its mixed-reality interface and potential as a new computing platform still turned heads. Early adopters aren’t buying features – they’re buying futures.
What’s changed is the level of scrutiny. Consumers aren’t rejecting high-end tech; they’re applying higher standards. Battery life must hold up in real use, not just lab tests. Cameras must perform in varied conditions, not just daylight. AI features need to do something meaningful, not just inflate a spec sheet.
That’s changing the language of marketing. Across the US, UK, and Asia, brands are pulling back on superlatives and pushing use cases. Proof-of-benefit now matters more than megapixel counts or processing speeds. Instead of promoting what’s new, marketers are being forced to answer, “Why now?”
For companies that can deliver answers that resonate – whether through new form factors, smarter chips, or lifestyle utility – there’s still room to win. But unlike before, consumers aren’t just asking whether something works. They’re asking if it’s worth disrupting their routine for.
Global Trends in Divergence
While the broader trajectory of tech consumption is moving toward caution and selectivity, the pace and shape of that shift varies across markets. Cultural norms, economic stability, and consumer trust in brands all play a role in how – and when – people decide to upgrade.
In the US, the shift has been shaped by economic pressure and high consumer debt. Shoppers are taking longer to replace their devices, with the average upgrade cycle now stretching to 3.5 years. Refurbished phones and lower-tier models are gaining traction, especially among Gen Z and older millennials. Brand loyalty remains strong, but purchase decisions are being filtered through a sharper value lens.
The UK follows a similar pattern, though with more aggressive adoption of SIM-only plans and long-term laptop use. Brand messaging emphasises durability and repairability more, and buyers are more willing to switch between ecosystems if they perceive better value.
In Japan, where consumer electronics are deeply embedded into everyday life, the trend is even more conservative. Many households prefer to maintain well-functioning older devices, especially in categories like home tech. The appetite for premium remains – but only if it’s built to last.
Emerging markets present a more nuanced picture. In India and Indonesia, demand continues to grow, but through a pragmatic filter. Consumers still want to upgrade, but they’re making trade-offs between features and affordability. Entry-level and mid-range Android models dominate, and demand for value-driven smart TVs is rising. Device repair shops are also thriving, offering affordable fixes that extend product life.
Germany reflects yet another dimension – green consciousness. There, sustainability is not just an ethical add-on; it’s a purchase driver. Consumers are increasingly seeking eco-certified products, energy efficiency, and software support that extends a product’s usable life.
These regional divergences remind us that consumer behaviour doesn’t shift in a straight line. Global brands must not only read the macro trends, but understand the local motivations underneath them.
Regional Snapshot
Region | Consumer Sentiment | Average Upgrade Cycle | Popular Segments |
US | Cautious | 3.5 years | Budget, Refurbished |
UK | Value-driven | 3 years | Sim-only phones, Laptops |
Japan | Conservative | 4–5 years | Home tech, Premium older models |
India | Mixed | 2–3 years | Mid-range Android, TVs |
Indonesia | Budget-first | 2–3 years | Entry smartphones, Repairs |
Germany | Green-conscious | 4 years | Eco-friendly, Long-life gear |
The Next Era of Tech Retail Is Measured, Not Mass-Market
The slowdown in tech upgrades isn’t a phase. It’s a reckoning. Consumers are no longer buying into the rhythm of annual releases and short-term novelty. The next era of consumer tech will be defined not by what’s new, but by what’s necessary – and by how well brands can prove their relevance beyond launch day.
The companies that will thrive over the next five years aren’t the ones with the biggest product pipeline. They’re the ones building around lifecycle value – prioritising modularity, software longevity, and service ecosystems that extend the relationship between user and device. Subscription-based diagnostics, AI-powered support, and upgradeable components are already reshaping how loyalty is earned – and how revenue is sustained without constant churn.
It’s a shift in strategic fundamentals. Margins may compress as consumers stretch the life of their hardware, but brands that invest in intelligent add-ons, system integration, and health or sustainability functionality will find new pathways to relevance. A camera upgrade isn’t enough. Neither is a new colour. If it doesn’t serve a deeper role in how we manage health, reduce waste, or improve everyday decision-making, it won’t pass the new test of value.
That also means guesswork is no longer good enough. The consumer calculus is changing fast, and brands need real insight – beyond sentiment, beyond surveys. They need to know who’s holding back, why they’re hesitating, and what would tip the balance. That’s where market research steps forward – not as validation, but as vision.
We’re not watching a slowdown. We’re witnessing a reset. The expectations have changed, the thresholds have risen, and the reward now goes to those who understand behaviour before it hits the balance sheet.
I’d frame it this way: the most powerful upgrade a brand can offer today isn’t a new feature – it’s foresight.
Get regular insights
Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

As households pull back on travel, fashion, and tech upgrades, one category remains oddly resilient: pet care. UK pet spending rose by 3.2% in volume in Q1 2024, even as overall consumer goods slowed. In the US, Chewy’s latest earnings show revenue up 5.6% year over year. Globally, this category isn’t just weathering economic pressure – it’s gaining strength.
What the Numbers Say Around the World
Pet spending continues to grow in markets where most discretionary categories are flat or falling. In Asia, it’s becoming a proxy for emotional investment, household identity, and lifestyle shifts.
China’s pet care market reached $13.6 billion in 2023, nearly double its size in 2018. Growth is strongest among younger consumers in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, where pets increasingly replace traditional family roles. Brands are competing on transparency, nutrition, and health—not just aesthetics.
In Japan, pet ownership has plateaued, but spending per pet is rising – especially in the senior care segment. One in three dogs is now elderly. Owners are investing in supplements, mobility products, and pet monitoring tech. High insurance uptake and new health startups reflect a market shaped by the ageing of both pets and owners.
India’s market is now worth over $1 billion and growing at 20% annually. Urban consumers are moving from basic kibble to breed-specific diets, vet-on-call platforms, and DTC food brands. In Tier 1 cities, pets are increasingly seen as dependents.
Southeast Asia is surging. In Indonesia, halal-certified pet food is expanding fast among Gen Z and millennial Muslim households. In Singapore, pet-friendly condo designs and bundled digital pet services are reshaping the urban pet economy.
In each market, pet care is performing well and outperforming adjacent categories. Brands tracking the future of loyalty would do well to start here.
The Rise of the Pet-First Household
Pets are no longer peripheral. In many markets, they’ve become central. Budgets reflect it. So do routines, relationships, and expectations.
In the UK and US, Millennials and Gen Z are treating pets more like dependents than companions. For many, a pet arrives before a partner or child. This shift in household dynamics is reshaping spending habits. Food quality, preventative care, and even birthday celebrations are now routine.
In Japan, pets are becoming emotional anchors. The demand for stimulation toys, wearable monitors, and products for elderly animals reflects the number of owners who are filling care roles with pets.
In India and Indonesia, dogs and cats are now common in middle-class homes. In India, new pet parents are opting for nutrition consults and digital vet services early. In Indonesia, younger Muslim owners prioritise halal compliance, placing cultural fit on par with cost.
In space-constrained cities like Singapore, developers are building in pet zones. Condos market dog parks as amenities. Consumers may cut back on dining out, but continue spending on wellness plans for pets.
What Gets Cut, What Gets Kept
Inflation and higher interest rates have reshaped household budgets. Travel is down, tech purchases are delayed, and dining out has slowed, but pet care continues to hold firm.
In Japan, electronics and beauty are slipping, but veterinary visits remain consistent. In the UK, shoppers skip fashion but keep pet subscriptions. In the US, gym memberships decline while wellness spend on pets holds steady.
In India, mid-premium pet brands are outperforming projections. First-time owners are forming habits early and holding to them. In rural areas, cutbacks tend to hit entertainment before pet goods.
In Southeast Asia, households are scaling back on bulk essentials but still keeping up with pet care. Singaporeans are delaying home upgrades while renewing grooming memberships and upgrading pet tech.
These aren’t luxuries. They’re anchored in attachment. And that makes them more durable than many price-driven categories.
Brands and Retailers Follow the Loyalty
While other categories fight to stay in the basket, pet care is building momentum. Brands aren’t just holding on – they’re leaning in.
In the UK, supermarkets and specialty retailers are expanding premium lines. Pets at Home is scaling up subscriptions, grooming, and in-store vet services. The strategy isn’t about convenience – it’s about becoming routine.
In Japan, startups now offer genetic tests, mobility tracking, and remote health checks. Loyalty here is built on reassurance.
In India, digital-first brands focus on personalised nutrition and wellness bundles. Urban professionals are choosing care that fits their lifestyle – not just their budget.
In Southeast Asia, Indonesia’s halal-certified brands are growing. In Singapore, bundled food, grooming, and insurance on a single digital platform are setting new expectations.
The most resilient brands aren’t chasing promotions. They’re building stickiness.
The Subscription Model Comes Home
One reason pet care is proving so resilient: it’s tailor-made for subscriptions. Chewy’s Autoship model now accounts for over 70% of its revenue. Pets at Home’s subscription grooming and wellness plans are driving retention in the UK. And in India, platforms like HUFT and Supertails are building subscription boxes with food, treats, and supplements that mirror human wellness kits.
Recurring revenue in this category isn’t driven by convenience – it’s driven by rhythm. Feeding, grooming, walking, and checking in on a pet’s health are baked into daily life. And that makes pet subscriptions feel essential, not optional.
The result for retailers is a category with unusually high retention and low churn. For insight professionals, it’s a cue to rethink how LTV is calculated, especially in categories with strong emotional anchors.
The New Metrics of Loyalty
Traditional loyalty metrics miss much of what’s happening in pet care. This isn’t just about repeat purchases or basket size. It’s about trust, consistency, and emotional significance.
Consumers aren’t just loyal because the price is right. They’re loyal because switching feels risky. Because their pet depends on it. Because the product has become part of the household operating system.
That shifts the role of market research. Instead of only tracking NPS or discount redemption, we need to look at embeddedness: How often is a product repurchased without prompting? How quickly is a referral made after a good outcome? Does the customer describe the brand using human relationship language?
Brands that understand these cues, especially in high-growth markets, will outpace those still optimising for price elasticity.
The Emotional ROI of a Full Bowl
Pet care isn’t just holding its ground. It’s changing how people define value.
Emotional value is rarely tracked as closely as price sensitivity. But it should be. Consumers will pause a subscription without thought, yet go out of their way for their pet’s preferred brand.
This kind of spending rarely shows up in top-line figures. It’s visible in retention curves, renewal rates, and what households protect first. In Japan, pet purchases are about continuity. In Singapore, pet tech provides reassurance. In India, ownership blends aspiration with emotional attachment.
The spending logic isn’t indulgent. It’s rooted in what feels stable when everything else isn’t.
The implication for brand and insight teams is structural. Emotional categories are not cut; they become the new baseline.
One lesser-known brand that illustrates this shift is Heads Up For Tails in India.
Case Study: Heads Up For Tails (India)
Founded in 2008, Heads Up For Tails (HUFT) began as a niche pet accessories brand in India. Over the years, it has evolved into a comprehensive pet care company, offering a range of products and services tailored to the Indian market. Recognising the growing trend of pet humanisation, HUFT expanded its offerings to include premium pet foods, grooming services, and wellness products. By 2023, the brand had established over 50 retail outlets across major Indian cities, complemented by a robust e-commerce platform.
HUFT’s strategy centres on understanding the emotional bond between pets and their owners, positioning itself as a partner in pet parenting rather than just a retailer. This approach has resonated with India’s urban pet owners, who increasingly view their pets as integral family members. The brand’s emphasis on quality, customisation, and community engagement has fostered strong customer loyalty, even as consumers become more selective in their discretionary spending.
In a market where pet care is still emerging as a significant sector, HUFT’s growth underscores the potential for brands that align with evolving consumer values and behaviours. Their success illustrates how a deep understanding of local culture and consumer psychology can drive brand relevance and resilience.
What Pet Spending Teaches Us About the Next Consumer Economy
Pet care doesn’t just tell us where spending is strong. It tells us what matters when everything else is negotiable.
In every market where discretionary spending is tightening, this category is holding. Not because it’s a luxury, but because it’s emotionally embedded. It’s part of the household rhythm. It reflects identity, routine, and care.
This has implications far beyond dogs and cats. Categories that can build this kind of trust and meaning – through consistency, embedded services, and emotional utility – stand to inherit the next wave of loyalty. Not the kind driven by points or perks, but the kind that lives in habits, values, and daily life.
For insight teams, the takeaway is clear: the future of consumer behavior won’t be measured in what people want. It will be measured in what they refuse to give up.
Get regular insights
Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

I live in Tornado Alley, which means a roof isn’t just a roof – it’s armour. So when I found out mine needed replacing, I didn’t hesitate. I reviewed quotes, selected a company, signed the contract. All the hard stuff, I thought, was behind me.
Then came the question: what colour?
It felt like it should’ve been easy. But standing in my driveway, staring up at the expanse of shingles-to-be, I froze. It’s a massive, permanent decision – visible from every angle, exposed to the sky, the neighbours, and every passing storm chaser. Would black make the house too hot? Would brown make it look dated? Would grey clash with the brick?
Naturally, I turned to ChatGPT. I uploaded a photo of my home, asked for help, and was met with an avalanche of color-coded logic – slate complements red brick, brown warms the palette, weathered wood is a “classic choice.” The suggestions were smart, thoughtful… and somehow made things worse. I now had more choices, just better argued.
So I went to the manufacturer’s website and used their simulation tool, dropping different shingle colours onto a photo of my house. It helped, in theory. But once I narrowed it down to three, they all started to blur. On screen, they looked practically the same. That’s when my roofing company stepped in. They brought physical samples, laid them out in the sunlight, and – most importantly – showed me actual homes nearby with each of the colours installed. Only then, after all the tech, the swatches, and the analysis, could I make a choice I felt confident in.
This wasn’t indecision. It was decision friction. And it’s the kind of friction that brands, in their pursuit of offering more, often overlook.
The Psychology of Too Much Choice
We tend to think more choice equals more freedom. But in reality, more choice often creates more anxiety. Psychologist Barry Schwartz coined this dynamic the Paradox of Choice – the idea that while some choice is good, too much can lead to decision paralysis, increased regret, and less satisfaction overall.
This is especially true when the decision feels high-stakes. Choosing a roof colour isn’t just cosmetic – it’s a long-term investment, highly visible, and not easily reversed. When the pressure is on, our brain doesn’t appreciate abundance. It defaults to avoidance.
In one of the most cited studies in consumer psychology, Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper set up a jam sampling table in a grocery store. Shoppers were either offered six flavours or twenty-four. The larger display drew more interest – but those offered just six choices were ten times more likely to make a purchase. The takeaway? More options may attract attention, but fewer options drive action.
What’s happening under the surface is cognitive overload. Our working memory – responsible for weighing pros and cons – gets saturated quickly. With each new variable, our mental model has to recalculate. At a certain point, the decision becomes so mentally taxing that it feels easier to defer it, abandon it, or outsource it entirely. That’s not a lack of willpower. That’s the brain protecting itself from burnout.
When brands ignore this psychological friction, they unknowingly increase the likelihood of customer hesitation, second-guessing, or worse – inaction. Because when everything looks like a good option, nothing feels like the right one.
Why Some Decisions Deserve More Support
Marketers often treat decisions like they exist on a flat playing field. But in reality, choice sits on a hierarchy, and the higher up you go, the more psychological support people need.
Low-stakes decisions, such as choosing a gum flavour or a side dish, rarely cause friction. They’re inexpensive, reversible, and carry minimal consequences. High-stakes choices, on the other hand, are more complex, costly, and deeply personal. Whether it’s selecting a mortgage provider, a wedding dress, or a new roof, the risk of regret weighs heavier.
That’s when the brain switches gears. We move from intuition to analysis, and if overloaded, to avoidance. Behavioural economists refer to this as the decision fatigue curve. As the number of variables and the stakes increase, so does cognitive load. That’s why people delay home renovations or abandon full carts at checkout. It isn’t laziness – it’s self-preservation.
This is where tiered choice architecture can help. Instead of dumping every possibility on the table, brands can scaffold decisions. For example, a meal kit service might start by asking about dietary needs, then cooking skill, then taste preferences – delivering a filtered set of meals instead of all 200 at once. The consumer still feels in control, but the decision feels digestible.
Think of it like an elevator. Not every customer is heading to the top floor. Some want a shortcut to level two, others want to explore every stop. But without floors, stairs, or signage, everyone just stands around in the lobby – unsure of where to go next.
Smart brands design choice structures based on where decisions fall in the hierarchy and how much friction they carry. It’s not a nice-to-have – it’s essential.
Why Smart Tools Sometimes Backfire
Even when tools are meant to help, they can still make it worse. AI-generated recommendations, product filters, simulations – these were designed to ease decision-making. But when they simply layer on new variables without eliminating others, they amplify the problem.
In my case, ChatGPT gave me additional, well-reasoned colour suggestions. The roofing brand’s simulator let me “see” each option on my house. But with every added perspective, I became more uncertain – not less. What I needed wasn’t more input. I needed a system that filtered, narrowed, and helped me move forward confidently.
That’s the trap brands fall into. They assume the answer to choice anxiety is better information. But the real solution is constraint.
People don’t want endless options. They want a sense that they’re on the right path. And while visual tools are helpful, they rarely match the nuance of real-world conditions – light changes, neighborhood aesthetics, material textures. That’s why physical samples and in-person examples were what ultimately helped me decide. Not because they offered more data, but because they reduced ambiguity.
Even the smartest tools can fail if they don’t acknowledge the emotional weight of uncertainty. Help should feel like progress, not pressure.
The Business Case for Simplifying Choice
It’s one thing to talk about the theory of too much choice. It’s another to see what happens when companies actually do something about it.
Procter & Gamble once sold 26 different versions of Head & Shoulders shampoo. From dandruff control to citrus burst, there was something for every scalp scenario. But instead of boosting sales, the abundance of options led to customer hesitation – and stagnant shelves. When P&G reduced the number of variants from 26 to 15, something surprising happened: sales went up.
Why? Because fewer choices didn’t mean less relevance. It meant less confusion.
This pattern repeats across industries. GAP, for example, simplified its denim wall – once packed with indistinguishable fits – and saw shoppers choose faster and with more certainty. In tech, Apple’s limited product lines stand in stark contrast to Android’s sprawling menus. Apple doesn’t overwhelm with options. It offers what’s needed – and nothing more.
Even in the world of digital entertainment, Netflix has tested ways to surface fewer titles on screen to reduce decision paralysis and increase view time. Endless scroll may seem like engagement, but often it’s just a user trapped in the loop of not knowing what to pick.
These companies realised that offering fewer, better-differentiated choices creates momentum. It respects the consumer’s time, reduces cognitive strain, and makes the path to “yes” feel like a confident step – not a leap of faith.
In a world that equates abundance with value, restraint has become a competitive advantage.
What Brands Should Learn
When consumers are overwhelmed, they don’t want more options – they want clarity. The role of the brand is no longer just to offer a catalogue of possibilities, but to actively guide people through a decision journey that feels considered, contextual, and reassuring.
Start with curated collections. Rather than overwhelming customers with endless variants, group products into purposeful sets: “best for small spaces,” “most popular among professionals,” “ideal for warm climates.” Curation is not restriction – it’s a form of empathy.
Next, invest in personalised guidance. This could be as simple as a quiz that identifies key needs and filters options, or as advanced as AI-driven suggestions based on behavioural patterns. But the goal is the same: to remove irrelevant options, not add to the noise.
Then there’s context. Il Makiage, for example, doesn’t just match foundation shades – they show how those shades look on real people, under real conditions. They reinforce your selection with testimonials and visual proof, not just swatches on a screen.
Brands should also think about post-purchase validation. The moment after a decision is made is just as critical as the moment before. Thoughtful follow-up emails, affirming language, tips for first-time use – these reassure the customer they made a smart call.
Ultimately, this is about choice architecture. The brands that win don’t just give people more to choose from. They design the experience around how people actually make choices – emotionally, socially, and cognitively.
The Role of Research in Reducing Friction
Understanding decision friction isn’t guesswork – it’s measurable. According to a Baymard Institute study, nearly 70% of online shopping carts are abandoned – and one of the top reasons is a complicated decision process. This is where market research proves invaluable.
At its core, decision friction stems from uncertainty. But the source of that uncertainty – whether it’s lack of clarity, hesitation, or unspoken objections – differs by category, audience, and context. Research identifies these hidden blocks.
Qualitative studies reveal how consumers feel in the moment of indecision. Quantitative methods like conjoint analysis or maxdiff help identify which features drive real value. Segmentation shows how different customer types make decisions – some need freedom, others need a path.
Research also plays a critical role in post-choice validation – what gives people confidence after they say yes. The right message, email, or proof point can turn relief into brand trust.
If friction is the obstacle, research is the flashlight.
UX Doesn’t Stand for Unlimited Experience
In digital environments, more space doesn’t automatically mean more freedom. It often means more friction. In user experience (UX) design, subtraction – not expansion – is often the most powerful conversion tool.
Booking.com once overloaded its interface with filters, price badges, and urgency cues. But A/B testing revealed that simplifying the layout led to higher engagement. Shopify restructured its onboarding to guide users through sequential tasks rather than overwhelming dashboards. Completion rates rose.
Even streaming platforms like Disney+ and Netflix have learned to surface fewer but more relevant titles. Endless choice wasn’t delight – it was paralysis.
This is called cognitive offloading – helping users conserve mental energy by removing unnecessary decisions.
UX design, at its best, doesn’t just look good. It helps people move forward.
Final Thought
Decision-making is rarely logical alone. It’s emotional, contextual, and deeply personal – particularly when the stakes are high. Smart brands don’t just sell products. They design experiences that acknowledge the mental load customers carry.
The best marketing today isn’t louder. It’s sharper. It removes friction not by simplifying what you offer, but by anticipating how people choose. If you’re not thinking about how your customer feels at the point of decision, you’re not really in the business of persuasion.
You’re in the business of hoping.
And hope is not a strategy.
Get regular insights
Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Veterinary care is undergoing a transformation that few outside the pet industry have fully registered. Quietly, and with surprising speed, it is becoming one of the most innovative frontiers in healthcare delivery – spurred not by institutions or regulators, but by consumer behaviour.
The catalyst was COVID-19. As lockdowns confined millions to their homes, pet adoption surged worldwide. Between 2020 and 2022, more than 23 million American households acquired a new pet, according to the ASPCA. The UK saw a 20% increase in pet ownership during the same period, while markets like Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand reported double-digit growth in first-time pet ownership, particularly among urban millennials and Gen Z. Today, nearly 60% of households in Southeast Asia’s major cities own at least one pet.
But what followed the adoption boom was something more profound: a redefinition of what pet care should look like. In a world of same-day grocery delivery, wearable glucose monitors, and always-on digital banking, pet owners began demanding the same immediacy, visibility, and personalisation from veterinary services. Convenience became table stakes; transparency became non-negotiable. And traditional clinics – often booked weeks out, with variable pricing and limited hours – found themselves out of sync with rising expectations.
Into this gap stepped a new breed of service: subscription-based, digital-first veterinary platforms. These companies don’t just offer reactive care – they promise continuous access, proactive advice, and predictable costs. Enabled by mobile technology and fueled by a consumer base fluent in subscriptions – from fitness to food to finance – these platforms are not only meeting demand, but redefining it.
This isn’t a Western phenomenon alone. Across Southeast Asia, mobile-native consumers are bypassing legacy systems entirely, engaging with vet care the way they engage with mobility, entertainment, and finance – via app, on demand, and often as part of a bundled service.
What’s emerging is not an add-on to the veterinary industry – it’s a parallel infrastructure. Subscription-based pet care is changing not just how services are delivered, but how they’re valued, experienced, and expected. The shift is quiet, but its implications are structural, global, and irreversible.
The Perfect Storm Behind the Shift
The rise of subscription-based, digital-first veterinary care didn’t happen in a vacuum. It was the product of mounting structural strain in the veterinary industry, colliding with a generational realignment in how consumers engage with health and wellness. What’s happening now is less a trend than a correction – one shaped by workforce shortages, behavioural shifts, and evolving definitions of convenience.
At the heart of this transformation is a growing imbalance between supply and demand. In the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association projects a shortfall of nearly 15,000 veterinarians by 2030. In the UK, the British Veterinary Association has sounded the alarm over staffing shortages exacerbated by Brexit and post-pandemic burnout. Across Southeast Asia, where veterinary infrastructure has long lagged behind growing pet ownership, access to licensed professionals remains patchy – especially outside major cities.
The result is a system under pressure: overbooked clinics, rising costs, and long wait times for even routine care. These inefficiencies are increasingly incompatible with a consumer base accustomed to real-time digital access in nearly every other domain of life.
That base is also changing. Millennials and Gen Z now account for the majority of pet owners in many countries. In the US, 76% of Gen Z and 71% of millennials own pets, according to a 2023 report by Packaged Facts. These generations have grown up with mobile-first services, expect subscription-based billing, and value transparency over tradition. They’re less loyal to institutions, more loyal to user experience.
But the shift isn’t purely generational – it’s behavioural. Consumers are no longer looking to engage with veterinary services only when something goes wrong. They want ongoing access, reassurance, and preventative care for pets as part of a broader wellness lifestyle. In this model, a once-episodic service – one that was reactive by design – is being reimagined as a continuous relationship.
The demand for immediacy is also driving pricing innovation. Traditional clinics often operate on a fee-for-service basis with little predictability for clients. Subscription models offer a clear alternative: fixed monthly pricing, bundled services, and easy cancellation. It’s a format consumers understand intuitively – one that reduces friction and increases perceived value, even when the actual services may overlap with those offered by brick-and-mortar practices.
These forces – professional shortages, digital behaviour, rising expectations – have created a perfect storm. But it is consumers, not companies, who are setting the pace of change. Their demand for continuity, control, and convenience is rewriting the rules of engagement in pet care. Traditional models are being redefined not by what they lack, but by what they can no longer offer at scale.
The Rise of Subscription-Based Vet Care
If the traditional veterinary model is under strain, subscription-based platforms are capitalising on the gap, not just by digitising care, but by reframing what care means altogether.
At the centre of this shift is a new breed of veterinary service providers offering care plans that emphasise access, continuity, and convenience. Unlike conventional clinics, which are often bound by geographic reach, hours of operation, and one-off appointment models, these platforms offer a digital front door to veterinary support – always open, always responsive.
In the United States, startups like Fuzzy and Pawp have led the charge. Fuzzy offers members 24/7 live vet chat, medication delivery, and access to care plans for chronic conditions – all through a monthly subscription that ranges from $20 to $40. Pawp, which launched in 2020, delivers flat-fee emergency fund access and unlimited telehealth consults for under $25 per month. These companies are less interested in replacing brick-and-mortar clinics and more focused on becoming the first – and frequent – point of contact. Their services are designed around reassurance, convenience, and wellness, rather than surgical procedures or complex diagnostics.
In the UK, Joii Pet Care has gained traction by offering video consults and symptom checkers targeted at affordability and access. Developed by a team of experienced vets and tech entrepreneurs, the app aims to fill care gaps, particularly for lower-income households or those living in rural areas where local clinics are sparse. With prices starting under £25 per consultation or bundled into wellness plans, Joii represents a different approach: one rooted in cost democratisation without sacrificing clinical oversight.
Across Southeast Asia, where veterinary infrastructure varies widely, digital-first models are leapfrogging outdated systems. In cities like Jakarta, Bangkok, and Manila, startups are building integrated ecosystems that combine e-commerce, on-demand consults, vaccination reminders, and home diagnostics – all accessible via mobile app. In these markets, where smartphone penetration is high and traditional vet coverage is limited, the subscription model isn’t just disruptive – it’s foundational.
What all these models share is a fundamental redefinition of veterinary care as a service layer, not a physical location. This service is anchored in several common features:
- Always-on access: 24/7 chat and video support, eliminating the need to wait for clinic hours.
- Tiered pricing: Monthly plans that bundle consults, medications, supplements, or diagnostic tests.
- Proactive care: Wellness tracking, behaviour coaching, and early intervention, rather than reactive treatment.
- Integrated delivery: Some platforms even include food, flea treatments, or insurance coverage – shifting from care to full-lifecycle pet management.
From a business standpoint, the subscription model offers strong appeal: predictable recurring revenue, high engagement, and greater lifetime value per customer. For consumers, the model reduces decision fatigue. Instead of weighing every vet call against cost or necessity, pet owners can access care fluidly, often leading to earlier interventions and stronger long-term outcomes.
Crucially, the value isn’t just in the care provided – it’s in the perception of partnership. These platforms don’t operate like service providers; they position themselves as guides, helping owners navigate an increasingly complex pet wellness landscape. This relationship-first framing plays especially well with younger consumers, who prioritise trust and transparency in brand interaction.
Subscription-based vet care isn’t about replacing traditional clinics. It’s about meeting the unmet needs those clinics were never designed to solve – ongoing reassurance, flexible support, and access untethered from geography or schedule. And in doing so, these platforms are setting new benchmarks for what modern pet healthcare looks like, not just in the West, but in digital-first economies around the world.
Regional Perspectives in Transformation
While the shift to digital-first, subscription-based veterinary care is global in momentum, its expression varies significantly by region. Regulation, consumer behaviour, infrastructure, and healthcare norms all influence how the transformation unfolds – and where it gains traction fastest.
United States: Infrastructure Meets Expectation
The US remains the most mature market for pet telehealth, fueled by high rates of pet ownership, established digital payment infrastructure, and a consumer base accustomed to subscriptions across lifestyle categories. Companies like Fuzzy, Pawp, and Dutch have rapidly scaled, supported by favourable funding environments and growing regulatory flexibility.
The American Veterinary Medical Association has gradually updated telemedicine guidelines to reflect new realities, allowing licensed vets to establish a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) remotely in some states. This flexibility has given startups room to innovate while enabling hybrid models that bridge virtual triage and in-person escalation.
Consumer readiness has also played a role. With 97% of US households owning a smartphone and nearly 80% of millennials identifying as pet parents, mobile-based care isn’t a leap – it’s a natural extension of how health, finance, and lifestyle are already managed.
United Kingdom: Bridging Gaps with Affordability
In the UK, the rise of digital veterinary services has followed a different path – less about convenience, more about access and affordability. NHS-like expectations of care spill into pet ownership culture, where cost sensitivity often leads to delayed treatment or skipped appointments.
Joii and FirstVet have gained traction by offering consults at fixed, low prices, targeting underserved households and rural regions. These services are often paired with employer benefits or pet insurance providers, forming integrated care bundles that mirror human healthcare delivery.
Regulation is catching up, but remains a barrier in some respects. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) still requires an in-person relationship to prescribe most medications, limiting the scope of pure-play digital models. Still, the appetite for innovation is evident, especially among younger consumers facing cost-of-living pressures and limited clinic access.
Southeast Asia: Mobile-First and Rapidly Scaling
In Southeast Asia, subscription-based pet care is not just a convenience – it’s becoming foundational. In high-density cities like Jakarta, Bangkok, and Ho Chi Minh City, veterinary infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with urban pet ownership. Clinics are often understaffed or geographically uneven, while demand for care is growing sharply among younger, mobile-first consumers.
Here, digital platforms are leapfrogging legacy systems, integrating consults, treatment reminders, product delivery, and even vaccination records into a single app. The model resembles fintech and telemedicine rollouts in the region: rapid, mobile-led, and often driven by startups with regional or pan-Asian ambitions.
Unlike in the West, where subscription models compete with entrenched systems, Southeast Asia’s innovators are building the baseline infrastructure from the ground up. For many new pet owners in the region, a subscription-based vet app isn’t a supplement – it’s the only vet they’ve ever known.

Brand Spotlight: Pawp
Image credit: Pawp
Few companies have captured the shift in pet care delivery as clearly as Pawp. Launched in 2019, the US-based startup built its model around a simple idea: pet owners want immediate access to expert care without unpredictable costs. For a monthly fee of around $24, subscribers receive unlimited 24/7 access to licensed veterinarians via chat or video, along with an annual $3,000 emergency fund that covers life-threatening situations.
It’s not insurance, and it’s not a replacement for in-person care. Instead, Pawp positions itself as the first point of contact – triaging concerns, offering advice, and filling the gap between full-service clinics and reactive emergency visits. The service is especially appealing to urban renters, multi-pet households, and younger owners accustomed to managing health, banking, and food delivery through their phones.
Adoption accelerated during the pandemic, as pet ownership hit record highs and consumers became more comfortable with telehealth. By 2022, Pawp had expanded nationwide. But its biggest leap came in 2023 when Walmart integrated the service into its Walmart+ membership. For millions of members, a vet became one tap away, included in their monthly subscription. That partnership wasn’t just a distribution win – it marked a cultural shift, signalling that veterinary access, like streaming or grocery delivery, could be bundled into everyday life.
Pawp’s model reflects a broader recalibration of how pet owners think about care. The unlimited access reduces the threshold for engagement – owners no longer hesitate over whether a question is “worth” asking. Instead, they ask more, earlier, and often. This changes the rhythm of care, encouraging prevention over reaction and making the pet-health relationship feel continuous rather than episodic.
While competitors have emerged, few match Pawp’s combination of on-demand triage and financial safety net. The company has also moved into employer benefits and financial services, appearing in bundled perks from credit cards and HR platforms. For traditional clinics, this model doesn’t displace in-person care – but it does rewire when, how, and why pet owners seek help.
What Pawp proves is that subscription care isn’t just a pricing structure – it’s a behaviour model. And for millions of pet owners, it’s quickly becoming the default.
Traditional Clinics at a Crossroads
The rise of subscription-based, digital-first platforms presents traditional veterinary practices with a pivotal question: resist, retreat, or reconfigure?
For decades, veterinary care has been defined by brick-and-mortar clinics. The model was straightforward – appointments, procedures, prescriptions. But this model was never designed for today’s expectations: 24/7 access, real-time answers, preventative guidance, and fixed-cost transparency. As new entrants deliver on these demands digitally, traditional clinics are being forced to confront their own structural limitations.
Some view the trend as a threat to their clinical authority and client relationships. But framing this evolution as competition misses the larger opportunity. In truth, these models don’t replace what clinics do – they fill the spaces in between. And for practices that embrace this reality, digital platforms offer not a threat but a strategic partner.
Hybrid care is emerging as a viable solution. Clinics that incorporate virtual consults – either independently or through collaboration with subscription providers – can triage non-emergency cases more efficiently, free up in-clinic capacity, and reduce staff burnout. This is especially critical as workforce shortages continue to mount. By adding a digital layer, clinics can serve more patients without diluting the quality of care.
The integration opportunity extends further. Clinics that lean into wellness plans, recurring product bundles, or asynchronous follow-ups are finding new ways to generate revenue, build loyalty, and align with how modern pet owners think. The shift from transactional care to relational care – something digital-first platforms do exceptionally well – can be mirrored within physical practices through smarter use of CRM systems, automated reminders, and bundled service pricing.
However, cultural shifts may prove more challenging than technological ones. Pricing transparency, a cornerstone of the subscription model, forces clinics to re-evaluate the traditional ambiguity around fees. Similarly, expectations around always-on access mean that practices must reconsider staffing models, triage protocols, and customer service norms.
Still, the alternative is stagnation. Pet owners will increasingly gravitate toward models that give them more control, clarity, and connection. If clinics don’t evolve in parallel, they risk becoming not obsolete, but peripheral – consulted only in crisis, instead of trusted across the care journey.
The path forward for traditional veterinary care isn’t defensive – it’s adaptive. The future belongs not to those who replicate digital models, but to those who integrate them with the irreplaceable expertise of in-person care.
What Subscription Care Reveals About Consumer Psychology
The growth of subscription-based veterinary care cannot be explained by technology alone. At its core lies a deeper psychological shift: the redefinition of care from a transactional act to an ongoing relationship – one that is emotional, preventative, and embedded in daily life.
Pet owners are no longer engaging with veterinary services purely out of necessity. They are engaging out of responsibility and routine, adopting the behaviours they’ve internalised from human wellness – preventative check-ups, continuous monitoring, and personalised guidance – and projecting them onto their animals. This is not sentimentality; it’s behavioural logic. Pets are increasingly viewed not as dependents, but as extensions of the self. Caring for them is seen as a reflection of competence, compassion, and control.
Subscription models tap directly into this psychological orientation. The fixed monthly fee does more than spread out cost – it reduces decision friction. Owners no longer have to weigh whether a behaviour warrants a $90 consult. They can simply ask. This freedom from hesitation leads to greater engagement, earlier intervention, and – crucially – higher customer satisfaction.
The format itself matters. Subscriptions create a psychological contract: a sense that care is ongoing, not contingent. This fosters trust and encourages owners to interact with the service even when nothing seems urgent. As usage increases, so does perceived value – making cancellations less likely and loyalty more resilient, even in times of economic pressure.
This model also aligns with modern consumers’ preference for predictability over spontaneity, especially among Gen Z and millennials. These cohorts are more likely to use budgeting apps, mental health platforms, and fitness subscriptions than previous generations. In this landscape, paying monthly for a responsive, wellness-oriented vet service doesn’t feel like an expense. It feels like a responsible default.
The emotional context is equally significant. Pet health triggers the same anxiety as human health, often without the institutional support systems or insurance coverage. Subscription care offers not just medical advice, but peace of mind – a buffer against uncertainty that is worth paying for, even if it’s never used.
What we’re witnessing is not just a new way to deliver veterinary services. It’s a new way to frame value, build trust, and establish relevance in the lives of modern pet owners – anchored as much in psychology as in medicine.
From Reactive to Relationship-Based Care
The next frontier in pet healthcare will not be built solely on digital access – it will be defined by intelligence, personalisation, and integration. Subscription models have laid the foundation. What comes next is an ecosystem where care is continuous, contextual, and increasingly predictive.
Already, we’re seeing early signals. AI-enabled symptom checkers and triage bots are improving accuracy and efficiency in first-line responses, particularly in high-volume markets like the US and UK. Wearables are moving beyond step tracking, offering real-time insights into sleep quality, heart rate variability, and behavioural anomalies – data that can trigger interventions before a clinical symptom emerges. And at-home diagnostics, from microbiome testing to genetic screening, are making it possible to detect risk factors earlier than ever before.
As these tools mature, the role of the veterinarian will evolve. Less gatekeeper, more guide. Less episodic expert, more integrated partner. Pet care will mirror the best of modern human healthcare: digitally enabled, insight-driven, and co-managed by both professional and consumer. The brands and clinics that succeed will be those that understand not just what services to offer, but how to build lasting relevance in a world of empowered pet parents.
In this landscape, market research becomes more essential – not less. Understanding the emotional, cultural, and behavioural drivers behind pet care decisions is critical to navigating what’s next. Data alone can reveal what consumers are buying; insight reveals why – and what they’ll demand next. Whether it’s segmenting how Gen Z in Bangkok approaches preventative pet care, or tracking the adoption curve of tele-vet platforms among suburban households in Manchester, the businesses that win will be those that treat insight as strategy, not a sidebar.
The future of veterinary care is not about digitising the past. It’s about reshaping the relationship between pet, owner, and provider. What began as a convenience – subscriptions, on-demand chat, symptom checkers – is becoming an expectation. The logic of episodic care is giving way to a relationship economy, where value is measured not just in outcomes, but in consistency, confidence, and care continuity.
Veterinary practices, platforms, and brands alike face a choice. Compete on service, or compete on understanding. In an age of intelligent pet wellness, the latter will shape the next generation of care.
Get regular insights
Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.
