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 prioritize 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 prioritize 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 prioritize 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.
Stay ahead
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 localized 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 customizable, 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 localization.
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, localized 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 Americanized take on Mexican food. The challenge? Making that distinction matter.
It’s still unclear whether Chipotle will localize 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-digitized 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.
Stay ahead
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, localized 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, flavored 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 flavor. 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 emphasizes 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 skepticism 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 flavor 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 flavors of soy milk in most convenience stores—banana, sweet potato, black sesame, and even matcha. Sold in small, colorful 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 flavored 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 localizes 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 flavors.
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 romanticize 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?
Stay ahead
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 behavior.
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, favoring 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 behavior 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 behaviors. 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 evangelize 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 favor 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 prioritize function, minimalism, and long-term reliability over flash. Sleek, understated design is winning out over bold colors 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 incentivize 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 centerpiece 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 emphasized 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 favor 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. Durability and repairability are emphasized more in brand messaging, 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 behavior 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 – prioritizing 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 color. 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 behavior 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.
Stay ahead
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 aging 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 prioritize 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 personalized 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 optimizing 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. Recognizing the growing trend of pet humanization, 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 centers 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, customization, 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 behaviors. 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.
Stay ahead
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.
Consumer sentiment shifts rapidly, shaped not only by your company’s directives and strategies but also by external forces, such as viral trends, cultural movements, and economic forces. The brands that endure and adapt to these changes in real-time. Brand tracking is more than a periodic check-in – it’s essential for survival. By continuously monitoring brand health, companies can identify strengths, spot weaknesses, understand competitive positioning and adjust strategy accordingly.
But perception isn’t static. A brand with strong awareness today can lose relevance tomorrow if it fails to track how consumers feel, engage, and respond over time. To remain competitive, brands must continuously track their position in the market and be agile enough to adapt.
What is Brand Tracking, and Why Does it Matter?
Brand tracking measures a brand’s performance over time, helping companies identify shifts in the market, consumer trends, competitive trends, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to refine brand strategy.
Brand perception is fluid and influenced by consumer experiences, media narratives, and competitive shifts. Brand tracking helps companies answer critical questions:
- Is our brand positioning resonating with the right audience?
- How does our reputation compare to competitors?
- What messaging, campaigns, or brand attributes build consumer loyalty?
- Do external factors – economic shifts, social trends, or market disruptions – impact our brand perception?
Key Elements of Brand Tracking
Brand tracking goes beyond surface-level metrics to assess a brand’s health and market position. Key components include:
- Brand Awareness: Measuring Recognition and Recall
- Unaided vs. Aided Awareness
- Top-of-Mind Awareness: The first brand a consumer thinks of in a category often signals market leadership and competitive strength.
- Brand Perception & Sentiment Analysis
- Consumer Attitudes and Associations: Understanding how consumers feel about a brand—and the attributes they link to it—is key to shaping brand identity. These should include both functional benefits and emotional benefits. As well as brand personality.
- Purchase Intent, Satisfaction & Customer Loyalty Metrics
- Likelihood of Purchase: Gauging how likely consumers are to choose a brand helps predict future sales.
- Satisfaction: Understanding brand satisfaction versus competitors.
- Net Promoter Score (NPS): Measuring customers’ willingness to recommend a brand indicates satisfaction and loyalty.
- Competitive Benchmarking
- Market Position Analysis: Comparing brand performance against competitors to identify strengths, weaknesses, and market opportunities.
- Share of Voice: Measuring a brand’s visibility in the market through media coverage and advertising reach.
- Media & Advertising Effectiveness
- Campaign Impact Assessment: Assessing how marketing efforts affect awareness, perception, and sales.
Turning Data into Strategy
Brand tracking only matters if insights lead to action. Using data strategically, companies can refine marketing, reposition products, and strengthen customer loyalty.
Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses Before They Become Market Issues
Tracking brand health helps brands pinpoint areas where they excel and where they are losing ground. Rather than relying on assumptions, brands that act on measurable shifts in consumer sentiment can adjust messaging and engagement tactics before losing relevance.
Optimizing Marketing Campaigns
Effective marketing isn’t just about visibility; it’s about impact. Brand tracking measures how marketing efforts influence perception, loyalty, and purchase intent. If a campaign falls short, data allows brands to tweak real-time messaging rather than wait until the next cycle.
Benchmarking Against Competitors
Brand tracking is most powerful when measured against competitors. Comparing brand health metrics against competitors enables companies to identify gaps in positioning, capitalize on underserved markets, and anticipate industry shifts before rivals do.
Building Customer Loyalty
Brand tracking isn’t just for attracting new customers; it helps brands understand why existing customers stay or leave. Tracking loyalty metrics allows brands to implement better retention strategies, such as loyalty programs, improved customer service, or product innovation.
Brand Tracking Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
Even the best tracking methods fail if poorly executed. Avoid these common mistakes to ensure insights lead to action.
- Measuring Awareness Without Sentiment
A high awareness score means little if there are negative perceptions. Brands must pair awareness tracking with perception analysis to get a complete picture of their market position. - Tracking Without Business Goals
Brand tracking is useless if not tied to clear objectives. Tracking must support strategy, whether expanding markets, improving retention, or refining advertising. - Ignoring Qualitative Data
Numbers alone don’t tell the full story. Open-ended customer feedback and sentiment analysis reveal why brand perception shifts. - Failing to Act on Insights
Insights are useless if brands don’t act. Whether trust is eroding or a competitor is gaining ground, companies must adjust accordingly. - Overlooking Market Trends
Brand perception doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Economic shifts, cultural trends, and competitors shape public opinion. Effective tracking accounts for these factors.
Brand Tracking Is Not an Option—It’s Survival
Brand perception is a moving target. What consumers think today may not hold true tomorrow, and brands that fail to monitor these shifts risk becoming irrelevant. The market does not wait for companies to catch up; brands that do not track, analyze, and act on data are at the mercy of competitors who do.
Tracking isn’t just about data—it’s about influence. It reveals when a brand resonates or repels, when trust strengthens or erodes. The best brands spot risks before they escalate and seize opportunities before they go mainstream.
Market leaders don’t wait for a crisis to understand their position. They track, measure, and adapt before perception shifts beyond their control. A brand that isn’t tracking its relevance isn’t just falling behind – it’s already lost control of the narrative.
Stay ahead
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.
Boycotts can upend entire markets overnight. In 2019, a diplomatic dispute between South Korea and Japan turned into a full-scale consumer revolt. Sales of Japanese beer in South Korea plummeted by 92%, and Uniqlo shuttered multiple stores as South Korean consumers rejected Japanese brands en masse. What began as a trade conflict quickly became an economic weapon wielded by consumers.
Boycotts are no longer just reactions to political events—they have become economic power plays. Global brands increasingly find themselves at the center of cultural, political, and trade conflicts. Starbucks faced backlash from both conservatives and progressives over its unionization stance, while Disney’s opposition to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill sparked boycotts from both LGBTQ+ supporters and conservative groups. In today’s market, even neutrality is a decision with consequences.
Brands have become battlegrounds for political, social, and economic conflicts. Silence is no longer a shield. When French President Emmanuel Macron defended the right to publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in 2020, French businesses bore the consequences. Middle Eastern supermarkets pulled French products, and #BoycottFrenchProducts trended across social media. Carrefour scrambled to issue damage control statements. Even companies with no direct political involvement can be caught in ideological crossfire.
Managing consumer activism is no longer optional. Today’s boycotts can move markets and shake billion-dollar companies. In an era where brand loyalty is tied to political and social beliefs, companies caught in the crossfire risk more than just lost sales—trust, once broken, is far harder to rebuild.
Boycotts don’t just make headlines—they leave financial wreckage. In 2012, a territorial dispute between China and Japan ignited a mass boycott, sending Toyota’s sales in China tumbling 44% in a single month. The backlash erased years of market gains, forcing Toyota and Honda into a costly recovery battle.
Even dominant brands can feel the sting of consumer backlash. During the U.S.-China trade war, nationalist sentiment fueled a #BoycottApple campaign, pushing many Chinese consumers toward Huawei. Apple maintained its global standing, but its sales took a hit—proof that even industry giants aren’t immune to geopolitics.
Some boycotts reshape markets permanently. In 2019, a South Korea-Japan dispute led consumers to abandon Japanese beer, cosmetics, and cars—habits that didn’t revert even after tensions cooled. Similarly, a 2006 boycott of Danish products in the Middle East, triggered by controversial cartoons, wiped out $70 million in sales for dairy giant Arla Foods. Even years later, some retailers never restocked Danish brands.
Not all boycotts leave scars. Starbucks has repeatedly faced backlash over labor policies and political stances, yet its dominance remains unshaken. The reason? A fiercely loyal customer base and a brand identity strong enough to weather short-term activism. The difference between a fleeting boycott and lasting damage often comes down to one factor: how replaceable the brand is. Companies with distinct identities bounce back. Those that hesitate, or fail to differentiate, may never recover.
Why Some Boycotts Fade While Others Leave Lasting Damage
For over 40 years, Nestlé has faced recurring boycotts over its infant formula marketing in developing countries. Despite its global dominance, consumer advocacy groups have kept the controversy alive, cementing Nestlé’s reputation as a corporate villain for many.
The oil industry faces a similar challenge. Shell and BP have endured decades of boycotts over environmental concerns. While these campaigns haven’t triggered financial collapse, they’ve permanently tarnished brand perception—especially among younger, climate-conscious consumers.
The real risk isn’t a single high-profile boycott—it’s the slow erosion of trust from repeated controversies. Over time, consumer activism can turn a brand name into shorthand for corporate misconduct, making reputation recovery an uphill battle. A boycott is more than a PR crisis; it’s a moment of truth. Brands can either reinforce loyalty or lose trust from all sides.
Some brands emerge stronger by standing their ground. Patagonia, for example, has made environmental activism central to its identity—even suing the Trump administration over national park protections. Rather than triggering backlash, the move galvanized its core customers.
Not all brands navigate boycotts successfully. When Carrefour’s Middle Eastern stores suffered backlash during the Macron controversy, the company tried to distance itself—but this only bred confusion and distrust. Silence can be as risky as speaking out. Consumers expect companies to take a stance, but a miscalculated move can alienate as many as it attracts. The real challenge isn’t whether to engage, but how to do so without escalating the crisis.
Avoiding controversy doesn’t mean avoiding backlash. In 2022, Disney’s attempt to stay neutral on Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill backfired spectacularly. Employees and LGBTQ+ activists pressured the company to take a stance, while conservatives retaliated once it did. Florida lawmakers stripped Disney of key tax privileges, leaving it alienated from both sides. A 2023 Harris Poll found that 82% of consumers expect brands to take a stand on social issues—yet 60% say they will stop buying if they disagree with the stance. The lesson? Taking a position can build loyalty with one group while permanently alienating another.
The risk isn’t just political—it’s about perception. Brands that fail to define their values risk having their identity shaped by the loudest voices. In today’s landscape, silence isn’t neutral—it’s a statement.
Navigating a boycott isn’t just about damage control—it’s about leadership. The brands that survive aren’t the ones scrambling to react, but those that take control of the narrative. When a boycott gains traction, the worst mistake a company can make is letting others define its response. A clear, well-structured message—consistent across all platforms—determines whether a brand weathers the storm or gets swallowed by it.
The financial hit of a boycott is often inevitable, but well-prepared brands see beyond the short term. Companies that anticipate consumer activism have contingency plans—shifting market focus, reinforcing ties with loyal customers, and ensuring financial resilience in the face of backlash.
A boycott can erupt in minutes, leaving companies no time to craft a careful response. In today’s hyper-connected world, silence is often seen as complicity, while a poorly handled statement can make things worse. The brands that survive aren’t those that avoid controversy—they’re the ones prepared for it.
The difference between a temporary backlash and a full-blown reputational crisis often comes down to preparation. The brands that weather boycotts aren’t scrambling in the heat of the moment—they have a crisis playbook ready long before trouble starts.
At the heart of any crisis playbook is a clear decision-making framework: Who makes the call on how to respond—the CEO, the communications team, or a crisis committee? Without a defined chain of command, brands risk internal chaos, mixed messaging, and costly missteps.
Just as critical is message control. In the social media age, companies no longer have the luxury of waiting days—or even hours—to respond. A delay means losing control of the narrative. The most prepared brands have adaptable, pre-drafted messaging ready to deploy, ensuring their first response is measured rather than reactionary.
Not all boycotts require engagement. The strongest brands assess the market impact first—does the backlash threaten core revenue streams, or is it mostly symbolic? Overcorrecting in response to a boycott from non-customers can backfire, alienating loyal buyers—a mistake that has cost brands billions.
Boycotts don’t just test a brand’s values—they reveal whether a company was ever prepared to defend them. The biggest failures aren’t necessarily from taking the wrong stance, but from appearing unprepared, inconsistent, or defensive. A boycott forces brands to make a critical decision: should they engage directly or let the controversy fade? The wrong choice can amplify the backlash, while the right move can reshape public perception.
Some boycotts are short-lived outrage cycles, driven by social media but lacking real economic impact. Rushing to respond can sometimes prolong the controversy rather than defuse it. Smart brands know when to let public sentiment run its course. But silence isn’t always an option. When a controversy gains enough traction, failing to engage can cause lasting damage. In those cases, brands must take control of the narrative before it’s shaped for them.
When two Black men were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks in 2018, the backlash was immediate. Instead of retreating, Starbucks’ CEO issued a direct apology, shut down 8,000 stores for racial bias training, and met with community leaders. By acting quickly, the company prevented long-term brand damage and reinforced its identity as a socially conscious brand.
The High Cost of Getting It Wrong
Contrast this with United Airlines’ 2017 fiasco, when a passenger was violently dragged off a plane. The airline’s initial response—a cold, legalistic defense of policy—only inflamed public outrage. Only after intense backlash did the CEO shift to an apologetic stance, but by then, the damage was done. The lesson? A delayed or tone-deaf response can make a crisis exponentially worse.
Knowing when to engage and when to stay silent isn’t about avoiding controversy—it’s about controlling the story. The strongest brands don’t just react to boycotts; they strategically decide whether to own the moment or let it pass. Brands overly dependent on a single geographic or ideological customer base are more fragile. Companies that diversify—whether through global expansion or appealing to multiple demographics—are far more resilient.
During the 2020 Middle Eastern boycott of French brands, Carrefour and Danone lost significant business over President Macron’s remarks. But both companies quickly refocused on growing consumer bases in Africa and Asia, stabilizing their bottom line. Similarly, global tech brands facing boycotts in China have expanded into India and Southeast Asia to offset losses. Instead of engaging directly in controversy, they pivot their business strategy toward emerging markets, reducing long-term financial exposure.
Consumers today can spot corporate insincerity from a mile away. When brands respond to controversy with empty gestures rather than meaningful action, they risk deepening public distrust rather than repairing it.
Pepsi learned this the hard way in 2017 with its now-infamous ad featuring Kendall Jenner handing a can of Pepsi to a police officer during a protest. Instead of making a genuine statement, the ad came off as exploitative—a hollow attempt to co-opt social justice for marketing. The backlash was immediate. Pepsi pulled the ad within 24 hours, but the damage was already done.
H&M faced a different kind of fallout in 2021 when it tried to navigate allegations of forced labor in Xinjiang, China. The company issued a carefully worded—but vague—statement distancing itself from the controversy. Instead of appeasing consumers, the move backfired: Chinese authorities removed H&M from online platforms entirely. The half-measure pleased no one and led to real financial losses.
Consumers today can spot empty gestures. If a brand takes a stand, it needs to mean it—half-measures and corporate platitudes only make things worse. Brands that emerge from boycotts with their reputations intact are those that meet controversy head-on—with clarity, honesty, and decisive action. Attempts to placate all sides or hide behind corporate jargon only fuel further backlash.
When McDonald’s exited Russia in 2022 following the Ukraine invasion, it didn’t just issue a press release—it explained, in plain terms, the ethical and economic rationale behind its decision. By offering transparency instead of vague corporate messaging, it reinforced its credibility as a company willing to take a stand rather than simply responding to pressure.
Patagonia’s 2022 decision to transfer ownership to an environmental nonprofit wasn’t a publicity stunt—it was a long-planned move. By embedding activism into its business model, Patagonia proved that brand values can be more than just marketing.
Brands that rely on damage control instead of transparency often make things worse. Half-hearted statements, vague acknowledgments, or empty pledges do little to rebuild trust. Consumers today don’t just expect brands to take a stand—they expect them to back it up with real action.
Boycotts aren’t rare disruptions anymore—they’re part of doing business in a politicized world. The brands that navigate them best don’t avoid controversy; they prepare for it, understand their audience, and act with conviction when it matters. Some brands survive by doubling down on their values and reinforcing ties with their core customers. Others try to appease everyone and end up alienating all sides. The difference isn’t the controversy itself—it’s how well a brand understands its identity and whether it has the courage to stand by it.
Consumer activism isn’t an occasional disruption anymore—it’s a permanent force in the global marketplace. Modern boycotts are faster, more coordinated, and more politically charged than ever. For brands, this signals a fundamental shift: accountability isn’t optional, and neutrality is an illusion.
Why Boycotts Are Becoming More Frequent
Several forces have converged to make consumer boycotts more widespread—and more impactful—than ever before.
- The Acceleration of Social Media
What once took months of grassroots organizing now happens in minutes. A single viral post can mobilize millions, turning hashtags like #BoycottApple and #DeleteUber into economic flashpoints overnight. The sheer speed of digital outrage leaves companies scrambling to control the narrative before it spirals.
- The Rise of Economic Nationalism
Boycotts are no longer just ideological protests—they’ve become geopolitical weapons. Trade disputes between the U.S., China, Japan, and South Korea have fueled consumer-driven economic retaliation, proving that governments are no longer the sole enforcers of economic policy.
- Shifting Consumer Expectations
Millennials and Gen Z expect companies to align with their values—not just sell products. According to a 2023 Harris Poll, 71% of Gen Z consumers say they would stop buying from a company that does not reflect their beliefs. Corporate reputation is no longer just about products—it’s about leadership, ethics, and action.
A New Risk: Backlash from Both Sides
Boycotts today aren’t just about what a company does—they’re about how different ideological groups interpret its actions. The result? Backlash from both sides.
- Disney (2022-Present) – After opposing Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill, Disney became a target for both progressive activists (demanding stronger action) and conservatives (accusing it of corporate activism). The result? Sustained boycotts from competing sides.
- Bud Light (2023) – The brand’s handling of its partnership with Dylan Mulvaney alienated both conservatives (who boycotted over the campaign itself) and progressives (who boycotted after Bud Light failed to stand by its decision). The result? A record sales decline and a leadership shake-up.
- Target (2023-Present) – After backlash over its Pride Month merchandise, Target scaled back displays in conservative regions—only to face boycotts from both the right (for supporting LGBTQ+ issues) and the left (for failing to stand firm).
The Increasing Polarization of Boycotts
Consumer boycotts have long been a form of economic resistance, but today they are something more—a permanent force reshaping how brands interact with the public. They are faster, more politically charged, and more frequent than ever. Companies aren’t just selling products anymore; they are expected to serve as political, cultural, and ethical entities. This shift demands a new kind of leadership—one that treats consumer activism as a reality to be managed, not just a crisis to be feared.
Stay ahead
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.
Wearables aren’t fringe anymore. Once seen as fitness accessories for gym-goers and early adopters, smartwatches and health trackers are becoming everyday essentials. In the first quarter of 2024 alone, global shipments of wearable devices hit 113 million units – an almost 9% jump compared to the year before. And that’s despite persistent inflation and consumer pullback across key markets.
What’s shifting? People are treating these devices less like gadgets and more like tools for managing stress, sleep, and overall health. Consumers are using them to take control – sometimes even before they know something’s wrong. And tech companies are keeping pace, building in more sophisticated health features, wrapping them in sleek design, and expanding their reach far beyond Silicon Valley.
China, for example, led the world in wrist-worn device shipments through most of 2024, with almost 46 million units sold in just the first three quarters. Japan’s older population is increasingly using wearables to monitor vitals and stay independent longer. In the US and UK, mainstream use is now less about steps and more about holistic wellness. Meanwhile, in Southeast Asia and India, lower-cost models are making wearables accessible to first-time buyers – especially younger users who want health data but don’t need an Apple logo to get it.
This rise isn’t just about health – it’s about habits. The adoption curve shows that consumers are steadily folding digital health tracking into their everyday routines, reshaping not only how we think about wellness but also how we’ll live and age in the years ahead.
From step counters to personal health assistants
The evolution of wearables mirrors a larger shift in how we define health. A decade ago, a fitness tracker was mostly just that – a tool for counting steps or logging runs. Now, it’s a wrist-worn health hub, checking heart rhythms, analyzing sleep, detecting stress, and even alerting users to abnormal vitals before symptoms appear.
This transformation hasn’t just changed the product – it’s reshaped the market. What started with athletes and early tech adopters has now spread across age groups and income levels. Smartwatches are on the wrists of office workers in Singapore, older adults in Tokyo, commuters in London, and Gen Z students in Delhi. And the demand isn’t slowing.
Global sales of wearables reached over $84 billion in 2024, with projections putting the market on track to more than double by 2030. That growth is being powered by consumers in Asia, where China continues to dominate volume thanks to homegrown brands, and where India and Southeast Asia are seeing rising uptake of budget-friendly devices. In Japan, demand is strongest among an aging population who are using wearables for peace of mind – keeping tabs on heart rate, sleep, and medication reminders.
The US and UK still lead when it comes to higher-end models and paid health tracking subscriptions. But what’s consistent across regions is the shift from passive to active wellness. As one analyst at Canalys put it recently, “We’re watching wearables move from fitness to full-spectrum lifestyle tech.”
And while device makers keep layering in new features – temperature sensing, stress tracking, blood oxygen levels – it’s the behavior behind the screen that matters most. Consumers aren’t just buying wearables; they’re changing how they relate to their own health. What’s changing fastest isn’t the tech – it’s how people are folding it into their everyday decisions.
Consumer Adoption Across Generations and Borders
Younger consumers may be driving volume, but wearables are winning over every generation – for very different reasons.
Among Gen Z and millennials, wearables are lifestyle enhancers. Sleep tracking, stress insights, and gamified fitness goals are baked into daily routines, often synced to social media. According to a 2024 YouGov poll in the US and UK, nearly 60% of millennials who own a wearable use it at least five days a week, while Gen Z’s interest is climbing fastest, especially in India, Indonesia, and the Philippines where affordable models are surging.
For younger users, it’s not just fitness. Wearables help manage anxiety, track menstrual cycles, and even gauge productivity. In Southeast Asia, TikTok influencers regularly promote smartwatch brands with built-in wellness challenges, and the appeal is sticking.
By contrast, Gen X and boomers tend to use wearables with a more clinical lens. In Japan, uptake among older adults rose sharply in the past two years, driven by growing interest in managing hypertension, irregular heart rhythms, and fall risk. Apple’s expanded medical alerts and ECG functions are frequently cited by Japanese media as valuable features for aging consumers. In the UK, NHS-backed pilot programs are offering wearables to older patients recovering from surgery or managing long-term conditions.
In the US, over 40% of Gen Xers who own a wearable say they’ve shared data with a healthcare provider, up from just 27% in 2021. But privacy concerns linger, especially among Gen Z. Despite their high usage, only 26% of Gen Z respondents to a 2024 eMarketer study said they would be comfortable sharing health data with doctors or insurers – suggesting a growing tension between usage and trust.
Here’s how adoption looks across some of the key markets:
| Country/Region | Top Adopting Cohorts | Primary Use Cases | Notable Trends |
| US | Millennials, Gen X | Sleep, stress, fitness, medical alerts | High usage of subscription models like Fitbit Premium |
| UK | Millennials, Boomers | Heart monitoring, post-surgery recovery | NHS pilot programs integrating wearable tech |
| Japan | Boomers | Heart rate, fall detection, medication | Growing adoption in eldercare and wellness insurance schemes |
| India | Gen Z, Millennials | Step counting, calorie burn, wellness apps | High growth in low-cost smartwatch brands |
| Indonesia | Gen Z | Fitness tracking, daily health challenges | Influencer marketing fueling adoption |
| China | All age groups | Everything from fitness to medical alerts | Domestic brands dominate; strong public sector partnerships |
| Singapore | Millennials, Gen X | Health monitoring, workplace wellness | Wearables integrated into corporate wellness programs |
| Germany | Boomers, Gen X | Blood pressure, diabetes management | Insurance discounts tied to wearable usage |
The generations aren’t divided – they’re stacked. What started with Gen Z is now reshaping how everyone manages health. And the industry knows it.
The Technology Arms Race
The more wearables become part of daily life, the harder tech companies are pushing to stay ahead. And they’re not just making devices faster or sleeker – they’re turning them into medical-grade tools, payment platforms, and personal wellbeing dashboards, all in one.
What started as a step-counting competition is now a full-blown innovation sprint. Apple’s latest Watch models detect arrhythmias and track ovulation patterns through temperature fluctuations. Samsung has layered in blood pressure monitoring and sleep scoring tied to cardiovascular insights. Google-backed Fitbit has pivoted from steps to stress, with its newer models using electrodermal activity sensors to gauge emotional strain in real time.
And it’s not just the big brands. In Japan, wearable developers are exploring integration with long-term care plans, while Singapore’s public health teams have trialed government-backed trackers to incentivize exercise and preventive check-ups. In India and Indonesia, homegrown brands like Noise and Realme are keeping up by offering entry-level smartwatches with features that mirror high-end models – heart rate variability, SpO₂ monitoring, and meditation modes – at a fraction of the cost.
The market is clearly rewarding innovation. Smart rings, once a fringe category, are now booming. Oura has become shorthand for wellness among executives and athletes, while Samsung’s anticipated launch of its Galaxy Ring is already stirring up the category. Analysts at Canalys expect the global smart ring segment to triple by 2026, with Asia leading the growth.
Sensors are getting better, but software is where the race is heating up. The shift toward AI-enabled personalization means devices are starting to behave less like monitors and more like coaches – detecting patterns, learning user behavior, and nudging people to take breaks, breathe deeply, or move more. Apple’s upcoming software update includes passive tracking of mental well-being, aiming to surface early indicators of depression and anxiety based on behavioral signals.
This arms race is no longer about having the best display or longest battery. It’s about owning the feedback loop: gathering data, interpreting it meaningfully, and turning that insight into habit-changing nudges. And with more users willing to share health data – whether for clinical support or lifestyle optimization – tech brands are rapidly becoming key players in the future of healthcare.
The Economics of Adoption in a Soft Economy
The flood of innovation might be grabbing headlines, but it’s the economics of wearables that’s driving their expansion into the mainstream – especially as consumers grow more cost-conscious.
Subscription models are a major pivot point. Fitbit Premium, Whoop, and Apple’s Fitness+ aren’t just upsells – they’re positioning wearables as part of a recurring wellness lifestyle. Fitbit Premium alone now has over 10 million paid users globally, according to Alphabet’s 2024 earnings report. Whoop, which has no upfront device cost and instead charges a monthly fee, has doubled its subscriber base since 2022, banking on athletes and executives willing to pay for deeper recovery and strain insights.
Yet in many markets, recurring costs are a harder sell. That’s where public and private incentives are stepping in. Singapore’s government-led LumiHealth program – developed with Apple – offers financial rewards for completing activity challenges and tracking sleep. In Germany, health insurers like TK and Barmer provide partial reimbursements for certified fitness wearables when used as part of preventive care. These programs aren’t about gadgets – they’re about reducing long-term healthcare costs.
Affordability is also being tackled at the hardware level. In India, for example, wearable brands like Noise and boAt have carved out a dominant position by offering smartwatches with fitness and health tracking features for under ₹2,500 ($30). These devices may lack the polish of premium models, but they’ve dramatically widened access, especially among younger consumers in urban areas. The result? India is now one of the fastest-growing wearables markets in the world, with domestic brands accounting for nearly 75% of total shipments in 2024.
In the US and UK, cost still matters. Refurbished models, bundle deals, and corporate wellness perks are helping buyers justify their spending. Entry prices are falling, but expectations are climbing. People want value – not just on the sticker but in the insights, the ecosystem, and the staying power of the device.
Wearables as Part of the Health Ecosystem
As wearable technology becomes more sophisticated, its integration into the broader health ecosystem is deepening, transforming patient care and preventive health strategies. Today’s devices don’t just count steps – they stream health data to doctors, flag risks in real time, and plug directly into telehealth platforms.
Seamless Integration with Healthcare Systems
In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) has initiated pilot programs to incorporate wearable devices into patient care. These programs focus on remote monitoring of patients with chronic conditions, allowing healthcare professionals to track vital signs and detect early signs of deterioration without requiring patients to visit healthcare facilities. This approach not only improves patient outcomes but also alleviates the burden on healthcare resources.
Similarly, in Japan, addressing the needs of an aging population has led to innovative uses of wearable technology. Companies like Tellus You Care have developed non-contact remote monitoring systems that track the health and safety of elderly individuals. These wearables can detect falls and monitor daily activities, enabling caregivers and medical professionals to respond promptly to emergencies.
Enhancing Telehealth Services
In the United States, the synergy between wearable devices and telehealth applications is revolutionizing patient care. Wearables can sync with telehealth platforms, providing clinicians with continuous health data streams. This integration allows for more accurate assessments during virtual consultations and facilitates proactive management of conditions such as hypertension and diabetes. For instance, patients using wearable blood pressure monitors can transmit their readings directly to their electronic health records, enabling healthcare providers to adjust treatments in real-time.
Addressing Data Privacy and Reliability Concerns
Still, the deeper wearables penetrate healthcare, the more they raise questions – especially around privacy. These devices collect a steady stream of highly personal health data, and not everyone knows where that information ends up. Breaches are rare, but when they happen, the fallout is big. Surveys show many users remain unclear about how their data is handled, which puts pressure on tech companies and healthcare providers to be far more transparent.
There’s also the question of how reliable the data really is. Wearables offer useful health snapshots, but they’re not always accurate enough to replace clinical tools. If users or doctors lean too heavily on that information, it can lead to wrong calls – or unnecessary stress. That’s why most healthcare providers treat wearable data as one piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture.
How Singapore Turned Wearables into a Public Health Tool
Image credit: LumiHealth
Singapore may be small in size, but it’s been outsized in ambition when it comes to health tech. In 2020, the government launched LumiHealth, a joint initiative with Apple that turns the Apple Watch into a national wellness tool. The idea was simple: incentivize citizens to stay healthy by gamifying fitness and preventive behaviors.
Participants download an app, pair it with an Apple Watch, and earn vouchers by completing health goals like walking, meditating, or getting flu shots. The rewards are modest – up to S$380 over two years – but the behavioral nudge is powerful. More than 200,000 residents signed up in the program’s first year, with high retention and engagement among older adults and those managing chronic conditions.
What makes LumiHealth notable isn’t just its use of wearable tech, but how it reframes wellness as a shared responsibility between citizen, government, and platform. It’s one of the first large-scale examples of a nation leveraging consumer-grade devices for population health – and a blueprint for how data, design, and nudges can shift real-world behavior.
The program has also informed broader policy. Health officials now see wearables as part of Singapore’s preventive care strategy. In 2024, pilot extensions were announced to include nutrition tracking and mental wellbeing prompts – making the Watch not just a step counter, but a guide for daily living.
From Devices to Digital Selfhood
As wearables sync more deeply with our health, they’re also syncing with something else: identity.
Fitness trackers and smartwatches are no longer just tools – they’ve become quiet status symbols, wellness affirmations, and, in some cases, lifestyle declarations. Wearing a Whoop band or an Oura ring signals a commitment to optimization. A Garmin on the wrist might suggest serious training. Even design choices – stainless steel finishes, leather straps, minimalist rings – convey intention. The wearable, in short, has become part of the personal brand.
This isn’t accidental. Tech companies are leaning into the rise of the quantified self: a movement that treats data as a mirror for self-improvement. Sleep scores are shared in group chats. Heart rate variability is discussed on Reddit threads. There’s even a social layer – Apple’s fitness rings can be closed collaboratively, while Fitbit allows real-time challenges with friends. What began as private tracking is now an interactive, sometimes performative, pursuit.
That said, cultural context shapes how wearables are used – and what they mean.
| Region | Attitude Toward Wearables | Underlying Values |
| US & UK | Individualised health and performance tools | Self-optimisation, control, productivity |
| Japan | Monitors for long-term care and group wellbeing | Safety, longevity, family responsibility |
| India | Lifestyle enhancers for youth and urbanites | Aspirational health, affordability, digital status |
| Singapore | Incentivised national wellness participation | Community health, public-private collaboration |
| China | Everyday convenience tools across all ages | Functional utility, tech-forward lifestyle |
In the West, wearable data is often framed in terms of productivity – how to sleep better, train harder, or manage stress. In much of Asia, especially in countries like Japan and Singapore, adoption has leaned more toward collective well-being: tracking to stay safe, support aging populations, or meet national health goals. While the hardware might be the same, the intention behind it can be radically different.
That’s the shift: wearables aren’t just keeping score anymore. They’re helping shape identity – quiet signals of the kind of life we’re trying to live.
The Future Forecast: Smart Living 2030
If the last decade was about wearables gaining acceptance, the next will be about wearables becoming invisible – fully embedded in our surroundings, our health systems, and our daily decision-making. By 2030, the line between body and technology will blur further, not through flashy upgrades, but through quiet, continuous presence.
One of the most anticipated frontiers is continuous, noninvasive blood glucose monitoring, widely viewed as the “holy grail” of wearables. Major tech players, including Apple and Samsung, have been investing heavily in research to bring this functionality to market. Success here wouldn’t just serve diabetics – it would recalibrate how millions think about food, energy, and performance in real time.
Another inflection point will be emotional health. Devices are beginning to detect mood states based on physical cues – micro-fluctuations in skin temperature, heart rate variability, or voice tone. In the next few years, we may see wearables that can flag the early signs of anxiety, burnout, or depressive episodes before the user is even aware. The implications for preventative mental health are enormous – but so are the ethical questions.
Artificial intelligence will be the connective tissue that binds these advances together. Already, AI is being used to turn raw data into feedback loops, coaching users to adjust behaviors. But by 2030, it’s likely that wearables will be part of more coordinated, multi-device ecosystems – syncing not just with phones and watches but also with smart homes, personal health dashboards, and even city infrastructure.
It’s a shift adjacent industries are already watching closely. Insurers are piloting risk models based on real-time biometric data. Pharma firms are testing wearable-driven trial designs and adherence tools. And in some cities, planners are exploring responsive environments – public spaces that adjust to physiological signals, from light and sound to air quality.
What’s next for wearables won’t be defined by tech specs – but by what people do with the data, and who they’re willing to share it with. Smart living by 2030 may not look like sci-fi. It may just look… seamless.
A Tipping Point for Personal Health
We’ve passed the point where wearables are optional tech accessories. They’ve moved into the domain of lifestyle infrastructure – tools people rely on not just for information, but for insight, motivation, and increasingly, autonomy.
When Apple’s COO Jeff Williams stood on stage at CES and said, “We’re not just building a watch – we’re building a guardian for your wellbeing,” it wasn’t marketing hype. It was a quiet signal of where the industry sees its role going: less device, more guide.
And yet, as wearables grow smarter, more embedded, and more predictive, we’re entering a new kind of contract with our devices – one where personal health is constantly measured, interpreted, and nudged. The convenience is undeniable. The value is rising. But so is the question: who controls the loop?
Will the decade ahead empower us to become more informed, more proactive, and more in tune with our health? Or will we find ourselves outsourcing our instincts to a wristband?
It’s a future being shaped now, one wrist at a time.
Stay ahead
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.
Senior Marketing Executive
Sales & Marketing
General Manager PR -Internal Communications & Government Affairs
Vital Strategies
Customer Intelligence Director