Qualitative Research Archives

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.

Global demand for chocolate is rising, even as consumer concern over sugar, processed foods and wellness reaches new heights. Across the UK, the US, and key Asian markets, confectionery companies are reporting growth not just in premium segments, but also in functional and “better-for-you” formulations once considered niche.

The shift reflects a broader recalibration of what indulgence means in the modern marketplace. Shoppers are eating less in volume but paying more for chocolate that aligns with evolving personal values-whether that means fewer ingredients, higher cocoa content, or the addition of protein and adaptogens.

Multinational players and local upstarts alike are moving quickly to capture this redefined sweet spot. In the US, dark and portion-controlled chocolates are gaining share despite higher prices. In the UK, new regulations on high-sugar foods have prompted a wave of reformulation and repositioning. And in Asia, where per capita consumption remains relatively low, demand is accelerating as chocolate becomes both an aspirational treat and a vessel for functional benefits.

For an industry once synonymous with excess, chocolate is proving remarkably adaptive. What was once a discretionary snack is now being repackaged as self-care-and that subtle shift in perception is proving to be a powerful driver of growth.

A Global Market Defying Expectations

Chocolate’s commercial momentum is not just anecdotal – it’s backed by hard numbers that defy nutritional orthodoxy. While public health messaging around sugar reduction has grown louder, global retail sales of chocolate continue to expand, particularly in markets where health consciousness and affluence are rising in tandem.

Recent industry estimates place global chocolate confectionery sales at around US$130 billion, with steady value growth driven by pricing power, premiumization, and consumer appetite for smaller, higher-quality products. In contrast to other processed snack categories, chocolate has retained pricing resilience and cultural relevance – often viewed not as a vice, but as an acceptable reward.

In mature markets like the United States and the United Kingdom, manufacturers are offsetting flat or declining volumes with premium offerings, clean-label positioning, and targeted innovation. In the US, even as unit sales dipped last year, dollar sales rose. UK consumers, faced with inflation and regulatory pressure on high-fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) products, are adjusting by buying smaller formats or turning to private-label options – but they haven’t walked away from the category.

In Asia, the story is different. Markets like China and Singapore are seeing growing interest in chocolate, particularly among urban, middle-class consumers. Premium brands, often imported, are benefiting from rising disposable income and a gifting culture that values quality and presentation. Even in Japan, where the market has been contracting, companies are finding ways to win back consumers through functional formulations and high cocoa content offerings.

Whether as comfort, status symbol, or perceived health supplement, chocolate’s role is being redefined. And with that reframing comes an expansion in both who is buying – and why.

Changing Consumer Drivers

The growth in chocolate sales isn’t coming from nostalgia alone. It reflects a more nuanced shift in consumer mindset – one that doesn’t reject indulgence, but instead reclassifies it. Chocolate is increasingly seen as compatible with modern lifestyles, not in spite of its decadence but because of how consumers are redefining what balance looks like.

Across markets, there is growing tolerance – even encouragement – for what industry analysts term “permissible indulgence.” Rather than eliminating treats, consumers are looking for control: smaller portions, higher cocoa content, and labels that read more like pantry ingredients than chemistry sets. In the UK, more than a third of chocolate consumers say they are consciously limiting sugar – but not abstaining entirely. In the US, 91% say they’re willing to pay more for chocolate that feels like a personal reward.

What has changed is the framing. Where chocolate once sat squarely in the category of “guilty pleasures,” it’s now more likely to be marketed as self-care. Brands have responded with messaging that leans on mood, mindfulness, and mental health – themes that resonate particularly well with millennial and Gen Z consumers. In Asia, products with added collagen or calming botanicals are performing strongly, positioned as part of a broader wellness routine.

Functionality is part of the equation. But just as important is the emotional rationale. In a volatile global climate, consumers are granting themselves small indulgences, so long as they carry a justification – be it clean ingredients, health benefits, or sustainability claims. Chocolate, perhaps more than any other treat, has adapted to meet that need without losing its core appeal.

Market	Primary Positioning	Trending Segments	Notable Retail Behavior
US	Indulgence-first	Dark, functional, protein-added	Portion control, DTC growth
UK	Sustainability/Moderation	Plant-based, lower sugar, private label	HFSS-regulated placement, ethical labels
Japan	Functional-first	Stress-relief, GABA, polyphenols	Mini packs, convenience store dominance
China	Premium & Aspirational	Imported brands, gift sets	Localized flavors, e-commerce acceleration
Singapore	Luxury meets wellness	Vegan, single-origin, no added sugar	Gifting culture, boutique specialty retail

Innovation in Product Development

Much of chocolate’s resilience can be traced to how aggressively manufacturers have innovated in recent years. The category has undergone a quiet but significant transformation, with R&D efforts focused on meeting modern expectations around health, quality, and purpose.

Product reformulation is now a baseline strategy. Across the UK and parts of Europe, pressure from HFSS regulations and consumer advocacy groups has accelerated the development of lower-sugar alternatives. Major brands, including Mondelēz and Nestlé, have introduced chocolate lines with 30% less sugar, while also cutting artificial additives and using alternative sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit. In the US, Hershey has expanded its zero-sugar range and invested in cleaner labels across its mainstream portfolio.

The fastest-growing segment, however, isn’t necessarily lower in sugar – it’s higher in cocoa. Dark chocolate continues to outperform traditional milk variants, buoyed by its association with antioxidants, reduced sugar, and a more “sophisticated” profile. Lindt & Sprüngli, Ferrero, and other global players have reported strong growth in dark chocolate sales across both Western and Asian markets, supported by expanding ranges with cocoa content of 70% and above.

In Asia, innovation has taken a more functional route. Japanese confectioners, long known for their product precision, have introduced chocolate fortified with stress-reducing botanicals, dietary fiber, and even blood pressure–supporting polyphenols. In China, new launches incorporate traditional ingredients like ginseng or goji berries, often positioned as “balance-enhancing” or “body-friendly.”

At the premium end, smaller brands are leading with single-origin sourcing, artisanal techniques, and clean-label credentials. Their appeal lies not just in purity of ingredients but in transparency – with packaging that highlights cocoa origin, ethical certification, and handcrafted quality. These innovations are helping redefine chocolate as not just permissible, but aspirational – a snack that delivers on taste, health alignment, and brand values simultaneously.

Some of the most telling examples of how chocolate makers are evolving come from established players experimenting beyond their traditional formulas.

In the UK, Mondelēz launched the Cadbury Plant Bar, a vegan version of its flagship Dairy Milk, using almond paste in place of dairy. The move marked the brand’s first foray into plant-based chocolate in nearly two centuries of operation, reflecting not just a shift in ingredients, but a broader strategy to reach flexitarian consumers. While still a small part of total sales, the Plant Bar represents a growing segment within confectionery where plant-based credentials are seen as a proxy for health, ethics, and modernity.

In the United States, Hu Kitchen has carved out a loyal following by doing less. Its clean-label chocolate bars – free from dairy, refined sugar, palm oil, lecithins, and emulsifiers – have thrived in premium health retailers and online marketplaces. The brand’s minimalist packaging and “Get Back to Human” tagline struck a chord with consumers seeking indulgence without compromise. Hu’s rapid success led to its acquisition by Mondelēz in 2021, underscoring how legacy players are using startup acquisitions to absorb innovation.

In Japan, functionality is a competitive advantage. Meiji’s “The Chocolate” line and Lotte’s “GABA-infused” chocolates target adult consumers seeking both pleasure and health benefits. GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid), a naturally occurring neurotransmitter linked to stress reduction, is featured prominently in Lotte’s marketing, tapping into Japan’s growing demand for mood-supportive snacks. These products are often sold in convenience stores – not as candy, but as part of the functional food aisle.

Taken together, these cases illustrate how manufacturers are navigating a more complex chocolate landscape – where taste is non-negotiable, but health cues, ingredient ethics, and wellness positioning are becoming essential to growth.

Packaging and Positioning as Strategy

As much as product formulation has shifted, so too has the way chocolate is presented – and that evolution is proving just as important in driving consumer uptake. Packaging and messaging have become strategic tools in redefining how chocolate fits into a health-conscious lifestyle. In many cases, what’s on the outside of the bar is doing just as much work as what’s inside it.

One of the most noticeable changes across global markets is the move away from traditional share-size formats toward portion-controlled, individually wrapped offerings. Whether driven by calorie-conscious consumers or regulatory nudges, this shift aligns with broader health narratives. Smaller sizes are marketed not as a cutback, but as a mindful choice. In the UK, major supermarkets have reorganized confectionery aisles to prioritize “treatwise” options, while in Japan and Singapore, individually wrapped squares dominate shelves – reinforcing the idea of moderation and intentionality.

At the premium end of the market, design language has also evolved. Brands are increasingly leaning on matte finishes, minimalist typography, and earthy color palettes to signal quality and modernity. Sustainable packaging has become a competitive differentiator: compostable wrappers, recyclable boxes, and carbon-neutral claims are now common among premium and artisanal brands. According to NielsenIQ, 72% of global consumers say they’re willing to pay more for products that offer sustainable packaging, and confectionery is no exception. In the UK, where eco-consciousness is deeply embedded in consumer decision-making, this has helped smaller brands gain traction.

Equally important is the messaging printed on the front of pack. Chocolate makers are experimenting with a vocabulary that reshapes indulgence into alignment with health, ethics, or personal care. Terms like “source of antioxidants,” “plant-based,” “no added sugar,” and “ethically sourced cacao” are increasingly used to build trust and justify premium pricing. In Asia, functional benefits take center stage – with Japanese and South Korean brands promoting relaxation, cognitive support, and gut health directly on packaging. In the US, mood-related cues – “energy,” “calm,” or “focus” – are finding their way onto wrappers once reserved for novelty slogans.

What’s striking is how positioning diverges across markets, reflecting local consumer priorities. In the United States, chocolate is still framed primarily around indulgence, but with an upgraded narrative: it’s an “earned” treat, often marketed with language around self-reward and quality ingredients. In Japan, functionality leads, with packaging that emphasizes health outcomes and precision. In the UK, sustainability and transparency are front and center – with brands competing on cocoa sourcing, packaging recyclability, and sugar reduction metrics.

For multinationals, adapting packaging and messaging to these local nuances has become essential. What resonates in a Los Angeles health food store may not land in a Tokyo pharmacy or a London high street supermarket. But across all regions, the direction is clear: chocolate is no longer sold simply as a sweet. It is being positioned as a curated experience – one that reflects the consumer’s lifestyle, values, and desired level of indulgence.

Regulatory and Retail Landscape

As health concerns reshape consumer expectations, regulatory bodies and retailers are playing a growing role in influencing how, where, and what kind of chocolate is sold. Far from slowing the category, these shifts are prompting structural changes in how brands operate – from formulation to shelf placement.

In the United Kingdom, one of the most ambitious regulatory efforts has been the government’s restriction on the promotion of high-fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) products. Since October 2022, chocolate and other confectionery brands have faced limitations on prominent in-store placements such as aisle ends and checkouts, along with bans on advertising HFSS products during primetime TV and online slots aimed at children. While critics initially forecast a sharp decline in impulse sales, early results from Kantar suggest a more nuanced picture: some volume loss has occurred, but consumers are increasingly switching to HFSS-compliant versions or smaller-format treats that are still allowed in high-traffic zones. Brands that anticipated these changes – either by reformulating or launching reduced-sugar SKUs – have retained shelf visibility and sales stability.

Retail strategy is also evolving in response to both regulation and pandemic-era behavioral shifts. The rise of direct-to-consumer (DTC) models and online artisanal chocolate brands has created a new layer of competition. In the United States, premium players like Dandelion Chocolate and Raaka have built thriving businesses selling craft bars online, complete with subscription models and seasonal releases. In Asia, particularly Singapore and South Korea, social commerce and messaging platforms are enabling local chocolatiers to bypass traditional retail entirely.

At the same time, specialty health retailers such as Whole Foods, Planet Organic, and iHerb have expanded their chocolate assortments, focusing on functional, low-sugar, and vegan options. Their merchandising strategies give these products front-facing visibility – a stark contrast to conventional supermarkets, where legacy brands still dominate shelf space.

Traditional grocers are responding. IGD data shows that major supermarket chains in Europe and Asia are reallocating shelf space toward “better-for-you” indulgences, particularly as demand grows for low-sugar and plant-based chocolate. Some are trialing “wellness treat” zones, while others are integrating chocolate into broader health-and-lifestyle aisles – a sign that chocolate’s category boundaries are shifting.

Taken together, these developments point to a category in flux – not shrinking, but reshaping. Chocolate remains a high-frequency purchase, but how it’s discovered, promoted, and purchased is changing rapidly, driven by policy, platform, and purpose.

Market Outlook and Investment Trends

Chocolate’s continued growth in a health-conscious world is not an anomaly. It is a lesson in the malleability of consumer perception – and a case study in how legacy categories can evolve when indulgence is repackaged as alignment with personal values.

From an investment standpoint, this has not gone unnoticed. The past five years have seen a wave of M&A activity as global FMCG players seek to future-proof their portfolios. Mondelēz’s acquisitions of Hu Kitchen and Lily’s, Mars’ purchase of KIND and Trü Frü, and Nestlé’s investments in functional and plant-based startups reflect a strategic shift: legacy companies are buying their way into health-aligned chocolate because they understand that future growth lies at the intersection of taste, wellness, and ethics.

At the same time, private label competition is intensifying, particularly in markets like the UK and Asia. As inflation pressures persist, consumers are increasingly opting for supermarket-owned brands that deliver on price without abandoning claims like “ethical sourcing” or “no artificial ingredients.” Retailers are capitalizing on this, not only by expanding their own lines but also by positioning them as premium – narrowing the gap between store brand and artisanal in both packaging and provenance. In the UK, Tesco’s and Sainsbury’s premium private label chocolates now include single-origin and vegan lines. In Asia, Don Quijote has become a bellwether for how convenience and quality can coexist, with curated chocolate assortments from both domestic and imported brands.

The bigger question is whether the category can continue to bridge the tension between health and indulgence. All signs point to yes – but not without nuance. The hybridization of chocolate is likely to continue: functional ingredients will gain ground, especially those linked to mental wellness, gut health, and energy support. Meanwhile, classic indulgence will persist, albeit in cleaner formats and more restrained sizes. Consumers are not abandoning pleasure; they are recalibrating it.

The success of chocolate in this new era lies in its emotional elasticity. It can be a gift, a ritual, a moment of calm, or a functional snack – sometimes all at once. Unlike many processed food categories that struggle to justify their place in a health-first world, chocolate has managed to make itself feel essential. That is not just clever marketing; it’s a deep understanding of how modern consumers make trade-offs. They don’t want to eliminate joy – they want to justify it.

For investors, that makes chocolate a rare thing in today’s food landscape: a category with legacy scale, emotional equity, and evolving relevance. For brands, the challenge now is not to follow fads, but to build trust, deliver on new expectations, and never forget that taste is still the gatekeeper. The future of chocolate will belong to those who understand that indulgence and intention are no longer opposites – they are partners in modern consumerism.

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.

I live in Tornado Alley, which means a roof isn’t just a roof – it’s armor. So when I found out mine needed replacing, I didn’t hesitate. I reviewed quotes, selected a company, signed the contract. All the hard stuff, I thought, was behind me.

Then came the question: what color?

It felt like it should’ve been easy. But standing in my driveway, staring up at the expanse of shingles-to-be, I froze. It’s a massive, permanent decision – visible from every angle, exposed to the sky, the neighbors, and every passing storm chaser. Would black make the house too hot? Would brown make it look dated? Would grey clash with the brick?

Naturally, I turned to ChatGPT. I uploaded a photo of my home, asked for help, and was met with an avalanche of color-coded logic – slate complements red brick, brown warms the palette, weathered wood is a “classic choice.” The suggestions were smart, thoughtful… and somehow made things worse. I now had more choices, just better argued.

So I went to the manufacturer’s website and used their simulation tool, dropping different shingle colors onto a photo of my house. It helped, in theory. But once I narrowed it down to three, they all started to blur. On screen, they looked practically the same. That’s when my roofing company stepped in. They brought physical samples, laid them out in the sunlight, and – most importantly – showed me actual homes nearby with each of the colors installed. Only then, after all the tech, the swatches, and the analysis, could I make a choice I felt confident in.

This wasn’t indecision. It was decision friction. And it’s the kind of friction that brands, in their pursuit of offering more, often overlook.

The Psychology of Too Much Choice

We tend to think more choice equals more freedom. But in reality, more choice often creates more anxiety. Psychologist Barry Schwartz coined this dynamic the Paradox of Choice – the idea that while some choice is good, too much can lead to decision paralysis, increased regret, and less satisfaction overall.

This is especially true when the decision feels high-stakes. Choosing a roof color isn’t just cosmetic – it’s a long-term investment, highly visible, and not easily reversed. When the pressure is on, our brain doesn’t appreciate abundance. It defaults to avoidance.

In one of the most cited studies in consumer psychology, Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper set up a jam sampling table in a grocery store. Shoppers were either offered six flavors or twenty-four. The larger display drew more interest – but those offered just six choices were ten times more likely to make a purchase. The takeaway? More options may attract attention, but fewer options drive action.

What’s happening under the surface is cognitive overload. Our working memory – responsible for weighing pros and cons – gets saturated quickly. With each new variable, our mental model has to recalculate. At a certain point, the decision becomes so mentally taxing that it feels easier to defer it, abandon it, or outsource it entirely. That’s not a lack of willpower. That’s the brain protecting itself from burnout.

When brands ignore this psychological friction, they unknowingly increase the likelihood of customer hesitation, second-guessing, or worse – inaction. Because when everything looks like a good option, nothing feels like the right one.

Why Some Decisions Deserve More Support

Marketers often treat decisions like they exist on a flat playing field. But in reality, choice sits on a hierarchy – and the higher up you go, the more psychological support people need.

Low-stakes decisions, such as choosing a gum flavor or a side dish, rarely cause friction. They’re inexpensive, reversible, and carry minimal consequences. High-stakes choices, on the other hand, are more complex, costly, and deeply personal. Whether it’s selecting a mortgage provider, a wedding dress, or a new roof, the risk of regret weighs heavier.

That’s when the brain switches gears. We move from intuition to analysis, and if overloaded, to avoidance. Behavioral economists refer to this as the decision fatigue curve. As the number of variables and the stakes increase, so does cognitive load. That’s why people delay home renovations or abandon full carts at checkout. It isn’t laziness – it’s self-preservation.

This is where tiered choice architecture can help. Instead of dumping every possibility on the table, brands can scaffold decisions. For example, a meal kit service might start by asking about dietary needs, then cooking skill, then taste preferences – delivering a filtered set of meals instead of all 200 at once. The consumer still feels in control, but the decision feels digestible.

Think of it like an elevator. Not every customer is heading to the top floor. Some want a shortcut to level two, others want to explore every stop. But without floors, stairs, or signage, everyone just stands around in the lobby – unsure of where to go next.

Smart brands design choice structures based on where decisions fall in the hierarchy and how much friction they carry. It’s not a nice-to-have – it’s essential.

Why Smart Tools Sometimes Backfire

Even when tools are meant to help, they can still make it worse. AI-generated recommendations, product filters, simulations – these were designed to ease decision-making. But when they simply layer on new variables without eliminating others, they amplify the problem.

In my case, ChatGPT gave me additional, well-reasoned color suggestions. The roofing brand’s simulator let me “see” each option on my house. But with every added perspective, I became more uncertain – not less. What I needed wasn’t more input. I needed a system that filtered, narrowed, and helped me move forward confidently.

That’s the trap brands fall into. They assume the answer to choice anxiety is better information. But the real solution is constraint.

People don’t want endless options. They want a sense that they’re on the right path. And while visual tools are helpful, they rarely match the nuance of real-world conditions – light changes, neighborhood aesthetics, material textures. That’s why physical samples and in-person examples were what ultimately helped me decide. Not because they offered more data, but because they reduced ambiguity.

Even the smartest tools can fail if they don’t acknowledge the emotional weight of uncertainty. Help should feel like progress, not pressure.

The Business Case for Simplifying Choice

It’s one thing to talk about the theory of too much choice. It’s another to see what happens when companies actually do something about it.

Procter & Gamble once sold 26 different versions of Head & Shoulders shampoo. From dandruff control to citrus burst, there was something for every scalp scenario. But instead of boosting sales, the abundance of options led to customer hesitation – and stagnant shelves. When P&G reduced the number of variants from 26 to 15, something surprising happened: sales went up.

Why? Because fewer choices didn’t mean less relevance. It meant less confusion.

This pattern repeats across industries. GAP, for example, simplified its denim wall – once packed with indistinguishable fits – and saw shoppers choose faster and with more certainty. In tech, Apple’s limited product lines stand in stark contrast to Android’s sprawling menus. Apple doesn’t overwhelm with options. It offers what’s needed – and nothing more.

Even in the world of digital entertainment, Netflix has tested ways to surface fewer titles on screen to reduce decision paralysis and increase view time. Endless scroll may seem like engagement, but often it’s just a user trapped in the loop of not knowing what to pick.

These companies realized that offering fewer, better-differentiated choices creates momentum. It respects the consumer’s time, reduces cognitive strain, and makes the path to “yes” feel like a confident step – not a leap of faith.

In a world that equates abundance with value, restraint has become a competitive advantage.

What Brands Should Learn

When consumers are overwhelmed, they don’t want more options – they want clarity. The role of the brand is no longer just to offer a catalogue of possibilities, but to actively guide people through a decision journey that feels considered, contextual, and reassuring.

Start with curated collections. Rather than overwhelming customers with endless variants, group products into purposeful sets: “best for small spaces,” “most popular among professionals,” “ideal for warm climates.” Curation is not restriction – it’s a form of empathy.

Next, invest in personalized guidance. This could be as simple as a quiz that identifies key needs and filters options, or as advanced as AI-driven suggestions based on behavioral patterns. But the goal is the same: to remove irrelevant options, not add to the noise.

Then there’s context. Il Makiage, for example, doesn’t just match foundation shades – they show how those shades look on real people, under real conditions. They reinforce your selection with testimonials and visual proof, not just swatches on a screen.

Brands should also think about post-purchase validation. The moment after a decision is made is just as critical as the moment before. Thoughtful follow-up emails, affirming language, tips for first-time use – these reassure the customer they made a smart call.

Ultimately, this is about choice architecture. The brands that win don’t just give people more to choose from. They design the experience around how people actually make choices – emotionally, socially, and cognitively.

The Role of Research in Reducing Friction

Understanding decision friction isn’t guesswork – it’s measurable. According to a Baymard Institute study, nearly 70% of online shopping carts are abandoned – and one of the top reasons is a complicated decision process. This is where market research proves invaluable.

At its core, decision friction stems from uncertainty. But the source of that uncertainty – whether it’s lack of clarity, hesitation, or unspoken objections – differs by category, audience, and context. Research identifies these hidden blocks.

Qualitative studies reveal how consumers feel in the moment of indecision. Quantitative methods like conjoint analysis or maxdiff help identify which features drive real value. Segmentation shows how different customer types make decisions – some need freedom, others need a path.

Research also plays a critical role in post-choice validation – what gives people confidence after they say yes. The right message, email, or proof point can turn relief into brand trust.

If friction is the obstacle, research is the flashlight.

UX Doesn’t Stand for Unlimited Experience

In digital environments, more space doesn’t automatically mean more freedom. It often means more friction. In user experience (UX) design, subtraction – not expansion – is often the most powerful conversion tool.

Booking.com once overloaded its interface with filters, price badges, and urgency cues. But A/B testing revealed that simplifying the layout led to higher engagement. Shopify restructured its onboarding to guide users through sequential tasks rather than overwhelming dashboards. Completion rates rose.

Even streaming platforms like Disney+ and Netflix have learned to surface fewer but more relevant titles. Endless choice wasn’t delight – it was paralysis.

This is called cognitive offloading – helping users conserve mental energy by removing unnecessary decisions.

UX design, at its best, doesn’t just look good. It helps people move forward.

Final Thought

Decision-making is rarely logical alone. It’s emotional, contextual, and deeply personal – particularly when the stakes are high. Smart brands don’t just sell products. They design experiences that acknowledge the mental load customers carry.

The best marketing today isn’t louder. It’s sharper. It removes friction not by simplifying what you offer, but by anticipating how people choose. If you’re not thinking about how your customer feels at the point of decision, you’re not really in the business of persuasion.

You’re in the business of hoping.

And hope is not a strategy.

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.

Veterinary care is undergoing a transformation that few outside the pet industry have fully registered. Quietly, and with surprising speed, it is becoming one of the most innovative frontiers in healthcare delivery – spurred not by institutions or regulators, but by consumer behavior.

The catalyst was COVID-19. As lockdowns confined millions to their homes, pet adoption surged worldwide. Between 2020 and 2022, more than 23 million American households acquired a new pet, according to the ASPCA. The UK saw a 20% increase in pet ownership during the same period, while markets like Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand reported double-digit growth in first-time pet ownership, particularly among urban millennials and Gen Z. Today, nearly 60% of households in Southeast Asia’s major cities own at least one pet.

But what followed the adoption boom was something more profound: a redefinition of what pet care should look like. In a world of same-day grocery delivery, wearable glucose monitors, and always-on digital banking, pet owners began demanding the same immediacy, visibility, and personalization from veterinary services. Convenience became table stakes; transparency became non-negotiable. And traditional clinics – often booked weeks out, with variable pricing and limited hours – found themselves out of sync with rising expectations.

Into this gap stepped a new breed of service: subscription-based, digital-first veterinary platforms. These companies don’t just offer reactive care – they promise continuous access, proactive advice, and predictable costs. Enabled by mobile technology and fueled by a consumer base fluent in subscriptions – from fitness to food to finance – these platforms are not only meeting demand, but redefining it.

This isn’t a Western phenomenon alone. Across Southeast Asia, mobile-native consumers are bypassing legacy systems entirely, engaging with vet care the way they engage with mobility, entertainment, and finance – via app, on demand, and often as part of a bundled service.

What’s emerging is not an add-on to the veterinary industry – it’s a parallel infrastructure. Subscription-based pet care is changing not just how services are delivered, but how they’re valued, experienced, and expected. The shift is quiet, but its implications are structural, global, and irreversible.

The Perfect Storm Behind the Shift

The rise of subscription-based, digital-first veterinary care didn’t happen in a vacuum. It was the product of mounting structural strain in the veterinary industry, colliding with a generational realignment in how consumers engage with health and wellness. What’s happening now is less a trend than a correction – one shaped by workforce shortages, behavioral shifts, and evolving definitions of convenience.

At the heart of this transformation is a growing imbalance between supply and demand. In the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association projects a shortfall of nearly 15,000 veterinarians by 2030. In the UK, the British Veterinary Association has sounded the alarm over staffing shortages exacerbated by Brexit and post-pandemic burnout. Across Southeast Asia, where veterinary infrastructure has long lagged behind growing pet ownership, access to licensed professionals remains patchy – especially outside major cities.

The result is a system under pressure: overbooked clinics, rising costs, and long wait times for even routine care. These inefficiencies are increasingly incompatible with a consumer base accustomed to real-time digital access in nearly every other domain of life.

That base is also changing. Millennials and Gen Z now account for the majority of pet owners in many countries. In the US, 76% of Gen Z and 71% of millennials own pets, according to a 2023 report by Packaged Facts. These generations have grown up with mobile-first services, expect subscription-based billing, and value transparency over tradition. They’re less loyal to institutions, more loyal to user experience.

But the shift isn’t purely generational – it’s behavioral. Consumers are no longer looking to engage with veterinary services only when something goes wrong. They want ongoing access, reassurance, and preventative care for pets as part of a broader wellness lifestyle. In this model, a once-episodic service – one that was reactive by design – is being reimagined as a continuous relationship.

The demand for immediacy is also driving pricing innovation. Traditional clinics often operate on a fee-for-service basis with little predictability for clients. Subscription models offer a clear alternative: fixed monthly pricing, bundled services, and easy cancellation. It’s a format consumers understand intuitively – one that reduces friction and increases perceived value, even when the actual services may overlap with those offered by brick-and-mortar practices.

These forces – professional shortages, digital behavior, rising expectations – have created a perfect storm. But it is consumers, not companies, who are setting the pace of change. Their demand for continuity, control, and convenience is rewriting the rules of engagement in pet care. Traditional models are being redefined not by what they lack, but by what they can no longer offer at scale.

The Rise of Subscription-Based Vet Care

If the traditional veterinary model is under strain, subscription-based platforms are capitalizing on the gap – not just by digitizing care, but by reframing what care means altogether.

At the center of this shift is a new breed of veterinary service providers offering care plans that emphasize access, continuity, and convenience. Unlike conventional clinics, which are often bound by geographic reach, hours of operation, and one-off appointment models, these platforms offer a digital front door to veterinary support – always open, always responsive.

In the United States, startups like Fuzzy and Pawp have led the charge. Fuzzy offers members 24/7 live vet chat, medication delivery, and access to care plans for chronic conditions – all through a monthly subscription that ranges from $20 to $40. Pawp, which launched in 2020, delivers flat-fee emergency fund access and unlimited telehealth consults for under $25 per month. These companies are less interested in replacing brick-and-mortar clinics and more focused on becoming the first – and frequent – point of contact. Their services are designed around reassurance, convenience, and wellness, rather than surgical procedures or complex diagnostics.

In the UK, Joii Pet Care has gained traction by offering video consults and symptom checkers targeted at affordability and access. Developed by a team of experienced vets and tech entrepreneurs, the app aims to fill care gaps, particularly for lower-income households or those living in rural areas where local clinics are sparse. With prices starting under £25 per consultation or bundled into wellness plans, Joii represents a different approach: one rooted in cost democratization without sacrificing clinical oversight.

Across Southeast Asia, where veterinary infrastructure varies widely, digital-first models are leapfrogging outdated systems. In cities like Jakarta, Bangkok, and Manila, startups are building integrated ecosystems that combine e-commerce, on-demand consults, vaccination reminders, and home diagnostics – all accessible via mobile app. In these markets, where smartphone penetration is high and traditional vet coverage is limited, the subscription model isn’t just disruptive – it’s foundational.

What all these models share is a fundamental redefinition of veterinary care as a service layer, not a physical location. This service is anchored in several common features:

Always-on access: 24/7 chat and video support, eliminating the need to wait for clinic hours.
Tiered pricing: Monthly plans that bundle consults, medications, supplements, or diagnostic tests.
Proactive care: Wellness tracking, behavior coaching, and early intervention, rather than reactive treatment.
Integrated delivery: Some platforms even include food, flea treatments, or insurance coverage – shifting from care to full-lifecycle pet management.

From a business standpoint, the subscription model offers strong appeal: predictable recurring revenue, high engagement, and greater lifetime value per customer. For consumers, the model reduces decision fatigue. Instead of weighing every vet call against cost or necessity, pet owners can access care fluidly, often leading to earlier interventions and stronger long-term outcomes.

Crucially, the value isn’t just in the care provided – it’s in the perception of partnership. These platforms don’t operate like service providers; they position themselves as guides, helping owners navigate an increasingly complex pet wellness landscape. This relationship-first framing plays especially well with younger consumers, who prioritize trust and transparency in brand interaction.

Subscription-based vet care isn’t about replacing traditional clinics. It’s about meeting the unmet needs those clinics were never designed to solve – ongoing reassurance, flexible support, and access untethered from geography or schedule. And in doing so, these platforms are setting new benchmarks for what modern pet healthcare looks like, not just in the West, but in digital-first economies around the world.

Regional Perspectives in Transformation

While the shift to digital-first, subscription-based veterinary care is global in momentum, its expression varies significantly by region. Regulation, consumer behavior, infrastructure, and healthcare norms all influence how the transformation unfolds – and where it gains traction fastest.

United States: Infrastructure Meets Expectation

The US remains the most mature market for pet telehealth, fueled by high rates of pet ownership, established digital payment infrastructure, and a consumer base accustomed to subscriptions across lifestyle categories. Companies like Fuzzy, Pawp, and Dutch have rapidly scaled, supported by favorable funding environments and growing regulatory flexibility.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has gradually updated telemedicine guidelines to reflect new realities, allowing licensed vets to establish a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) remotely in some states. This flexibility has given startups room to innovate while enabling hybrid models that bridge virtual triage and in-person escalation.

Consumer readiness has also played a role. With 97% of US households owning a smartphone and nearly 80% of millennials identifying as pet parents, mobile-based care isn’t a leap – it’s a natural extension of how health, finance, and lifestyle are already managed.

United Kingdom: Bridging Gaps with Affordability

In the UK, the rise of digital veterinary services has followed a different path – less about convenience, more about access and affordability. NHS-like expectations of care spill into pet ownership culture, where cost sensitivity often leads to delayed treatment or skipped appointments.

Joii and FirstVet have gained traction by offering consults at fixed, low prices, targeting under-served households and rural regions. These services are often paired with employer benefits or pet insurance providers, forming integrated care bundles that mirror human healthcare delivery.

Regulation is catching up, but remains a barrier in some respects. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) still requires an in-person relationship to prescribe most medications, limiting the scope of pure-play digital models. Still, the appetite for innovation is evident, especially among younger consumers facing cost-of-living pressures and limited clinic access.

Southeast Asia: Mobile-First and Rapidly Scaling

In Southeast Asia, subscription-based pet care is not just a convenience – it’s becoming foundational. In high-density cities like Jakarta, Bangkok, and Ho Chi Minh City, veterinary infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with urban pet ownership. Clinics are often understaffed or geographically uneven, while demand for care is growing sharply among younger, mobile-first consumers.

Here, digital platforms are leapfrogging legacy systems, integrating consults, treatment reminders, product delivery, and even vaccination records into a single app. The model resembles fintech and telemedicine rollouts in the region: rapid, mobile-led, and often driven by startups with regional or pan-Asian ambitions.

Unlike in the West, where subscription models compete with entrenched systems, Southeast Asia’s innovators are building the baseline infrastructure from the ground up. For many new pet owners in the region, a subscription-based vet app isn’t a supplement – it’s the only vet they’ve ever known.

Brand Spotlight: Pawp

Image credit: Pawp

Few companies have captured the shift in pet care delivery as clearly as Pawp. Launched in 2019, the US-based startup built its model around a simple idea: pet owners want immediate access to expert care without unpredictable costs. For a monthly fee of around $24, subscribers receive unlimited 24/7 access to licensed veterinarians via chat or video, along with an annual $3,000 emergency fund that covers life-threatening situations.

It’s not insurance, and it’s not a replacement for in-person care. Instead, Pawp positions itself as the first point of contact – triaging concerns, offering advice, and filling the gap between full-service clinics and reactive emergency visits. The service is especially appealing to urban renters, multi-pet households, and younger owners accustomed to managing health, banking, and food delivery through their phones.

Adoption accelerated during the pandemic, as pet ownership hit record highs and consumers became more comfortable with telehealth. By 2022, Pawp had expanded nationwide. But its biggest leap came in 2023 when Walmart integrated the service into its Walmart+ membership. For millions of members, a vet became one tap away, included in their monthly subscription. That partnership wasn’t just a distribution win – it marked a cultural shift, signaling that veterinary access, like streaming or grocery delivery, could be bundled into everyday life.

Pawp’s model reflects a broader recalibration of how pet owners think about care. The unlimited access reduces the threshold for engagement – owners no longer hesitate over whether a question is “worth” asking. Instead, they ask more, earlier, and often. This changes the rhythm of care, encouraging prevention over reaction and making the pet-health relationship feel continuous rather than episodic.

While competitors have emerged, few match Pawp’s combination of on-demand triage and financial safety net. The company has also moved into employer benefits and financial services, appearing in bundled perks from credit cards and HR platforms. For traditional clinics, this model doesn’t displace in-person care – but it does rewire when, how, and why pet owners seek help.

What Pawp proves is that subscription care isn’t just a pricing structure – it’s a behavior model. And for millions of pet owners, it’s quickly becoming the default.

Traditional Clinics at a Crossroads

The rise of subscription-based, digital-first platforms presents traditional veterinary practices with a pivotal question: resist, retreat, or reconfigure?

For decades, veterinary care has been defined by brick-and-mortar clinics. The model was straightforward – appointments, procedures, prescriptions. But this model was never designed for today’s expectations: 24/7 access, real-time answers, preventative guidance, and fixed-cost transparency. As new entrants deliver on these demands digitally, traditional clinics are being forced to confront their own structural limitations.

Some view the trend as a threat to their clinical authority and client relationships. But framing this evolution as competition misses the larger opportunity. In truth, these models don’t replace what clinics do – they fill the spaces in between. And for practices that embrace this reality, digital platforms offer not a threat but a strategic partner.

Hybrid care is emerging as a viable solution. Clinics that incorporate virtual consults – either independently or through collaboration with subscription providers – can triage non-emergency cases more efficiently, free up in-clinic capacity, and reduce staff burnout. This is especially critical as workforce shortages continue to mount. By adding a digital layer, clinics can serve more patients without diluting the quality of care.

The integration opportunity extends further. Clinics that lean into wellness plans, recurring product bundles, or asynchronous follow-ups are finding new ways to generate revenue, build loyalty, and align with how modern pet owners think. The shift from transactional care to relational care – something digital-first platforms do exceptionally well – can be mirrored within physical practices through smarter use of CRM systems, automated reminders, and bundled service pricing.

However, cultural shifts may prove more challenging than technological ones. Pricing transparency, a cornerstone of the subscription model, forces clinics to re-evaluate the traditional ambiguity around fees. Similarly, expectations around always-on access mean that practices must reconsider staffing models, triage protocols, and customer service norms.

Still, the alternative is stagnation. Pet owners will increasingly gravitate toward models that give them more control, clarity, and connection. If clinics don’t evolve in parallel, they risk becoming not obsolete, but peripheral – consulted only in crisis, instead of trusted across the care journey.

The path forward for traditional veterinary care isn’t defensive – it’s adaptive. The future belongs not to those who replicate digital models, but to those who integrate them with the irreplaceable expertise of in-person care.

What Subscription Care Reveals About Consumer Psychology

The growth of subscription-based veterinary care cannot be explained by technology alone. At its core lies a deeper psychological shift: the redefinition of care from a transactional act to an ongoing relationship – one that is emotional, preventative, and embedded in daily life.

Pet owners are no longer engaging with veterinary services purely out of necessity. They are engaging out of responsibility and routine, adopting the behaviors they’ve internalized from human wellness – preventative check-ups, continuous monitoring, and personalized guidance – and projecting them onto their animals. This is not sentimentality; it’s behavioral logic. Pets are increasingly viewed not as dependents, but as extensions of the self. Caring for them is seen as a reflection of competence, compassion, and control.

Subscription models tap directly into this psychological orientation. The fixed monthly fee does more than spread out cost – it reduces decision friction. Owners no longer have to weigh whether a behavior warrants a $90 consult. They can simply ask. This freedom from hesitation leads to greater engagement, earlier intervention, and – crucially – higher customer satisfaction.

The format itself matters. Subscriptions create a psychological contract: a sense that care is ongoing, not contingent. This fosters trust and encourages owners to interact with the service even when nothing seems urgent. As usage increases, so does perceived value – making cancellations less likely and loyalty more resilient, even in times of economic pressure.

This model also aligns with modern consumers’ preference for predictability over spontaneity, especially among Gen Z and millennials. These cohorts are more likely to use budgeting apps, mental health platforms, and fitness subscriptions than previous generations. In this landscape, paying monthly for a responsive, wellness-oriented vet service doesn’t feel like an expense. It feels like a responsible default.

The emotional context is equally significant. Pet health triggers the same anxiety as human health, often without the institutional support systems or insurance coverage. Subscription care offers not just medical advice, but peace of mind – a buffer against uncertainty that is worth paying for, even if it’s never used.

What we’re witnessing is not just a new way to deliver veterinary services. It’s a new way to frame value, build trust, and establish relevance in the lives of modern pet owners – anchored as much in psychology as in medicine.

From Reactive to Relationship-Based Care

The next frontier in pet healthcare will not be built solely on digital access – it will be defined by intelligence, personalization, and integration. Subscription models have laid the foundation. What comes next is an ecosystem where care is continuous, contextual, and increasingly predictive.

Already, we’re seeing early signals. AI-enabled symptom checkers and triage bots are improving accuracy and efficiency in first-line responses, particularly in high-volume markets like the US and UK. Wearables are moving beyond step tracking, offering real-time insights into sleep quality, heart rate variability, and behavioral anomalies – data that can trigger interventions before a clinical symptom emerges. And at-home diagnostics, from microbiome testing to genetic screening, are making it possible to detect risk factors earlier than ever before.

As these tools mature, the role of the veterinarian will evolve. Less gatekeeper, more guide. Less episodic expert, more integrated partner. Pet care will mirror the best of modern human healthcare: digitally enabled, insight-driven, and co-managed by both professional and consumer. The brands and clinics that succeed will be those that understand not just what services to offer, but how to build lasting relevance in a world of empowered pet parents.

In this landscape, market research becomes more essential – not less. Understanding the emotional, cultural, and behavioral drivers behind pet care decisions is critical to navigating what’s next. Data alone can reveal what consumers are buying; insight reveals why – and what they’ll demand next. Whether it’s segmenting how Gen Z in Bangkok approaches preventative pet care, or tracking the adoption curve of tele-vet platforms among suburban households in Manchester, the businesses that win will be those that treat insight as strategy, not a sidebar.

The future of veterinary care is not about digitizing the past. It’s about reshaping the relationship between pet, owner, and provider. What began as a convenience – subscriptions, on-demand chat, symptom checkers – is becoming an expectation. The logic of episodic care is giving way to a relationship economy, where value is measured not just in outcomes, but in consistency, confidence, and care continuity.

Veterinary practices, platforms, and brands alike face a choice. Compete on service, or compete on understanding. In an age of intelligent pet wellness, the latter will shape the next generation of care.

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.

Late one evening in Lagos, 22-year-old Chika is scrolling through TikTok, eyes fixed on a local influencer demoing the latest face serum. She watches the 30-second video twice, screenshots the product, and toggles over to Jumia to compare prices, scanning reviews that look a little too polished to be real. Before checking out, she sends a message to her cousin in Ibadan: “Have you tried this one? Is it legit?” Only after a thumbs-up and a money-back assurance from the seller does she complete the purchase – on mobile, of course.

This isn’t an isolated case. It’s a snapshot of how the next billion consumers will shop, click, and connect.

While Western economies grapple with saturation, inflation, and shifting loyalty, the momentum is migrating – toward Southeast Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America. These regions are no longer just “emerging markets.” They are where the most dynamic, mobile-first, and digitally sophisticated consumers are coming of age.

The numbers make the case undeniable. According to the United Nations, over 85% of global population growth through 2050 will come from Africa and Asia. The GSMA reports that mobile internet penetration in Sub-Saharan Africa is set to reach 50% by 2025, up from 28% in 2019. Meanwhile, the World Bank highlights how smartphone adoption is leapfrogging traditional infrastructure, giving rise to an entire generation that skipped the PC era entirely.

But these consumers are not easily won. They are bilingual and bicultural, equally fluent in local slang and global memes. They are digitally native but deeply mistrustful, having grown up in online ecosystems rife with scams, misinformation, and empty brand promises. And they are forcing brands – both global and local – to rethink what it means to earn attention, deliver relevance, and build trust in the age of hyper-connectivity.

This is not just a demographic shift. It’s a behavioral revolution. And it’s already underway.

Meet the Next Billion: Demographics, Access, and Expectations

This new wave of consumers is young, connected, and coming online fast. In markets like Nigeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, the median age hovers around 25. These are societies where more than half the population wasn’t yet born when Facebook launched – and for them, digital engagement isn’t an evolution; it’s a native state.

Urbanization is accelerating across these regions, but it’s not confined to megacities. Second- and third-tier cities are becoming powerful engines of growth, fueled by digital access and rising educational attainment. In Vietnam, for instance, over 94% of youth are literate, and the number of university graduates has doubled over the past decade. Similarly, Nigeria’s youth enrollment in tertiary education is climbing, despite infrastructure constraints. With education comes language dexterity: millions speak at least two languages – one local, one global – and they switch between them instinctively, depending on the context, platform, or audience.

If their predecessors logged onto the internet, this generation lives inside it – and does so almost exclusively via smartphone. In Indonesia, smartphone penetration has surpassed 75%, with apps like Tokopedia, Gojek, and Shopee becoming gateways to everything from groceries to financial services. In sub-Saharan Africa, handset affordability and prepaid data plans have made mobile the default medium for learning, shopping, and socializing. The desktop? Many have never touched one.

Browser-based experiences are increasingly irrelevant. Instead, this generation navigates a constellation of apps, each with its own cultural role. WhatsApp is for family, Instagram for aspiration, TikTok for entertainment, and Telegram or local forums for unfiltered information. Platform behavior is deeply segmented and purpose-driven. Brands attempting to force a uniform message across channels are quickly tuned out.

And while their tech habits may look similar from a distance, the nuances run deep. In Nigeria, digital spaces are often leveraged as tools for activism and community solidarity. Mistrust in institutions has made peer recommendations and online reputation more powerful than formal brand campaigns. By contrast, in Indonesia, religious and cultural values shape how products are perceived and promoted – especially in sectors like fashion, beauty, and food. Vietnamese consumers, on the other hand, exhibit a high degree of tech optimism, embracing e-wallets and livestream commerce, but place enormous emphasis on product quality and after-sales service, driven by prior experiences with low-cost imports.

These differences matter. What unites the next billion is their digital fluency, but what distinguishes them is the lens through which they evaluate brands. A price drop may trigger interest in Nigeria, but in Vietnam, durability and performance often take precedence. In Indonesia, localized design or halal certification may be the tipping point. The common thread is that these consumers are not passive recipients of global marketing – they are active participants, savvy navigators, and, increasingly, vocal critics.

To engage them, brands must move past old assumptions about emerging markets being homogenous or easily won with scale. What’s unfolding is a more complex, more nuanced, and more demanding consumer environment – and it’s being shaped not just by demographics, but by deep-seated expectations forged in mobile-first, culturally hybrid, and rapidly evolving societies.

Mistrust Is the Default Setting

For many of the next billion consumers, skepticism isn’t a reaction – it’s a reflex. Decades of unreliable infrastructure, political instability, and inconsistent enforcement of consumer rights have conditioned buyers to approach brands and platforms with guarded caution. In these markets, trust is not assumed; it’s earned slowly and lost quickly.

The scale of the challenge is significant. According to Edelman’s 2024 Trust Barometer, trust in institutions – including businesses – remains markedly lower in developing regions than in developed ones. In Nigeria, only 42% of respondents said they trust brands “to do what is right,” compared to 62% in the UK. In Indonesia, that figure was closer to 50%, but even there, trust is often linked to familiarity rather than formal reputation – people tend to trust people, not corporations.

This backdrop has fueled the rise of peer-to-peer influence as a dominant decision-making force. In the Philippines, Facebook community groups like “Online Budol Finds” (slang for impulsive purchases) function as real-time marketplaces and review boards, where users share unfiltered opinions about products, pricing, and service. In Kenya, WhatsApp groups play a similar role, serving as both watchdog and validator in a system where traditional consumer protections are weak or absent. Even in Vietnam, where e-commerce infrastructure has rapidly improved, 54% of online shoppers say they rely on recommendations from friends or family over brand messaging, according to Statista.

This preference for informal verification mechanisms stems from bitter experience. Counterfeit goods remain a rampant issue across markets – from fake electronics in Ghana to diluted skincare products in Indonesia. In response, many consumers have developed an internal checklist: check the seller’s social proof, confirm the payment method, look for real customer images, and verify delivery policies. Brands that fail even one of these checks are likely to be discarded in seconds.

At the same time, digital mistrust is compounding the issue. Scams, phishing attacks, and fake reviews have tainted the e-commerce experience. The GSMA estimates that more than 40% of mobile internet users in Africa and Southeast Asia have experienced some form of online fraud or misleading advertising. In Indonesia alone, the National Cyber and Crypto Agency reported over 190 million cyberattacks and suspicious traffic incidents in 2023.

In this climate, even influencer marketing – a strategy once thought to fast-track trust – has grown less effective. In Vietnam, consumers increasingly question whether influencers are being paid to promote products they don’t actually use. The same holds true in Nigeria, where audiences are savvy enough to distinguish between genuine recommendations and sponsored scripts. The result is a gradual shift toward micro-influencers and community advocates, whose endorsements feel more relatable and less rehearsed.

The implications for global brands are profound. Standard top-down marketing no longer carries weight. Instead, trust must be layered in – through reliable service, consistent messaging, transparency in returns and refunds, and responsiveness on the platforms where consumers are active. Brands must also recognize the importance of publicly visible customer interactions. A fast, empathetic reply to a complaint in the comments section may matter more than a million-dollar ad campaign.

Trust, in this context, is not a brand asset; it’s a user experience outcome. And in a market where every interaction becomes a review, the next billion are watching, judging, and sharing – with or without you.

The Battle for the First Page (or First Screen)

For the next billion consumers, the path to purchase doesn’t begin with a browser search – it starts with a scroll. Discovery has shifted from keywords to content, from desktop search bars to full-screen video, and from global search engines to localized social ecosystems. As a result, the first screen – what shows up in a feed, on a homepage, or in a chat group – has become the most valuable real estate in the customer journey.

In Indonesia, 71% of internet users aged 16–24 say they use social media as their primary source for researching brands, according to DataReportal 2024. In Nigeria, that figure is nearly identical. TikTok, Instagram Reels, Facebook Marketplace, and YouTube Shorts aren’t just distractions – they’re digital storefronts where decisions are made in real time, often before a brand’s official website is ever visited. The lines between content, commerce, and community have all but vanished.

And while this trend is visible globally, its intensity in emerging markets is distinct. A key reason: data affordability drives platform choice and usage behavior. Telecom bundles that include free access to Facebook or WhatsApp often influence which platforms dominate attention. In the Philippines, for example, “Free FB” packages have made Facebook one of the most deeply entrenched platforms in the country’s digital culture – so much so that some users mistakenly believe it is the internet.

The importance of platform-specific strategy can’t be overstated. In Vietnam, product discovery frequently occurs through livestream commerce on TikTok Shop, where real-time interactions foster a sense of authenticity. In Kenya, small businesses routinely post promotions through WhatsApp Status or Telegram channels, bypassing traditional ad formats altogether. In Nigeria, where Twitter (now X) has a strong political and cultural presence, product conversations often unfold in threads filled with memes, humor, and direct audience engagement.

But it’s not just about where brands show up – it’s about how they’re experienced in the moment. Load speed, image optimization, and mobile UX have a direct impact on trust and retention. According to Google, 53% of mobile users in emerging markets will abandon a page that takes longer than three seconds to load. And that’s not just about tech – it’s about expectations. These consumers are used to fast, seamless, and low-friction digital experiences. Anything less suggests the brand doesn’t understand them.

Just as critically, language and localization now serve as first impressions. A landing page that defaults to English – or worse, uses awkward machine translations – can signal cultural detachment. By contrast, content tailored in local languages, with region-specific slang and visual references, is seen as a mark of respect and investment. It says: we’re not just here to sell; we’re here to understand.

In a space where attention is both fleeting and fiercely fought over, success no longer goes to the loudest voice or biggest budget. It goes to the most culturally fluent, visually intuitive, and platform-native presence. Winning the first screen isn’t about visibility alone – it’s about resonance.

The Rise of Reverse Aspiration and Quiet Power

Western brands once assumed that success in emerging markets meant becoming aspirational – symbols of modernity and affluence. But for today’s mobile-first generation, the tables are turning. Increasingly, it is not global prestige that earns admiration, but local relevance. In place of overt aspiration, there’s a growing sense of pride in indigenous culture, self-made success, and digital independence. What’s emerging is a quiet power: consumers who no longer seek to imitate the West, but expect brands – foreign and domestic – to meet them on their terms.

Across Southeast Asia and Africa, there’s a perceptible shift from status to substance. In Nigeria, youth are driving a surge in support for homegrown fashion labels like Orange Culture and Ashluxe – brands that blend global aesthetics with distinctly African narratives. A 2023 Euromonitor report found that 64% of Nigerian Gen Z consumers said they prefer to buy local brands that reflect their identity, even when international options are available.

This isn’t limited to apparel. In Indonesia, the halal cosmetics market has seen explosive growth, not merely as a religious preference but as an expression of cultural values. Brands like Wardah and Emina now rival – or outperform – multinational competitors in brand recognition among young women. These brands don’t compete by mimicking Western tropes. They succeed by embedding themselves in the rhythms of local life, from religious observances to beauty standards shaped by regional influencers rather than global celebrities.

The same dynamic is playing out in Vietnam’s tech sector, where local e-wallets like MoMo are outpacing foreign fintech entrants – not because of superior technology, but because they better understand the daily behaviors, payment rituals, and security concerns of the Vietnamese consumer. According to a 2023 study by Decision Lab, MoMo enjoys over 60% brand preference among young urbanites, in part due to its partnerships with local merchants and integration into everyday routines like topping up phone credit or paying utility bills.

Meanwhile, global culture is increasingly being shaped by these same markets. Afrobeats, once a niche genre, now tops international charts. Thai skincare routines are influencing global beauty trends. Filipino content creators are gaining global followers on TikTok not because they adapt to global norms, but because they confidently showcase their own. In this way, reverse aspiration is not just a rejection of old hierarchies – it’s an export of influence.

For brands, the lesson is clear: you are not the center of the story. Consumers no longer measure themselves against your brand identity. Instead, they measure your brand against their values, communities, and cultural fluency. Products must be flexible, not fixed; branding must adapt, not dictate.

The rise of reverse aspiration doesn’t signal hostility toward global brands – it signals maturity. These consumers aren’t trying to join the global mainstream. They are the mainstream – digitally savvy, culturally proud, and shaping the conversation on their own terms. And they expect brands to understand that before making their pitch.

Strategies to Earn Attention and Trust

Capturing the attention of the next billion is not a matter of flashy creative or inflated ad budgets. These consumers are deliberate and discerning, quick to disengage from brands that don’t meet their standards or speak their language – both literally and figuratively. Trust is not a funnel; it’s a framework. And it requires consistent, intentional action across every touchpoint.

1. Hyper-localization isn’t optional – it’s foundational.
For emerging market consumers, brand credibility is tightly linked to cultural fluency. It goes beyond simple translation to a full embrace of local values, references, and usage contexts. In Vietnam, the delivery app Baemin differentiated itself by infusing its platform with witty Vietnamese slang, inside jokes, and hyper-specific product categories – earning loyalty not through function, but through cultural intimacy. In Kenya, Safaricom’s M-Pesa succeeded not just as a mobile payments tool, but because it was built around the realities of an unbanked population, with offline integration and SMS functionality that anticipated connectivity challenges.

2. Trust is built in the micro-moments.
In high-trust economies, consumers might forgive a misstep. In low-trust markets, every interaction matters. A delayed delivery, a missing refund, or a slow response to a query can permanently damage perception. In Indonesia, beauty brand Sociolla won favor by offering guaranteed authentic products, tracked delivery, and a no-hassle return policy – features that directly addressed consumer anxieties in a market flooded with counterfeits. Transparency, speed, and customer service are not operational choices; they are brand positioning strategies.

3. Community voices trump corporate messaging.
The age of the polished brand ambassador is fading. Peer influence, especially from micro-influencers and everyday content creators, now holds more sway. These are people with modest followings but high engagement, often speaking in native dialects or regional slang. In the Philippines, Shopee’s partnership with grassroots creators in smaller cities – rather than national celebrities – helped drive adoption among new internet users. Brands that co-create with local voices, elevate real customer stories, and share behind-the-scenes content signal a level of openness that consumers find relatable and reassuring.

4. Simplification drives conversion.
The mobile-first mindset means consumers expect streamlined interfaces, fast-loading pages, and frictionless payment processes. The most successful brands eliminate barriers rather than adding features. In India, Meesho – a platform that allows users to resell products through WhatsApp and Facebook – gained explosive traction not by competing on price or product, but by simplifying commerce to match the rhythms of informal entrepreneurship. Especially in markets with lower digital literacy or inconsistent connectivity, simplicity is not just convenient – it’s empowering.

5. Offer real value, not just marketing.
Beyond product benefits, brands that offer utility, knowledge, or community are more likely to earn sustained engagement. During the pandemic, Vietnam’s Vinamilk launched a nutrition education series across Facebook Live, fronted by local pediatricians and nutritionists. The effort was not overtly commercial, but it positioned the brand as a trusted source in a time of uncertainty – building long-term brand equity. Similarly, in Africa, MTN’s “Y’ello Hope” campaign provided remote learning support and free data for health workers, deepening brand connection far beyond mobile service.

6. Show up where it matters – and stay.
Too often, international brands treat emerging markets as seasonal experiments, testing campaigns without long-term investment. But consistency is critical. Consumers notice who’s around during key holidays, national events, and crises – and who disappears when results don’t come quickly. Building trust means being present, listening actively, and responding quickly, even when it’s not convenient. It means moving from transactional to relational.

Attention and trust are hard-won in these markets – but not impossible. Brands that succeed will be those that listen before speaking, localize without diluting, and deliver value at every step. It’s not about cracking a code – it’s about showing up, with respect, relevance, and reliability.

What the Next Billion Means for Global Strategy

The next billion consumers will not just change where companies grow – they will fundamentally reshape how companies think. For too long, emerging markets have been treated as the final frontier for global brands – places to extend reach and scale after success was achieved elsewhere. That model is not only outdated; it’s strategically short-sighted.

In markets like Vietnam, Kenya, and the Philippines, consumer expectations are being forged under entirely different conditions: mobile-first access, economic volatility, rapid urbanization, and a deep mistrust of centralized systems. The result is a set of behaviors that are more adaptive, more skeptical, and often more innovative than those seen in mature markets. Consumers here are not merely catching up – they are setting new standards.

Rather than viewing these markets as extensions of Western playbooks, companies should see them as innovation testbeds. Take mobile commerce: features like embedded payments, one-click checkout via messaging apps, or app-free transactions are not novelties – they are necessities driven by constraints around bandwidth, infrastructure, and financial inclusion. Yet these same constraints are producing solutions that may become best practices globally.

Similarly, platform design in these regions often centers on immediacy, low data consumption, and local integration. Global teams should be asking: What can we learn from the success of super apps in Southeast Asia? From the rise of voice notes and vernacular language content in India? From trust mechanics built into informal commerce networks across West Africa? These are not fringe behaviors – they are indicators of where global user expectations are headed.

The ability to operate in these ecosystems requires more than translation. It demands cultural intelligence, operational flexibility, and a long-term mindset. Localization must move beyond interface tweaks to encompass everything from payment methods and logistics to influencer partnerships and community engagement. A product launch is no longer the finish line; it’s the beginning of a multi-year trust-building process.

This shift calls for investment – not just in marketing – but in on-the-ground research, in building local teams with decision-making power, and in systems that can adapt quickly to feedback loops. The brands that will thrive are those that listen early, prototype fast, and refine continuously. That’s not reactive – it’s resilient.

The next billion are not waiting to be discovered. They are already online, already informed, already choosing. But they are choosing carefully. Their loyalty isn’t earned by reputation – it’s earned by repetition: consistent delivery, relevance, and respect over time.

What we’re seeing isn’t a short-term trend – it’s a structural redefinition of what global success looks like. And in this new equation, the old formulas – centralized control, broad generalizations, and push marketing – no longer hold. The competitive edge will belong to those who approach these markets not as territories to conquer, but as partners in evolution.

Because when consumers are multilingual, mobile-first, and mistrustful by design, brand engagement becomes a privilege – not a right. The challenge is not whether companies can reach them. It’s whether they can rise to meet them.

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.

The Western Story: When Climate Guilt Meets Café Culture

Southeast Asia: Taste First, Sustainability Later

Japan: Tradition Meets Innovation

India: Plant-Based Milk as Urban Status and Spiritual Alignment

Cross-Cultural Observations: What Tastes Like Progress?

Get regular insights

A Global Market Defying Expectations

Changing Consumer Drivers

Innovation in Product Development

Packaging and Positioning as Strategy

Regulatory and Retail Landscape

Market Outlook and Investment Trends

Get regular insights

The Shrinking Upgrade Window

Economic Pressures Meet Consumer Pragmatism

Gen Z Hits Pause

Why Selling Smarter Is the New Selling Faster

Innovation Isn’t Dead. But It’s on Trial.

Global Trends in Divergence

Regional Snapshot

The Next Era of Tech Retail Is Measured, Not Mass-Market

Get regular insights

What the Numbers Say Around the World

The Rise of the Pet-First Household

What Gets Cut, What Gets Kept

Brands and Retailers Follow the Loyalty

The Subscription Model Comes Home

The New Metrics of Loyalty

The Emotional ROI of a Full Bowl

Case Study: Heads Up For Tails (India)

What Pet Spending Teaches Us About the Next Consumer Economy

Get regular insights

The Psychology of Too Much Choice

Why Some Decisions Deserve More Support

Why Smart Tools Sometimes Backfire

The Business Case for Simplifying Choice

It’s one thing to talk about the theory of too much choice. It’s another to see what happens when companies actually do something about it.

What Brands Should Learn

The Role of Research in Reducing Friction

UX Doesn’t Stand for Unlimited Experience

Final Thought

Get regular insights

The Perfect Storm Behind the Shift

The Rise of Subscription-Based Vet Care

Regional Perspectives in Transformation

United States: Infrastructure Meets Expectation

United Kingdom: Bridging Gaps with Affordability

Southeast Asia: Mobile-First and Rapidly Scaling

Brand Spotlight: Pawp

Traditional Clinics at a Crossroads

What Subscription Care Reveals About Consumer Psychology

From Reactive to Relationship-Based Care

Get regular insights

What is Brand Tracking, and Why Does it Matter?

Key Elements of Brand Tracking

Turning Data into Strategy

Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses Before They Become Market Issues

Optimizing Marketing Campaigns

Benchmarking Against Competitors

Building Customer Loyalty

Brand Tracking Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

Brand Tracking Is Not an Option—It’s Survival

Get regular insights

Meet the Next Billion: Demographics, Access, and Expectations

Mistrust Is the Default Setting

The Battle for the First Page (or First Screen)

The Rise of Reverse Aspiration and Quiet Power

Strategies to Earn Attention and Trust

What the Next Billion Means for Global Strategy

Get regular insights

Why Some Boycotts Fade While Others Leave Lasting Damage

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 High Cost of Getting It Wrong

Why Boycotts Are Becoming More Frequent

A New Risk: Backlash from Both Sides

The Increasing Polarization of Boycotts

Get regular insights

Helping brands uncover valuable insights

Get In Touch