Gen Z and baby boomers are at odds when it comes to trusting brands. Data-intelligence company Morning Consult conducted thousands of interviews to get a sense of the companies consumers trust. Gen Z trusts tech giants like Google, Netflix, and Amazon. Boomers gravitate toward delivery services, food brands, and the Weather Channel. Sign up for Business Insider's retail newsletter, The Drive-Thru. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
Once trust is gone, it's gone. But there's a major generational gap when it comes to what brands people choose to put their faith in. Data-intelligence company Morning Consult conducted 16,700 interviews per brand for almost 2,000 brands. Each participant was asked "How much do you trust each brand to do what is right?" and given the options of "a lot," "some," "not much," "not at all," or "don't know." Morning Consult's website says its trust ranking "is determined by share of 'a lot' responses." The survey found that the youngest and oldest consumers diverge sharply when it comes to how much they trust brands — and which brands they trust. Gen Z shoppers have an average brand trust rating of plus 10; less than the average boomer rating of plus 21. And when it comes to the brands that they trust the most, Gen Z gravitates toward tech, ranking Google, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and Playstation as its top picks. Those rankings have no common ground with those of the baby boomers. For older shoppers, the United States Postal Service delivers the most when it comes to trust. The federal mail service is followed closely by the United Parcel Service, Hershey, the Weather Channel, and Cheerios. For their part, the age groups sandwiched between Gen Z and the boomers favor a mix of those companies. Millennials most trust Google, UPS, Amazon, Paypal, and Netflix. Gen X puts a lot of stock in USPS, Google, Amazon, Hershey, and Paypal. "It's no secret that trust is key to brand success," Morning Consult CEO Michael Ramlet said in a statement. "In today's climate, every single day presents leaders with the opportunity to cultivate reliability — a key driver of trust."SEE ALSO: 15 brands that are surprisingly not American, from Burger King to American Apparel SEE ALSO: DoorDash, White Claw, Amazon Prime, and more: here are the 20 fastest growing brands in 2019 SEE ALSO: These are the 20 most valuable brands in the world Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Watch Google's Pixel 4 event in 12 minutes
More like this (3)
Ignoring older consumers in favor of courting millennials and Gen Zers could cost the fashion industry over $14 billion in the next 20 years, new research says
New research by the International Longevity Centre-UK, published in December, found that ageism could cost the...New research by the International Longevity Centre-UK, published in December, found that ageism could cost the fashion industry £11 billion (over $14 billion) in the next 20 years, The Guardian reported on January 5. "For too long the fashion and beauty industries have been bewilderingly resistant to recognizing just how fashionable and stylish the generation of older consumers are and want to remain," Diane Kenwood, an ILC trustee, told the outlet. This study comes amidst brands and retailers increasing their attempts to court Gen Zers, whose shopping habits and expectations differ vastly from previous generations. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Fashion, like many industries, has a long history of ageism. However, in turning its attention almost solely toward the younger generations, the fashion industry risks alienating what is a multibillion-dollar industry in its own right. In fact, on January 5, The Guardian's Amelia Hill reported on a study by the International Longevity Centre-UK that says ageism could cost the fashion industry a staggering £11 billion (over $14 billion) in the next 20 years. "For too long the fashion and beauty industries have been bewilderingly resistant to recognizing just how fashionable and stylish the generation of older consumers are and want to remain," Diane Kenwood, an ILC trustee, told The Guardian. "The potential of these consumers is huge and it has been shamefully sidelined. I do, though, sense a shift in attitudes starting to stir, and I'm hopeful that change will gather momentum." Ageism comes with a cost — and a hefty one at that Older models have been more present in the fashion and beauty industries the past few years. For example, 72-year old actress Helen Mirren serves as a brand ambassador for beauty brand L'Oreal, and a then-82-year-old author Joan Didion was tapped to star in a 2015 campaign for the French luxury house Celine; there was also 76-year-old singer-songwriter Joni Mitchell who, also in 2015, had a campaign with luxury house Saint Laurent; and in 2019, 92-year-old Iris Apfel signed a modeling contract with IMG. As Hill reported for The Guardian, those considered to be "older people" (Gen Xers and boomers) have increased their spending on fashion by nearly 21% between 2011 and 2018. And though, as the Centre's research found, women typically stop spending money on fashion once they reach the age 75, they are still interested in looking and feeling stylish. But the increase in advertisements and spending power alone may not be enough to completely sway the fashion industry to not leave older consumers behind. In speaking with The Guardian, Ari Seth Cohen, creator of the blog Advanced Style, said that the fashion industry has a fear of mortality. "Fashion and beauty brands have been ignoring their older customers for ages," Cohen told The Guardian. "Rather than trying to reach this savvy demographic, they prey on their insecurities and use fear and ageist propaganda to sell beauty products that promise the ridiculous and harmful ideology of 'anti-ageing.'" What happens to the money left behind? The fashion industry simply doesn't appear to be focused on courting older buyers. Today, the attention is turned toward Gen Zers, whose tastes and shopping habits differ vastly from older generations — even from millennials. Research has shown (and experts have echoed) that Gen Zers want more of an "experience" when it comes to their shopping; they want brands with messages that champion and support causes that are important to them, ones that are inclusive and diverse in campaigns and advertisements, and ones that can, most importantly, come across as authentic in an age where everything seems staged for social media. In fact, not being able to connect with younger generations has appeared to be more of a detriment to fashion and retail than its exclusion of older buyers. Many iconic retailers, such as Sears, JCPenny, Victoria's Secret, Henri Bendel, and the once-beloved Barneys New York have filed for bankruptcy or been forced to close a huge number of stores in the last decade due to dwindling sales. If boomers are already considered "older people" and Gen X is on its way there, then disregarding both not only further purports ageism that's problematic for cultural and societal reasons, but also ignores what combined could be a trillion-dollar market. It seems the real question is not whether retailers and brands can effectively market towards both the "young" and "older" generations — it's if they want to put in the effort to do so.SEE ALSO: Giorgio Armani, who just bought a $17.5 million penthouse, doesn't believe he's the third-richest person in Italy: 'There are some people who are hiding' DON'T MISS: Gen Z is changing the world — meet the powerhouses aged 22 or younger who made it onto this year's Forbes 30 Under 30 list Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: At its peak, Forever 21 made $4.4 billion in revenue. Here's what led to the brand's downfall and bankruptcy.
Millennials are more likely than their parents were to delay pretty much every life event because...Millennials are more likely than their parents were to delay pretty much every life event because of money, according to a new survey by Insider and Morning Consult. They're putting off big things, like buying a home, having a medical procedure, and making a career move. But money is also affecting their love lives: Millennials aren't just delaying marriage and kids, but beginning or ending a relationship because of it. Read more personal finance coverage. The thing about life milestones, and even life transitions, is that it often takes a bit of money to make them happen. That's something many millennials don't have a lot of. They're still playing financial catch-up from the Great Recession while dealing with enormous student-loan debt and facing skyrocketing living costs. And findings from a new survey by Insider and Morning Consult further highlight what a different financial world this is for them than it was for their parents. The survey polled 2,096 Americans about their financial health, debt, and earnings for a new series, "The State of Our Money." More than 670 respondents were millennials, defined as ages 23 to 38 in 2019; 730 respondents were baby boomers, defined as ages 55 to 73 in 2019. It asked all respondents what life events they've delayed because of money concerns, and the differences between millennials and baby boomers were telling. Millennials are more likely to delay pretty much everything thanks to money problems The biggest difference is in homebuying: Half of millennials have delayed purchasing a house because they can't afford it, compared to 23% of boomers. It makes sense considering the median price of home sales has increased by 39% since 1970, adjusted for inflation, according to a recent SuperMoney report that analyzed US Federal Housing Agency Data. About the same percentage of millennials have put off having a medical procedure, compared to 41% of baby boomers. It's the closest gap between the two generations, if that shows how expensive healthcare is. National health care costs per person have increased by $9,000 since 1970 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Millennials are also twice as likely as boomers to have delayed career moves because of money concerns, including quitting a job and starting their own business. There's also the effect money has had on each generation's love lives. It's made millennials more likely to delay beginning and ending a relationship, as well as more likely to delay marriage. In 2017, the average age of a first marriage was 27 for women and 29 for men; in 1980, it was 22 and 25, respectively. A delay in marriage can trickle down to a delay in childbearing. More 30-something women are having babies than women in their 20s for the first time ever — a difference that grew in 2018, Bill Chappell for NPR reported, citing a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Again, it boils down to money: Finances are one of the top reasons why American millennials aren't having kids or are having fewer kids than they considered ideal, Business Insider's Shana Lebowitz reported, citing a survey by The New York Times. But there is one thing millennials are doing better than their parents when it comes to money: talking about it.SEE ALSO: Millennials know what they'd do if they didn't have to pay their student loans: Pay off everything else DON'T MISS: 37% of millennials think they're doing worse than their peers, but even more think they're coming out on top Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Behind the scenes with Shepard Smith — the Fox News star who just announced his resignation from the network
Barclays predicts the winners and losers of streaming TV's next phase, as services like Disney Plus launch and new bundles emerge
The next stage in the cord-cutting revolution could see streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus...The next stage in the cord-cutting revolution could see streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus bundled alongside one another, not too differently from the way TV channels are today, analysts at Wall street firm Barclays predict. The shift could radically change things for the streaming, media, and telecom companies that support the streaming ecosystem today. Comcast and Netflix are likely to be winners in this scenario, the analysts say. The legacy media brands like Disney and Discovery that are going over the top will be on the losing end. Click here for more BI Prime stories. Get ready for the re-bundling of TV. The next stage in the cord-cutting revolution could see streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus bundled alongside one another, not too differently from the way TV channels are today, analysts at Wall street firm Barclays predict. The proliferation of streaming-video services, including upcoming offerings like Disney Plus, Apple TV Plus, and Quibi, will likely lead to a rebundling of platforms, alongside the broadband or data services that allow people to access them, the analysts wrote in an October 2 note. Envision an internet provider like Comcast selling a broadband service along with access to a selection of streaming apps — like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and the upcoming NBCUniversal platform, Peacock — for a flat rate each month. It's the next logical step, the analysts say, as people consume more video over the internet and more streaming platforms hit the market. Already, platforms like Apple and Amazon are selling streaming subscriptions through their apps to create a central point of billing and interface to access the services through. Media companies like Disney are also starting to bundle their various offerings streaming offerings. The shift to incorporate broadband services in the bundle could boost adoption of those packages, and radically change things for the streaming, media, and telecom companies that support the streaming ecosystem today. Here are the winners and losers, as Barclays sees them: The winners: While tech companies like Apple, Amazon, and Roku are reselling streaming services á la carte, the analysts at Barclays think the companies best positioned to bundle streaming services are internet- and data-service providers like Comcast and Verizon. Among those providers, only one has really invested in building products to enhance the broadband-streaming bundle, the Barclays analysts argue. Comcast is in the best position to win with bundles. To win in aggregation, the analysts at Barclays think resellers of streaming services will need to offer more than discounts on price. Comcast, one of the biggest internet providers in the US, also offers broadband customers a free streaming-TV box, Flex, with a collection of movies and TV shows licensed by Comcast, as well as access to streaming subscriptions, like Netflix and Amazon Prime, and apps like YouTube. It brings streaming content from a variety of sources into one user interface, so audiences don't have to change apps to switch between streaming Netflix's "Stranger Things" or Amazon Prime's "Jack Ryan." "A device such as Flex has larger ecosystem implications," the Barclays note said. "We believe it allows Comcast to aggregate multiple OTT services including its own into one user interface and solve what we consider to be the biggest problem today in the streaming world: content discovery." Comcast's customer base of more than 27 million broadband customers could also help introduce new audiences to services like Netflix, which has grown so much in the last decade that most people in the US who would have subscribed to the service on their own already do, the note said. Read more: How Netflix is using companies like Comcast and T-Mobile to drive its next phase of growth Netflix will have a prime place in the bundle. All eyes are on streaming leader Netflix as new competitors like Disney and Apple roll out their streaming services. But the analysts at Barclays don't view those services as real rivals. Disney Plus, for instance, will cater to families with movies and TV shows tied to brands like Marvel and Star Wars. It'll also have a more limited library than Netflix at launch. Disney's sports streaming service, ESPN Plus, similarly offers live sports, documentaries, talk shows and other programming that is more complementary to Netflix's library of originals and licensed TV shows and movies than a replacement. Read more: How Disney Plus, HBO Max, and NBC's Peacock streaming service stack up in the battle against Netflix "What is interesting to us about this process is that most new streaming services are actually avoiding taking on Netflix directly," the note said. Netflix is still the leading general-audience streaming service, in Barclays' view. That would make the platform central — and the most desirable service — in any streaming bundle. "Netflix's role in these streaming bundles is likely to be more akin to that of a legacy broadcaster as the anchor of the bundle," the note said. "Everything else is essentially an add on. This role should allow Netflix to penetrate much deeper into broadband households than is the case today." The losers: In short, legacy media companies will be squeezed by any new streaming bundles. Disney, WarnerMedia, and the other legacy media brands moving online will be squeezed. The economic reality is changing drastically for legacy media companies. In the traditional pay-TV world, programmers like Disney and Turner were paid fees per subscriber by every cable provider that carried their channels. In today's streaming environment, those media companies sell subscriptions themselves through marketplaces run by tech companies like Apple and Amazon, and have to give those marketplaces a cut of their revenue for the privilege. Standalone streaming apps also require a steady and robust supply of fresh programming to keep people paying for services month after month. Netflix is projected to spend more than $15 million on content this year to sate its audience of more than 150 global subscribers. That's expected to be more than any other media company that doesn't offer sports. Bundling will only speed up the shift away from traditional TV services and toward streaming video, which will squeeze the margins at major media companies more, the Barclays analysts wrote. "We believe every dollar lost in the legacy ecosystem is likely to be a lot more profitable than a dollar earned through streaming because of the need for more content to support on demand services," the note said. Mid-tier media brands like Discovery, CBS, and Viacom could be the biggest losers. Disney has a ton of content and brand power. But the analysts weren't convinced that those other media brands have the footing to compete with Netflix on a global scale.Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Here's what airlines legally owe you if you're bumped off a flight