Search Results for:

Financial expert, author, and mom of two, Farnoosh Torabi, regularly gets asked, ‘How do you manage the demands of a full-time career and be a good mom?’. 

It seems many women view this as an either-or situation; but rather than asking ‘how’, we, as a collective society, should question ‘why?’. 

We all know the pandemic has rolled back years, or even decades, of hard-won social and economic progress. 

Celebrations of female empowerment, like International Women’s Day, do a great job of promoting equality in the workplace.

But our recent report, created in partnership with SeeHer, highlights a different kind of gender gap based on inequalities in the home, and the part media and brand narratives can play in raising awareness around this issue.

This blog sums up the study’s main findings and suggests that making progress toward gender parity also means targeting an often overlooked source of disparity. 

The toll on mental health has not been equal.

Many women step down the career ladder because they feel overwhelmed trying to juggle the various responsibilities they take on – in what the Center for American Progress dubbed Congress’ $64.5 billion mistake. 

Back in April, we asked remote workers in the U.S. and UK some questions about their WFH experience so far. Among parents who said working from home had worsened over time, women were 27% more likely than men to list home pressures as a reason why. 

The so-called ‘second shift’, where women do at-home tasks after paid work, has been exacerbated by lockdowns and the move to hybrid working. 

Unfortunately, the effects of doing a longer shift go beyond feeling tired, and the resulting psychological disparity is unmistakable.

Women are over 50% more likely than men to say their mental health has worsened this past year.

Also, when asked about the potential lasting implications of the pandemic in their own lives, women’s number one concern was around mental health – with women of color generating the highest figures.

In light of all this tension, brands had to tread carefully; and throughout the pandemic, the media landscape has sought to uplift moods and inspire women. 

A string of recent ads celebrates women who are able to move seamlessly between their personal and professional responsibilities. 

For example, Nissan’s latest campaign shows Kate Hudson jumping effortlessly between yoga, cooking breakfast for her kids, and preparing for a product launch; while Squarespace salutes women who work on a ‘side hustle’ at the end of the traditional working day.

However, women’s increased levels of exhaustion and anxiety are wholly absent from these celebrations – which is problematic, as this mental burden directly influences the sorts of images and narratives they most relate to.

The truth is, not a lot has been created to reflect the high-stress nature of this delicate balancing act, and even less to normalize or promote self-care for women. 

While they should be encouraged to dream big, on the whole, the media hasn’t yet found the sweet spot between inspiration and reality. 

Women want advertising to reflect their lived experiences.

In March, we asked women in the U.S. what they most wanted to see in ads to get a sense of where their heads were at. 

And perhaps unsurprisingly, close to half of the women we surveyed wanted to see female characters relaxing and taking care of themselves, which was the most in-demand brand narrative we recorded.

This group was also receptive to images of women getting support from their male partners, women connecting with other women, and women dealing with the chaotic nature of home life. 

These findings indicate that, to really resonate with women today, portrayals should be both accurate and motivational. 

It’s important to capture women’s lived experience, which is often shaped by inequalities in domestic expectations, and create narratives that discourage ‘mom guilt’ by challenging the idea that their needs come last every time.

The UN’s #HeforSheAtHome campaign, which got social media users around the globe to share videos or selfies of men helping out at home, played to women’s ad preferences by drawing attention to the unequal care burden in a light-hearted and inspiring way. 

And it shouldn’t just be up to large-scale governmental organizations like the UN. 

Nearly 40% of all U.S. consumers – and half of parents – say the media has ‘a lot’ of responsibility in addressing the issue of gender inequality, with about a quarter saying the same of brands. 

Consumers also comprehend the power of language and framing in building self-esteem and ushering progress, especially when societies are at their most vulnerable: the majority agree that the media and brands shape how women see themselves during challenging times (65% and 60%, respectively). 

While gender imbalances are a sensitive issue, women increasingly expect companies to deliver authentic and relatable messaging in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis. 

There’s a need to get men on the same page.

Another thing the UN project reminds viewers, and men in particular, is that gender equality doesn’t just pertain to the workplace. 

We’ve already drawn attention to the fact that many women have put their careers on hold because of the increased pressures to take care of both work and family life during the pandemic. 

But men are less aligned with women when it comes to recognizing the logistical, physical, and mental health implications of this balancing act. 

Parents are typically more sensitive to gendered images presented in the media – likely because they’re concerned about the potential impact on their child’s confidence and values. 

Awareness is particularly strong among fathers, who are significantly more likely than other men, and even mothers, to hold media and brands accountable for addressing gender equality. 

By the same token, dads are over 1.4x more likely than men without children to worry about women’s professional opportunities in light of the pandemic.

These sentiments, though heightened among dads, reflect the general disconnect between men and women on matters of gender equality. 

Men’s concerns tend to be on par with women’s when it comes to issues like education, work, and representation. But once we adjust the focus to their day-to-day experiences, like mental health and household labor, the gap widens and men start to lose sight of the broader consequences. 

Fathers also esteem media narratives that show women being successful in their jobs and solving problems. They don’t, however, fully appreciate the impact of working and care-giving on women’s stress levels or the value in media that breaks down taboos and presents self-care as a necessity, not an indulgence. 

Despite wanting their daughters to have great opportunities when they grow up, men often struggle to grasp the realities that make it harder for their own partners to succeed professionally. 

What’s more, less than half of women and mothers with a mental health condition feel comfortable talking about mental illness. 

Sadly, until it’s more openly and widely discussed, this figure won’t begin to budge. 

Given their ability to challenge stigmas and suggest new paths, it’s time brands entered the conversation. 

Leading with purpose

Findings from our SeeHer study clarify this shift; half of consumers said their purchase decisions are influenced by brands showing support during times of crisis.

Throughout the pandemic, we saw brands stepping up and leading with purpose. This had an immediate knock-on effect, with consumers increasingly leaning on those that best align with their values.

And when thinking specifically about reducing gender disparities, people feel the media has a very important and purposeful part to play.

Prioritizing narratives that show women caring for themselves and getting support will go a long way in ensuring the balance is no longer ‘fragile’ for today’s women, and make the road to equality that much shorter.

It’s unclear how, when all’s said and done, we’ll look back on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some believe that, unlike other moments in history, there’s no single event that provides people with a “flashbulb” memory – the proverbial “where were you when” moment – whereas some research has suggested this was indeed the case when stay-at-home orders were first introduced. 

What’s becoming clear, though, is that March 2020 has become a cultural ground zero of the pandemic, when a succession of announcements and drastic changes around the world signaled that life was changing dramatically. The number of “one year on” retrospectives in March 2021 is proof enough of that. 

This is despite the fact that new variants of the virus have emerged, and subsequent waves have occurred that, in many cases, have been even deadlier than the first. 

It’s a story also borne out in our research, where we’ve found that concern about the pandemic, in any country, has rarely eclipsed the level it reached in March-April 2020.  

In this blog, we’ve brought together findings from the UK and India, when they experienced subsequent peaks in cases, to identify lessons about how people’s thinking changes during the second COVID-19 waves.

With the Delta variant spreading around the world (and visiting countries which remained relatively untouched up to this point), these insights are particularly relevant. 

Concern doesn’t follow cases.

The big news is this: even though their second waves were deadlier than their first, in both the UK and India, concern about COVID-19 was lower than its peak at the beginning of the pandemic. 

It should be stressed that case numbers from the first wave in the UK are widely considered to be higher than reported, due to a lack of testing capacity at the time. But it’s still telling that concern was lower during the second wave, when we know that fatalities were higher than the first. 

In India, concern about the pandemic was lower in June 2021 than it was even in December 2020, when cases were much reduced.

While our research was conducted when India was seeing a drop in cases from the peak of its second wave, we launched our equivalent study in the UK when cases were rising, and found the same story. Concern about the virus was lower than it was even in the summer of 2020, when the first set of restrictions were beginning to ease. 

Our methodology means we survey internet users, which in India’s case means a more affluent sample of the population that can afford internet access. This arguably means we’re looking at a group of people more insulated from the pandemic’s worst effects.

But this couldn’t be said of the UK, where internet access is near-universal. The important takeaway is that both countries show a common trend. 

2020 remains the emotional high point.

The story of people’s attitudes to COVID is one of a gradual decline in concern from an initial adrenaline surge in 2020. This doesn’t mean concern is low overall – 3 in 4 in India were very or extremely concerned during its second wave. But the overall trend is downward. 

There are some possible reasons why. The big one is likely to be knowing that vaccines are available, or even that people have been vaccinated themselves. Similarly, some people may feel less threatened by a virus that poses a low risk to their demographic, whereas in 2020 the full implications were less clear.

Nonetheless the Delta variant – at the heart of India’s recent wave – is another game-changer.

It looks likely that many countries around the world, including places like Australia and South Korea, which had previously managed to keep case numbers down, will see new waves driven by Delta. 

Those countries should be aware that increases in case numbers are unlikely to automatically create more concern in the population. Again, that’s not to say that no-one is concerned, just that nothing matches the sense of existential threat that loomed large last year. 

Are any particular groups responsible for this drop?

Not really – in fact, it’s fairly universal. If we look at India in more detail, concern has lowered in every age group, though the smallest decrease was in the 55-64s. This would suggest concern in the most vulnerable groups remains relatively stable. 

Another important lesson from India is that many people there expected a second wave – in July 2020, 73% were very or extremely concerned about that possibility. The sheer scale of it may have come as a shock, but not the fact it happened. 

The bottom line at this point is that concerns about COVID are a matter of degree – how much a wave may peak – whereas a year ago it was more black and white, focussed on moving from a pre-pandemic world into a post-pandemic one. The latter resonated with people much more powerfully. 

Government approval decreased during India’s second wave.

If India is any example, approval of the government response and of other members of the population have both decreased sharply in the second wave compared to the first. This points to another difficulty with subsequent waves – it’s harder to achieve buy-in for collective action with those feelings diminished. 

Concern about the virus may have been lower during India’s second wave, but the impacts have been deeper. More people have been laid off or furloughed, expect a big impact on their finances, or have seen their travel plans curtailed. A third said they’d seen a big/dramatic impact on their access to basic utilities. 

Countries fighting new Delta waves must recognize changed circumstances. 

In many countries, the story of the COVID-19 pandemic is one of an initial burst of confusion and concern in March-April 2020 as the virus first made its way around the world, which then stabilized as day-to-day life continued in some form or another. 

What may be more surprising is levels of concern have fairly consistently stayed at this level, and even declined slightly as subsequent waves rise and fall.

This should be borne in mind if, as looks likely, more countries will experience subsequent waves driven by Delta – even if their management of new cases so far has been good.

Some countries may have a different experience, particularly those who experienced SARS in the early millennium, but it’s unlikely any will be able to recapture the same sense of cohesion and concern that marked March-April 2020, at least not without the right communication and messaging.

In the luxury market, nothing’s cut and dried. 

The term ‘luxury’ has always been difficult to define, especially as its essence is always changing; but premium ice cream company Häagen-Dazs recently had a go.

By prompting influencers to explain what luxury means to them, the brand showed that, for some, it’s simply having the freedom to express their creativity. 

In its traditional sense, luxury suggests exclusivity and extravagance, but this concept continues to blur as the industry grows more inclusive and attainable. 

Our June Zeitgeist research helps us clarify some of the transformations taking place by highlighting where the attitudes of today’s buyers differ from and conform to past standards.

Luxury spending is emotional, not rational.

Shared attitudes offer a stronger characterization of luxury buyers than financial qualities like purchasing power. 

Given luxury is more accessible than in the past, today’s buyers are actually likely to have a low amount in savings (44% do), and 1 in 4 earn a low income – a sign demand often isn’t a reflection of what’s in the bank. 

What’s more, Gen Zs now represent a greater share of the luxury market than Gen X and boomers across the five countries included in our research, which also implies a change in convention.

The pandemic may have caused a lot of economic uncertainty among younger consumers, but for some, it’s an incentive to make the most of life; and brands need to recognize this sentiment. 

Buyers are more likely than average to describe themselves as adventurous (46% vs 39%) and to like exploring the world (64% vs 51%). 

Justifying Bentley’s leap in sales, its CEO sums up their customers’ rationale: “Life’s too short and I would rather come out of this crisis with this in my collection.” 

Unsurprisingly, various luxury car brands speak to those who want to live life on the edge. Infiniti’s ad for its latest SUV puts forward some of the challenges faced during the pandemic and tells consumers to embrace the chaos rather than stall. 

This perspective resonates with luxury consumers for a number of reasons. Buyers stand out for being ambitious, fashion-conscious, and risk-takers – a sign aspirational triggers will continue to drive impulsive purchases. 

On top of this, they’re optimistic about their future finances, which means many likely view money spent as money that can be made again. 

Segmenting by purchase habits also offers greater insight into how expectations among the industry’s main participants are changing. 

When it comes to brand qualities, regular shoppers are most distinct for wanting providers to be funny and young, with big names like Valentino and Gucci setting a new tone by introducing humor to their marketing campaigns.

This chimes with what Häagen-Dazs is suggesting: that luxury is a state of mind that’s evolved over time. Once serious and elitist, the sector is being touched by the more light-hearted, laid-back, and value-based views of its younger buyers. 

Different categories of shoppers tend toward quiet or loud luxury.

The luxury market is definitely changing, but we do have to acknowledge where buyers align with traditional markers. 

They’re more likely than average to pay for a product in order to access its community (+23%) and to want brands to be exclusive (+19%); so when they purchase these items, they continue to buy into the lifestyle of a select group. 

While regular buyers are disrupting this space the most, they’re also clinging more to established ideals. 

Within this group, the experience of buying a product and its social capital are key purchase influencers. 63% prefer to buy high-end items in-store, compared to 54% of occasional customers. They’re also far more likely to want the branding on luxury goods to be clearly visible (80% vs 62%). 

The COVID-19 crisis put existing social inequities in the spotlight, making some less eager to show off their wealth. But research indicating that luxury has become more subtle and discreet rarely breaks this trend down by different audience segments. 

To be more specific: among regular shoppers, the age of signaling status is far from over. 

The convention of buying in-person is more complicated. 

Even though the majority of regular shoppers continue to favor the in-store experience, many have been forced to buy virtually during the pandemic and over a third are now more inclined to purchase luxury goods online. This is big news for a sector deeply rooted in heritage and tradition. 

And prestige alone isn’t enough these days, as this group won’t splash out on just any high-quality item. The online or omnichannel experience they’re seeking demands the perceptions of rarity that give luxury its lustre. 

Compared to the average shopper, regular buyers have higher expectations about brands having a strong online presence, a clear narrative, and overt values. 

In short, this group pays for a luxury brand as much as, if not more than, its product. 

Conspicuous labels may be a priority, but a company’s image is ultimately what attracts them. This reality has allowed high-end brands to sell casual streetwear without any harm to their reputation.

While immersive technology like AR to try on products and live video chats with experts help recreate the luxury experience, many competitors are leaning on other forms of content to amplify their storytelling. 

Whether enhanced interaction comes in the form of Gucci’s gaming service or Berluti’s livestreamed art exhibition, players need to diversify their marketing efforts to attract regular buyers (who skew young). As even though in-store buying is still the go-to preference within this group, most typically find out about new luxury brands or items online. 

Non-fungible tokens are another disruptive trend fronted by regular buyers, who are over 2x more likely than occasional treaters to own cryptocurrency and to know what NFTs are (55% do). 

NFTs are essentially digital rights to rare goods and brands like D&G are among the first to launch collections in this asset class. It may be uncharted territory for many, but these tokens are an exciting addition to the sector and definitely worth exploring – given over 2 in 5 NFT-aware buyers see them as an opportunity to own exclusive content they couldn’t find anywhere else.

Experiences are an increasingly important facet of the luxury market. 

The word ‘luxury’ is usually framed by tangible products like jewelry or purses, but its parameters have expanded over time.

A growing taste for experiences and access, as opposed to ownership, is a long-standing trend. 

While well over half of regular luxury buyers say they’d rather own a product or service than pay to access it, they’re 27% more likely than average to prefer the latter, which hints at where the market’s future is headed.

The rise of experiential luxury pushed the likes of LVMH to acquire hospitality company Belmond back in 2019; and now restrictions are easing, others like Dior are investing in pop-up boutiques at choice beaches.

Over 6 in 10 regular buyers would rather purchase a high-end experience than a product. 

These shoppers are distinguished by their desire to stand out in a crowd, their interest in influencers, and an above-average tendency to use social media to post about their lives. 

Regular buyers’ fondness for experiences therefore makes sense, as they’re a prime way to showcase their lifestyle and build a personal brand – whether that’s demonstrated through glamorous locations or services. 

Also, luxury doesn’t presuppose over-indulgence. The extended period of time buyers spent at home during lockdowns influenced their perspectives. Among those who engage with one of the 30+ designer fashion brands we track, susceptibility to anxiety has risen since Q2 2020, as have sentiments of being overworked. 

It’s not surprising that luxury shoppers, and occasional treaters in particular, are significantly more likely to be interested in outdoor activities, which gives brands the opportunity to add ‘glamping’ equipment and experiences to their list of offerings. In fact, Grand View Research predicts the global glamping market will grow at a rate of 14.1% from 2021-2028.

On the whole, new outlooks on mortality have had different effects on customers. It’s pushed some toward living healthier lives, and others to adopt a ‘YOLO’ point of view where spending is concerned. 

Industry players will need to recognize these newer perspectives if they’re to attain a greater share of the luxury market in 2021 and beyond.

When Google announced its decision to delay the rollout of its FLoC protocol by another year, it gave marketers, developers, and research professionals a bit of respite.

But this was just another reminder of what little control marketers have in the build up to one of the most decisive moments in the industry’s history: the death of the third-party cookie.

It doesn’t have to be that way though. Google’s decision gives those impacted by the death of cookies some breathing space to prepare for the coming changes. Even so, the clock continues to tick.

Marketers must focus on the areas of their marketing effectiveness they can control, regardless of which identity technology prevails.

The irony is the media and advertising sectors have some of the most risk-averse professionals of any industry according to our research. 

But in this fight for internet privacy, these same individuals now stand before a crossroads, where every direction seems teeming with risk and uncertainty.

Do they helplessly take a “wait and see” approach, or do they innovate? 

We believe now is the time to innovate. Doing nothing is riskier than taking action.

What’s the damage?

Third-party cookies and Apple’s IDFA identifier – used by advertisers to track users on iOS devices – have formed the basis of how digital marketing is executed. Marketers use these tools to target audiences and measure interactions.

iOS devices are used by around 30% of global internet users. The latest iOS update now gives these users the option to disable tracking on their apps thanks to Apple’s new App Tracking Transparency (ATT) feature. 

This means marketers are now struggling to address some of their most affluent and lucrative audiences. iOS users are more likely than non-iOS users to be flying first class and to be purchasing from luxury brands. They’re also more likely to say they tend to buy the premium versions of products, and that they’re loyal to the brands they like. 

On top of this, Apple has been blocking third-party cookies by default on its Safari browser since 2018, with Firefox following suit in 2019. 

By removing these identifiers, marketers are left with a burning hole in their vision. 

We can see just how big of a hole we’re dealing with here.

In the U.S. alone, almost 30% of consumers are browsing via Safari, with 23% using Firefox; both of which are more popular among younger groups. But it’s not as straight-forward as looking at individual browser usage, because people tend to use more than one browser (1.6 in the U.S., on average). So combined, users of either of these browsers make up 46% of U.S. consumers.

Apple and Firefox may have disabled them years ago, but Google’s decision to block third-party cookies is considered the death knell of these trackers because Chrome is by far the most dominant browser among most age groups. 

In the U.S., 70% have used it in the past month. Combining users of any of these three browsers, that leaves at least 88% of U.S. consumers on browsers which no longer support third-party cookies.

Put another way, the vast majority of your audience are about to become a lot more elusive.

First-party data is great, for some.

The truth is, tracking technology and identifiers were never that accurate in the first place. 

As LinkedIn’s B2B Institute point out, gender targeting in programmatic data can be about as accurate as flipping a coin, at around 50%. Age is even less accurate.

Third-party cookies allow advertisers to aggregate these data points to make inferences on people, not just in terms of demographics but also in terms of what they’re interested in or what they’re in the market for. 

Simple browser plug-ins allow users to see their own identity according to inferred cookie data, and they’ll often find surprising or sometimes contradictory information. 

High quality first-party data can provide richer and more accurate information, and many consider this to be the foundation of a successful post-cookie data strategy. 

But in an ad ecosystem where first-party data rules the day, fortune favors the large.

So-called ‘walled gardens’ are only achievable with enough critical mass in identified users. This is no problem for platforms like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple. Even some publishers like The New York Times, Bauer and News UK are strengthening their first-party data offering as it becomes more valuable in the post-cookie landscape.

This is clear to see in the chart below, where for argument’s sake we’ve looked at the reach of these platforms among a conventionally attractive audience to advertisers: first/business class flyers. 

Whether it’s first class flyers or the online population at large, these platforms can reach the vast majority of audiences. With such colossal user bases, there’s less of a need to share their first-party data.

But for premium publishers with their own first-party data, there’s more of a need. 

This is why we’ve seen publisher alliances like OpenAP and Ozone Project. These alliances bring together leading publishers to offer advertisers cross-platform campaigns by sharing personal, anonymized first-party data. 

Going back to our example of first class flyers, using a handful of random publishers gives us a sense of the value these alliances can bring considering their reach and crossover. 

But what happens if you don’t have the traffic, partnerships, or the right measures in place to collect quality first-party data at scale? 

Say you’re a smaller publisher whose content isn’t actively sought out compared to premium publishers, or perhaps an advertiser in an industry traditionally further removed from the end consumer. Even those in a position to collect first-party data might struggle to find the right partnerships to share this data and see beyond their own environments.

For these advertisers and publishers, third-party cookies have helped fill the gaps in knowledge about consumers, and they gave their campaigns scale. 

They allowed them to know something about groups of people they had little interaction with. Remove these cookies from the equation, and large groups of consumers suddenly disappear out of view.

Moving towards a more mature understanding of identity.

Relevance is bigger than personalization.

Just 30% of those who want ads to be relevant to their identity also want ads to make personalized recommendations.

People want to see themselves reflected in the ads and products they’re shown. Relevance is a major factor in peoples’ expectations of ads (28% say this), and it’s also an important motivation for advocating a brand online (30% say this).

It has such a bearing on the success of marketing that a lack of it has led many to try and switch off from ads altogether. Almost 40% of ad-blockers say they do so because ads aren’t relevant to them. 

It’s a brand safety factor too – around 40% of consumers in the UK and U.S. say irrelevant ads would negatively impact their view of a brand. Over-targeting and over-frequency of ads are also key detractors.

There’s a deeper foundation of relevance that becomes accessible when we start thinking beyond pixels to understand a person’s identity. 

An identity can’t easily be decoded based on someone’s recent clicks, searches, website visits, or even their location. Given the accuracy of third-party cookie modelling as well as the popularity of device sharing, the flaws in using these to build an identity profile are compounded by the inaccuracy of the modelling itself.

Using tracking technology, you can target me on the 50/50 certainty that I’m a male. You can also target me if your analytics believe me to be a millennial. And unless I’m one of the 27% who use a VPN, you can also target me based on my location. 

Even if your analytics are correct, that’s not really my identity in this context; my identity is much more complex and nuanced than these factors alone let on. To complicate matters further, self-identity differs between consumer groups. 

Our data on sources of shared identity sheds some light here. Age, location and especially gender are fairly minor aspects of a person’s identity compared to traits like interests, hobbies, humor, and life experiences. 

#Peoplenotpixels

By taking the “wait and see” approach, marketers risk having the rug pulled out from underneath them. 

By acting now, they can seize the opportunity to think more holistically about their marketing and data strategies, prioritizing human solutions to truly understand their audiences and communicate with them more effectively. 

The future of digital identity is being decided by a handful of companies, so to bet on an ID-dependent digital marketing solution right now can be risky. It’s better to consider the aspects of marketing effectiveness that are under your control, creating a more sustainable marketing vision in the long run.

For the advanced marketer, investing in scalable solutions to understand who their audiences are, where they spend their time, and how to effectively engage them is to invest in being relevant. 

Regardless of which identity technology becomes the dominant solution, understanding your audience at a deeper level and how to connect with them is one of the few things you can control.

Here at GWI, we’re developing ID-agnostic capabilities that can anonymously append survey data to both universal IDs and FLoCs, in ways that do not compromise consumer privacy or media performance.

Integrating the wealth of information that our audience data provides into these ecosystems can enrich the capabilities of ad tech players. It can help them reach their target audiences, measure the impact of their campaigns, make digital advertising more relevant, and, ultimately, help maximize the return on their advertising spend.

Charities are under pressure like never before.

Millions of people rely on the work of charities and nonprofits – a sector that has been torn apart by the pandemic. Between volunteer hesitancy, the decline of carrying cash, the inability to plan or hold events, staff cuts, a lack of funding, and increased demands on services, the sector is struggling to provide the support that people need at a time when many need it the most. 

Now more than ever, it’s important for charities and nonprofits to retain existing donors, and a key part of doing this involves understanding who they are. 

As the sector continues to navigate this bumpy terrain, we take a look at consumers’ donating behaviors, what causes they care about, and how charities can connect with regular donors.  

Regular donations dip slightly across many regions, but there’s hope on the horizon.

Across most world regions, the proportion of people  donating to charity regularly (i.e. at least once a month) has decreased slightly since the pandemic first hit. 

In Europe, where donation rates are lowest generally, most countries have seen decreases in donations. Ireland sees the biggest drop from 46% in Q4 2019 to 39% in Q1 2021, followed by the UK and Spain. A survey of 260 charities in the UK found that more than half don’t expect to reach pre-pandemic levels of fundraising events by the end of 2021.

Some countries in Southeast Asia, like Malaysia, who were typically big monthly donors, saw a decrease from 61% to 49% during this timeframe. Still, most decreases have been relatively modest, so it’s certainly not all doom and gloom. 

Rates of donations remain very high in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia, where charitable giving is largely linked to faith. 

And in markets like the U.S., we’ve seen the biggest increase in regular donations from 36% in Q4 2019 to 41% in Q1 2021.  Similar increases can be seen in Australia as well. 

On top of this, the number of consumers who say they never donate to charity hasn’t really budged, which shows the charitable base of consumers remains strong.

Many people are clearly willing to dig deep to give back to worthy causes, which is hopeful news for many charities and nonprofits. Past research in the U.S. also found that philanthropy tends to bounce back higher after times of recession.

But individual contributions simply aren’t enough to overcome the challenges this sector faces, stressing the need for more governmental and brand funding. 31% of regular donors want brands to support charities – they’re 20% more likely to say this than those who donate less often. 

COVID-19 relief tops the list of important causes for consumers in India.

Using our June 2021 Zeitgeist data, run in the UK, U.S., France, Germany, and India, we get a clearer picture of what causes matter to consumers the most right now. This helps inform charities what causes people are more likely to donate to at this time.

Out of a list of 13 causes, the below chart covers the top 3 most important causes for consumers who support charities across these countries. 

For most countries, COVID-19 relief doesn’t make the top three, except India, where it’s the most important cause. This may be down to the recent situation with COVID-19 in India.

Pew Research found that in March the number of India’s poorest people – those earning $2 or less a day – had increased by 75 million due to the recession brought on by COVID-19. To add to this, the vaccination rollout has been hampered by shortages and vaccine hesitancy. 

In our research, consumer sentiment in India is similarly bleak:

• 74% say they’re extremely or very concerned about the pandemic in their country
• 61% say the pandemic will have a dramatic or big impact on their personal or household finances
• 37% say they’ve had a pay cut, while 20% have been temporarily laid off
• Around 1 in 4 say they’ve cut back on purchasing essentials like education/school supplies and groceries, and 1 in 5 say they’ve cut back on buying medical treatment and procedures. 

In all other countries, the top causes people care about are homelessness/poverty, animal welfare, health/medical research, and the environment. Many of these charities were underfunded throughout the pandemic. 

In the UK, for example, many charities felt excluded by the government’s funding, which was geared toward pandemic-related services, and increased donations toward NHS charities. 

In its submission, the Association for Medical Research Charities (AMRC) says: “The overwhelming majority of medical research charities (97%) have not been able to access the government’s £750m support package or support for research-focused businesses.” 

This left many other charities behind, like support for disabilities, animal shelters, or homelessness. So it’s reassuring that for many consumers, these causes are close to their hearts, and offer some hope for nonprofits in this space. 

Diving deeper: a closer look at regular donors

Understanding who regular donors are and what they value can help charities plan more effectively, and increase their chances of connecting with the right people.

Using our core data set, we can see younger generations are the most generous donors. 

42% of Gen Z and 50% of millennials donate to charity at least once a month compared to 34% of boomers.

This is despite the fact that younger generations are more likely to fall into the lower income bracket.

Donating to charity is not as strongly linked to income as some might think – both low-income and high-income consumers donate regularly to charities. 

Additionally, those who donate regularly to charity are 16% more likely than less-regular donors to say their personal finances will get better in the next 6 months.

Looking at some of the top over-indexes for regular donors also sheds further light on their altruistic values. 42% of regular donors say contributing to the community is important to them – they’re 21% more likely to say this than those who donate to charities less often. Regular donors also welcome the status, with many wanting to stand out in a crowd. 

The way forward for charities is digital.

During the pandemic, many charities had to rethink their fundraising strategies. Turning to digital channels where possible has proven very effective, and is a strategy that should continue. 

Last year, Muscular Dystrophy Canada (MDC), which didn’t receive any government aid, decided to turn its annual walk into a virtual one, asking donors to “do anything that is safe for you to do”, and raised $850,000. 

Our data found 21% of regular donors say they use social media to support/connect with good causes – they’re 56% more likely than less-regular donors to say this. 

Social media is also important for brand discovery across age groups – 23% of Gen Z regular donors discover brands via ads on social media, only dropping to 19% for boomers. 

While younger generations still spend longer on social media overall, boomers’ increased usage of social media during the pandemic has lasted, unlike Gen Z where it’s dropped. In Q3 2020, mobiles also finally overtook PCs, laptops, and tablets to become boomers’ most important device to access the internet. 

We also know that both younger and older generations are using mobile payment services, with the gap between them being quite narrow:

24% of global baby boomer regular donors have used a mobile payment service like Apple Pay in the last month, rising to 27% of Gen Z donors.

Digital channels like social media are key tools for charities to connect with donors, especially when the situation with COVID-19 varies significantly by country and in-person events might not be possible, or people are hesitant. 

With all the uncertainty COVID-19 has brought this sector, being guided by consumer-led data is crucial. Data can help organizations better understand the populations they serve, what their unique needs and struggles are, and improve their campaigns and outreach.

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement was one of the defining parts of 2020. Having mobilized citizens all over the world, it sparked a tide of social activism not seen for decades. Now, a little over a year on from the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless other Black men and women in the U.S., many Americans are at a point of reflection. 

How much has changed when it comes to our perceptions of racial inequality in this country?

Beyond sentiment, has anything changed when it comes to our commitments to action? 

These questions hold weight not only for consumers at an individual level, but for the institutions and corporate powers that, perhaps for the first time, had to reckon with true accountability on issues of racial justice. 

The BLM movement has changed public sentiment – for some more than others.

When it comes to individual sentiment, the BLM movement has significantly increased people’s awareness of racial injustice; 40% of American consumers are now worried about race relations in the U.S., while one-third are concerned about police brutality. That’s more than the number of people worried about job security, national debt, and gun regulation.

More than just awareness, the movement has encouraged people to take an active stance against racial injustice. Research we conducted in May 2021 revealed that, for 30% of all American consumers, the BLM movement had made tackling anti-Black racism a more important issue for them. 

For certain groups, this was even higher. Millennials were the age cohort most likely to be positively influenced in this way by the BLM movement – 45% said that it made this issue more important for them. Other groups identifying with this sentiment – also more than the average – include parents with kids under 12 (44%) and heavy news readers (36%). 

Besides this, white Americans in general were slightly less likely than non-Black Americans of Color to say the BLM movement has impacted them in this way. 

Non-Black POC face descrimination because of the systemic inequalities of U.S. society, as well, and so it makes sense that shared experiences of struggle can foster allyship. 

However, it also points to how far we have to go to enact institutional change. Without a significant mindset shift among the people who hold disproportionate political, social, and economic power in the U.S. – white Americans – change will continue to be slow and hard won. 

Americans’ personal sentiment is one thing, but what about their view towards corporate activism in the year following Black Lives Matter? To what extent do they feel that brands have followed through, if at all, with pledges and statements made in the height of the movement? As it turns out, it depends who you ask. 

Brand activism shows some follow-through.

A year ago, GWI asked respondents what, if anything, they felt that brands should be doing in response to the Black Lives Matter movement. Among U.S. consumers, the answers were overwhelmingly in favor of significant, resource-intensive commitments. Reviewing hiring policies, ensuring diversity in leadership, and supporting diverse suppliers all came up as the top actions. Showing support via social media, in contrast, was at the very bottom. 

This data largely reflected the conversation of the time; many companies were coming under fire during the height of the BLM movement for posting black squares and hashtags on social media and then calling it a day. 

The PR frenzy toward corporate wokeness even introduced a whole new term into our lexicon, “performative allyship.” 

A year later, however, and the pendulum seems to be swinging toward true accountability for many high-visibility, influential brands. 

UPS, for example, donated $3.9 million to civil rights groups and historically Black colleges, and also recently reported that 43% of its management staff is now made up of people of Color. And in the wake of a pandemic that devastated communities of Color, Johnson & Johnson committed to a multi-year $100 million dollar program to reduce inequality in the healthcare system. 

Holding brands accountable is also easier now because of resources like the Black Dollar Index, an advocacy group that rates companies based on their commitment toward D&I, or AdAge’s live tracker on both brands’ and media’s response toward racial justice. 

Positive initiatives show that, in many cases, brand activism has indeed translated into brand follow-through. 

However, it’s often the positive stories that make the most noise. Those who dig into the weeds of the issue often find the waters to be a bit muddy.

Earlier in the year, a MarketWatch article revealed some of the complexities of true accountability, having reported five of the nation’s biggest banks had asked shareholders “to reject racial-equity resolutions after they expressed solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement last year.” 

Inconsistencies like this add context to some of the differences we see in consumer sentiment. 

When asked to what extent they believed brands had followed through on their pledges of activism toward BLM, about one-third of people said “a little” and one-fifth said “a lot”. Very few (9%) said “not at all,” though a sizeable 20% weren’t sure. This shows that while accountability has gotten easier to spot, it’s still not as obvious as it can be. 

But there’s an interesting disparity in these findings. It emerges when we cut the data by those who say the BLM movement made tackling racism more important to them vs. those who said that tackling racism was always important to them. 

Those who’ve been recently inspired to tackle racism have a more favorable view to the corporate response; 36% say that brands have followed through “a lot.” Comparatively, only 17% of the other group feel this way. 

Additionally, 17% of those who say that combating racism had always been important were unsure of brand follow-through; compared to only 5% of their newer activist counterparts. 

These findings have both positive and negative implications for companies. In a positive sense, it’s likely that public brand activism may be a factor in raising awareness and inspiration for consumers who had not been as committed to tackling anti-Black racism before. This is a good thing, and it’s likely to continue as we move toward a stronger ESG focus across many industries. Brands can be agents of change – and should be. 

In a different sense, it also suggests companies need to be sincere and transparent in their efforts, because people who’ve always had stronger, more committed activist tendencies – such as the “it’s always been important to me” group – will dig beyond the jazzy headlines to understand true corporate accountability. 

And what’s more, the side of deeper, dedicated activism will only grow over time, especially as younger consumers rise to prominence and drive forward the movement. Their expectations for transparency and accountability can’t be ignored. 

Toward a more inclusive culture, BLM and beyond  

Our data validates exactly these themes. According to the GWI USA survey, consumer demands for brands to be “inclusive” and “respectful” are on the rise. As is consumers’ desire for brands to support diversity & inequality in the workplace, and their overall interest in social justice issues. 

Among younger people, these views are even stronger. 

The winds of change are blowing toward a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable culture and society. Undoubtedly, the Black Lives Matter movement was a huge catalyst for this change, but it can’t be the only thing working to push both people and institutions forward.

Luckily, as the data tells us, it doesn’t have to be. Public sentiment and corporate actions are moving in a more progressive direction. It’s important that we keep that momentum going toward a more inclusive society and brand culture. As consumers, we have both our voices and our wallets to enable us to do so.