1、1A View from Gen Zers and MillennialsJune 2021203Background&Objectives09Methodology11Key FindingsContents3Background&Objectives4AcknowledgementsThis research was conducted by Edelman Data&Intelligence(DxI).Copyright 2021 by the International Trademark Association.All rights reserved.No part of this

2、publication may be reproduced,distributed,or transmitted in any form or by any means,including photocopying,recording,or other electronic or mechanical methods,without prior written permission of the copyright owner,except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain othe

3、r noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.5About brand restrictionsThe past several years have seen a notable increase in regulations and legislation to restrict brand use,including plain and standardized packaging,which reduces the use of trademarks on the packaging or even bans their use alt

4、ogether.This report uses the term“brand restrictions”to refer to these regulatory and legislative restrictions.Examples of brand restrictions include:Plain packagingHighly standardized packagingBans on the use of brands and branding elementsHealth warnings,e.g.,mandated size and content of messaging

5、6About the researchMillennials and Gen Zers are the largest generations globally,so it is important for brand owners,lawmakers,and the media to understand how these consumers relate to brands and what their attitudes are toward brand restriction legislation.The study focuses on millennial and Gen Z

6、consumers between 18 and 39 years of age in 10 markets:Brazil,Chile,Colombia,India,Mexico,Singapore,South Africa,South Korea,Thailand,and the United Kingdom.These markets were selected based on multiple factors including the level of economic development and the potential or presence of brand restri

7、ctions legislation.They also span all regions of the world enabling us to have a global perspective on the topic.The objective of the study was to understand the attitudes of millennials and Gen Zerstoward brand restrictions legislation and how such legislation could affect their purchasing behavior

8、.7Research approachThe research had three distinct phases and was conducted by Edelman Data&Intelligence(DxI),an independent research,analytics and data consultancy,in partnership with INTA.This report primarily outlines the global findings of the final phase,the online quantitative survey.LANDSCAPI

9、NGQUALITATIVE ONLINE COMMUNITIESONLINE QUANTITATIVE SURVEYExisting resources,studies,data,and media content were reviewed and analyzed using desk research and social listening to diagnose the current state of play on brand restrictions.Qualitative Online Communities with:“Conversations and interview

10、s were conducted in online communities with high numbers of millennials and Gen Zers in these four markets:Chile,India,South Africa,and the United Kingdom.A 20-minute online survey with millennials and Gen Zers was conducted in ten markets:Brazil,Chile,Colombia,India,Mexico,Singapore,South Africa,So

11、uth Korea,Thailand,and the United Kingdom.8Objective of the quantitative phase8Explore the role brands and branding elements on packaging play in consumers lives and how brand restrictions will impact them12Validate the findings uncovered in the online communities,adding something new to the current

12、 conversation on the role brands have in consumers lives and showcasing unique angles on the impact of brand restrictions on millennials and Gen Zers.Specifically:Understand the value that consumers place on brands and their perception of brand restrictions9Methodology10MethodologyOnline survey deta

13、ils Demographic Breakdown WHERE|10 markets(Brazil,Chile,Colombia,India,Mexico,Singapore,South Africa,South Korea,Thailand,and the United Kingdom)WHO|500 participants in each market.A total sample size of 5,000 respondents globally.We surveyed 250 Gen Zers(18-24)and 250 millennials(25-39)in each mark

14、et.HOW|20-minute online surveyWHEN|October 21 November 5,2020AGE COHORT|2,499 Gen Zers/2,501 MillennialsGENDER|2,442 Males/2,493 FemalesPARENTS|2,374 Parents/2,626 Non-Parents11Key Findings12Key FindingsBrands play a vital role in consumers lives Consumers have an emotional connection to brands,with

15、 this connection being stronger in developing economies.Globally,6 in 10 consumers would be sad if certain brands they love disappeared forever,and almost 5 in 10 say that the brands they use reflect their personal values.Brand loyalty differs across categories:consumers are more loyal to brands in

16、categories such as tobacco products and baby food and,as seen in the qualitative phase,they are least loyal in the food and non-alcoholic drinks category,where they are more likely to want to experiment.Trust and quality play a critical role in driving brand loyalty across categories,but safety also

17、 appears as a key factor in categories such as baby food and pharmaceuticals,where health can be impacted.Brands are more trusted than governments:7 in 10 consumers trust brands globally,compared to 4 in 10 who trust governments.Trust in brands,however,varies across markets,with consumers in develop

18、ing markets trusting brands more.Visual branding elements provide consumers with key quality indicators Visual branding elements such as brand logos,colors,and designs provide crucial information to consumersthey help them choose the right product by conveying a sense of quality,make shopping easy,a

19、nd provide cues that a product can be trusted.Non-branding elementsthose not impacted by brand restrictions drive purchase behavior:specifically,price,information about health implications,and nutritional and ingredient information.This provides some evidence that brand restrictions alone would not

20、change what consumers buy.For many consumers,the amount and location of nutritional/ingredient information that is currently displayed on product packaging on the backis sufficient,suggesting no need for significant change to packaging13Key FindingsConsumers often misjudge the reasons behind brand r

21、estrictionsConsumer awareness of brand restrictions terms is fairly highwith trademark being the term many know most about across marketsin line with findings from the qualitative phase.Despite familiarity with brand restriction terms,the concept is not well understood.Many consumers misinterpret th

22、e rationale for introducing brand restrictions legislation:close to half think that plain packaging is being introduced by brands to save costs.It is in markets where brand restrictions have been in place the longestChile and Mexicothat consumers are more likely to cite health and advertising laws a

23、s reasons for introducing restrictions.Brand restrictions may not have the long-term intended public policy outcome of changing consumer behaviorBrand restrictions may not have the long-term intended public policy outcome of changing consumer behavior:only 1 in 3 say that brand restrictions would he

24、lp them make healthier choices for themselves and their family,and 4 in 10 say that if warning labels were added to all products,people would get used to them and,therefore,continue to buy the same products.There is evidence that some brand restrictions wont have the intended impact of making consum

25、ers buy fewer products.Information labels bolster trust(9 in 10 consumers trust a cereal pack with an information label,compared to only 2 in 10 for a cereal pack with plain packaging),with people feeling like they have access to more information,leading them to buy more products.This is the opposit

26、e effect intended by brand restrictions.A significant proportion of consumersnearly halfsay that plain packaging is too extreme.14Key FindingsConsumer support for brand restrictions is low,and brand restrictions cause them to worryBrand restrictions cause consumers to worry about the safety and legi

27、timacy of products,with 1 in 3 worrying that products would be fake/counterfeit.Additionally,9 in 10 consumers also anticipate brand restrictions legislation to have negative economic impacts.Consumers feel they are most responsible for making healthy choices,not brands or their government.With bran

28、d restrictions,many consumers feel civil liberties are at stake and that brand restrictions would take away their freedom of choice:6 in 10 say people should be taught how to make healthier choices rather than have the right to choose taken away from them.Brand restrictions are considered the least

29、effective strategy to encourage people to make healthier choicesMost consumers feel more information should be available on how to make healthy choices,such as through education campaigns and more nutritional information on packaging.These strategies are considered to be more effective than brand re

30、strictions on product packaging in encouraging consumers to make healthier choices.In Chile,where brand restrictions exist and have been in place the longest among markets included in this study,fewer than 4 in 10 say brand restrictions would be effective,compared to just under 5 in 10 who say the s

31、ame globallythe low perceived effectiveness of brand restrictions in Chile is a strong case against implementing these.Brands can support consumers in making healthier choices by providing more nutritional information to keep them informed.Where governments should come into play is in keeping consumers informed of any considerations to implement brand restrictions,and be prepared to reverse them if found ineffective.15For more information on this study,visit www.inta.org