Unequal communications

Last week, WARC released its annual Global Consumer Trends report, exploring the influences over consumer purchase decisions.

As ever, there’s plenty in there, from the blindingly obvious (influencers influence) to the terrifying (a quarter of us are happy for AI agents to do our shopping), to the wholesome (half of zoomers and millennials play board games every month).

But the most interesting insight by far was around inequality.

Australia often dodges much of the inequality conversation. A large middle class, a cultural obsession with the idea of a fair go, and favourable comparisons to the perpetually divided US all work in our favour.

But that’s changing. A new study found we’re moving in the wrong direction, with a 30% decline in the share of wealth held by the bottom 40% of Australians since 2004. The Australia Institute found the housing crisis is turning into an inequality crisis. And Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities, Treasury, and Productivity, Andrew Leigh, believes we’re one generation away from US-style inequality.

This has an obvious impact on buying behaviour.

GWI research found 55% of low-income consumers around the world said they would rather pay less for a cheaper own-brand product than pay more for a brand they know. This compared to 40% in the high-income segment.

As brand loyalty weakens and value becomes ever more important, communicating to increasingly divided audiences, with diverging priorities and abilities to act, becomes more challenging.

Targeted campaigns to niche audiences are nothing new. But as those audiences move further apart, we may have to be prepared to forgo and even intentionally alienate one group to effectively appeal to another. It’s akin to using the Class Sketch (pictured) as a comms strategy. 

Or we could just talk directly to an AI agent and capture a quarter of the market in an instant. Grim.