Confusing Brand Claims Need to Go, Says Public Inc.’s Conscious Consumer Report

Late last month, Toronto-based social impact agency Public Inc. revealed the results of its Conscious Consumer Report. A study designed to analyse consumer purchasing behaviours across the US and Canadian markets, the company’s research, conducted with support from Ipsos, headlined with an interesting statistic: conscious consumerism only accounts for 38% of purchases, despite nearly 76% of consumers claiming they’d want to support sustainable brands. In short, the ‘say-do gap’ is very real, and it’s something that both agencies and brands in the North American market need to address in the interest of driving continuous and sustainable growth in the future.

Having segmented consumers into five different categories based on the frequency of their value-based purchases, key findings from the report also revealed that 55% of participants are likely to change their purchase behaviours for social or ethical reasons within the next year, 49% of consumers abandon products before purchasing due to unclear sustainability claims, and that, generally speaking, people respond better to immediate, personal benefits than abstract future impacts.

As such, it’s clear that this marketing moment is a great opportunity for businesses to succeed, should they prioritise these needs in a meaningful fashion. From using clearer language, to positioning positive social outcomes through the lens of tangible consumer benefits, it appears that in today’s economy, authentic, honest marketing goes beyond ethical advantages – it’s just good business.

To learn more about the report’s methodology, takeaways, and how businesses can leverage these findings in a meaningful fashion, LBB’s Jordan Won Neufeldt sat down with Public Inc.’s vice president of research, Caleigh Farrell, for a chat.

LBB> From the top, what inspired the Consumer Consensus Report? Why was looking into consumer purchasing trends the right course of action for this moment in time?

Caleigh> For almost two decades, we have been in the business of helping companies profit with purpose, imagining a better way for businesses to operate and make an impact on the communities they serve. And, for the same amount of time, we've watched consumer appetite for values-based products and services outpace purchase and action.

We have all heard of the ‘say-do gap’, but so many continue to struggle in their efforts to close it. So, we decided to investigate what role communications can play in doing just that. The findings in the report feel ‘right’ – almost intuitive – and yet marketers have not deployed them. Not at scale or with consistency. Our intent is that this report helps right that ship.

LBB> Tell us about your research process, and partnership with Ipsos! What was your approach like, and how did you ensure insightful answers reflective of diverse demographics and perspectives?

Caleigh> We worked with Ipsos because, as a partner, it marries rigour and excellence with collaboration and curiosity.

Together, we designed a study that investigated actual behaviour (versus purported behaviour) across the general population, reflecting the voices of everyone from the young to the elderly, across genders, household incomes, education levels, and immigration statuses. Through a variety of questions, we were able to get a detailed look at whether or not people are actually using the power of their wallet to do some good, and what motivates them to do so.

LBB> Let’s talk about the results! What did you find particularly interesting, and equally, were there any takeaways that were especially surprising?

Caleigh> The fact is, all segments responded more or less the same to claims. From the highly committed conscious consumer to the ones that fully opt out, each exhibits similar interest in claims that prioritise their needs in the present, as well as a similar disinterest in green or scientific claims. This gives clear direction to marketers on how to proceed in communications (speaking to ‘me now’, instead of ‘we later’).

LBB> Notably, the gap between desire and purchasing behaviour is very interesting – tell us more about the factors driving this. Why is this such an issue across the markets in Canada and the US?

Caleigh> Our study identifies ‘confusing claims’ as the number one driver of the say-do gap. Peoples’ inability to process information about sustainable products (be that either spotting it on-shelf or understanding what is being said about the product and its benefits) is a stronger determinant of conscious consumer behaviour than motivation and ability.

Up until now, the say-do gap has most often been attributed to cost, access, or perceived effectiveness of the product. And while all these things are surely factors, there’s nothing particularly unique about their impact on values-based products and services over alternatives.

LBB> Building on this, how can agencies and brands work to better address this, both short term and long term?

Caleigh> We need to focus on claims that speak to ‘me’, not ‘we’, emphasise present day impact (versus future benefit), and keep language simple and relevant to the consumers’ everyday needs and realities. Doing so will allow us to more consistently activate the flip-floppers and move the needle on the level of conscious consumerism, overall.

LBB> The report segmented respondents into five groups based on their frequency of values-based purchases. Is it possible to meaningfully target all these demographics simultaneously, and if so, what might this look like?

Caleigh> Yes, and no. Because claims resonate fairly consistently across segments, it’s absolutely possible that you can land a claim that works for every group. But, we can’t dismiss marketing basics and the impact demographic and psychographic variables have on our communications.

Let’s say ‘durability’ is your lead sustainability message, and your brand’s bullseye audience is parents. You should absolutely tailor your messaging hierarchy around why durability meets their needs in the everyday (think: ‘Buy once, wash 2,000 times, and watch each kid wear it’). That tagline won’t work if you’re messaging durability to a single man in his fifties. So, segmenting and tailoring messaging to make it more personal is still very important.

LBB> With all this in mind, how can these findings be used to inform the industry’s marketing approaches? What might a good brand-agency partnership that meaningfully delivers on all these key factors look like?

Caleigh> This report is a wake-up call for impact marketers. To move the needle on the sustainable economy, we need to course-correct and stop selling the promise of a ‘better tomorrow’, recognising that the needs of people in the present are both pressing and highly motivating.

To answer the second question, a great brand-agency partnership is one where the client is keen to lean into this course-correction, working to co-create better, more impactful, ways of communicating with consumers.

LBB> Another interesting finding was that emphasising immediate future product benefits works well. For marketers who may have more traditionally relied on longer-term concepts, how can they convert their messaging approach?

Caleigh> It involves some investigative work, which includes defining the short-term and long-term benefits of the product. To stretch one of the examples given in the report: instead of selling energy-efficient lightbulbs to ‘power the next generation’, what if we started by communicating how this choice ‘saves you money on your energy bill, today’, first? It still does help power the next generation, but it leads with the present-day benefit to consumers, upping the urgency around why they should make that choice in the moment.

Do note, it’s important that in all instances, statements like these need to be supported by evidence and align with green claims regulations in your market.

LBB> Looking ahead through 2025, how will the findings be used by Public Inc. to enhance its offerings across both markets?

Caleigh> We’re already helping many of our existing clients identify the claims that resonate in markets globally to support sales, brand trust, and loyalty. So, our ambition is to continue this work, helping companies lead with purposeful communications that grow their brand and business while navigating today’s tricky sociopolitical landscape.

Demand for values-based products and services – offered to them by good, corporate citizens – is as strong as ever, but consumers and regulatory bodies are savvy. It’s critical to get it right, and devastating to get it wrong. That’s where we can continue to help.

LBB> Equally so, how will your approach vary, if at all, based on the unique needs of the US and Canadian markets? Are there noticeable demands differences between the two?

Caleigh> From a consumer perspective? Not noticeably. We love and hate the same claims, exhibit similar conscious behaviour habits, and we're motivated by similar statements.

From a business perspective, however, the answer is yes. The US market is more volatile on the sustainability front. Many businesses with stated social and environmental goals are faced with deciding what poses a bigger risk to their business: the current administration, or a disgruntled consumer with a grudge against a company who has walked back from those commitments. We could ask Target how that’s working out for them.

LBB> Finally, if there was one takeaway you’d want to emphasise for viewers, what would it be, and why?

Caleigh> Make it personal. Make it honest. And keep it simple. But most importantly, get the report.