Spurred by the Covid-19 pandemic, outdoor pursuits, digital convenience and safety obsession are seen having a lasting impact.
5 min
Many of the new habits consumers formed during the coronavirus pandemic are here to stay, market researcher Euromonitor International predicts.
In 2021 consumers will be demanding, anxious, and creative in dealing with change, Euromonitor forecasts in its annual trend report. People will expect increased activism from brands they use, new options for digital services in their daily lives, and more help in achieving mental and physical wellness.
Though some of this year’s trends are directly related to Covid-19—like heightened safety concerns and demand for more open-air spaces—these shifts will continue after the pandemic wanes, says Alison Angus, Euromonitor’s head of lifestyle research. “These changes happened so quickly and have quickly manifested for the long term,” she says.
Euromonitor, a global market-research firm based in London, has released its forecasts since 2010. Last year, just three months after publishing its January 2020 predictions, it revised its expectations to reflect dramatic shifts in consumer behaviour spurred by the pandemic, flagging new trends like the home’s transformation into a multifunctional refuge used for work, school, leisure and exercise. It also noted the pause of other trends like previously rising privacy concerns.
Its forecasts haven’t always come true, at least so far: Euromonitor’s 2018 prediction that DNA-informed personalized nutrition and skin-care products would quickly accelerate didn’t come to pass because such regimens remain too onerous, Ms Angus says. Last year’s expected boom in demand for reusable products also didn’t materialize amid consumers’ sanitary concerns during the pandemic. “Sustainability really took a hit last year,” Ms Angus says. “But I think consumers are reverting back to it.”
Here are some of Euromonitor’s predictions for this year’s big global consumer trends:
Consumers paid closer attention to companies’ actions during the covid-19-fueled lockdowns and will take social and environmental issues more seriously after the pandemic ends, Euromonitor says. People will increasingly demand that companies protect the health and well-being of their workforce, help local communities, and promote ambitious sustainability goals. During the pandemic, “all of a sudden the air cleared, wildlife came out to play and everything was so much nicer,” says Ms Angus. “It’s made consumers realise that actually we want this greener, cleaner climate.”
People miss the spontaneous activities and impulse purchases of their pre-pandemic life—running errands, attending social events, dining out—and they want digital commerce to offer a similar experience, the market researcher says. (It also noted that younger consumers prefer digital interactions while 68% of consumers over the age of 60 prefer speaking with human customer-service representatives.) “We really want that on-the-go coffee, that walk and stop for lunch somewhere, that flexibility and ease,” says Ms Angus. “Companies have to find alternative ways to enable that spontaneity in some form.”
Even after the pandemic, people’s desire for outdoor spaces for work, events and recreation will remain strong, Euromonitor says. “Businesses need to create their own outdoor oasis,” the report says. “Adaptation might become more complicated and costly depending on the weather, but open-air structures and heating and illumination systems will pay off due to heightened demand for safe venues and the aesthetic that could continue attracting consumers.”
Video calls, connected appliances, smart phones, and technology such as augmented reality have helped consumers stay virtually connected during the pandemic despite being physically separated. Time spent straddling physical and digital worlds is what Euromonitor calls “phygital reality”—a hybrid where consumers seamlessly live, work, shop and play both in person and online. Offering new ways for consumers to combine digital and physical capabilities—say, personal-shopping appointments via video conferencing—will be necessary for businesses to boost sales (and collect data on their customers). Consumers quickly embraced “phygital reality” in the pandemic, but its use will remain long after, Ms Angus says. “Our kids don’t even think about whether something has technology or not, they just expect even a stuffed toy to have interactive technology,” she says. “As those generations become older, it becomes the new normal.”
Staying home more has pushed consumers to be more creative with their time and more deliberate in organizing their daily schedules as they juggle their work, family, and personal lives. So much multitasking means that consumers now expect businesses to offer more flexibility, too. Euromonitor predicts that consumers will demand a 24-hour service culture. “As more and more consumers try to cram more into their day, they’re trying to get time back through services and products that help them do it,” says Ms Angus.
Many people are distrusting of leadership and government, and bias and misinformation are feeding a crisis of confidence, Euromonitor says. That’s driving some consumers to rebel by placing their own needs and wants first. Lockdowns world-wide have led some to “revenge shopping,” or splurging, after being homebound for months, as well as seeking out illegal parties and online gambling, Euromonitor says. Affordable luxuries like alcoholic drinks, indulgent packaged food and video games are also on the rise. “Revenge spending is evident among those who can afford it or have saved money from being homebound and not going out,” says Ms Angus. “These consumers are spending on indulgences for themselves or their homes in order to make them feel better.”
In contrast to those who want to splurge, another group of shoppers is suffering financial hardships from job losses and economic instability that is forcing thrifty spending behaviour, Ms Angus says. Some consumers will identify with both trends, she says, trading down on some items in order to be able to spend more on others, like affordable luxuries and experiences that boost their physical and mental well-being during this crisis. This “trading down to trade up” is an accelerating trend during the pandemic. “Thrifty yet restless consumers are reviewing and adjusting their spending to support diverse and contradictory needs,” says Ms Angus.
Safety is the new wellness movement, according to Euromonitor. Frequent hand-washing and wearing masks have become widely normalized habits, and contactless payments became more common as people shy away from handling unclean cash. “Consumers will be more fearful going forward about any future health concern,” says Ms Angus. “I think we will care a lot about safety for a long time.”
The global pandemic forced consumers to reconfigure their lives and test their mental resilience amid health risks, economic hardship and isolation. Now they are reassessing their priorities, identities and work-life balance, Euromonitor says. Targeting these consumers includes offering access to goods and services that promote self-improvement and lifestyle balance. Global sales of educational, hobby-related toys and games, musical instruments, sports equipment and nostalgic comforts like childhood snacks are expected to rise.
The trend of working from home was already on the rise before the pandemic, but last year’s social-distancing measures made it a reality for many overnight. When the pandemic lifts, many people are expected to continue working from home, at least some of the time, for the long term. This shift affects many aspects of daily life, from technology spending to eating habits to clothing choices. Loss of commutes and office workplaces limit spending on coffee runs, lunch breaks and socializing with colleagues after work. Though workwear and beauty routines have become more casual, food and beverage purchases could become more high-end as people try to create restaurant-quality meals at home, Euromonitor forecasts.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
Could fears of an AI apocalypse be distracting us from the dangers already here? Experts debate whether regulation should focus on speculative existential threats or present-day harms, including cyberattacks, weapons and unsafe autonomous agents. Read more via the link in bio.
5 min
There is ample and alarming evidence that artificial intelligence can help humans do bad things, such as committing cyberattacks, building weapons and even killing themselves or others. The Hugging Face hacking episode—and a growing list of others by poorly constrained swarms of agents—indicate just how powerful and potentially dangerous AI has quickly become.
Yet many inside the U.S. AI industry insist far worse is coming, on account of the imminent arrival of AI with superhuman and self-improving abilities.
Plenty of experts, including many who study AI harms for a living, are skeptical. The so-called doomers’ assertion that AI might decide to wipe out all of humanity—or even “just” topple human civilization—is contingent on it achieving a pace of development not yet seen.
And if the assumptions behind this global-doomsday scenario are wrong, it could lead us to curb or regulate AI in ways that don’t address its real harms.
At the center of this debate is the claim that current AI systems might take over the job of training their next versions, a process called “recursive self-improvement.” Think of it like evolution on steroids—billions of years happening at light speed within vast AI supercomputers. Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei recently proposed a global agreement to slow down the pace of releasing new AI models, with the goal of delaying the arrival of recursive self-improvement.
“I don’t think we’re anywhere near ‘artificial general intelligence,’” says Melanie Mitchell, a professor at the nonprofit research group Santa Fe Institute who studies AI. She said AI is making impressive strides but thinks claims by engineers that they’ve achieved recursive self-improvement don’t stand up to scrutiny.
She is hardly alone. A recent paper by two dozen academics at Princeton, Stanford and other institutions found that even the most cutting-edge AIs are incapable of doing the original research required to advance the AI frontier.
Two of the authors involved in that paper also threw cold water on the idea that the Hugging Face swarm hack by OpenAI agents occurred because of a breakthrough in intelligence. The attack succeeded primarily because of a lack of basic technical guardrails, not an unmanageable explosion in AI capability, they wrote.
Yann LeCun, former chief AI scientist at Meta, posted that this analysis was “a welcome dose of sanity in an otherwise insane debate.”
OpenAI and Anthropic didn’t respond to several requests for comment.
The people who disagree with the doomers still consider AI to be dangerous, and point out that such systems don’t have to be particularly capable to be powerful. Some argue that AI should undergo regular evaluation by outsiders and that the companies that make it should be held responsible when their systems do harm. AI should also be treated the same as airplanes and elevators, and should be designed to do the least harm possible, they say.
“If you believe that technology is powerful enough to create novel, dangerous viruses, or to essentially take over the whole planet for some reason, then it must also be strong enough to create cures for cancer, to cure aging, to fix socio-economic or political problems,” says Christopher Canal, CEO of EquiStamp, a company that helps companies and governments evaluate AIs.
AI has shown an ability to rapidly advance because it is matching the abilities of humans who are constantly feeding it their knowledge. Sometimes it can recombine that knowledge and exceed what people have been capable of, through a kind of post-training known as reinforcement learning, as we’ve seen in mathematics.
Today’s LLMs are “models of knowledge” rather than actually intelligent, wrote Yi Ma, professor of AI at Hong Kong University.
Researchers at universities and commercial AI research labs in China wrote in a recent paper that autonomous, self-improving AI is likely to be a long way off, due to the sheer number of breakthroughs required. They also argue that humans will probably remain in the loop, supervising that process—and gating how fast it can occur.
Vals AI, a company that evaluates today’s AI models, maintains an RSI Index that benchmarks whether models can “do the research that builds the next model.” So far, no publicly released model is even close.
Yet Rayan Krishnan, CEO of Vals AI, says his team projects models will exceed humans’ ability to improve the next generation of AIs by August 2027, or sooner, and at that point could start building their successors all on their own.
“Once we get to recursive self-improvement, the fear is that all bets are off,” he says. “You could end up with a ‘fast takeoff’ situation, where the models quickly acquire skills and eclipse humans across every possible domain.”
In a reply to the resignation tweet heard round the world from Jacob Coxon, another Anthropic engineer declared his belief that those odds were at least 10% over the next decade. Many others in the industry chimed in to say they thought the percentage was even higher.
Some who argue the end is nigh say they calculate their personal p(doom) based on a chain of conditional probabilities—a bit like the Drake equation for calculating the likelihood of intelligent alien life. Since all those probabilities are based on speculation, estimates range from 0% to nearly 100%. Many land around 10%.
“The weird thing is that if you go back and look at the predictions on this over the last 10 years or more, it’s always been 10%—it’s just a nice round number,” says Mitchell. “I think it’s all vibes, and there’s no actual evidence or calculation.”
One argument against worrying about superintelligent AI is that the world is full of unlikely humanity-ending disasters, and trying to avert them all can make it impossible to prioritize, says Canal.
This has led AI experts and the policymakers who listen to them to propose remedies that don’t get at its real and present dangers.
AI companies’ proposals to “pace the frontier” aren’t addressing the problem in the right way, argues Stuart Russell, a computer-science professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the president of the International Association for Safe and Ethical Artificial Intelligence.
“It’s like saying we’re driving toward the cliff at 60 miles per hour and we’re going to drive toward it at 40 miles per hour instead, and everything will be OK,” he says.
Russell and his peers have proposed that AI companies should have to meet the same standards that govern other areas of everyday life, from air travel and buildings to food and drugs. They highlight the “behavioral red lines” AI should not be allowed to cross. Breaking into other computer systems, stealing information or advising terrorists on how to build biological weapons are all illegal for a human to do, and should be illegal for companies’ AIs as well, he argues.
The challenge for AI companies in such a proposal, he adds, is that it would be a de facto ban on today’s advanced AI systems, since the companies behind them don’t know how to make them respect such boundaries all of the time.
Others have proposed something like the Food and Drug Administration, but for AI, but setting up a new agency has so far been a nonstarter in Congress. And some prominent voices in tech have said such a structure would give up America’s AI edge to China.
Given the bipartisan groundswell of support for curbing AI companies and their creations, however, that may soon change.
“The tech industry has had this mantra for decades that regulation is bad,” says Russell. “They don’t accept the liability for any harm, and they hide behind free speech. That, I think, has to change.”
