Gen Z does not want your brand to act young | The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

Description

Recent market research and case studies indicate that Gen Z values brand consistency over superficial attempts to mimic youth culture through memes or trends. While many companies struggle with a persistent trust gap among younger consumers, successful brands like CeraVe and Coach demonstrate that maintaining core identity while modernizing communication is the most effective strategy. Authenticity in this context is defined as narrative coherence rather than a specific unpolished visual style or production quality. Data suggests that while getting attention is easy, building long-term loyalty requires meaningful participation from young audiences and a clear connection to a brand’s heritage. Ultimately, businesses must focus on evolving their expression without abandoning the foundational values that make them recognizable. This approach ensures that a brand remains relevant and trustworthy in an increasingly skeptical, AI-driven digital landscape.

The Gen Z Shift: European leadership decoded

An essential audio series by Benoît Vancauwenberghe, founder of 20Something, realized by an AI podcast by NotebookKLM. This is the indispensable resource for HR Leaders and Managers across Europe. We cut through the noise, providing actionable insights on how Gen Z is fundamentally reshaping leadership, work, and talent strategy. Packed with cutting-edge research and consulting experience.

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Transcription

Speaker #0
Welcome to the Gen Z Shift, a podcast decoding Generation Z and Generation Alpha for leaders, brands, and changemakers. Based on the research and articles of Benoit van Kallenberg, a European expert on Generation Z, Generation Alpha, and brand culture, each episode helps you understand the generations reshaping how we work, consume, connect, and live. Because the future isn't coming. It's already here. So imagine for a second that you're spending millions of dollars to hire. the Absolute biggest Hollywood star of the moment. Yes,
Speaker #1
a massive budget.
Speaker #0
Exactly. You launch this massive campaign, you go completely viral on every single social platform, you're generating literally billions of views.
Speaker #1
Oh yeah, you're everywhere.
Speaker #0
You're everywhere. And then, you sit down at the end of the quarter, and you realize, you realize, you didn't gain a single new customer.
Speaker #1
Yeah, it's brutal.
Speaker #0
It is. So today, we are taking a deep dive into the source material to figure out why, you know... This race for Generation Z is resulting in so many of these massive corporate misfires.
Speaker #1
It's a huge problem right now.
Speaker #0
Our mission today is to unpack a really fascinating phenomenon. Basically, grabbing Gen Z's attention has never been easier, but earning their trust requires something completely different.
Speaker #1
Something much deeper, yeah.
Speaker #0
Right. And for you listening, understand the mechanics behind this is just an absolute necessity. I mean, we are talking about a demographic that... According to Nielsen data and our Adweek sources, it's projected to command $12 trillion in spending power by 2030.
Speaker #1
$12 trillion.
Speaker #0
$12 trillion. With a T.
Speaker #1
Yeah. I mean, that $12 trillion figure, it fundamentally alters the stakes of, like, every marketing decision being made today.
Speaker #0
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker #1
When you are dealing with that kind of economic gravity, the margin for error just completely evaporates.
Speaker #0
You can't afford to mess it up.
Speaker #1
Exactly. problem circuses almost immediately. Brands are operating under this fatal assumption that visibility automatically translates into trust.
Speaker #0
Okay, let's unpack this. Because, you know, on a superficial level, visibility and trust do sort of seem connected.
Speaker #1
Sure, they seem like it.
Speaker #0
Right. Like if a brand is constantly in my feed and they are providing some sort of entertainment value, there is a natural assumption that a relationship is being built there.
Speaker #1
Well, the data paints a starkly different reality, actually.
Speaker #0
Really?
Speaker #1
Yeah. We need to look closely at the 2026 morning consult research provided in our stack. They track this enormous spectrum of brands to measure something called net trust among Gen Z.
Speaker #0
Right. I noticed that term in the data, net trust. Before we get into the actual results, we should probably define how they are calculating net trust, right? Because it seems a lot more rigorous than just asking if someone likes a logo.
Speaker #1
Oh, it is a... critical distinction. Net trust isn't a simple popularity contest at all. It's calculated by taking the percentage of respondents who actively trust a brand to do the right thing, to deliver on its promises, act ethically, and then subtracting the percentage of people who actively distrust it.
Speaker #0
Oh, wow. So it actively punishes you if people hate you.
Speaker #1
Exactly. It heavily penalizes brands that are polarizing. And, well, the morning consult findings are honestly alarming.
Speaker #0
How bad is it?
Speaker #1
94% of the brands they tracked have a lower net trust among Gen Z compared to the general U.S. adult population.
Speaker #0
Wait, 94%?
Speaker #1
94%.
Speaker #0
That's practically everyone.
Speaker #1
Pretty much. On average, Gen Z's net trust sits about eight points lower across the board.
Speaker #0
I mean, 94% means nearly the entire corporate landscape is operating at a deficit with this generation.
Speaker #1
Yep.
Speaker #0
My immediate reaction to a number like that is to just assume... Well, maybe this is simply an anti-capitalist generation.
Speaker #1
Right. That's the common assumption.
Speaker #0
Like, if they're scoring everyone lower, maybe they're just inherently hostile to large organizations.
Speaker #1
But the morning consult researchers specifically caution against that interpretation.
Speaker #0
Oh, they do?
Speaker #1
Yeah. The deficit isn't born from inherent hostility. It's actually the result of two very practical structural factors.
Speaker #0
Okay. What are they?
Speaker #1
First, we have to account for simple chronology, meaning... Younger consumers simply have not been alive long enough to develop the decades of passive brand loyalty that older demographics have.
Speaker #0
Oh, that makes sense.
Speaker #1
Right. Like a brand that feels like a trusted lifelong companion to a boomer or a Gen Xer is, well, it's just another corporate entity to a 20 year old.
Speaker #0
They just don't have the history.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And second, and this is much more impactful, Gen Z has developed entirely within a hyper transparent information ecosystem.
Speaker #0
Meaning they see the mistakes instantly.
Speaker #1
Precisely. In previous decades, a corporate misstep or like a supply chain violation.
Speaker #0
Or a hypocritical stance on something.
Speaker #1
Yeah, exactly. That stuff might have been buried on page 12 of a newspaper. Right. Today. A bad employee experience or a questionable environmental practice is dissected and broadcasted on TikTok to millions of people within hours.
Speaker #0
Wow. Yeah. So they are conditioned by their environment. To be highly skeptical.
Speaker #1
Because they have unprecedented visibility into corporate flaws.
Speaker #0
They have an entirely different baseline for vetting information. So simply getting noticed by them isn't a victory at all.
Speaker #1
Not even close.
Speaker #0
Let's look at how this plays out in the real world. Starting with that American Eagle case study in our sources.
Speaker #1
Yeah, that's a perfect example.
Speaker #0
So they partnered with the actress Sydney Sweeney. And, I mean, she's huge right now. If you were strictly monitoring social media metrics, this campaign looked like an undisputed triumph.
Speaker #1
Oh, the numbers were off the charts.
Speaker #0
Right. The cultural noise was deafening. It was dominating conversations everywhere.
Speaker #1
Yet, when Adweek conducted a separate analysis of brand tracking metrics for the period immediately following that saturation of noise...
Speaker #0
What happened?
Speaker #1
The reality was pretty sobering. Among the intended Gen Z audience, awareness, purchase consideration, and preference remained entirely flat.
Speaker #0
Flat, like no movement at all.
Speaker #1
Basically zero movement. The sheer volume of views did not convert into a deeper relationship with the target audience.
Speaker #0
That is wild.
Speaker #1
What's fascinating here is that cultural visibility and brand strength operate on two completely different axes.
Speaker #0
It perfectly mirrors the class clown dynamic from high school, honestly.
Speaker #1
Oh, I like that comparison.
Speaker #0
Yeah, think about it. Everyone pays attention to the class clown when they do something outrageous. Right.
Speaker #1
Sure. They command the room.
Speaker #0
Exactly. But when the teacher assigns a critical science project and you need a lab partner, you can actually rely on.
Speaker #1
You're not picking the class clown.
Speaker #0
Right. Or when you have a serious secret you need to share, no one picks the class clown. You will happily watch them, but you do not trust them with anything of consequence.
Speaker #1
Yeah. The attention does not engineer a reason to believe.
Speaker #0
But wait, I have to challenge this premise slightly, though.
Speaker #1
OK, go for it.
Speaker #0
Especially when we introduce the other major case study from the research, which is Duolingo.
Speaker #1
Ah, yes. The owl.
Speaker #0
Duo, the green owl. I mean, he is arguably the most famous mascot on the internet right now.
Speaker #1
I got a doubt.
Speaker #0
And they lean into completely absurd, unhinged trends. And crucially, they are reporting massive, sustained user growth.
Speaker #1
They are.
Speaker #0
So if millions of young people are downloading the app and doing their language lessons every day because of these viral videos, why does trust actually matter?
Speaker #1
Yeah.
Speaker #0
Isn't engagement the whole point? The engagement is translating into usage.
Speaker #1
Well, Duolingo is actually the perfect stress test for this exact theory.
Speaker #0
How so?
Speaker #1
They do over-index on trust with Gen Z compared to the broader population, largely because of that consistent daily utility. They actually teach you a language.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
However, Adweek conducted an 18-month tracking analysis on them, and they uncovered a severe vulnerability.
Speaker #0
Oh, really?
Speaker #1
Yeah. Duolingo recently faced a significant public... backlash over an AI-first positioning shift.
Speaker #0
Oh, I remember that.
Speaker #1
Users realized the company was leaning heavily into artificial intelligence, which obviously raised concerns about the displacement of human translators.
Speaker #0
A controversy that struck right at the core of what a language learning app is supposed to be.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And look at what happened to the metrics during that period. Despite the ongoing virality of their mascot and all that strong historical user growth, their favorability, purchase consideration, and their net trust. all experienced notable declines.
Speaker #0
Wait, really? The memes couldn't save them from the trust drop?
Speaker #1
No, they couldn't. People can laugh at your content, they can share your videos, and they can even engage with your software daily.
Speaker #0
Yeah.
Speaker #1
But if that engagement isn't backstopped by a deep belief in your core values, a single controversy can fracture the relationship.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
The moment Gen Z sensed a misalignment between the fun, community-oriented mascot and the reality of corporate cost-cutting via AI... The trust eroded.
Speaker #0
It's so interesting.
Speaker #1
Attention is a fragile surface, you know? Trust is the bedrock.
Speaker #0
So if going relentlessly viral like Duolingo leaves you exposed to trust deficits.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
And if deploying massive celebrities like American Eagle fails to alter purchase consideration.
Speaker #1
Also true.
Speaker #0
We are left with a significant strategic void here. I mean, what actually works?
Speaker #1
Well, the sources point toward redefining a concept that gets thrown around constantly in marketing.
Speaker #0
Which is?
Speaker #1
Authenticity.
Speaker #0
Ah, authenticity. The ultimate buzzword.
Speaker #1
Exactly. But we need to discard the traditional marketing definition of authenticity completely.
Speaker #0
Okay. How should we be looking at it?
Speaker #1
To understand how Gen Z processes it, we look at the 2024 academic study by Fernandez and colleagues.
Speaker #0
Right, the one in our notes.
Speaker #1
They analyzed purpose-driven branding among young adults and discovered that authenticity, specifically the logical fit between a brand and its actions, is the primary driver of purchase intention.
Speaker #0
The logical fit.
Speaker #1
Yeah. The disconnect happens because brands have conflated authenticity with production value.
Speaker #0
Right. The assumption is that authentic means like a video shot on a shaky smartphone in a messy bedroom featuring someone speaking super casually.
Speaker #1
Exactly. They view it as an aesthetic choice. Let's make it look low budget.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
But the Fernandez study demonstrates that authenticity is not a production style. Authenticity is coherence.
Speaker #0
Coherence. Meaning what exactly?
Speaker #1
Does your current behavior align seamlessly with what the audience already knows to be true about your fundamental nature?
Speaker #0
Okay, I see.
Speaker #1
A brand can spend $5 million on a highly polished cinematic advertisement, and if the message perfectly aligns with their historical identity, Gen Z will read it as deeply authentic.
Speaker #0
Oh, that's fascinating.
Speaker #1
Conversely, if a massive multinational corporation suddenly tries to film a gritty, low-budget TikTok video using, like, underground slang...
Speaker #0
The audience immediately identifies the incoherence and rejects it as manufactured.
Speaker #1
Exactly. It just feels fake.
Speaker #0
Here's where it gets really interesting, because the research highlights a brand that navigated this balance of coherence and cultural relevance almost perfectly.
Speaker #1
Oh, Cerave.
Speaker #0
Yes, Cerave. To set the stage, Cerave is a skincare brand whose entire historical identity is, you know, clinical, straightforward, and dermatologists recommend it.
Speaker #1
Very science-based.
Speaker #0
Right. Yeah. Yet they launched a Gen Z-focused campaign around a trend called tan maxing.
Speaker #1
Which is wild.
Speaker #0
I had to look this up when going through the notes. Tan maxing is this hyper online, sometimes extreme subculture focused on optimizing sunbed use or aggressive self tanning to achieve these very specific bronze aesthetics. It is loud. Yeah. It is deeply entrenched in Internet culture. And it honestly seems like the last place a clinical pharmacy brand should be hanging out.
Speaker #1
On the surface, it looks identical to the American Eagle strategy, right? Chasing a loud trend.
Speaker #0
Yeah, exactly. It feels like a dad trying to use teenage slang at the dinner table.
Speaker #1
Right. But the crucial difference lies in the mechanics of their execution. Serov did not abandon their clinical identity to just blend in with the tan-maxing creators.
Speaker #0
What did they do?
Speaker #1
Instead, they utilized the visual language and the absurd humor of the trend to capture attention. But they anchored the entire campaign by integrating an actual credentialed dermatologist into the narrative.
Speaker #0
Wait, really? So Soros changed the wrapping paper but kept the exact same gift inside the box. Is that what good generational adaptation looks like?
Speaker #1
That is exactly what it looks like.
Speaker #0
They used the aesthetic of the trend but brought their own core authority to the table.
Speaker #1
The Adweek analysis highlights this deliberate structural choice. The humor and the trend surfing provided the necessary cultural visibility, right? But the presence of the dermatologist fiercely protected Soros' reason to believe. They supplied medical credibility to a trend that desperately needed it.
Speaker #0
That is so smart.
Speaker #1
The cultural expression adapted to the current moment, but the core identity, the clinical authority, remain entirely coherent.
Speaker #0
They figured out how to speak the language without changing their personality.
Speaker #1
And the results speak for themselves. Because of that rigorous commitment to coherence, Morning Consult's 2026 data reveals Sarave achieved a net trust score of 42.1.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
That elevates them into the top 15 most trusted brands among Gen Z in the entire United States.
Speaker #0
Top 15. That's incredible.
Speaker #1
They proved that you do not have to diminish your core identity to entertain a younger demographic. You simply have to find a contemporary method to dramatize the value you already provide.
Speaker #0
OK, so if maintaining your core identity is the key to coherence, we have to address the brands whose core identity is simply being old.
Speaker #1
Right, the legacy brands.
Speaker #0
Yeah. The research suggests that having a long history isn't actually a liability with Gen Z. It can actually be a massive structural advantage.
Speaker #1
It really can.
Speaker #0
But only provided the brand understands the psychological difference between nostalgia and familiarity.
Speaker #1
Yes. And we turn to the 2025 study on what researchers have termed inherited brands for this.
Speaker #0
Inherited brands.
Speaker #1
The findings are honestly counterintuitive for a lot of marketers. Nostalgia, which is, you know, a longing for a past that you personally experienced.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
That's a relatively weak driver for Gen Z when it comes to these legacy brands.
Speaker #0
Simply because they weren't around for the brand's golden years, right?
Speaker #1
Exactly. You can't be nostalgic for a time before you were born.
Speaker #0
Makes sense.
Speaker #1
However, familiarity, the comforting presence of a brand that has consistently existed in the background of their lives or their parents' lives, that is incredibly potent.
Speaker #0
It provides a baseline of stability. Like, a heritage brand doesn't need to manufacture a new persona. Their history is proof of their endurance.
Speaker #1
The challenge, though, is building a bridge between that historical endurance and the current cultural moment.
Speaker #0
How do they do that?
Speaker #1
The study concludes that the most effective mechanism for building that bridge is shifting away from merely trying to represent Gen Z and instead allowing them to actively participate in the brand's evolution.
Speaker #0
Let's look at the mechanics of the Coach Case study, because I think it illustrates this transition from representation to participation beautifully.
Speaker #1
Oh, it's a great example.
Speaker #0
Coach is the definition of an inherited heritage brand.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
Archival styles, traditional leather craftsmanship. How did they modernize? without breaking their coherence?
Speaker #1
Well, they launched their spring 2026 campaign titled Explore Your Story. And the genesis of the campaign is really what sets it apart.
Speaker #0
What did they do differently?
Speaker #1
They didn't start by analyzing which memes were trending. They started by listening to a documented profound tension within Gen Z communities.
Speaker #0
Which was?
Speaker #1
Young people are navigating an incredibly fast, exhausting, dopamine-driven digital environment.
Speaker #0
Oh, absolutely. Everyone's burnt out.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Consequently, there is a deep rising craving for spaces to slow down, for tangible long-form narratives, and for physical objects that actually carry weight and history. Coach identified that generational exhaustion and connected it directly to their own heritage of slow, deliberate craftsmanship.
Speaker #0
But what did that participation actually look like in practice? It wasn't just casting young models for a photo shoot, right?
Speaker #1
No, not at all. Coach It actively brought Gen Z creators into the process of reinterpreting archival pieces.
Speaker #0
Oh, cool.
Speaker #1
They designed physical activations where young consumers could customize and interact with the leather goods. It blended the brand's historical weight with the individual's desire for personal curation.
Speaker #0
So they allow the audience to take ownership of the heritage.
Speaker #1
Exactly.
Speaker #0
And the commercial outcomes of that strategy are staggering. According to Capestry, which is Coach's parent company, for the fiscal year 2026, approximately 35% of their 11 million new customers were Gen Z.
Speaker #1
Huge numbers.
Speaker #0
Furthermore, Coach's overall revenue grew by
Speaker #1
24%. They achieved a massive influx of a new generation without diluting a single traditional brand code.
Speaker #0
Right. They were still selling the tabby bag. They were still promoting legacy leather goods.
Speaker #1
They succeeded because they co-created the modern context for those traditional items alongside the community.
Speaker #0
Thank you. It perfectly embodies the operational philosophy from the agency 20-something, which is highlighted in our sources.
Speaker #1
Yes, their central mandate.
Speaker #0
Put a youngster in every meeting.
Speaker #1
It's so simple, but so effective.
Speaker #0
It forces the transition from superficial representation, just guessing what young people want, to structural participation, where they have actual influence over the strategic direction.
Speaker #1
And if we synthesize these concepts, the necessity of deep coherence and the power of active participation. They take on an existential urgency when we factor in the technological wave currently reshaping the entire landscape.
Speaker #0
You're talking about artificial intelligence.
Speaker #1
Yes.
Speaker #0
AI completely commodifies the ability to create content.
Speaker #1
The 2026 studies by Arujo Vila and Tubes, combined with the latest IAB research, they detail a critical new friction point.
Speaker #0
What's the friction?
Speaker #1
AI has made it instantaneously cheap to churn out culturally fluent, visually flawless marking material. A brand can generate localized, trend-adjusted campaigns in a matter of seconds.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
But Gen Z's reaction to this hyper-efficiency is intense skepticism.
Speaker #0
The sources specifically mention fears around greenwashing and the dehumanization of interactions. When we talk about AI and greenwashing in this context, what are the actual mechanics of that deception?
Speaker #1
So AI greenwashing occurs when brands use generative tools to create the illusion of ethical practices or community engagement that do not physically exist.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
A company can use AI to generate images of diverse young communities planting trees or perfectly crafted sustainable packaging.
Speaker #0
Creating a comprehensive visual front of environmental responsibility.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Without altering a single actual supply chain practice.
Speaker #0
That is insidious.
Speaker #1
It is. But Gen Z, being digitally native, is highly attuned to the synthetic nature of these images. The IAB research confirms that Gen Z and millennials possess a far higher degree of skepticism toward AI-generated advertising than industry executives currently estimate.
Speaker #0
They can spot it a mile away.
Speaker #1
They view it as a sophisticated form of masking incoherence.
Speaker #0
So what does this all mean for the future of engagement? Think about this for a second. If artificial intelligence allows every single brand on the planet to perfectly and instantly mimic whatever cultural trend is dominating today, Doesn't the act of blending in become the greatest liability?
Speaker #1
That is the exact trap.
Speaker #0
Like if a legacy corporation can flawlessly simulate the voice of a 22-year-old creator using AI, sounding like a 22-year-old completely loses its competitive value.
Speaker #1
This raises an important question, and it's really the ultimate realization of this deep dive.
Speaker #0
Let's hear it.
Speaker #1
When artificial intelligence drives the cost of speed and cultural mimicry down to absolute zero, what retains its premium value?
Speaker #0
Verified trust.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Verified trust. AI can artificially generate endless streams of engaging content, but it cannot artificially generate a coherent track record of behavior.
Speaker #0
It can't fake history.
Speaker #1
When every entity possesses the capability to look and sound like everyone else instantly, a brand's most valuable asset is knowing exactly what not to change.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
Gen Z does not require every corporation to act like a 22-year-old. They require entities that understand their own core identity, that behave with enough consistency to be relied upon.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
And that create genuine space for the next generation to participate in their ongoing narrative.
Speaker #0
It is the discipline of evolving your expression while fiercely guarding your essence.
Speaker #1
Yes. And before we conclude, I want to leave you with a provocation that extends beyond just corporate market share.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
We have spent this deep dive analyzing trillion dollar demographics and global brands. But apply this framework directly to yourself.
Speaker #0
Oh, interesting.
Speaker #1
We exist in a digital architecture that makes it incredibly frictionless to curate a personal brand, to continuously adjust your online persona, to perfectly mirror whatever ideological or cultural aesthetic is currently trending.
Speaker #0
It's so easy to do.
Speaker #1
It is. But what is your underlying reason to believe? If you were to strip away the trending vernacular, the algorithmic aesthetics, and the polished output, what is the coherent, immovable identity that remains?
Speaker #0
That is a lot to think about. If you want to explore these generational shifts further, discover my book, The Gen Z Shift, Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals, available now in English on Amazon and as an audiobook.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

The Generation Z Shift: Conversations explores the signals, tensions and changes emerging across today’s workplaces. Inspired by Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s work with younger generations, his 20something articles, research, and consulting experience, each episode turns one idea into a short, accessible conversation.

The series looks at questions such as why loyalty is changing, what younger generations expect from leadership, how feedback culture is evolving, why disengagement can be a signal rather than the problem itself, and what organizations need to rethink to stay relevant.

This audio series expands on the world behind The Gen Z Shift. It is not the audiobook, but a complementary series designed to explore the ideas, observations, and generational shifts shaping work, leadership, and culture. Created from Benoit’s original content and produced in an AI-generated conversational format using NotebookLM. Listen, question your assumptions, and learn to read the signals differently.

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Description

The Gen Z Shift: European leadership decoded

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Transcription

Speaker #0
Welcome to the Gen Z Shift, a podcast decoding Generation Z and Generation Alpha for leaders, brands, and changemakers. Based on the research and articles of Benoit van Kallenberg, a European expert on Generation Z, Generation Alpha, and brand culture, each episode helps you understand the generations reshaping how we work, consume, connect, and live. Because the future isn't coming. It's already here. So imagine for a second that you're spending millions of dollars to hire. the Absolute biggest Hollywood star of the moment. Yes,
Speaker #1
a massive budget.
Speaker #0
Exactly. You launch this massive campaign, you go completely viral on every single social platform, you're generating literally billions of views.
Speaker #1
Oh yeah, you're everywhere.
Speaker #0
You're everywhere. And then, you sit down at the end of the quarter, and you realize, you realize, you didn't gain a single new customer.
Speaker #1
Yeah, it's brutal.
Speaker #0
It is. So today, we are taking a deep dive into the source material to figure out why, you know... This race for Generation Z is resulting in so many of these massive corporate misfires.
Speaker #1
It's a huge problem right now.
Speaker #0
Our mission today is to unpack a really fascinating phenomenon. Basically, grabbing Gen Z's attention has never been easier, but earning their trust requires something completely different.
Speaker #1
Something much deeper, yeah.
Speaker #0
Right. And for you listening, understand the mechanics behind this is just an absolute necessity. I mean, we are talking about a demographic that... According to Nielsen data and our Adweek sources, it's projected to command $12 trillion in spending power by 2030.
Speaker #1
$12 trillion.
Speaker #0
$12 trillion. With a T.
Speaker #1
Yeah. I mean, that $12 trillion figure, it fundamentally alters the stakes of, like, every marketing decision being made today.
Speaker #0
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker #1
When you are dealing with that kind of economic gravity, the margin for error just completely evaporates.
Speaker #0
You can't afford to mess it up.
Speaker #1
Exactly. problem circuses almost immediately. Brands are operating under this fatal assumption that visibility automatically translates into trust.
Speaker #0
Okay, let's unpack this. Because, you know, on a superficial level, visibility and trust do sort of seem connected.
Speaker #1
Sure, they seem like it.
Speaker #0
Right. Like if a brand is constantly in my feed and they are providing some sort of entertainment value, there is a natural assumption that a relationship is being built there.
Speaker #1
Well, the data paints a starkly different reality, actually.
Speaker #0
Really?
Speaker #1
Yeah. We need to look closely at the 2026 morning consult research provided in our stack. They track this enormous spectrum of brands to measure something called net trust among Gen Z.
Speaker #0
Right. I noticed that term in the data, net trust. Before we get into the actual results, we should probably define how they are calculating net trust, right? Because it seems a lot more rigorous than just asking if someone likes a logo.
Speaker #1
Oh, it is a... critical distinction. Net trust isn't a simple popularity contest at all. It's calculated by taking the percentage of respondents who actively trust a brand to do the right thing, to deliver on its promises, act ethically, and then subtracting the percentage of people who actively distrust it.
Speaker #0
Oh, wow. So it actively punishes you if people hate you.
Speaker #1
Exactly. It heavily penalizes brands that are polarizing. And, well, the morning consult findings are honestly alarming.
Speaker #0
How bad is it?
Speaker #1
94% of the brands they tracked have a lower net trust among Gen Z compared to the general U.S. adult population.
Speaker #0
Wait, 94%?
Speaker #1
94%.
Speaker #0
That's practically everyone.
Speaker #1
Pretty much. On average, Gen Z's net trust sits about eight points lower across the board.
Speaker #0
I mean, 94% means nearly the entire corporate landscape is operating at a deficit with this generation.
Speaker #1
Yep.
Speaker #0
My immediate reaction to a number like that is to just assume... Well, maybe this is simply an anti-capitalist generation.
Speaker #1
Right. That's the common assumption.
Speaker #0
Like, if they're scoring everyone lower, maybe they're just inherently hostile to large organizations.
Speaker #1
But the morning consult researchers specifically caution against that interpretation.
Speaker #0
Oh, they do?
Speaker #1
Yeah. The deficit isn't born from inherent hostility. It's actually the result of two very practical structural factors.
Speaker #0
Okay. What are they?
Speaker #1
First, we have to account for simple chronology, meaning... Younger consumers simply have not been alive long enough to develop the decades of passive brand loyalty that older demographics have.
Speaker #0
Oh, that makes sense.
Speaker #1
Right. Like a brand that feels like a trusted lifelong companion to a boomer or a Gen Xer is, well, it's just another corporate entity to a 20 year old.
Speaker #0
They just don't have the history.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And second, and this is much more impactful, Gen Z has developed entirely within a hyper transparent information ecosystem.
Speaker #0
Meaning they see the mistakes instantly.
Speaker #1
Precisely. In previous decades, a corporate misstep or like a supply chain violation.
Speaker #0
Or a hypocritical stance on something.
Speaker #1
Yeah, exactly. That stuff might have been buried on page 12 of a newspaper. Right. Today. A bad employee experience or a questionable environmental practice is dissected and broadcasted on TikTok to millions of people within hours.
Speaker #0
Wow. Yeah. So they are conditioned by their environment. To be highly skeptical.
Speaker #1
Because they have unprecedented visibility into corporate flaws.
Speaker #0
They have an entirely different baseline for vetting information. So simply getting noticed by them isn't a victory at all.
Speaker #1
Not even close.
Speaker #0
Let's look at how this plays out in the real world. Starting with that American Eagle case study in our sources.
Speaker #1
Yeah, that's a perfect example.
Speaker #0
So they partnered with the actress Sydney Sweeney. And, I mean, she's huge right now. If you were strictly monitoring social media metrics, this campaign looked like an undisputed triumph.
Speaker #1
Oh, the numbers were off the charts.
Speaker #0
Right. The cultural noise was deafening. It was dominating conversations everywhere.
Speaker #1
Yet, when Adweek conducted a separate analysis of brand tracking metrics for the period immediately following that saturation of noise...
Speaker #0
What happened?
Speaker #1
The reality was pretty sobering. Among the intended Gen Z audience, awareness, purchase consideration, and preference remained entirely flat.
Speaker #0
Flat, like no movement at all.
Speaker #1
Basically zero movement. The sheer volume of views did not convert into a deeper relationship with the target audience.
Speaker #0
That is wild.
Speaker #1
What's fascinating here is that cultural visibility and brand strength operate on two completely different axes.
Speaker #0
It perfectly mirrors the class clown dynamic from high school, honestly.
Speaker #1
Oh, I like that comparison.
Speaker #0
Yeah, think about it. Everyone pays attention to the class clown when they do something outrageous. Right.
Speaker #1
Sure. They command the room.
Speaker #0
Exactly. But when the teacher assigns a critical science project and you need a lab partner, you can actually rely on.
Speaker #1
You're not picking the class clown.
Speaker #0
Right. Or when you have a serious secret you need to share, no one picks the class clown. You will happily watch them, but you do not trust them with anything of consequence.
Speaker #1
Yeah. The attention does not engineer a reason to believe.
Speaker #0
But wait, I have to challenge this premise slightly, though.
Speaker #1
OK, go for it.
Speaker #0
Especially when we introduce the other major case study from the research, which is Duolingo.
Speaker #1
Ah, yes. The owl.
Speaker #0
Duo, the green owl. I mean, he is arguably the most famous mascot on the internet right now.
Speaker #1
I got a doubt.
Speaker #0
And they lean into completely absurd, unhinged trends. And crucially, they are reporting massive, sustained user growth.
Speaker #1
They are.
Speaker #0
So if millions of young people are downloading the app and doing their language lessons every day because of these viral videos, why does trust actually matter?
Speaker #1
Yeah.
Speaker #0
Isn't engagement the whole point? The engagement is translating into usage.
Speaker #1
Well, Duolingo is actually the perfect stress test for this exact theory.
Speaker #0
How so?
Speaker #1
They do over-index on trust with Gen Z compared to the broader population, largely because of that consistent daily utility. They actually teach you a language.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
However, Adweek conducted an 18-month tracking analysis on them, and they uncovered a severe vulnerability.
Speaker #0
Oh, really?
Speaker #1
Yeah. Duolingo recently faced a significant public... backlash over an AI-first positioning shift.
Speaker #0
Oh, I remember that.
Speaker #1
Users realized the company was leaning heavily into artificial intelligence, which obviously raised concerns about the displacement of human translators.
Speaker #0
A controversy that struck right at the core of what a language learning app is supposed to be.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And look at what happened to the metrics during that period. Despite the ongoing virality of their mascot and all that strong historical user growth, their favorability, purchase consideration, and their net trust. all experienced notable declines.
Speaker #0
Wait, really? The memes couldn't save them from the trust drop?
Speaker #1
No, they couldn't. People can laugh at your content, they can share your videos, and they can even engage with your software daily.
Speaker #0
Yeah.
Speaker #1
But if that engagement isn't backstopped by a deep belief in your core values, a single controversy can fracture the relationship.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
The moment Gen Z sensed a misalignment between the fun, community-oriented mascot and the reality of corporate cost-cutting via AI... The trust eroded.
Speaker #0
It's so interesting.
Speaker #1
Attention is a fragile surface, you know? Trust is the bedrock.
Speaker #0
So if going relentlessly viral like Duolingo leaves you exposed to trust deficits.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
And if deploying massive celebrities like American Eagle fails to alter purchase consideration.
Speaker #1
Also true.
Speaker #0
We are left with a significant strategic void here. I mean, what actually works?
Speaker #1
Well, the sources point toward redefining a concept that gets thrown around constantly in marketing.
Speaker #0
Which is?
Speaker #1
Authenticity.
Speaker #0
Ah, authenticity. The ultimate buzzword.
Speaker #1
Exactly. But we need to discard the traditional marketing definition of authenticity completely.
Speaker #0
Okay. How should we be looking at it?
Speaker #1
To understand how Gen Z processes it, we look at the 2024 academic study by Fernandez and colleagues.
Speaker #0
Right, the one in our notes.
Speaker #1
They analyzed purpose-driven branding among young adults and discovered that authenticity, specifically the logical fit between a brand and its actions, is the primary driver of purchase intention.
Speaker #0
The logical fit.
Speaker #1
Yeah. The disconnect happens because brands have conflated authenticity with production value.
Speaker #0
Right. The assumption is that authentic means like a video shot on a shaky smartphone in a messy bedroom featuring someone speaking super casually.
Speaker #1
Exactly. They view it as an aesthetic choice. Let's make it look low budget.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
But the Fernandez study demonstrates that authenticity is not a production style. Authenticity is coherence.
Speaker #0
Coherence. Meaning what exactly?
Speaker #1
Does your current behavior align seamlessly with what the audience already knows to be true about your fundamental nature?
Speaker #0
Okay, I see.
Speaker #1
A brand can spend $5 million on a highly polished cinematic advertisement, and if the message perfectly aligns with their historical identity, Gen Z will read it as deeply authentic.
Speaker #0
Oh, that's fascinating.
Speaker #1
Conversely, if a massive multinational corporation suddenly tries to film a gritty, low-budget TikTok video using, like, underground slang...
Speaker #0
The audience immediately identifies the incoherence and rejects it as manufactured.
Speaker #1
Exactly. It just feels fake.
Speaker #0
Here's where it gets really interesting, because the research highlights a brand that navigated this balance of coherence and cultural relevance almost perfectly.
Speaker #1
Oh, Cerave.
Speaker #0
Yes, Cerave. To set the stage, Cerave is a skincare brand whose entire historical identity is, you know, clinical, straightforward, and dermatologists recommend it.
Speaker #1
Very science-based.
Speaker #0
Right. Yeah. Yet they launched a Gen Z-focused campaign around a trend called tan maxing.
Speaker #1
Which is wild.
Speaker #0
I had to look this up when going through the notes. Tan maxing is this hyper online, sometimes extreme subculture focused on optimizing sunbed use or aggressive self tanning to achieve these very specific bronze aesthetics. It is loud. Yeah. It is deeply entrenched in Internet culture. And it honestly seems like the last place a clinical pharmacy brand should be hanging out.
Speaker #1
On the surface, it looks identical to the American Eagle strategy, right? Chasing a loud trend.
Speaker #0
Yeah, exactly. It feels like a dad trying to use teenage slang at the dinner table.
Speaker #1
Right. But the crucial difference lies in the mechanics of their execution. Serov did not abandon their clinical identity to just blend in with the tan-maxing creators.
Speaker #0
What did they do?
Speaker #1
Instead, they utilized the visual language and the absurd humor of the trend to capture attention. But they anchored the entire campaign by integrating an actual credentialed dermatologist into the narrative.
Speaker #0
Wait, really? So Soros changed the wrapping paper but kept the exact same gift inside the box. Is that what good generational adaptation looks like?
Speaker #1
That is exactly what it looks like.
Speaker #0
They used the aesthetic of the trend but brought their own core authority to the table.
Speaker #1
The Adweek analysis highlights this deliberate structural choice. The humor and the trend surfing provided the necessary cultural visibility, right? But the presence of the dermatologist fiercely protected Soros' reason to believe. They supplied medical credibility to a trend that desperately needed it.
Speaker #0
That is so smart.
Speaker #1
The cultural expression adapted to the current moment, but the core identity, the clinical authority, remain entirely coherent.
Speaker #0
They figured out how to speak the language without changing their personality.
Speaker #1
And the results speak for themselves. Because of that rigorous commitment to coherence, Morning Consult's 2026 data reveals Sarave achieved a net trust score of 42.1.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
That elevates them into the top 15 most trusted brands among Gen Z in the entire United States.
Speaker #0
Top 15. That's incredible.
Speaker #1
They proved that you do not have to diminish your core identity to entertain a younger demographic. You simply have to find a contemporary method to dramatize the value you already provide.
Speaker #0
OK, so if maintaining your core identity is the key to coherence, we have to address the brands whose core identity is simply being old.
Speaker #1
Right, the legacy brands.
Speaker #0
Yeah. The research suggests that having a long history isn't actually a liability with Gen Z. It can actually be a massive structural advantage.
Speaker #1
It really can.
Speaker #0
But only provided the brand understands the psychological difference between nostalgia and familiarity.
Speaker #1
Yes. And we turn to the 2025 study on what researchers have termed inherited brands for this.
Speaker #0
Inherited brands.
Speaker #1
The findings are honestly counterintuitive for a lot of marketers. Nostalgia, which is, you know, a longing for a past that you personally experienced.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
That's a relatively weak driver for Gen Z when it comes to these legacy brands.
Speaker #0
Simply because they weren't around for the brand's golden years, right?
Speaker #1
Exactly. You can't be nostalgic for a time before you were born.
Speaker #0
Makes sense.
Speaker #1
However, familiarity, the comforting presence of a brand that has consistently existed in the background of their lives or their parents' lives, that is incredibly potent.
Speaker #0
It provides a baseline of stability. Like, a heritage brand doesn't need to manufacture a new persona. Their history is proof of their endurance.
Speaker #1
The challenge, though, is building a bridge between that historical endurance and the current cultural moment.
Speaker #0
How do they do that?
Speaker #1
The study concludes that the most effective mechanism for building that bridge is shifting away from merely trying to represent Gen Z and instead allowing them to actively participate in the brand's evolution.
Speaker #0
Let's look at the mechanics of the Coach Case study, because I think it illustrates this transition from representation to participation beautifully.
Speaker #1
Oh, it's a great example.
Speaker #0
Coach is the definition of an inherited heritage brand.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
Archival styles, traditional leather craftsmanship. How did they modernize? without breaking their coherence?
Speaker #1
Well, they launched their spring 2026 campaign titled Explore Your Story. And the genesis of the campaign is really what sets it apart.
Speaker #0
What did they do differently?
Speaker #1
They didn't start by analyzing which memes were trending. They started by listening to a documented profound tension within Gen Z communities.
Speaker #0
Which was?
Speaker #1
Young people are navigating an incredibly fast, exhausting, dopamine-driven digital environment.
Speaker #0
Oh, absolutely. Everyone's burnt out.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Consequently, there is a deep rising craving for spaces to slow down, for tangible long-form narratives, and for physical objects that actually carry weight and history. Coach identified that generational exhaustion and connected it directly to their own heritage of slow, deliberate craftsmanship.
Speaker #0
But what did that participation actually look like in practice? It wasn't just casting young models for a photo shoot, right?
Speaker #1
No, not at all. Coach It actively brought Gen Z creators into the process of reinterpreting archival pieces.
Speaker #0
Oh, cool.
Speaker #1
They designed physical activations where young consumers could customize and interact with the leather goods. It blended the brand's historical weight with the individual's desire for personal curation.
Speaker #0
So they allow the audience to take ownership of the heritage.
Speaker #1
Exactly.
Speaker #0
And the commercial outcomes of that strategy are staggering. According to Capestry, which is Coach's parent company, for the fiscal year 2026, approximately 35% of their 11 million new customers were Gen Z.
Speaker #1
Huge numbers.
Speaker #0
Furthermore, Coach's overall revenue grew by
Speaker #1
24%. They achieved a massive influx of a new generation without diluting a single traditional brand code.
Speaker #0
Right. They were still selling the tabby bag. They were still promoting legacy leather goods.
Speaker #1
They succeeded because they co-created the modern context for those traditional items alongside the community.
Speaker #0
Thank you. It perfectly embodies the operational philosophy from the agency 20-something, which is highlighted in our sources.
Speaker #1
Yes, their central mandate.
Speaker #0
Put a youngster in every meeting.
Speaker #1
It's so simple, but so effective.
Speaker #0
It forces the transition from superficial representation, just guessing what young people want, to structural participation, where they have actual influence over the strategic direction.
Speaker #1
And if we synthesize these concepts, the necessity of deep coherence and the power of active participation. They take on an existential urgency when we factor in the technological wave currently reshaping the entire landscape.
Speaker #0
You're talking about artificial intelligence.
Speaker #1
Yes.
Speaker #0
AI completely commodifies the ability to create content.
Speaker #1
The 2026 studies by Arujo Vila and Tubes, combined with the latest IAB research, they detail a critical new friction point.
Speaker #0
What's the friction?
Speaker #1
AI has made it instantaneously cheap to churn out culturally fluent, visually flawless marking material. A brand can generate localized, trend-adjusted campaigns in a matter of seconds.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
But Gen Z's reaction to this hyper-efficiency is intense skepticism.
Speaker #0
The sources specifically mention fears around greenwashing and the dehumanization of interactions. When we talk about AI and greenwashing in this context, what are the actual mechanics of that deception?
Speaker #1
So AI greenwashing occurs when brands use generative tools to create the illusion of ethical practices or community engagement that do not physically exist.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
A company can use AI to generate images of diverse young communities planting trees or perfectly crafted sustainable packaging.
Speaker #0
Creating a comprehensive visual front of environmental responsibility.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Without altering a single actual supply chain practice.
Speaker #0
That is insidious.
Speaker #1
It is. But Gen Z, being digitally native, is highly attuned to the synthetic nature of these images. The IAB research confirms that Gen Z and millennials possess a far higher degree of skepticism toward AI-generated advertising than industry executives currently estimate.
Speaker #0
They can spot it a mile away.
Speaker #1
They view it as a sophisticated form of masking incoherence.
Speaker #0
So what does this all mean for the future of engagement? Think about this for a second. If artificial intelligence allows every single brand on the planet to perfectly and instantly mimic whatever cultural trend is dominating today, Doesn't the act of blending in become the greatest liability?
Speaker #1
That is the exact trap.
Speaker #0
Like if a legacy corporation can flawlessly simulate the voice of a 22-year-old creator using AI, sounding like a 22-year-old completely loses its competitive value.
Speaker #1
This raises an important question, and it's really the ultimate realization of this deep dive.
Speaker #0
Let's hear it.
Speaker #1
When artificial intelligence drives the cost of speed and cultural mimicry down to absolute zero, what retains its premium value?
Speaker #0
Verified trust.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Verified trust. AI can artificially generate endless streams of engaging content, but it cannot artificially generate a coherent track record of behavior.
Speaker #0
It can't fake history.
Speaker #1
When every entity possesses the capability to look and sound like everyone else instantly, a brand's most valuable asset is knowing exactly what not to change.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
Gen Z does not require every corporation to act like a 22-year-old. They require entities that understand their own core identity, that behave with enough consistency to be relied upon.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
And that create genuine space for the next generation to participate in their ongoing narrative.
Speaker #0
It is the discipline of evolving your expression while fiercely guarding your essence.
Speaker #1
Yes. And before we conclude, I want to leave you with a provocation that extends beyond just corporate market share.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
We have spent this deep dive analyzing trillion dollar demographics and global brands. But apply this framework directly to yourself.
Speaker #0
Oh, interesting.
Speaker #1
We exist in a digital architecture that makes it incredibly frictionless to curate a personal brand, to continuously adjust your online persona, to perfectly mirror whatever ideological or cultural aesthetic is currently trending.
Speaker #0
It's so easy to do.
Speaker #1
It is. But what is your underlying reason to believe? If you were to strip away the trending vernacular, the algorithmic aesthetics, and the polished output, what is the coherent, immovable identity that remains?
Speaker #0
That is a lot to think about. If you want to explore these generational shifts further, discover my book, The Gen Z Shift, Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals, available now in English on Amazon and as an audiobook.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Embed

You may also like

Description

The Gen Z Shift: European leadership decoded

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Transcription

Speaker #0
Welcome to the Gen Z Shift, a podcast decoding Generation Z and Generation Alpha for leaders, brands, and changemakers. Based on the research and articles of Benoit van Kallenberg, a European expert on Generation Z, Generation Alpha, and brand culture, each episode helps you understand the generations reshaping how we work, consume, connect, and live. Because the future isn't coming. It's already here. So imagine for a second that you're spending millions of dollars to hire. the Absolute biggest Hollywood star of the moment. Yes,
Speaker #1
a massive budget.
Speaker #0
Exactly. You launch this massive campaign, you go completely viral on every single social platform, you're generating literally billions of views.
Speaker #1
Oh yeah, you're everywhere.
Speaker #0
You're everywhere. And then, you sit down at the end of the quarter, and you realize, you realize, you didn't gain a single new customer.
Speaker #1
Yeah, it's brutal.
Speaker #0
It is. So today, we are taking a deep dive into the source material to figure out why, you know... This race for Generation Z is resulting in so many of these massive corporate misfires.
Speaker #1
It's a huge problem right now.
Speaker #0
Our mission today is to unpack a really fascinating phenomenon. Basically, grabbing Gen Z's attention has never been easier, but earning their trust requires something completely different.
Speaker #1
Something much deeper, yeah.
Speaker #0
Right. And for you listening, understand the mechanics behind this is just an absolute necessity. I mean, we are talking about a demographic that... According to Nielsen data and our Adweek sources, it's projected to command $12 trillion in spending power by 2030.
Speaker #1
$12 trillion.
Speaker #0
$12 trillion. With a T.
Speaker #1
Yeah. I mean, that $12 trillion figure, it fundamentally alters the stakes of, like, every marketing decision being made today.
Speaker #0
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker #1
When you are dealing with that kind of economic gravity, the margin for error just completely evaporates.
Speaker #0
You can't afford to mess it up.
Speaker #1
Exactly. problem circuses almost immediately. Brands are operating under this fatal assumption that visibility automatically translates into trust.
Speaker #0
Okay, let's unpack this. Because, you know, on a superficial level, visibility and trust do sort of seem connected.
Speaker #1
Sure, they seem like it.
Speaker #0
Right. Like if a brand is constantly in my feed and they are providing some sort of entertainment value, there is a natural assumption that a relationship is being built there.
Speaker #1
Well, the data paints a starkly different reality, actually.
Speaker #0
Really?
Speaker #1
Yeah. We need to look closely at the 2026 morning consult research provided in our stack. They track this enormous spectrum of brands to measure something called net trust among Gen Z.
Speaker #0
Right. I noticed that term in the data, net trust. Before we get into the actual results, we should probably define how they are calculating net trust, right? Because it seems a lot more rigorous than just asking if someone likes a logo.
Speaker #1
Oh, it is a... critical distinction. Net trust isn't a simple popularity contest at all. It's calculated by taking the percentage of respondents who actively trust a brand to do the right thing, to deliver on its promises, act ethically, and then subtracting the percentage of people who actively distrust it.
Speaker #0
Oh, wow. So it actively punishes you if people hate you.
Speaker #1
Exactly. It heavily penalizes brands that are polarizing. And, well, the morning consult findings are honestly alarming.
Speaker #0
How bad is it?
Speaker #1
94% of the brands they tracked have a lower net trust among Gen Z compared to the general U.S. adult population.
Speaker #0
Wait, 94%?
Speaker #1
94%.
Speaker #0
That's practically everyone.
Speaker #1
Pretty much. On average, Gen Z's net trust sits about eight points lower across the board.
Speaker #0
I mean, 94% means nearly the entire corporate landscape is operating at a deficit with this generation.
Speaker #1
Yep.
Speaker #0
My immediate reaction to a number like that is to just assume... Well, maybe this is simply an anti-capitalist generation.
Speaker #1
Right. That's the common assumption.
Speaker #0
Like, if they're scoring everyone lower, maybe they're just inherently hostile to large organizations.
Speaker #1
But the morning consult researchers specifically caution against that interpretation.
Speaker #0
Oh, they do?
Speaker #1
Yeah. The deficit isn't born from inherent hostility. It's actually the result of two very practical structural factors.
Speaker #0
Okay. What are they?
Speaker #1
First, we have to account for simple chronology, meaning... Younger consumers simply have not been alive long enough to develop the decades of passive brand loyalty that older demographics have.
Speaker #0
Oh, that makes sense.
Speaker #1
Right. Like a brand that feels like a trusted lifelong companion to a boomer or a Gen Xer is, well, it's just another corporate entity to a 20 year old.
Speaker #0
They just don't have the history.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And second, and this is much more impactful, Gen Z has developed entirely within a hyper transparent information ecosystem.
Speaker #0
Meaning they see the mistakes instantly.
Speaker #1
Precisely. In previous decades, a corporate misstep or like a supply chain violation.
Speaker #0
Or a hypocritical stance on something.
Speaker #1
Yeah, exactly. That stuff might have been buried on page 12 of a newspaper. Right. Today. A bad employee experience or a questionable environmental practice is dissected and broadcasted on TikTok to millions of people within hours.
Speaker #0
Wow. Yeah. So they are conditioned by their environment. To be highly skeptical.
Speaker #1
Because they have unprecedented visibility into corporate flaws.
Speaker #0
They have an entirely different baseline for vetting information. So simply getting noticed by them isn't a victory at all.
Speaker #1
Not even close.
Speaker #0
Let's look at how this plays out in the real world. Starting with that American Eagle case study in our sources.
Speaker #1
Yeah, that's a perfect example.
Speaker #0
So they partnered with the actress Sydney Sweeney. And, I mean, she's huge right now. If you were strictly monitoring social media metrics, this campaign looked like an undisputed triumph.
Speaker #1
Oh, the numbers were off the charts.
Speaker #0
Right. The cultural noise was deafening. It was dominating conversations everywhere.
Speaker #1
Yet, when Adweek conducted a separate analysis of brand tracking metrics for the period immediately following that saturation of noise...
Speaker #0
What happened?
Speaker #1
The reality was pretty sobering. Among the intended Gen Z audience, awareness, purchase consideration, and preference remained entirely flat.
Speaker #0
Flat, like no movement at all.
Speaker #1
Basically zero movement. The sheer volume of views did not convert into a deeper relationship with the target audience.
Speaker #0
That is wild.
Speaker #1
What's fascinating here is that cultural visibility and brand strength operate on two completely different axes.
Speaker #0
It perfectly mirrors the class clown dynamic from high school, honestly.
Speaker #1
Oh, I like that comparison.
Speaker #0
Yeah, think about it. Everyone pays attention to the class clown when they do something outrageous. Right.
Speaker #1
Sure. They command the room.
Speaker #0
Exactly. But when the teacher assigns a critical science project and you need a lab partner, you can actually rely on.
Speaker #1
You're not picking the class clown.
Speaker #0
Right. Or when you have a serious secret you need to share, no one picks the class clown. You will happily watch them, but you do not trust them with anything of consequence.
Speaker #1
Yeah. The attention does not engineer a reason to believe.
Speaker #0
But wait, I have to challenge this premise slightly, though.
Speaker #1
OK, go for it.
Speaker #0
Especially when we introduce the other major case study from the research, which is Duolingo.
Speaker #1
Ah, yes. The owl.
Speaker #0
Duo, the green owl. I mean, he is arguably the most famous mascot on the internet right now.
Speaker #1
I got a doubt.
Speaker #0
And they lean into completely absurd, unhinged trends. And crucially, they are reporting massive, sustained user growth.
Speaker #1
They are.
Speaker #0
So if millions of young people are downloading the app and doing their language lessons every day because of these viral videos, why does trust actually matter?
Speaker #1
Yeah.
Speaker #0
Isn't engagement the whole point? The engagement is translating into usage.
Speaker #1
Well, Duolingo is actually the perfect stress test for this exact theory.
Speaker #0
How so?
Speaker #1
They do over-index on trust with Gen Z compared to the broader population, largely because of that consistent daily utility. They actually teach you a language.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
However, Adweek conducted an 18-month tracking analysis on them, and they uncovered a severe vulnerability.
Speaker #0
Oh, really?
Speaker #1
Yeah. Duolingo recently faced a significant public... backlash over an AI-first positioning shift.
Speaker #0
Oh, I remember that.
Speaker #1
Users realized the company was leaning heavily into artificial intelligence, which obviously raised concerns about the displacement of human translators.
Speaker #0
A controversy that struck right at the core of what a language learning app is supposed to be.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And look at what happened to the metrics during that period. Despite the ongoing virality of their mascot and all that strong historical user growth, their favorability, purchase consideration, and their net trust. all experienced notable declines.
Speaker #0
Wait, really? The memes couldn't save them from the trust drop?
Speaker #1
No, they couldn't. People can laugh at your content, they can share your videos, and they can even engage with your software daily.
Speaker #0
Yeah.
Speaker #1
But if that engagement isn't backstopped by a deep belief in your core values, a single controversy can fracture the relationship.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
The moment Gen Z sensed a misalignment between the fun, community-oriented mascot and the reality of corporate cost-cutting via AI... The trust eroded.
Speaker #0
It's so interesting.
Speaker #1
Attention is a fragile surface, you know? Trust is the bedrock.
Speaker #0
So if going relentlessly viral like Duolingo leaves you exposed to trust deficits.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
And if deploying massive celebrities like American Eagle fails to alter purchase consideration.
Speaker #1
Also true.
Speaker #0
We are left with a significant strategic void here. I mean, what actually works?
Speaker #1
Well, the sources point toward redefining a concept that gets thrown around constantly in marketing.
Speaker #0
Which is?
Speaker #1
Authenticity.
Speaker #0
Ah, authenticity. The ultimate buzzword.
Speaker #1
Exactly. But we need to discard the traditional marketing definition of authenticity completely.
Speaker #0
Okay. How should we be looking at it?
Speaker #1
To understand how Gen Z processes it, we look at the 2024 academic study by Fernandez and colleagues.
Speaker #0
Right, the one in our notes.
Speaker #1
They analyzed purpose-driven branding among young adults and discovered that authenticity, specifically the logical fit between a brand and its actions, is the primary driver of purchase intention.
Speaker #0
The logical fit.
Speaker #1
Yeah. The disconnect happens because brands have conflated authenticity with production value.
Speaker #0
Right. The assumption is that authentic means like a video shot on a shaky smartphone in a messy bedroom featuring someone speaking super casually.
Speaker #1
Exactly. They view it as an aesthetic choice. Let's make it look low budget.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
But the Fernandez study demonstrates that authenticity is not a production style. Authenticity is coherence.
Speaker #0
Coherence. Meaning what exactly?
Speaker #1
Does your current behavior align seamlessly with what the audience already knows to be true about your fundamental nature?
Speaker #0
Okay, I see.
Speaker #1
A brand can spend $5 million on a highly polished cinematic advertisement, and if the message perfectly aligns with their historical identity, Gen Z will read it as deeply authentic.
Speaker #0
Oh, that's fascinating.
Speaker #1
Conversely, if a massive multinational corporation suddenly tries to film a gritty, low-budget TikTok video using, like, underground slang...
Speaker #0
The audience immediately identifies the incoherence and rejects it as manufactured.
Speaker #1
Exactly. It just feels fake.
Speaker #0
Here's where it gets really interesting, because the research highlights a brand that navigated this balance of coherence and cultural relevance almost perfectly.
Speaker #1
Oh, Cerave.
Speaker #0
Yes, Cerave. To set the stage, Cerave is a skincare brand whose entire historical identity is, you know, clinical, straightforward, and dermatologists recommend it.
Speaker #1
Very science-based.
Speaker #0
Right. Yeah. Yet they launched a Gen Z-focused campaign around a trend called tan maxing.
Speaker #1
Which is wild.
Speaker #0
I had to look this up when going through the notes. Tan maxing is this hyper online, sometimes extreme subculture focused on optimizing sunbed use or aggressive self tanning to achieve these very specific bronze aesthetics. It is loud. Yeah. It is deeply entrenched in Internet culture. And it honestly seems like the last place a clinical pharmacy brand should be hanging out.
Speaker #1
On the surface, it looks identical to the American Eagle strategy, right? Chasing a loud trend.
Speaker #0
Yeah, exactly. It feels like a dad trying to use teenage slang at the dinner table.
Speaker #1
Right. But the crucial difference lies in the mechanics of their execution. Serov did not abandon their clinical identity to just blend in with the tan-maxing creators.
Speaker #0
What did they do?
Speaker #1
Instead, they utilized the visual language and the absurd humor of the trend to capture attention. But they anchored the entire campaign by integrating an actual credentialed dermatologist into the narrative.
Speaker #0
Wait, really? So Soros changed the wrapping paper but kept the exact same gift inside the box. Is that what good generational adaptation looks like?
Speaker #1
That is exactly what it looks like.
Speaker #0
They used the aesthetic of the trend but brought their own core authority to the table.
Speaker #1
The Adweek analysis highlights this deliberate structural choice. The humor and the trend surfing provided the necessary cultural visibility, right? But the presence of the dermatologist fiercely protected Soros' reason to believe. They supplied medical credibility to a trend that desperately needed it.
Speaker #0
That is so smart.
Speaker #1
The cultural expression adapted to the current moment, but the core identity, the clinical authority, remain entirely coherent.
Speaker #0
They figured out how to speak the language without changing their personality.
Speaker #1
And the results speak for themselves. Because of that rigorous commitment to coherence, Morning Consult's 2026 data reveals Sarave achieved a net trust score of 42.1.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
That elevates them into the top 15 most trusted brands among Gen Z in the entire United States.
Speaker #0
Top 15. That's incredible.
Speaker #1
They proved that you do not have to diminish your core identity to entertain a younger demographic. You simply have to find a contemporary method to dramatize the value you already provide.
Speaker #0
OK, so if maintaining your core identity is the key to coherence, we have to address the brands whose core identity is simply being old.
Speaker #1
Right, the legacy brands.
Speaker #0
Yeah. The research suggests that having a long history isn't actually a liability with Gen Z. It can actually be a massive structural advantage.
Speaker #1
It really can.
Speaker #0
But only provided the brand understands the psychological difference between nostalgia and familiarity.
Speaker #1
Yes. And we turn to the 2025 study on what researchers have termed inherited brands for this.
Speaker #0
Inherited brands.
Speaker #1
The findings are honestly counterintuitive for a lot of marketers. Nostalgia, which is, you know, a longing for a past that you personally experienced.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
That's a relatively weak driver for Gen Z when it comes to these legacy brands.
Speaker #0
Simply because they weren't around for the brand's golden years, right?
Speaker #1
Exactly. You can't be nostalgic for a time before you were born.
Speaker #0
Makes sense.
Speaker #1
However, familiarity, the comforting presence of a brand that has consistently existed in the background of their lives or their parents' lives, that is incredibly potent.
Speaker #0
It provides a baseline of stability. Like, a heritage brand doesn't need to manufacture a new persona. Their history is proof of their endurance.
Speaker #1
The challenge, though, is building a bridge between that historical endurance and the current cultural moment.
Speaker #0
How do they do that?
Speaker #1
The study concludes that the most effective mechanism for building that bridge is shifting away from merely trying to represent Gen Z and instead allowing them to actively participate in the brand's evolution.
Speaker #0
Let's look at the mechanics of the Coach Case study, because I think it illustrates this transition from representation to participation beautifully.
Speaker #1
Oh, it's a great example.
Speaker #0
Coach is the definition of an inherited heritage brand.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
Archival styles, traditional leather craftsmanship. How did they modernize? without breaking their coherence?
Speaker #1
Well, they launched their spring 2026 campaign titled Explore Your Story. And the genesis of the campaign is really what sets it apart.
Speaker #0
What did they do differently?
Speaker #1
They didn't start by analyzing which memes were trending. They started by listening to a documented profound tension within Gen Z communities.
Speaker #0
Which was?
Speaker #1
Young people are navigating an incredibly fast, exhausting, dopamine-driven digital environment.
Speaker #0
Oh, absolutely. Everyone's burnt out.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Consequently, there is a deep rising craving for spaces to slow down, for tangible long-form narratives, and for physical objects that actually carry weight and history. Coach identified that generational exhaustion and connected it directly to their own heritage of slow, deliberate craftsmanship.
Speaker #0
But what did that participation actually look like in practice? It wasn't just casting young models for a photo shoot, right?
Speaker #1
No, not at all. Coach It actively brought Gen Z creators into the process of reinterpreting archival pieces.
Speaker #0
Oh, cool.
Speaker #1
They designed physical activations where young consumers could customize and interact with the leather goods. It blended the brand's historical weight with the individual's desire for personal curation.
Speaker #0
So they allow the audience to take ownership of the heritage.
Speaker #1
Exactly.
Speaker #0
And the commercial outcomes of that strategy are staggering. According to Capestry, which is Coach's parent company, for the fiscal year 2026, approximately 35% of their 11 million new customers were Gen Z.
Speaker #1
Huge numbers.
Speaker #0
Furthermore, Coach's overall revenue grew by
Speaker #1
24%. They achieved a massive influx of a new generation without diluting a single traditional brand code.
Speaker #0
Right. They were still selling the tabby bag. They were still promoting legacy leather goods.
Speaker #1
They succeeded because they co-created the modern context for those traditional items alongside the community.
Speaker #0
Thank you. It perfectly embodies the operational philosophy from the agency 20-something, which is highlighted in our sources.
Speaker #1
Yes, their central mandate.
Speaker #0
Put a youngster in every meeting.
Speaker #1
It's so simple, but so effective.
Speaker #0
It forces the transition from superficial representation, just guessing what young people want, to structural participation, where they have actual influence over the strategic direction.
Speaker #1
And if we synthesize these concepts, the necessity of deep coherence and the power of active participation. They take on an existential urgency when we factor in the technological wave currently reshaping the entire landscape.
Speaker #0
You're talking about artificial intelligence.
Speaker #1
Yes.
Speaker #0
AI completely commodifies the ability to create content.
Speaker #1
The 2026 studies by Arujo Vila and Tubes, combined with the latest IAB research, they detail a critical new friction point.
Speaker #0
What's the friction?
Speaker #1
AI has made it instantaneously cheap to churn out culturally fluent, visually flawless marking material. A brand can generate localized, trend-adjusted campaigns in a matter of seconds.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
But Gen Z's reaction to this hyper-efficiency is intense skepticism.
Speaker #0
The sources specifically mention fears around greenwashing and the dehumanization of interactions. When we talk about AI and greenwashing in this context, what are the actual mechanics of that deception?
Speaker #1
So AI greenwashing occurs when brands use generative tools to create the illusion of ethical practices or community engagement that do not physically exist.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
A company can use AI to generate images of diverse young communities planting trees or perfectly crafted sustainable packaging.
Speaker #0
Creating a comprehensive visual front of environmental responsibility.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Without altering a single actual supply chain practice.
Speaker #0
That is insidious.
Speaker #1
It is. But Gen Z, being digitally native, is highly attuned to the synthetic nature of these images. The IAB research confirms that Gen Z and millennials possess a far higher degree of skepticism toward AI-generated advertising than industry executives currently estimate.
Speaker #0
They can spot it a mile away.
Speaker #1
They view it as a sophisticated form of masking incoherence.
Speaker #0
So what does this all mean for the future of engagement? Think about this for a second. If artificial intelligence allows every single brand on the planet to perfectly and instantly mimic whatever cultural trend is dominating today, Doesn't the act of blending in become the greatest liability?
Speaker #1
That is the exact trap.
Speaker #0
Like if a legacy corporation can flawlessly simulate the voice of a 22-year-old creator using AI, sounding like a 22-year-old completely loses its competitive value.
Speaker #1
This raises an important question, and it's really the ultimate realization of this deep dive.
Speaker #0
Let's hear it.
Speaker #1
When artificial intelligence drives the cost of speed and cultural mimicry down to absolute zero, what retains its premium value?
Speaker #0
Verified trust.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Verified trust. AI can artificially generate endless streams of engaging content, but it cannot artificially generate a coherent track record of behavior.
Speaker #0
It can't fake history.
Speaker #1
When every entity possesses the capability to look and sound like everyone else instantly, a brand's most valuable asset is knowing exactly what not to change.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
Gen Z does not require every corporation to act like a 22-year-old. They require entities that understand their own core identity, that behave with enough consistency to be relied upon.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
And that create genuine space for the next generation to participate in their ongoing narrative.
Speaker #0
It is the discipline of evolving your expression while fiercely guarding your essence.
Speaker #1
Yes. And before we conclude, I want to leave you with a provocation that extends beyond just corporate market share.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
We have spent this deep dive analyzing trillion dollar demographics and global brands. But apply this framework directly to yourself.
Speaker #0
Oh, interesting.
Speaker #1
We exist in a digital architecture that makes it incredibly frictionless to curate a personal brand, to continuously adjust your online persona, to perfectly mirror whatever ideological or cultural aesthetic is currently trending.
Speaker #0
It's so easy to do.
Speaker #1
It is. But what is your underlying reason to believe? If you were to strip away the trending vernacular, the algorithmic aesthetics, and the polished output, what is the coherent, immovable identity that remains?
Speaker #0
That is a lot to think about. If you want to explore these generational shifts further, discover my book, The Gen Z Shift, Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals, available now in English on Amazon and as an audiobook.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Description

The Gen Z Shift: European leadership decoded

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Transcription

Speaker #0
Welcome to the Gen Z Shift, a podcast decoding Generation Z and Generation Alpha for leaders, brands, and changemakers. Based on the research and articles of Benoit van Kallenberg, a European expert on Generation Z, Generation Alpha, and brand culture, each episode helps you understand the generations reshaping how we work, consume, connect, and live. Because the future isn't coming. It's already here. So imagine for a second that you're spending millions of dollars to hire. the Absolute biggest Hollywood star of the moment. Yes,
Speaker #1
a massive budget.
Speaker #0
Exactly. You launch this massive campaign, you go completely viral on every single social platform, you're generating literally billions of views.
Speaker #1
Oh yeah, you're everywhere.
Speaker #0
You're everywhere. And then, you sit down at the end of the quarter, and you realize, you realize, you didn't gain a single new customer.
Speaker #1
Yeah, it's brutal.
Speaker #0
It is. So today, we are taking a deep dive into the source material to figure out why, you know... This race for Generation Z is resulting in so many of these massive corporate misfires.
Speaker #1
It's a huge problem right now.
Speaker #0
Our mission today is to unpack a really fascinating phenomenon. Basically, grabbing Gen Z's attention has never been easier, but earning their trust requires something completely different.
Speaker #1
Something much deeper, yeah.
Speaker #0
Right. And for you listening, understand the mechanics behind this is just an absolute necessity. I mean, we are talking about a demographic that... According to Nielsen data and our Adweek sources, it's projected to command $12 trillion in spending power by 2030.
Speaker #1
$12 trillion.
Speaker #0
$12 trillion. With a T.
Speaker #1
Yeah. I mean, that $12 trillion figure, it fundamentally alters the stakes of, like, every marketing decision being made today.
Speaker #0
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker #1
When you are dealing with that kind of economic gravity, the margin for error just completely evaporates.
Speaker #0
You can't afford to mess it up.
Speaker #1
Exactly. problem circuses almost immediately. Brands are operating under this fatal assumption that visibility automatically translates into trust.
Speaker #0
Okay, let's unpack this. Because, you know, on a superficial level, visibility and trust do sort of seem connected.
Speaker #1
Sure, they seem like it.
Speaker #0
Right. Like if a brand is constantly in my feed and they are providing some sort of entertainment value, there is a natural assumption that a relationship is being built there.
Speaker #1
Well, the data paints a starkly different reality, actually.
Speaker #0
Really?
Speaker #1
Yeah. We need to look closely at the 2026 morning consult research provided in our stack. They track this enormous spectrum of brands to measure something called net trust among Gen Z.
Speaker #0
Right. I noticed that term in the data, net trust. Before we get into the actual results, we should probably define how they are calculating net trust, right? Because it seems a lot more rigorous than just asking if someone likes a logo.
Speaker #1
Oh, it is a... critical distinction. Net trust isn't a simple popularity contest at all. It's calculated by taking the percentage of respondents who actively trust a brand to do the right thing, to deliver on its promises, act ethically, and then subtracting the percentage of people who actively distrust it.
Speaker #0
Oh, wow. So it actively punishes you if people hate you.
Speaker #1
Exactly. It heavily penalizes brands that are polarizing. And, well, the morning consult findings are honestly alarming.
Speaker #0
How bad is it?
Speaker #1
94% of the brands they tracked have a lower net trust among Gen Z compared to the general U.S. adult population.
Speaker #0
Wait, 94%?
Speaker #1
94%.
Speaker #0
That's practically everyone.
Speaker #1
Pretty much. On average, Gen Z's net trust sits about eight points lower across the board.
Speaker #0
I mean, 94% means nearly the entire corporate landscape is operating at a deficit with this generation.
Speaker #1
Yep.
Speaker #0
My immediate reaction to a number like that is to just assume... Well, maybe this is simply an anti-capitalist generation.
Speaker #1
Right. That's the common assumption.
Speaker #0
Like, if they're scoring everyone lower, maybe they're just inherently hostile to large organizations.
Speaker #1
But the morning consult researchers specifically caution against that interpretation.
Speaker #0
Oh, they do?
Speaker #1
Yeah. The deficit isn't born from inherent hostility. It's actually the result of two very practical structural factors.
Speaker #0
Okay. What are they?
Speaker #1
First, we have to account for simple chronology, meaning... Younger consumers simply have not been alive long enough to develop the decades of passive brand loyalty that older demographics have.
Speaker #0
Oh, that makes sense.
Speaker #1
Right. Like a brand that feels like a trusted lifelong companion to a boomer or a Gen Xer is, well, it's just another corporate entity to a 20 year old.
Speaker #0
They just don't have the history.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And second, and this is much more impactful, Gen Z has developed entirely within a hyper transparent information ecosystem.
Speaker #0
Meaning they see the mistakes instantly.
Speaker #1
Precisely. In previous decades, a corporate misstep or like a supply chain violation.
Speaker #0
Or a hypocritical stance on something.
Speaker #1
Yeah, exactly. That stuff might have been buried on page 12 of a newspaper. Right. Today. A bad employee experience or a questionable environmental practice is dissected and broadcasted on TikTok to millions of people within hours.
Speaker #0
Wow. Yeah. So they are conditioned by their environment. To be highly skeptical.
Speaker #1
Because they have unprecedented visibility into corporate flaws.
Speaker #0
They have an entirely different baseline for vetting information. So simply getting noticed by them isn't a victory at all.
Speaker #1
Not even close.
Speaker #0
Let's look at how this plays out in the real world. Starting with that American Eagle case study in our sources.
Speaker #1
Yeah, that's a perfect example.
Speaker #0
So they partnered with the actress Sydney Sweeney. And, I mean, she's huge right now. If you were strictly monitoring social media metrics, this campaign looked like an undisputed triumph.
Speaker #1
Oh, the numbers were off the charts.
Speaker #0
Right. The cultural noise was deafening. It was dominating conversations everywhere.
Speaker #1
Yet, when Adweek conducted a separate analysis of brand tracking metrics for the period immediately following that saturation of noise...
Speaker #0
What happened?
Speaker #1
The reality was pretty sobering. Among the intended Gen Z audience, awareness, purchase consideration, and preference remained entirely flat.
Speaker #0
Flat, like no movement at all.
Speaker #1
Basically zero movement. The sheer volume of views did not convert into a deeper relationship with the target audience.
Speaker #0
That is wild.
Speaker #1
What's fascinating here is that cultural visibility and brand strength operate on two completely different axes.
Speaker #0
It perfectly mirrors the class clown dynamic from high school, honestly.
Speaker #1
Oh, I like that comparison.
Speaker #0
Yeah, think about it. Everyone pays attention to the class clown when they do something outrageous. Right.
Speaker #1
Sure. They command the room.
Speaker #0
Exactly. But when the teacher assigns a critical science project and you need a lab partner, you can actually rely on.
Speaker #1
You're not picking the class clown.
Speaker #0
Right. Or when you have a serious secret you need to share, no one picks the class clown. You will happily watch them, but you do not trust them with anything of consequence.
Speaker #1
Yeah. The attention does not engineer a reason to believe.
Speaker #0
But wait, I have to challenge this premise slightly, though.
Speaker #1
OK, go for it.
Speaker #0
Especially when we introduce the other major case study from the research, which is Duolingo.
Speaker #1
Ah, yes. The owl.
Speaker #0
Duo, the green owl. I mean, he is arguably the most famous mascot on the internet right now.
Speaker #1
I got a doubt.
Speaker #0
And they lean into completely absurd, unhinged trends. And crucially, they are reporting massive, sustained user growth.
Speaker #1
They are.
Speaker #0
So if millions of young people are downloading the app and doing their language lessons every day because of these viral videos, why does trust actually matter?
Speaker #1
Yeah.
Speaker #0
Isn't engagement the whole point? The engagement is translating into usage.
Speaker #1
Well, Duolingo is actually the perfect stress test for this exact theory.
Speaker #0
How so?
Speaker #1
They do over-index on trust with Gen Z compared to the broader population, largely because of that consistent daily utility. They actually teach you a language.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
However, Adweek conducted an 18-month tracking analysis on them, and they uncovered a severe vulnerability.
Speaker #0
Oh, really?
Speaker #1
Yeah. Duolingo recently faced a significant public... backlash over an AI-first positioning shift.
Speaker #0
Oh, I remember that.
Speaker #1
Users realized the company was leaning heavily into artificial intelligence, which obviously raised concerns about the displacement of human translators.
Speaker #0
A controversy that struck right at the core of what a language learning app is supposed to be.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And look at what happened to the metrics during that period. Despite the ongoing virality of their mascot and all that strong historical user growth, their favorability, purchase consideration, and their net trust. all experienced notable declines.
Speaker #0
Wait, really? The memes couldn't save them from the trust drop?
Speaker #1
No, they couldn't. People can laugh at your content, they can share your videos, and they can even engage with your software daily.
Speaker #0
Yeah.
Speaker #1
But if that engagement isn't backstopped by a deep belief in your core values, a single controversy can fracture the relationship.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
The moment Gen Z sensed a misalignment between the fun, community-oriented mascot and the reality of corporate cost-cutting via AI... The trust eroded.
Speaker #0
It's so interesting.
Speaker #1
Attention is a fragile surface, you know? Trust is the bedrock.
Speaker #0
So if going relentlessly viral like Duolingo leaves you exposed to trust deficits.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
And if deploying massive celebrities like American Eagle fails to alter purchase consideration.
Speaker #1
Also true.
Speaker #0
We are left with a significant strategic void here. I mean, what actually works?
Speaker #1
Well, the sources point toward redefining a concept that gets thrown around constantly in marketing.
Speaker #0
Which is?
Speaker #1
Authenticity.
Speaker #0
Ah, authenticity. The ultimate buzzword.
Speaker #1
Exactly. But we need to discard the traditional marketing definition of authenticity completely.
Speaker #0
Okay. How should we be looking at it?
Speaker #1
To understand how Gen Z processes it, we look at the 2024 academic study by Fernandez and colleagues.
Speaker #0
Right, the one in our notes.
Speaker #1
They analyzed purpose-driven branding among young adults and discovered that authenticity, specifically the logical fit between a brand and its actions, is the primary driver of purchase intention.
Speaker #0
The logical fit.
Speaker #1
Yeah. The disconnect happens because brands have conflated authenticity with production value.
Speaker #0
Right. The assumption is that authentic means like a video shot on a shaky smartphone in a messy bedroom featuring someone speaking super casually.
Speaker #1
Exactly. They view it as an aesthetic choice. Let's make it look low budget.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
But the Fernandez study demonstrates that authenticity is not a production style. Authenticity is coherence.
Speaker #0
Coherence. Meaning what exactly?
Speaker #1
Does your current behavior align seamlessly with what the audience already knows to be true about your fundamental nature?
Speaker #0
Okay, I see.
Speaker #1
A brand can spend $5 million on a highly polished cinematic advertisement, and if the message perfectly aligns with their historical identity, Gen Z will read it as deeply authentic.
Speaker #0
Oh, that's fascinating.
Speaker #1
Conversely, if a massive multinational corporation suddenly tries to film a gritty, low-budget TikTok video using, like, underground slang...
Speaker #0
The audience immediately identifies the incoherence and rejects it as manufactured.
Speaker #1
Exactly. It just feels fake.
Speaker #0
Here's where it gets really interesting, because the research highlights a brand that navigated this balance of coherence and cultural relevance almost perfectly.
Speaker #1
Oh, Cerave.
Speaker #0
Yes, Cerave. To set the stage, Cerave is a skincare brand whose entire historical identity is, you know, clinical, straightforward, and dermatologists recommend it.
Speaker #1
Very science-based.
Speaker #0
Right. Yeah. Yet they launched a Gen Z-focused campaign around a trend called tan maxing.
Speaker #1
Which is wild.
Speaker #0
I had to look this up when going through the notes. Tan maxing is this hyper online, sometimes extreme subculture focused on optimizing sunbed use or aggressive self tanning to achieve these very specific bronze aesthetics. It is loud. Yeah. It is deeply entrenched in Internet culture. And it honestly seems like the last place a clinical pharmacy brand should be hanging out.
Speaker #1
On the surface, it looks identical to the American Eagle strategy, right? Chasing a loud trend.
Speaker #0
Yeah, exactly. It feels like a dad trying to use teenage slang at the dinner table.
Speaker #1
Right. But the crucial difference lies in the mechanics of their execution. Serov did not abandon their clinical identity to just blend in with the tan-maxing creators.
Speaker #0
What did they do?
Speaker #1
Instead, they utilized the visual language and the absurd humor of the trend to capture attention. But they anchored the entire campaign by integrating an actual credentialed dermatologist into the narrative.
Speaker #0
Wait, really? So Soros changed the wrapping paper but kept the exact same gift inside the box. Is that what good generational adaptation looks like?
Speaker #1
That is exactly what it looks like.
Speaker #0
They used the aesthetic of the trend but brought their own core authority to the table.
Speaker #1
The Adweek analysis highlights this deliberate structural choice. The humor and the trend surfing provided the necessary cultural visibility, right? But the presence of the dermatologist fiercely protected Soros' reason to believe. They supplied medical credibility to a trend that desperately needed it.
Speaker #0
That is so smart.
Speaker #1
The cultural expression adapted to the current moment, but the core identity, the clinical authority, remain entirely coherent.
Speaker #0
They figured out how to speak the language without changing their personality.
Speaker #1
And the results speak for themselves. Because of that rigorous commitment to coherence, Morning Consult's 2026 data reveals Sarave achieved a net trust score of 42.1.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
That elevates them into the top 15 most trusted brands among Gen Z in the entire United States.
Speaker #0
Top 15. That's incredible.
Speaker #1
They proved that you do not have to diminish your core identity to entertain a younger demographic. You simply have to find a contemporary method to dramatize the value you already provide.
Speaker #0
OK, so if maintaining your core identity is the key to coherence, we have to address the brands whose core identity is simply being old.
Speaker #1
Right, the legacy brands.
Speaker #0
Yeah. The research suggests that having a long history isn't actually a liability with Gen Z. It can actually be a massive structural advantage.
Speaker #1
It really can.
Speaker #0
But only provided the brand understands the psychological difference between nostalgia and familiarity.
Speaker #1
Yes. And we turn to the 2025 study on what researchers have termed inherited brands for this.
Speaker #0
Inherited brands.
Speaker #1
The findings are honestly counterintuitive for a lot of marketers. Nostalgia, which is, you know, a longing for a past that you personally experienced.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
That's a relatively weak driver for Gen Z when it comes to these legacy brands.
Speaker #0
Simply because they weren't around for the brand's golden years, right?
Speaker #1
Exactly. You can't be nostalgic for a time before you were born.
Speaker #0
Makes sense.
Speaker #1
However, familiarity, the comforting presence of a brand that has consistently existed in the background of their lives or their parents' lives, that is incredibly potent.
Speaker #0
It provides a baseline of stability. Like, a heritage brand doesn't need to manufacture a new persona. Their history is proof of their endurance.
Speaker #1
The challenge, though, is building a bridge between that historical endurance and the current cultural moment.
Speaker #0
How do they do that?
Speaker #1
The study concludes that the most effective mechanism for building that bridge is shifting away from merely trying to represent Gen Z and instead allowing them to actively participate in the brand's evolution.
Speaker #0
Let's look at the mechanics of the Coach Case study, because I think it illustrates this transition from representation to participation beautifully.
Speaker #1
Oh, it's a great example.
Speaker #0
Coach is the definition of an inherited heritage brand.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
Archival styles, traditional leather craftsmanship. How did they modernize? without breaking their coherence?
Speaker #1
Well, they launched their spring 2026 campaign titled Explore Your Story. And the genesis of the campaign is really what sets it apart.
Speaker #0
What did they do differently?
Speaker #1
They didn't start by analyzing which memes were trending. They started by listening to a documented profound tension within Gen Z communities.
Speaker #0
Which was?
Speaker #1
Young people are navigating an incredibly fast, exhausting, dopamine-driven digital environment.
Speaker #0
Oh, absolutely. Everyone's burnt out.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Consequently, there is a deep rising craving for spaces to slow down, for tangible long-form narratives, and for physical objects that actually carry weight and history. Coach identified that generational exhaustion and connected it directly to their own heritage of slow, deliberate craftsmanship.
Speaker #0
But what did that participation actually look like in practice? It wasn't just casting young models for a photo shoot, right?
Speaker #1
No, not at all. Coach It actively brought Gen Z creators into the process of reinterpreting archival pieces.
Speaker #0
Oh, cool.
Speaker #1
They designed physical activations where young consumers could customize and interact with the leather goods. It blended the brand's historical weight with the individual's desire for personal curation.
Speaker #0
So they allow the audience to take ownership of the heritage.
Speaker #1
Exactly.
Speaker #0
And the commercial outcomes of that strategy are staggering. According to Capestry, which is Coach's parent company, for the fiscal year 2026, approximately 35% of their 11 million new customers were Gen Z.
Speaker #1
Huge numbers.
Speaker #0
Furthermore, Coach's overall revenue grew by
Speaker #1
24%. They achieved a massive influx of a new generation without diluting a single traditional brand code.
Speaker #0
Right. They were still selling the tabby bag. They were still promoting legacy leather goods.
Speaker #1
They succeeded because they co-created the modern context for those traditional items alongside the community.
Speaker #0
Thank you. It perfectly embodies the operational philosophy from the agency 20-something, which is highlighted in our sources.
Speaker #1
Yes, their central mandate.
Speaker #0
Put a youngster in every meeting.
Speaker #1
It's so simple, but so effective.
Speaker #0
It forces the transition from superficial representation, just guessing what young people want, to structural participation, where they have actual influence over the strategic direction.
Speaker #1
And if we synthesize these concepts, the necessity of deep coherence and the power of active participation. They take on an existential urgency when we factor in the technological wave currently reshaping the entire landscape.
Speaker #0
You're talking about artificial intelligence.
Speaker #1
Yes.
Speaker #0
AI completely commodifies the ability to create content.
Speaker #1
The 2026 studies by Arujo Vila and Tubes, combined with the latest IAB research, they detail a critical new friction point.
Speaker #0
What's the friction?
Speaker #1
AI has made it instantaneously cheap to churn out culturally fluent, visually flawless marking material. A brand can generate localized, trend-adjusted campaigns in a matter of seconds.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
But Gen Z's reaction to this hyper-efficiency is intense skepticism.
Speaker #0
The sources specifically mention fears around greenwashing and the dehumanization of interactions. When we talk about AI and greenwashing in this context, what are the actual mechanics of that deception?
Speaker #1
So AI greenwashing occurs when brands use generative tools to create the illusion of ethical practices or community engagement that do not physically exist.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
A company can use AI to generate images of diverse young communities planting trees or perfectly crafted sustainable packaging.
Speaker #0
Creating a comprehensive visual front of environmental responsibility.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Without altering a single actual supply chain practice.
Speaker #0
That is insidious.
Speaker #1
It is. But Gen Z, being digitally native, is highly attuned to the synthetic nature of these images. The IAB research confirms that Gen Z and millennials possess a far higher degree of skepticism toward AI-generated advertising than industry executives currently estimate.
Speaker #0
They can spot it a mile away.
Speaker #1
They view it as a sophisticated form of masking incoherence.
Speaker #0
So what does this all mean for the future of engagement? Think about this for a second. If artificial intelligence allows every single brand on the planet to perfectly and instantly mimic whatever cultural trend is dominating today, Doesn't the act of blending in become the greatest liability?
Speaker #1
That is the exact trap.
Speaker #0
Like if a legacy corporation can flawlessly simulate the voice of a 22-year-old creator using AI, sounding like a 22-year-old completely loses its competitive value.
Speaker #1
This raises an important question, and it's really the ultimate realization of this deep dive.
Speaker #0
Let's hear it.
Speaker #1
When artificial intelligence drives the cost of speed and cultural mimicry down to absolute zero, what retains its premium value?
Speaker #0
Verified trust.
Speaker #1
Exactly. Verified trust. AI can artificially generate endless streams of engaging content, but it cannot artificially generate a coherent track record of behavior.
Speaker #0
It can't fake history.
Speaker #1
When every entity possesses the capability to look and sound like everyone else instantly, a brand's most valuable asset is knowing exactly what not to change.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
Gen Z does not require every corporation to act like a 22-year-old. They require entities that understand their own core identity, that behave with enough consistency to be relied upon.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
And that create genuine space for the next generation to participate in their ongoing narrative.
Speaker #0
It is the discipline of evolving your expression while fiercely guarding your essence.
Speaker #1
Yes. And before we conclude, I want to leave you with a provocation that extends beyond just corporate market share.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
We have spent this deep dive analyzing trillion dollar demographics and global brands. But apply this framework directly to yourself.
Speaker #0
Oh, interesting.
Speaker #1
We exist in a digital architecture that makes it incredibly frictionless to curate a personal brand, to continuously adjust your online persona, to perfectly mirror whatever ideological or cultural aesthetic is currently trending.
Speaker #0
It's so easy to do.
Speaker #1
It is. But what is your underlying reason to believe? If you were to strip away the trending vernacular, the algorithmic aesthetics, and the polished output, what is the coherent, immovable identity that remains?
Speaker #0
That is a lot to think about. If you want to explore these generational shifts further, discover my book, The Gen Z Shift, Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals, available now in English on Amazon and as an audiobook.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Embed