MAM
Majority of millennials, Gen Zs prefer buying products directly from brands: Report
Mumbai: More than two-thirds (68 per cent) of Gen Zs and over half (58 per cent) of millennials have ordered products directly from brands in the past six months, compared to 41 per cent on average across all age groups. The findings were published by Capgemini Research Institute in its latest report.
The report titled ‘What Matters to Today’s Consumer’ explores the impact that the pandemic has had on consumer behaviour and buying trends. According to it, consumers have reported a better buying experience, and access to brand loyalty programmes, as a major factor compelling them to bypass traditional retail channels.
Interestingly, the report also found that almost half (45 per cent) of all shoppers they interviewed said they are willing to share data on how they consume or use products and more than a third (39 per cent) say they are willing to share personal data such as demographic information or product preferences. However, 54 per cent of all shoppers say that offers, deals, and/or discounts would make it more likely for them to share their data directly with brands.
“Younger consumers’ willingness to go straight to brands when purchasing goods presents a real opportunity for consumer product companies. This enables them to collect consumer data and helps create a more mature direct-to-consumer channel,” said Capgemini head of consumer goods and retail Tim Bridges. “Being data-powered enables the consumer product and retail organisations to translate supply and demand trends into intelligent decisions on where best to stock their products, customise products and services, and enhance customer experience.”
Online not likely to replace in-store shopping entirely
Contrary to popular notions, the report also found that the majority of consumers (72 per cent) expect to have significant interactions with physical stores after the pandemic subsides. In fact it indicates that the surge in e-commerce over the last two years due to safety concerns and the desire to avoid physical stores has now plateaued, and more consumers anticipate a return to in-store shopping experiences.
At least 72 per cent of all shoppers expect to have significant interactions with physical stores once the pandemic subsides – up from 60 per cent pre-Covid levels. Globally, all age groups expect their level of in-store interactions post-pandemic to be higher than their online interactions.
Delivery and fulfillment services gain importance in certain segments
With convenience remaining a key priority for consumers, delivery and fulfillment are increasingly being transformed from a cost center to a growth driver for many organisations. In the health and beauty and grocery segments, shoppers place greater importance on delivery and fulfillment than in-store experiences. This is especially true for groceries shoppers across all age groups, where 42 per cent of shoppers say that delivery and fulfilment are the most important service attributes.
To add to it, convenience of delivery is a major factor that can push shoppers to try new and emerging models of shopping. Slightly less than half of consumers (47 per cent) who have purchased products via subscription services do so for the convenience of home delivery. However, shoppers are less willing to pay a premium for fast delivery. Across all shoppers, 3.3 per cent of the total cost is the average they would be willing to pay for two-hour delivery, down from 4.6 per cent in 2019. While younger shoppers with children remain the most willing to pay a premium, consumers increasingly expect fast delivery as a standard part of the customer experience.
Health and sustainability are top of mind for consumers
Health and sustainability look set to continue influencing consumer decisions going forward, and organizations should consider investment in empowering customers to make informed choices around these, cites the report. At least, 44 per cent of consumers are willing to pay a premium for grocery products that have sustainable packaging. This is more pronounced amongst Gen Z (64 per cent) and Millennials (54 per cent) than older generations like Boomers (30 per cent).
As many as 10,000 consumers over the age of 18 years were surveyed by Capgemini Research Institute in 10 countries around the world, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Consumers were qualified as “shoppers,” meaning they must have made a purchase of groceries, household and toiletries products, and/or health and beauty products at least once in the past six months.
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
