For decades, brands have operated under a singular belief: consumer behaviour can be shaped, nudged, and even dictated through carefully orchestrated psychological principles. Plant an idea, `associate it with emotion, repeat it enough times, add some rewards and consumer loyalty is secured. This approach thrived in a world with minimal disruption, limited worldview visibility, and easier attention capture. However, the era of seamless influence is fading, and the foundational principles of advertising are now being challenged.
In today’s digital landscape, consumers, particularly Gen Z, are no longer passive recipients of brand messaging. They are highly discerning, constantly connected, and increasingly aware of the realities that brands have historically tried to conceal. Gen Z perceives ‘Brand Purpose’ as a glossy marketing tactic, intended to glamorise consumption but now faltering as corporate contradictions come to light.
Thanks to social media, this generation is acutely aware of pressing issues like environmental degradation and stark economic inequality. Having grown up in an era of disruption and radical transparency, Gen Z is actively challenging and eroding the influence that brands once wielded over consumers. Their scepticism is reshaping the landscape of brand-consumer relationships.
How did this shift happen?
This shift in consumer behaviour can be explained with the help of a few psychological theories. Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and counter-conditioning (Wolpe, 1958) theories explain how people react when faced with information that contradicts their existing beliefs or habits. Cognitive dissonance occurs when consumers encounter information that conflicts with their current beliefs or behaviours, causing mental discomfort.
This discomfort often leads them to reassess their automatic responses. For example, a loyal customer might emotionally detach from a brand upon learning about its unethical practices. This process of challenging and changing established thought patterns is how psychological theories undermine their foundations, much like a wildfire unexpectedly affecting a seemingly invulnerable dragon.
The fall of brands that only ‘sell dreams’
Several global corporations are witnessing consumer backlash not because their products are ineffective, but because their actions are misaligned with their messaging. Consumers are questioning whether their money is waging wars instead of solving problems.
Fast fashion giants have been called out for greenwashing, or exploitative labour practices while claiming to champion sustainability. Once celebrated for innovation, some of the world’s biggest tech companies are now under fire for monopolistic behaviour, unethical data use, and exploitation. Even legacy food and beverage brands, which once thrived on nostalgia-driven loyalty, are being rejected as consumers demand more transparency.
The latest controversy circulating across social media is the challenge of the widespread appeal of the tight, spandex-driven ‘yoga pants’ phenomenon, questioning its environmental, health and ethical implications.
The reality is simple: if a brand is built on contradictions, Gen Z will expose it. The old formula—making big promises, crafting compelling campaigns, and relying on passive acceptance, rarely works anymore.
What does a post–post-brand purpose world look like?
For years, brand purpose revolved around a lofty question: Why do we exist? Some brands have genuinely integrated purpose into their DNA, but many have used it as a decorative tool—an embellishment to attract conscious consumers without substantive action. In 2025, the question has changed.
It’s no longer about why a brand exists, but how it is creating a measurable impact. The world is in crisis. Climate disasters, economic instability, and widening social inequalities are not abstract problems that can be wrapped in a feel-good campaign. Gen Z doesn’t want another beautifully shot sustainability commercial or an inspiring diversity statement—they want brands that are fundamentally restructuring their operations to create tangible, everyday change.
From big promises to small, real actions
To survive and stay relevant, brands need to abandon the performative playbook and embrace these four shifts:
- Hyper-local and contextual impact: The era of sweeping global purpose statements is fading. Some smaller brands are thriving because they deeply understand their communities. Whether it’s a sustainable coffee brand revolutionising ethical sourcing or a hyper-local skincare company using indigenous ingredients, specificity matters.
- Purpose as a given, not a selling point: Gen Z is not impressed by a brand that ‘cares’. That is the bare minimum. Sustainability, ethical labour, and fair wages should not be unique selling points but operational mandates. If a brand is still positioning sustainability as an extraordinary initiative rather than an expectation, it is already behind.
- From statements to systems: Corporate statements, ‘We stand for diversity’; ‘We support sustainability’, don’t mean much anymore. Cool, but where’s the proof? In 2025, successful brands are not issuing statements—they are redesigning their entire business models. They are implementing beyond a press release.
- Gen Z, the ‘no-bullshit’ consumers: Gen Z grew up watching climate summits fail, economic policies widen inequality, and corporations profit from both. Because the future looks bleak, they are ruthless in their brand choices. They research, dissect, scrutinise, and reject anything that feels hollow. If a brand is not walking the talk, it is over. This generation is not seeking awareness campaigns—but brands that take responsibility and act.
Gen Z is not looking for brands that sell them a dream; they want brands that fix what is broken. That’s the kind of purpose that matters now.
