The COVID-19 pandemic has pretty much affected everything we know, and the fashion business is no exception.

Shopping is a regular pastime for most. Prior to the Coronavirus outbreak, nearly three-quarters of our sample (72%) typically bought new clothes, shoes and/or accessories at least every 3 months, with younger people buying more frequently than older people. You’d be excused for assuming that the pandemic may have forced the (designer) purse-strings of the fashion conscious to tighten, but, rather surprisingly, it hasn’t deterred them as much as you may think –  over half professed to be purchasing clothes just as frequently (44%) or even more frequently (10%) than before.

So, whether it’s for your weekly Zoom quiz (yes, another one), a virtual FaceTime catch up with friends, an important work-related Skype call, or simply for your sofa’s sake, there is clearly still the desire to look and feel good in lockdown. And while the stores remain closed, practically all retail therapy must come in digital form.

Back in the good old days (of the past 12 months), when we were gifted with choice, online and physical shopping appeared to be tied in terms of popularity. Both online marketplace platforms and large retailers/department stores were the most used methods, with 53% using each. When buying directly from brands, a third did so online and from physical stores (36% respectively) and for second-hand clothing, 20% bought from online resale platforms, with the same proportion buying from physical second-hand, thrift or market stores.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on shopping habits has been significant. Unsurprisingly, online methods have seen an increase of more than a third, while physical methods have experienced decreases of 58% or more. The largest online increase was for shopping via a brand’s social media page, with nearly half who had previously purchased this way reporting an increase during the pandemic (49%).

This online shift seems like it may be here to stay, for a while at least. Even if physical stores were to dust down their rails and re-open their doors in the next 3 months, most (65%) indicated that they would continue to shop online. Despite the majority (45%) of these shoppers preferring the traditional alternative, they simply would not feel safe enough to do so at the current time. This is a powerful message for brands. Now, more than ever before, brands must focus on their digital presence and resilience. It goes without saying that a seamless e-commerce experience is of utmost importance in this day and age, but there are many more virtual avenues to be explored while Madison and 5th are out of bounds. For example, over half of our sample were interested in the prospect of virtual stores (55%) and malls (51%), in which they would be able to browse through digital stores and aisles in a similar way as they would in reality, and a sizeable portion (42%) were interested in the idea of livestreaming fashion shows or new products, as are already popular in China.

Prior to the pandemic, sustainability was the hottest topic in fashion. For now, though, it seems to be taking a bit of a backseat for consumers, while responding to the crisis appears to have taken priority; half of our sample would feel more positively about a brand if it was seen to have handled its response to COVID-19 well, compared to 38% who would feel more positively if the brand was taking steps towards becoming more sustainable. Further to this, 31% would pay more for a brand whose response to the pandemic was seen to be suitable, whereas 27% would pay more for a sustainable brand.

Just before the pandemic really took hold of the US in March 2020, however, over double the amount (76%) said they would feel more positively about a brand if they were seen to be sustainable, and a quarter more (52%) would have paid more for a sustainable brand.

As things (slowly) begin to return to normal, or “the new normal” as the recently coined phrase goes, important matters will undoubtedly become important once again. So, while not necessarily top of mind at present, brands must be careful not to push sustainability too far back on that burner. In fact, now that the world has been forced to slow down, and Mother Nature has been permitted to breathe a huge sigh of relief, it might just be the perfect time to shift focus back onto these efforts to ensure we take advantage of the encouraging environmental effects that the pandemic has, inadvertently, had.

At present though, reacting to the situation at hand is clearly the priority for consumers and companies alike. We are keen to find out what consumers really want to see from fashion brands during this time, and exactly what it is they consider to be a good reaction to this new reality we all find ourselves in.

Source: AudienceNet. Base n= 1,963 US residents. Dates: Mid April/Late March 2020

This research sought to understand how people perceive both social media and messaging platforms because they both offer ways, albeit differently, for people to share information. In addition, the research was designed to measure the awareness of, and attitudes towards the spread of misinformation and propaganda on messaging platforms and determine the appetite and importance of encryption technology in protecting personal privacy in India.

To view the findings you can download the summary report here.

In a recent study we conducted via the Go2Crowd (a US consumer panel) we found
that only 12% of women would describe themselves/their political views as “feminist”.
However, when asked to what extent they supported the Feminist Movement, 69% of
women said they completely/partially supported it and 60% said they supported the
#MeToo Movement. Furthermore, nearly half (49%) said they felt women were
underrepresented in politics. So why are women seemingly hesitant to label
themselves “feminist”?

Part of the explanation could be that women are generally warier of political labels. In
our survey, we asked which words they would use to describe themselves/their
political views. They were given a list of nine words to choose from including
“conservative”, “liberal”, “environmentalist” and “feminist”, but could also choose to
say, “none of the above”. Interestingly 28% of women chose the option “none of the
above” compared to just 9% of men. This suggests that women might be more
cautious in attaching themselves to political labels, while they are willing to put their
support behind political movements.

Words females would use to describe themselves/their political views:

But perhaps the real issue is that feminism still has an inclusivity issue. Despite the
#MeToo movement being started by Tarana Burke to give voice to women of colour
from underprivileged backgrounds who had experienced sexual abuse, it is now
largely fronted by privileged (many of whom white) women. The exclusion of women
of colour from the Feminist movement isn’t a new phenomenon, with black feminist
scholars being particularly pronounced in their criticism of White Feminism for
several decades. The Feminist movement has often been seen to practice colour
and class blindness in a way that favours white middle-class women and excludes
minority women and the issues they specifically face. Maybe as a result of this,
research consistently shows women of colour and from working-class backgrounds
are less likely to embrace the term feminism.

Others may simply feel the feminist movement is too radical or does not fully
represent their views. It’s still not uncommon to hear women say, “I support women’s
rights, but I’m not a feminist”. Some may also argue that women have achieved
enough equality and Feminism is thus redundant. Whatever the reason might be for
dismissing the “feminist” label, it seems the Feminist movement has some work cut
out to make the movement more accessible to all women, not just those from
privileged backgrounds. If you have any thoughts about why women struggle to
embrace the term “feminist” or have any thoughts on how the Feminist movement
could become more inclusive, please do leave a comment below!

If you are interested in more reading on feminism and inclusivity, here are a few of
my favourite books by intersectional feminists:
bell hooks: Ain’t I a Woman?
Reni Eddo-Lodge: Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          About our data set:
Source – Go2Crowd, N=568 US Adults

This infographic illustrates the proportion of the American public who associate each characteristic with each religion and the difference that political affiliation has when it comes to views on religion.

The U.S. population appears to have a general anxiety towards religions, with none being seen as particularly inclusive or progressive.

Negative characteristics (violent and intimidating) were considerably more likely to be associated with Islam than any other religion. Importantly, however, those who we identify as Democratic-leaning scored Islam much lower on these metrics than Republicans.  

Both Islam and Christianity, considerably more so than other religions, are thought to be judgemental and closed-minded.

Encouragingly, in terms of attitudes towards different cultures, religions generally associated with the East (Buddhism and Hinduism) were strongly associated with being peaceful.

See the full infographic here: Religious Associations in the USA Infographic

Obviously, it does increase turnout as we can see in Australia and Belgium that have over 90% turnout each election. But what do people think about compulsory voting? What do millennials think about compulsory voting? And from this, I wondered, could compulsory voting increase millennial political engagement?

I will be using data from The Millennial Dialogue to answer this question. Between 2014 and 2017, AudienceNet, in partnership with the Foundation for European Progressive Studies(FEPS), conducted a study across 22 countries around the globe exploring young people’s engagement with politics. 17 were asked about compulsory voting and I will be using data from an aggregate dataset of these 17 countries.

So what do millennials think?

In total, across these 17 countries, 40% said that voting should be compulsory and 50% said that voting should not be compulsory.

In 7 out of the 17 countries, the majority of respondents said that voting should be made compulsory.  These countries were Australia, Bulgaria, France, Romania, South Africa, Senegal and Turkey. This map shows the answers by country (the majority of participants in countries in green said that voting should be compulsory, those in red said it should not be compulsory).

The main point of the Millennial dialogue was to see the participation and interest in politics of millennials and to gather the reasons behind their behaviour. Low interest in politics was identified and there were several key reasons found. This included lack of trust in politicians and feeling like they were not heard by politicians.

From my general observation, I formed an opinion on compulsory voting. My opinion was this; millennials don’t trust politicians and think that politicians don’t listen to them so in turn, millennials don’t participate in politics. This means that politicians won’t listen to millennials. But because politicians don’t listen to them, millennials don’t vote. This is a vicious cycle.

I thought compulsory voting would change this. Surely it would break this cycle. Politicians would have to listen to everyone, including millennials, as they were all voting. Therefore millennials would know they are going to be heard more and would vote or just participate more. Additionally, it would make politicians more trustworthy, as compulsory voting would make the government more legitimate and accountable. For example, if we take the Brexit referendum, 72% was a high turnout in comparison to our election turnouts since 1992, yet if we had a higher turnout it would have given greater legitimacy to the result. Even with the small difference between remain and leave, the government’s mandate to leave the EU would have been stronger. Compulsory voting would, therefore, increase trust in the government and would make their decisions more accountable to the whole public as the government has to take notice of all in the country, not just those who vote.

However after comparing the data of countries with compulsory voting and those without, it does not seem to be that millennials feel more heard when there is compulsory voting.

In the UK, 70% of millennials feel the views of young people are largely ignored by most politicians. Australia and Belgium, two countries with compulsory voting, have very similar results. In Australia, 67% felt that the views of young people are largely ignored by most politicians and in Belgium, this number was 66%.

Just look at these facts:

 • In the UK, 21% felt confident that they and their peers could make themselves heard. 43% thought very few, if any, politicians encourage young people to get involved in politics.

 • In Australia, 13% felt confident that they and their peers could make themselves heard. 50% thought very few, if any, politicians encourage young people to get involved in politics.

 • In Belgium, 24% felt confident that they and their peers could make themselves heard. 56% thought very few, if any, politicians encourage young people to get involved in politics.

It seems that compulsory voting did not increase trust in politicians.

In all the top five reasons for not voting for all three countries, lack of trust in politicians was number one and ‘don’t think my vote would make a difference’ was either top three or four. In fact, in the reasons that would make millennials vote, the top two for both Belgium and Australia were ‘if my vote would make a difference’ and ‘if I trusted politicians more.’

So compulsory voting does not lead to millennials feeling more heard and they do not trust politicians more. Moreover, while those in countries with compulsory voting do vote more, the participation rates of other political activities are all similar.

 • In the UK, 6% take part in political meetings and 9% take part in protests/demonstrations.

• In Australia, 5% take part in political meetings and 9% Take part in protests/demonstrations.

• In Belgium, 5% take part in political meetings and 10% Take part in protests/demonstrations.

It’s clear that my argument;  that compulsory voting would increase millennial participation as they would feel more heard by politicians, could not have been more wrong!

Compulsory voting does not increase trust in politicians, it does not make millennials feel more heard and it does not lead to an increase in political participation outside of voting.

So the question remains, what would make millennials feel differently about all these things? The fact that a change in the electoral system does not lead to a change in views suggests that a change is not needed here. Perhaps it is those that are in the system that needs to change, not the system itself?

What do you think? What would make millennials feel more heard? What would make them trust politicians? And what would make them participate in politics more, outside of voting?

Note: We will be regularly publishing more of our U.S. Omnibus findings. Follow us on Twitter at @AudienceNet and @data_design_ and on LinkedIn to see more of our work. 

Almost three quarters (74%) of Australian SMEs agreed that Instagram is helping them to achieve their goals.

The findings demonstrate the active way in which users engage with content on Instagram and this is seemingly key to its success as a tool for small businesses. More than two thirds (67%) of 18-34 year old Australians agreed that Instagram helps them find new products, services, businesses or organisations. Young Australians often use the platform in relation to spending decisions, with 60% having visited a restaurant or café because of something they’ve seen on Instagram. Importantly, 42% of those surveyed said they think more positively of businesses or products that have an Instagram profile.

The report found that Instagram facilitates SMEs in Australia to broaden their customer reach. With over half (58%) of those surveyed saying that they like that they can discover small businesses on Instagram, which otherwise they might not have known existed. The broadening of reach is not just among local customers, but worldwide, as two thirds (67%) of SMEs agreed that Instagram enables them to connect to international customers too. Australian Instagram users actively respond to what they view on Instagram, and this is benefitting small businesses that use the platform.

To view the findings you can download the summary report here

A few weeks ago, the Embassy of China in Washington warned Chinese tourists about the “highly frequent” gun violence in the USA and went so far as to say, “Avoid going out alone at night”. According to the Small Arms Survey, only El Salvador and Mexico have higher mortality rates for gun homicide than the United States. The Mass Shooting Tracker, which defines mass shooting as an incident of gun violence in which 4 or more people are shot, records that there have been 257 mass shootings so far in America this year alone. In a recent nationally representative survey of 1,616 Americans, conducted by New Paradigm Strategy Group (NPSG) and AudienceNet, opinions on the contributing factors of the continuing rise in gun violence in America have been revealed.

Those surveyed were asked to select the factors which they believed contributed to America’s gun violence epidemic from a number of options including rate of gun ownership, easy access to assault rifles and a lack of background checks.

The findings show that 66% felt that “mental health” was contributing to America’s gun violence epidemic – making it the largest cited contributor in the survey. Only 58% of those aged 18-24 held this view, compared to 75% of those aged 55+, suggesting that there is a generational difference in opinions on mental health. In contrast, the view that mental health was the biggest contributor to the recent gun violence epidemic remained consistent among people of different ethnic backgrounds and across genders.

The issue of mental health being related to gun violence has been the topic of much debate since President Trump recently tweeted that the gunman responsible for the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting was “mentally disturbed”.

Around half (53%) of those surveyed believed that a lack of background checks was a contributing factor to the increasing epidemic of gun violence in America. Controversy around background checks has dominated much of the recent debate on gun policy. Most recently, The Tampa Bay Times reported that the state of Florida failed to carry out any background checks on gun buyers for over a year as an employee was unable to log on to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Other non-governmental organizations, such as The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, campaign for background checks on all gun sales, including online and private sales, which are currently excluded in some states. Further research in this area could explore whether Americans think mental health screening should be a mandatory process of background checks.

The NPSG/AudienceNet survey also revealed that only 9% of Americans held the view that unarmed teachers were a contributing factor to the increasing gun violence epidemic. These findings emerge after President Trump recently commented that having “armed educators” within American schools would mean “shootings will not happen again”. President Trump later attempted to clarify his statement by adding that “concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience” would mean “attacks would end” and it would “solve the problem instantly”. In terms of American opinion, unarmed teachers was the least critical factor, which might indicate why President Trump’s comments have proven to be highly controversial on social media.

One Twitter user (@AlexLittleboy) posted: https://twitter.com/AlexLittleboy/status/966736232645648385

“Worldwide we are already teachers, social support workers, sometimes almost parents to these kids. We don’t want to be soldiers as well.” New Jersey has recently pledged to sign a bill that would put restrictions on bullets, magazine size and expand background checks.

Interestingly, the survey also made a clear connection between age and the notion that gun violence in video games is a contributor to real-life gun violence and shootings. Just 22% of those aged 18-24 believed that gun violence in video games contributed to real-life gun violence, compared with 52% of those aged 65 and over. Further research could be conducted to discover why older generations hold such a cynical view of gun violence in video games and why millennials see it as much less problematic.

The recent epidemic of gun violence and shootings in America has had grave consequences for individuals, families and communities. However, the issue on gun policy is complex and the debates and solutions remain multi-faceted.  The NPSG/AudienceNet survey data adds voice to what Americans think is the cause around the recent epidemic of gun violence and shootings.

One of our core research interests at AudienceNet is how we can engage young people in politics. So the results of this survey made us wonder, should politicians act more like celebrities? If so, what can they learn from celebrities? Or should celebrities get even more involved in politics than they are already? We want to hear from you! Could celebs help increase political engagement or should they stick to what they’re good at and let politicians do their jobs? So please comment below and let us know what you think. We’re looking forward to a great debate!

To give you a little food for thought, here are a few instances of celebrities getting involved in politics we thought were interesting:

Emma Watson: I am a feminist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9SUAcNlVQ4

When JME met Jeremy Corbyn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-rxp_QwjmQ

Childish Gambino: This is America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOjWnS4cMY

Oprah Winfrey at the 2018 Golden Globes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN5HV79_8B8

Kanye West on Twitter https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/kanye-west-donald-trump-twitter/index.html

About the Author: Anna Kiel is the Social & Political Research Executive at Audiencenet. Feel free to contact her with any questions or thoughts at anna@audiencenet.co.uk.

Note: Keep an eye on Twitter (@AudienceNet) for more from AudienceNet on when politics and celebrity collide 

I recently came across a thought-provoking quote about inclusivity, by one of the most celebrated marketing gurus, Philip Kotler. It said, “being inclusive is not about being similar; it is about living harmoniously despite differences.”

In many ways, this would be an ideal scenario. But it got me thinking as to how we can reach a point of harmony. Can it ever really be achieved without having some level of understanding or appreciation of our differences? Without this, will we always be left making assumptions, judgements or even fearing those who we perceive as being different to us?

My Experience

One of the things I love the most about my specialism in intercultural relations is being an intermediary between different groups. In this space, one of the most challenging yet rewarding opportunities has been our work on the refugee crisis.

Late last year, I was invited to speak at a two-day conference in Athens, which was attended by medical and public health professionals (from across Europe) who work with refugees. My brief was to represent the perspective of refugees, based on insights from our 2016 Refugee Voices study, in which we interviewed 1500 refugees face-to-face, in Germany, Greece, and Jordan.

Given that the majority of attendees spent considerable amounts of time with refugees in the field, I wanted to present insights that they may not otherwise be privy to. More specifically, I wanted to highlight refugees’ determination to rebuild their lives, that they were forever grateful to host countries for giving them the opportunity to do so, but also the fact that lack of clarity over their futures was draining on their optimism.

Being one of the only non-medical professionals at the conference, I was somewhat nervous about the response I would get. Upon reading the session overview in the programme, would attendees be intrigued or see it as a great opportunity to have a coffee break and/or explore Athens? Thankfully it was the former! I was genuinely touched and overwhelmed by the response to our presentation. Afterwards, many commented that this was a perspective they rarely had the opportunity to hear, largely due to professional boundaries, as well as language and cultural barriers.

Making a Big-Splash

Commissioning and disseminating research findings has a significant role to play in helping to facilitate intercultural understanding and appreciation. However, as our recent study on achieving social cohesion in South Africa revealed, popular culture can amplify such messages and have a wide-ranging impact on society. For this, we built an Online Community of 70 participants who represented key population segments in terms of demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity), and geographic distribution. After the four weeks of discussion, it became clear that tensions and differences in societal outcomes across racial, ethnic and tribal lines were seen as fundamental barriers to social cohesion. Importantly, while these problems were thought to be ingrained within governmental/societal infrastructure, participants felt that some of the most effective solutions could be offered by non-governmental initiatives and ventures. More specifically, they gave examples of how sporting events (e.g. the Rugby and Football World Cup) and music festivals had united South Africans.

While I have always been a champion of how popular culture has the potential to positively shape society, this research and a few recent examples have helped to strengthen my belief.

Example 1: A Rock Concert at the Royal Albert Hall

As those who know me (or even meet me briefly) can verify, I have a slight obsession with dance! This is for various reasons including the mental and physical health benefits, but more specifically, being part of a London-based Indian dance company has enabled me to see the impact this medium can have on intercultural understanding and appreciation.

Perhaps the most powerful example, for me, was a few weeks back when our professional dancers performed at the Royal Albert Hall with renowned rock musician, Steven Wilson. Steven is a fan of Indian culture and wanted to capture Bollywood and the festival of colour (Holi) in his stage show. In many ways, the audience could not have been further from our usual appreciators, but we were moved by the reception we got. Our time on stage was filled with roars of applause, and dancing, which is not typical for a Steven Wilson gig. The key factor was that everyone was united by their love for Steven and his music. Therefore, whatever he presented, they embraced…with gusto!

Example 2: Vogue India

Another example that has struck me is the April 2018 cover of Vogue India. It features (possibly) Bollywood’s most globally famous actress, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, who has starred in movies such as Bride and Prejudice and Pink Panther and is a brand ambassador for L’Oréal and Longines (among others). Accompanying her is US music sensation, Pharrell Williams.

When I first heard about the collaboration, my mind went into overdrive. This sort of collaboration was groundbreaking and provided the perfect opportunity to do something meaningful that crossed country, ethnic/racial and artistic boundaries. I was consumed by millions of thoughts: would they go fully Indian with the theme and outfits; or actually, would they make it more hip-hop? Then…panic set in: would it be well received, or come across as a gimmick and thus do more harm than good?! Finally, the eagerly anticipated release date arrived and…my excitement was back in full-force. I thought it was brilliantly executed! Instead of focusing on any one culture, they had created a neutral space via high-end, quirky fashion. By letting this do the talking, for the audience, to a large extent, everything else that Aishwarya and Pharrell represent becomes secondary.

Final Thoughts

While I subscribe to the notion that inclusivity should, in many ways, be about living harmoniously despite our differences, working in intercultural relations has made me realise that a number of factors can make this challenging. For example, a lack of information or exposure to different groups.

Without first understanding and (ideally) appreciating our differences, can societies really function harmoniously? At a human level, this can lead to fear, prejudice, and tensions between groups. From a policy perspective, a lack of understanding can lead to initiatives that benefit some and disadvantage others. In terms of brands, it can mean that products and services only resonate with certain consumer segments, leading others to look elsewhere.

Popular culture can play a vital role in helping to facilitate intercultural understanding and appreciation. Firstly, it has the ability to reach people at mass, across the globe. Furthermore, with technology and social media, this can happen within minutes. Secondly, the level of emotional engagement with popular culture means that people are more inclined to pay attention and trust the content. This, in turn, also increases the likelihood of it positively impacting their attitudes and behaviours. Finally, popular culture provides neutral spaces where we can (at times literally) meet in the middle. By uniting us through common interests and experiences, these spaces offer an opportunity to better understand and appreciate each other. Furthermore, here, not only do we come to see past our differences, but we begin to see our similarities.

About the Author: Sania Haq is the Head of Research at Audiencenet. Feel free to contact her with any questions or thoughts at sania@audiencenet.co.uk.

Note: More to come from AudienceNet on the role that popular culture can play in building harmonious societies. In May we will be attending the PeaceTech Summit in Washington DC, and will also be publishing more of our research findings throughout the month.