We have measured brand strength for over 50 FMCG brands, and have identified which could potentially charge more.
Our brand framework, Brand XP, quantifies brand strength, and ESA Retail collects pricing data across the supermarket sector.
Innovative research in the FMCG sector ties this together. We assessed how brand strength and pricing (we used Tesco prices here) correlate across 11 FMCG categories.
In food and drink categories, prices (e.g., crisps, bread, chocolate, beer, bottled water) are mostly cheaper than expected, though ice-cream and tea bags are exceptions.
But this is not the case for non-food categories.
In categories like washing powder, toilet paper, and deodorants prices tend to be more expensive than predicted.
Food is a ‘hedonic product’, consumed at least partially for sensory pleasure and emotional satisfaction. It is a ‘high engagement’ category where people are interested and indeed take some joy in what they buy. This can lead to a greater sense of value for money.
There is also a link to the ‘IKEA effect’, where people place a high value on products, they partially create themselves. Foodstuffs are used to make meals, which form the basis of social occasions – even if it is just the family evening meal, while non-food FMCG categories tend to be more ‘strictly utilitarian’ in nature, which means there is lower emotional involvement in the purchase.
Many categories have an ‘iconic brand’ that stands head and shoulders above others in the category and ‘could’ potentially command higher prices.
An example of this is Walkers in the (multipack) crisp sector. Based (only) on the perceived quality of Walkers crisps, we would expect them to be priced higher.
In the chart below, essentially, if a brand scores higher on perceived quality than it does on price (i.e. above the dotted line of best fit), then we feel it is in credit with consumers and in a good position to maintain or even increase price.
Walkers may well choose not to realise this brand strength by charging higher price (for fear of losing market share), but it does illustrate the strength of the Walkers brand.
In other sectors, the power of long-standing iconic brands was also obvious, with the following brands all standing out as having a ‘quality predicted price’ (the price we’d expect given perceived quality) higher than the actual price:
Most of these brands fell into the ‘High quality, expensive but potentially under-priced’ segment within their category.
Other brands without perhaps quite such a long pedigree that also appeared in this segment of the matrix were Yorkshire Tea and Häagen-Dazs – arguably both have emerged as ‘iconic brands’ in the last decade or two.
As well as highlighting the strength of these dominant brands, the research also showed how some brands also have potential – even if they perhaps would not qualify as ‘iconic’.
We also identified some brands that may* struggle to command their price premium in their specific categories – these included Cushelle, Peroni, Hackney Gelato, Daz and Buxton Water.
We have comprehensive price and brand strength information for over 50 brands across 11 sectors.
Want to learn more?
*This tranche of data looks at prices on 06.05.25 from Tesco in one narrow product category, and compares actual prices with ‘quality predicted prices’ – the price we’d expect given perceptions of product quality. We realise this isn’t the only factor that influences product prices and can also look at prices across a wider range of supermarkets and potentially incorporate additional branding metrics into the analysis.
The current headlines around AI are not reassuring if you’re considering your employment position and particularly not if you are trying to enter the job market, with the technology linked to fears that it is ahead of people in the queue for entry-level jobs.
In a complex economy it is not clear yet what is AI and what is hiring caution in an environment where economic growth is generally weak, but our latest study has revealed a more buoyant outlook across a number of sectors. This was led by professionals working in IT and manufacturing, who have predicted that they would see future job growth as AI evolves.
In IT, the report found that 50% of IT professionals felt that AI would cause job losses over the next five years, with 59% of those working in IT commenting that they were most likely to have seen job losses already.
Of the same group, 55% said that they thought AI would drive considerable job creation, with 72% adding that they were confident that their skills would remain relevant in their sector in the next five years.
In manufacturing, the sector was the least affected so far by AI, with 26% of those asked predicting job losses over the next five years. Thirty-seven percent believed that AI would create jobs over the next five years.
Whether directly affected – as with IT – or less impacted so far – as in manufacturing – it is clear that all professionals believe that AI will affect their sector, with some more positive than others.
What is apparent is that, in those sectors which are seeing more upheaval, there will be a need for re-skilling and upskilling. The broad influence of AI means that we will need to see an equally broad response to ensure that no one is left behind.
Looking at the wider economy, the study found that young adults (18 to 34 years) were notably more likely to have experienced job losses, with 49% affected compared to the average of 34%. The top three industries most affected by AI were tech, finance and customer service.
Job losses seem to be felt more strongly lower down the chain of command, as 32% were selected administrative/support staff and 18% entry level.
Young people seem to have experienced more job losses, and entry-level and support staff are most impacted. Although the sample doesn’t suggest the people in our sample are the same group, it might be people entering the job market who are disproportionately impacted.
Individuals aged 18 to 34 were significantly more likely (28% compared to the average of 18%) to believe that education would be impacted, although only 31% of those asked said that they expected AI to cause job losses in the sector over the next five years. Only 16% in education said that they expected AI to create jobs over the same period.
Education is one area where AI is not expected to have an impact on the volume of the workforce involved, but is likely to change how, rather than who is teaching. It is here that the workforce of tomorrow is likely to be most influenced by AI itself.
Learn more:
Seeking feedback from our clients about making their brand measurement more impactful, we identified some common themes: achieving robust sample sizes, allowing flexibility and tailoring, and providing actionable insights. Additionally, we understand there are some more specific challenges to overcome:
So, we came up with a solution!
As leaders in Behavioural Science, we know understanding brand is a careful balance of rational and irrational factors. Consumers are irrational, influenced by other people, context, emotions, habits and often act on intuition. Brand decisions happen in the blink of an eye – unless we slow them down.
To drive real growth, we must encourage consumers to think more deeply and deliberately. And to that we add, BrandXP.
BrandXP adopts a more considered approach, shifting thinking to explore both intuitive (System 1) and analytical (System 2) thinking to uncover the true drivers of brand sentiment.
BrandXP is made up of components; each offers powerful, behavioural science-backed insights that significantly enhance your understanding of brand performance. They require only a small addition to a standard 15-minute questionnaire (just c.5minutes), but their impact is substantial.
We’ll explore each component using real data examples. We spoke to 1,000 members of the UK public and analysed the results for both a UK retail bank and a UK digital-only bank to show BrandXP in action.
Standard brand measurement tends to rely on consumers’ rating characteristics from a pre-defined list. But would they really pick these lists of characteristics if they weren’t prompted? Probably not.
Brand Imprints captures the top-of-mind thoughts that consumers have about your brand, giving you a far better understanding of the aspects that should be included in your brand measurement. But we can go further.
Using the latest machine learning advancements, we can assess whether customers’ top-of-mind thoughts are positive, neutral, or negative.
For the UK retail bank, ‘perceived prestige’, ‘customer centricity’, and ‘trusted reliability’ are most mentioned, indicating these are the top-of-mind thoughts customers have of the brand and are particularly impactful for driving NPS – therefore should be included in its brand measurement. Moreover, we see a predominantly positive association with ‘Trusted reliability’. This area reflects strong positive sentiment and should be a focal point of the bank in its ongoing brand management.
We recognise that Favourability and Trust are vital metrics that reveal brand resonance among consumers, but there is one issue: they are strongly emotive.
Consumers tend to evaluate brands based on their familiarity with them (leveraging system 1 thinking). When people are asked (anything) about brands, they tend to score the best-known brands most positively. This can sometimes make it hard to demonstrate the impact of advertising. We believe a more considered angle is required.
We have created a pair of metrics, collectively called Brand Trajectory, that measure a brand’s historic distinctiveness and whether it is performing better or worse than in the past. The result is a considered metric that reacts to advertising, corporate communications and campaigns.
Using our two UK Banks, we can see that the contrast between a long-standing brand and a newcomer cannot be more evident.
Brand Experience, i.e. all the experiences that people have with a brand, from customer service to product quality, plays an important role in influencing brand image.
Our approach to measuring brand experience is the “EPIC” framework. It is inspired by behavioural science and based on 4 emotional drivers which have been shown to have a strong impact on a brand’s perceptions, loyalty and NPS.
Our study highlights how Brand Experience (measured using EPIC) has a clear, positive impact on both Favourability and Trust. Customers who report a better experience with the digital-only bank – agreeing with the EPIC statement – are significantly more likely to view the brand as both favourable and trustworthy, compared to those with less positive experiences. Elevation had the strongest impact on favourability. Similar trends were also seen for our high street bank.
Your brand doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and social and cultural trends can sway consumers to and away from your brand. Brand Momentum is a tried and tested set of metrics that strongly influence brand performance.
Similar to EPIC, all six dimensions of Brand Momentum have a clear, positive impact on both Favourability and Trust. Customers who connect more strongly with the digital-only bank – agreeing with the Momentum statements – are significantly more likely to view the brand as both favourable and trustworthy, compared to those with a weaker connection. Engagement, trail blazing and being distinctive had the strongest impact on favourability.
Brand perceptions are especially vulnerable to negative experiences. Poor performance on EPIC can significantly undermine perceptions of both brand strength and legacy. In short, a misstep here can drag a brand’s reputation down fast.
This highlights a crucial truth: delivering great brand experiences is no longer a differentiator – it’s the minimum.
Momentum is where real opportunity lies. Agreement with these statements is strongly linked to more favourable brand perceptions, indicating that focusing on these areas can actively propel the brand forward.
Brands that double down on these drivers aren’t just keeping up – they’re moving ahead.
Looking at the data for our UK retail bank, poor brand experience tends to lower perceptions of both brand strength and legacy.
Meanwhile, agreement with the Momentum statements correlates with more positive brand perceptions, suggesting that targeted focus here can meaningfully advance the brand.
Notably, poor brand experience has a greater negative impact than disagreement with the Momentum statements does.
Used individually, each tool adds value, but when combined as a cohesive toolkit, they can provide a richer, more actionable view of how your brand is perceived.
The flexibility to pick and choose makes them adaptable, but together, they’re at their most powerful.
Learn more:
Pressure on visitor attractions has grown over the past few years, with relief at reopening following the pandemic replaced with rising costs. Guests have felt similar strains and have been seeking out free activities, hunting for value where they can.
These issues have combined to drive the importance of ancillary revenue streams, led by catering, where we have found there is plenty of room for improvement.
The era of hot dogs and candy floss are firmly behind us: visitors expect to see attractions keeping pace with the eating-out trends they see elsewhere and the good news for venues is that they are prepared to spend their money on offerings which stand out.
There are three main areas where visitor attractions can improve: local sourcing, children’s food and specialised diets.
Our most-recent sentiment tracker reported that ‘trying local food and drink’ was one of the most popular activities for UK holidays and short breaks.
Here are a few best-practice examples:
Sell products made on-site: Take a leaf out of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh’s book; they proudly display a sign informing visitors that they uses vegetables and herbs from the gardens in the products sold at the café. This not only supports the local narrative but adds a unique visitor experience.
Offer known local brands: Featuring well-known local brands can create positive associations of familiarity for visitors. Highlighting where the produce was sourced from local farms or producers can enhance the authenticity of your offerings and foster a sense of community pride.
Make it fun and easily readable: Maps are a great way to engage visitors, especially those that show where different ingredients are sourced. Place these maps somewhere easy to spot – such as where queues form – to help with decision making and make the wait time more enjoyable.
Many visitor attractions still have room for improvement when considering children, with no specific menu, poorly-labelled children’s items or lack of child-friendly portions. There may be a lack of healthy choices, with offerings favouring chocolate and crisps.
To help address these issues:
Introduce a dedicated children’s menu: Offering a menu specifically designed for kids can make meal choices simpler and more appealing to young visitors.
Clear labelling and better visibility: Ensure that children’s offerings are clearly labelled on menus and displays, making it easy for parents and kids to spot suitable options, reducing stress.
Include smaller portions: Tailor portion sizes to be appropriate for children, ensuring they get just the right amount of food.
Provide healthier options: Incorporate fruits and simple, nutritious meals into the children’s menu.
Customisable lunch boxes/meals: National Trust for Scotland offer customisable meal options that allow kids to pick and choose their favourites, catering to their individual tastes.
Inclusivity is not just a matter of taste, it is often a matter of health and venues which do not cater to specific dietary requirements, risk leaving some visitors hungry.
Common issues include; special dietary items not being provided at all, or not being provided in enough volume. Options may be hard to spot, causing delays as visitors have to consult members of staff and, once found, there is often a lack of variety, with attractions only offering either sweet or savoury options.
To address these issues:
Variety of choice: Provide a diverse range of options to cater to different dietary preferences, including both sweet and savoury items.
Clear and consistent menu labelling: Ensure all dietary options are clearly labelled and easy to spot on menus and displays.
A separate, visible “Free-From” menu: The Tank Museum offers a dedicated menu for vegan andvegetarian options to simplify choices for visitors.
Engage staff and encourage questions: Train staff thoroughly on all types of dietary requirements to ensure they can efficiently and confidently assist visitors.
By showcasing local produce, enhancing children’s menus, and accommodating different dietary requirements, attractions can create a more inclusive and enjoyable experience for all visitors. Implementing these strategies not only boosts satisfaction but also drives revenue, making every visit memorable and delicious.
Want to find out more about our Mystery Visitor Benchmarking Programme?
Cost of living and the economy are the issues that worry the public the most. UK Business Leaders, and those who earn more than the median income, are more focused on the wider economy, while the cost of living dominates for everyone else.
Spend on groceries has been ticking-up over time, but there are deals to be had. Pricing and promotion data shows that Tesco has significantly increased its number of online promotions over the past year.
International affairs & conflict, which rose to prominence in March (up 10 points to 20%), has since declined to 14% as news coverage has stabilised. However, comments still reflect deep concerns about U.S. foreign and economic policy, and public attention may rise again in response to recent developments such as Starmer’s call to make Britain ‘battle-ready’.
Incompetence is the main criticism levelled at Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and the Labour Party overall.
Labour is just about managing to hold onto the top spot when it comes to voting intent at an overall level – regaining a slight lead over Reform (27% to 24%), but it is still too close to call given the margin of error.
The party retains strong support among those with a university education or above median income, but support among UK Business Leaders is eroding, while dissatisfaction with both the PM and Chancellor is on the rise – changes to National Insurance will now be having a material impact.
There is strong support for the role NATO plays in maintaining peace and security from all parts of society, and while there is uncertainty about US foreign policy, most people think closer military ties with the EU are a good idea – even a narrow majority of Reform voters.
When it comes to the flashpoint issue of trans athletes participating in women’s sports, a majority of the public believes they should be excluded.
Opinions are more mixed on other issues, though there are clear divides by voting intention. Labour voters are significantly more likely to oppose ending DEI initiatives or banning TikTok, while Reform voters are more likely to support banning trans athletes and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement.
There is broad agreement that the tech, finance and customer service sectors will be the most impacted by AI, but few think their own sector has been affected much yet.
Furthermore, most people, both the public and UK Business Leaders, are bullish that their current skills will still be relevant in 5 years.
Public Pulse monitors UK opinion on the critical topics that affect market conditions and consumer behaviour.
One of the advantages of running our own public-facing research is the freedom to explore innovative methods we can later apply to client work. In our Public Pulse reports, we set out to better understand public attitudes toward current issues, political leaders, and the government—without relying solely on scales or closed questions. We wanted a more personal, qualitative flavour.
This approach allows respondents to speak in their own words, providing richer insights than traditional survey formats, which force them to pick from pre-coded lists or use scales to judge predetermined characteristics. But it also presents a practical challenge: analysing thousands of open-ended responses efficiently and effectively.
We considered various options across AI, text analytics and manual coding, but decided to explore something more advanced—topic modelling.
In Public Pulse we ask the UK general public: What are the two to three most important issues facing the country, and why?
The top two issues will surprise no one:
But here’s where topic modelling adds real value. When we say people talk about “the economy,” what exactly do we mean? With traditional coding, responses are grouped under broad labels that can hide nuance. Topic modelling lets us dig deeper.
Our analysis revealed three distinct themes within the broad “economy” category: economic inequality, wage stagnation, and rising prices & inflation.
The chart shows that economic inequality is the largest of the three clusters, and with relatively low levels of overlap with the other two. However, there is plenty of crossover between the other two themes, which means many people raise both points when they answer the question.
The analysis does not stop there, this approach means we can quickly and easily summarise each thematic group. For example:
It makes sense for people worried about wage stagnation to also be concerned about rising prices and inflation – both are deeply connected. But what stood out was how distinct the inequality cluster was. This suggests a specific segment is concerned about the wealth divide and its overall impact on society – a finding that could have been missed by other techniques.
This method offers several advantages over traditional analysis:
And we can do more! In the next edition of Public Pulse, we’ll show you how we can take these sub-themes and use them as ersatz segmentation on key issues.
Public Pulse monitors UK opinion about politics, the economy and the major issues affecting the nation. It isn’t just a typical quick poll about consumer confidence. It is rich and robust intelligence on factors that affect every business and individual in the UK.
Free reports are sent to subscribers monthly.
Some see education as tightly bound to a set curriculum, relying heavily on rote learning. There’s a case for this: standardised exams make it easier for universities and employers to compare students fairly. Rote learning, when led by skilled teachers, can be efficient, guiding students directly to the ‘right answer’ without the distractions of open-ended exploration.
But the landscape is shifting. Our research shows that parents increasingly value innovation in education. For international schools in particular, this isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s a key differentiator. Our annual brand equity survey consistently finds that an “innovative approach to learning and child development” is one of the strongest drivers behind parents recommending a school.
But what type of innovation are parents looking for?
We asked parents what some of the innovative approaches to learning and child development they have been most impressed by. The Federation of British International Schools in Asia (FOBISIA) promotes British-international education for various schools in Asia, and, at their recent business conference in Bangkok, we reported on our findings, specifically on innovation, and convened round table discussions around how schools can generate additional revenue.
The question was asked according to the stage of schooling the parent currently had their child enrolled. For primary years, the innovative teaching techniques or approaches highlight a preference for complete, diverse approaches to primary school education, integrating modern technology with traditional and experiential learning techniques, plus managing English as a Second Language (ESL).
Some of the specific examples include the use of open and flexible classroom designs, outdoor learning, play-based and problem-solving over traditional academic approaches, rotating schedules to break from routines, and ‘thoughtful use of technology’. Other ideas included learning through mixed-age groups and co-teaching, especially in bilingual contexts. Even at these younger ages, parents look for leadership programmes to be integrated into the curriculum to build the confidence and social skills of children.
For secondary years, parent feedback highlights a preference for a modern, innovative approach to secondary education that emphasises flexibility, creativity, critical thinking, real-world application, and languages. A more innovative curriculum can include business and real-world applications, STEM (including design elements), and more concept or project-based learning.
To enhance language skills, some parents would like to see subjects such as mathematics, geography, and history taught in multiple languages, promoting bilingual or multilingual education.
We have also started research to understand how parents would like to see the use of AI in schools and how this should be taught to children. Our initial exploratory research with parents shows that most parents see a role for AI in the operational management of schools, or reducing the administrative burdens of staff, but some are more cautious about its use in the classroom.
AI should serve as a tool to augment human judgment, to assist & enhance but not to automate entirely. Applications that parents want to see AI use are in AI-marking for quantifiable answers. However, they state that human input is crucial for qualitative assessment of students’ critical thinking and nuanced arguments that AI cannot fully grasp.
Parents also see a role for AI algorithms being used to analyse data on student learning styles, academic performance, and social dynamics to suggest optimal groupings. But human oversight is important in the development of empathy through cross-cultural interactions that are not easily quantifiable and require human input to ensure diversity.
Some institutions are now using BOT teachers or lecturers, and parents appreciate their potential for personalised instruction, 24/7 availability, and support from Large Language Models (LLMs) trained in specific subjects. However, many parents also express concern that AI lacks empathy and the nuanced understanding needed for meaningful learning and personal development. They worry that BOT teachers could dehumanise education and mark a slippery slope toward replacing human educators.
Our initial research shows that parents certainly see a role of AI in education, but there are many concerns over its use. For this reason, we will be undertaking more research into parents’ expectations of AI use in schools in our upcoming International Schools Brand Equity & Market Insights study in September this year.
Learn more:
The economy and cost of living continue to be the main issues facing the UK, with job scarcity, economic insecurity and rising prices all major concerns.
Above median income and University educated members of the public regard the economy as the main issue. Poorer and non-University educated people say it’s the cost of living.
Concerns about international affairs & conflict rose significantly this month, almost certainly as a response to the start of the Trump Presidency and the policies being discussed regarding Ukraine and tariffs.
People are worried about an increase in global conflict, worsening economy, and whether the US can be trusted as an ally.
While the public are very negative about the economy, the UK’s Business Decision Makers are far more positive that the government has policies in place that will improve the economic situation for their business, sector and country overall.
Business Decision Makers share a lot in common with the above median income/University educated, including their support for Labour.
Looking across the issues that the public think are the most important facing the UK, the most startling finding is that (at an overall level) there is very little confidence that the government is able to deal with them. While some people (notable the above median income and the University educated) are more positive, the amount of confidence that things can change is low.
Given the top-of-mind associations for the main political parties and their leaders are overwhelmingly negative, this should not be a surprise.
While our polling puts Labour and Reform in a statistical dead-heat, it was clear on May 1st that Reform had momentum and was able to turn that into local electoral gains.
Significant societal divisions exist – Labour is supported by the wealthier and better educated. Reform by the poorer and less well-educated – the traditional labour heartland (rather than the traditional Tory one). The parallels to US voter patterns are harder and harder to ignore.
Public Pulse monitors UK opinion on the critical topics that affect market conditions and consumer behaviour:
This isn’t just your typical quick poll about consumer confidence. It is rich and robust intelligence on factors that affect every business and individual in the UK.
Reports are sent to subscribers monthly.
Back in November, I wrote an article where I looked at the attitudes of senior financial decision-makers from SMEs in the UK to the budget, analysing their reaction to what was published in the budget and their thoughts about the government and politics more widely. One of the things I included was a comparison of the voting intent of these business leaders’ vs the general public overall. Back then my compare/contrast was using Opinium’s data, but I am now repeating the exercise using our own Public Pulse data.
Public Pulse monitors UK opinion about politics, the economy and the major issues facing the country. We’ll be making the data available to end clients and brands every month.
To re-cap on public voting intent – Public Pulse has, over the last four months, seen Reform rising from 18% in November to 25% in February, a rise that mirrors Labour’s fall from 30% to 25%. The other parties have changed little over this period, despite Kemi Badenoch becoming leader of the Tories and Sir Ed Davey trying hard to take advantage of Conservative confusion to boost the Liberal Democrats.
What is fascinating though is that while Labour have dipped and Reform continued to rise among the general public, among the business community support for Labour in February 2025 is higher than where it was in November 2024 (37% vs 31%). Even more surprising is that Reform is pretty much where they were (18% to 19%).
How to explain this? For a start, 1 in 3 business leaders are satisfied with the performance of Sir Keir Starmer (32%) and Rachel Reeves (33%) in their respective roles. While more may be dissatisfied (46% and 40%) respectively, this still means that a sizeable minority are happy with their performance, with little change from September 2024 when we last asked this question. Looking across the polling of other companies shows that public opinion on Starmer or Reeves is far more negative than this.
More vitally though, is that business leaders are a lot more positive about the policies the government has in place, or is developing, to improve the country’s economic interests.
To take two examples, more business leaders agree than disagree (48% to 28%) that the government has policies that will improve the economic prospects of the business or organisation they work for. Similarly, more business leaders agree than disagree (47% to 27%) that the government has policies that will improve the economic prospects of the UK as a whole. In contrast, the general public is hugely more likely to disagree than agree, especially on the latter. While business leaders in the UK may not all be fans of the Labour government and its leadership, more of them seem to think that the government has the policies in place to improve things, and for now, this translates into continued support for Labour.
There are some differences by sector that are worth discussing. The Retail and Services sectors have traditionally been stalwart Labour supporters, and this remains true. What is fascinating though is that the Construction sector, previously very Tory, seems to have swung behind the Labour Party over the past four months (+20 points to 42%). This is mirrored by a similar fall in Reform support in the Construction sector (-12 points). The Labour Party’s messaging towards this sector is clearly achieving cut-through.
Among the right-wing opposition parties, the Tories and Reform have split the vote of the Manufacturing sectors, but the Tories retain a significant lead in the Service sector. Meanwhile, Reform has the edge when it comes to Construction and Retail. That said, it is only in the Manufacturing sector where either party come close to threatening Labour’s level of popularity.
That last point is an important one given how Labour support has held up among business leaders. If Labour can continue as they have done, and if business leaders maintain their faith that government policy is taking the country and its economy in (roughly) the right direction, then Labour’s support may well prove to be resilient, at least in the short to medium term (and assuming no mishaps). In this case, it will take real effort, or some form of event, for the Conservatives or Reform to make a dent in Labour’s support among business leaders. This will leave them fighting over the same pool of potential support, rather than expanding their appeal significantly. As ever, we shall see what happens.
These findings offer a small preview of the Public Pulse report, available monthly from late April. It will also include insights such as top issues facing the UK, confidence in the Government’s ability to deal with them and a comparison between business leaders and the general public.
Now that we’re tracking the issues facing the country through Public Pulse, it’s only a short step to tracking voting intention.
Public Pulse monitors UK opinion about politics, the economy and the major issues facing the country. We’ll be making the data available to end clients and brands every month.
Our Public Pulse polling, based on those who plan to vote and have voted (or were too young to vote) in the last election, over the last four months has Reform rising from 18% in November to 25% in February, a rise that mirrors Labour’s fall from 30% to 25% over the same time. The other parties have changed little over the past four months, which says a lot about the impact that Kemi Badenoch has had on Tory fortunes since she became leader in November.
There are two axes of analysis that are interesting to look at here. The first is voting intent by gender: among men Reform is in the top spot, having edged ahead of Labour back in January (26% vs 23% in Feb 2024). Among women, the story is very different indeed, Labour, while down from 34% to 28% over the last four months, is still the top choice for women voters and its only in Feb that Reform has begun to be in a position to threaten that.
Of course, Labour can still firmly rely on the university-educated – fully a third of them (34%) are still committed Labour voters. This is in comparison to just 19% of the non-university educated, who are as firmly Reform (32%) as the university-educated are Labour.
A key focus here, as we do a lot of work in the banking, finance and luxury goods sectors is looking at the population split by above/below average (median) personal income (c. £37,000). Support for Labour is falling among those who are above average income, from 39% in Dec to 25% now. And over the last month support for Reform has jumped from 14% to 23%. Those below average income favour Reform (26%) over Labour (21%). The Tories are stuck at the 1/5 mark for both groups, just as they are overall.
These falls in support for Labour will be no surprise to anyone who pays attention to the news or has opened a newspaper in the last six months, but the scale of the unpopularity is quite interesting. We asked the general public to tell us, in two or three words, how they would describe the government and nearly half of the respondents gave us fairly general and non-specific comments (e.g., “I just don’t like them” type answers), 32% said the government was incompetent and/or inefficient and 21% said they were corrupt and/or dishonest. Only 14% (rising to 40% of Labour voters) gave positive feedback on the government, with 9% saying that the government displayed good leadership and trustworthiness. While it is usual for people to grumble about the government, the scale of antipathy, given they had won a landslide election less than a year ago, says a lot about British attitudes towards the government and politics these days.
We asked a similar question about the Labour Party and Sir Keir Starmer – among the public overall the five top response themes for “words to describe the Labour Party” were negative – a litany of concepts like “bad reputation”, “dishonest”, “incompetent” etc.
The Prime Minister himself fared a bit better – while the top three response themes are negative (incompetent, dishonest and bad character traits – in descending order) around one in ten still thought him to be competent and of good character (12% and 8%). Both of those scores more than doubled among Labour voters (25% and 22% respectively) which indicates that he retains his core support.
As ever, it will be interesting to see how these polls play out over the coming months, and we plan to do deep dives into attitudes towards Kemi Badenoch, Sir Ed Davey and Nigel Farage (and their respective parties) over the coming months.
These findings offer a small preview of the Public Pulse report, available monthly from late April. It will also include insights such as top issues facing the UK, confidence in the Government’s ability to deal with them and a comparison between business leaders and the general public.
Earlier this month, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a review on how financial firms treat vulnerable customers. One key finding from the review showed that while many firms are making good progress, vulnerable consumers may not consistently experience the same positive outcomes as other customers.
But what’s the customer’s perspective on this? Throughout February 2025, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of adults in the UK to get their views.
Within this article, we’ll compare the views of current vulnerable consumers to those without identified vulnerabilities (as defined by the FCA definition of vulnerability).
While the FCA encourages financial institutions to identify customer vulnerabilities, consumers are not obligated to disclose this information if they don’t want to.
Our findings show that only one in three UK adults would be likely to disclose information relating to a condition or something happening in their life which impacts them day-to-day. Consumers with vulnerabilities relating to health or life circumstances are more likely to disclose this information than those with vulnerabilities relating to financial resilience or capability.
Put simply, many consumers are not aware of the ways their bank can support them. Only 8% of the UK population with current accounts are aware of the additional services their banks offer to support those who might be going through a difficult time or have specific needs. Notably, younger consumers aged 18–24 year-olds were the most likely to be unsure whether their bank offered any help
This support is often cited in banks providing financial advice and counselling, payment assistance or signposting to third-party help organisations.
But financial firms may be happy to hear that distrust is not a leading concern for non-disclosure with over half of consumers feeling it is not relevant to share or unaware they could.
More worryingly, however, over a third of consumers would not disclose either because they would feel uncomfortable or would be worried about financial repercussions.
Only 26% of UK adults with a current account reported that they had been given an opportunity by their main bank to declare any personal difficulties. On a positive note, this figure increases slightly to 30% among vulnerable consumers in contrast to 21% for those without identified vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, could financial organisations provide consumers with greater opportunities to declare?
Of those that are given the opportunity, the picture isn’t great. Only 1 in 3 consumers who declared personal difficulties to their bank were met with support. This raises an important question; does anyone who discloses difficulties to their bank qualify as being vulnerable in some capacity? Perhaps, one to discuss another time.
The key takeaways are simple.
The work financial providers are already doing to improve support for consumers is admirable but it will fall short if consumers don’t feel a difference in the experience their bank provides. More needs to be done to improve awareness of the support available to consumers and ensure they get the right outcome for their situation.
We have vast experience in helping financial organisations understand their customer experience and how to improve customer outcomes. We also often work with vulnerable audiences and sensitive subjects.
Our Moments of Truth Benchmark study allows financial providers to benchmark their competitive performance and offers the ability to understand the views of vulnerable customers too.
Want to learn more?
It’s no secret that today’s young adults are facing a tougher economic landscape than previous generations. In fact, a nationally representative sample of the UK population reveals that all age groups agree on one thing: 25-year-olds were better off a generation ago than they are today.
Interestingly, it’s not just young people themselves who feel this way. Older generations (often stereotyped as being unsympathetic) are actually more likely to agree that young adults have it harder today. Silents and Boomers have a net -24 perception of young adults’ economic situation, while even Gen Z, though slightly more optimistic, is still net negative at -7.
So, what’s driving this pessimism?
It’s easy to see why people feel this way.
This financial burden is having a profound impact on the traditional life milestones that once marked young adulthood – moving out, buying a home, getting married, and starting a family.
The data speaks for itself:
Similarly, the average age of leaving home and buying property has also risen sharply, while the average age of first childbirth has increased from 27 to 31 years. Fertility rates have plummeted to just 1.44 children per woman, meaning the next generation will be only two-thirds the size of the previous one.
The big question is whether this shift reflects changing personal priorities or economic constraints.
On the one hand, younger generations may genuinely be less interested in starting families. When asked about the decline in the UK fertility rate, slightly more of the younger respondents viewed it as a positive trend. Some see it as reducing pressure on the environment and the economy.
On the other hand, for those who view the declining birth rate negatively, financial struggles are the primary reason given. The most common response is that it’s simply too expensive to have children in today’s economic climate. For many, the cost of raising a family is the difference between being financially stable and struggling.
These societal shifts have significant repercussions for governments, businesses, and social trends.
For marketers:
For governments:
For society:
Ultimately, whether the trend towards smaller families continues depends on whether young people genuinely prefer it or feel forced into it by their circumstances.
Unless the economic landscape changes – through rising incomes, lower living costs, or greater financial support for families – Britain’s ‘quarter-life crisis’ may only deepen, reshaping the country’s demographic and social fabric for years to come.
Learn more:
Despite the growth of Aldi and Lidl, traditional UK supermarket brands, Tesco and Sainsbury’s have been performing strongly in recent years with both increasing their market share since 2022*.
In such a fiercely competitive sector, this really is quite an achievement.
So, how have they managed to do this? It’s not due to being cheaper; price data from our sister company, ESA Retail, reveals that Tesco, and especially Sainsbury’s, are considerably more expensive than Lidl and Aldi.
One factor could be that consumers tend to overestimate Aldi’s prices. However, the most notable insight from our research is that Tesco and Sainsbury’s are perceived as offering better quality relative to their price, allowing them to justify a significant price premium.
This perception of quality (along with a broad range of products and established loyalty programmes), makes both Tesco and Sainsbury’s formidable brands.
In contrast, Asda and Morrisons appear to be finding things tougher. Their perceived ‘quality’ is only slightly higher than Aldi and Lidl meaning that they inevitably find themselves competing more on price – Asda has in fact recently announced price cuts on its core range with its “Big Jan Price Drop”.
Using pricing data from ESA Retail (part of the BDRC Group) we’ve looked at the actual price of typical Christmas day goods from a selection of UK supermarkets.
The basket includes a mix of own label products and brands (and sometimes sizes/ weights can vary a little between supermarket). Prices do not include any clubcard discount, but do include any promotional prices that were running at the time of data collection (first week of November 2024).
The good news for hard-pressed consumers is that actual prices are generally a little lower than perceived prices, averaging 6% cheaper.
At BVA BDRC we have collected information on how much consumers perceive this basket of typical Christmas day goods would cost at each supermarket. This is taken from a nationally representative sample of 1,000 interviews conducted in November 2024. To make the exercise as accurate as possible we not only listed the products available in each store, but we also showed respondents an image of the ‘Christmas basket’ of goods from each supermarket.
This is especially true for Aldi (which has grown rapidly in recent years) where the actual price is 16% lower than the perceived price. This may be a direct result of many competitors price matching with Aldi on selected products.
For Sainsburys actual and perceived prices are quite similar, and for Waitrose the actual price is actually more expensive than perceptions.
Customers of the relevant supermarkets are unsurprisingly more accurate at guessing the correct price – although it should be noted that Sainsburys users actually overestimate the price – suggesting that price is not such a strong driver for Sainsbury’s customers. Linked to this, Sainsbury’s have recently announced they are increasing wages on the shop floor, which could be an angle for attracting more talent and potentially creating a better customer experience in store.
We also asked a nationally representative sample to rate the quality of the ‘Christmas basket’ products from different supermarkets.
When we look at those scoring at least 8 out of 10, Waitrose was seen as providing the highest quality products with Lidl (closely followed by Aldi) the lowest quality.
Tesco and Sainsbury’s (the two leading supermarkets by market share) score relatively highly for quality (over 50% rate their products as ‘high quality’) compared to perceived and actual prices.
Ultimately, we look at brand strength through two key lenses:
By blending real price data with consumer opinions, we get a well-rounded picture of how brands perform. On these measures, Tesco and Sainsbury’s stand out as two of the strongest players in an ultra-competitive market.
If you’re curious, we’ve got more data on:
Looking ahead, we’re gearing up for a bigger study that will:
*Source Kantar World Panel
Learn more:
I’ve never really done New Year’s resolutions, especially not in the last few years. I have found that adding extra steps into my life at the start of the year when I’m already filled with a deep dislike of the weather and darkness does little to improve my mood. That said I know plenty of eager people who embrace the chance of personal betterment that a New Year’s resolution offers, and who relish the challenge. On the other hand, I also know plenty of people who abandon their resolutions after a few months (or weeks) only to repeat it all the following year.
Intrigued by all this after a chat with other people in the office, I thought it would be interesting to explore it all in a bit more detail. So, throughout January, we asked the UK public about New Year’s resolutions to uncover what people do, and whether they stick with it.
The very first finding was a surprise – a quarter of the UK population, 25%, said they had made a New Year’s resolution this year. Certainly, I would have guessed higher, but it may just be because of the stereotype that those who do New Year’s resolutions tend to be fairly vocal about it.
What is also surprising is that those making New Year’s resolutions skew towards the young (43% of 18-24s and 42% of 25-34s), those with household incomes above the national average (49%) and Londoners (45%). Throw in the fact that they are more likely to be Labour voters (36%).
Looking down the list of resolutions made, the bulk fall into predictable categories, with health, fitness, and financial goals paramount. Interestingly women are more likely to prioritise health-related resolutions (58% compared to 50% overall) and men are keener on environmental ones than the public overall (25% vs 18%). Other than that, the types of resolutions made are similar across all demographic groups.
The really interesting thing is that people who make New Year’s resolutions don’t stop at one, oh no. They go further. The average number is 3, rising to a quite staggering (in my opinion) 3.6 different resolutions among those with higher-than-average household income. Where they get the time to do this is something I’d love to explore in the future.
We also asked the public whether they made a resolution last year, and 21% claimed to have done so, in a similar pattern to this year. Positively 65% of those who said they made a New Year’s resolution in 2024 said they achieved their goals, which is good news for those who have embarked on a similar journey this year. There is an interesting gender split here – men are more likely to report that they succeeded in 2024 (73% vs 65% overall) while women are more likely to say they failed (42% vs 35%).
Of those who failed the main reasons given were that there was too much distraction or stress in life to carry on (40%), life was too busy (30%) or that they lost motivation (28%). The clear lesson here is that simplifying your life and eliminating distractions is the secret to success, and probably should be a common New Year’s resolution itself.
And of those who gave up in 2024, how long did they last? Well, 12% abandoned their New Year’s resolution in January. Over a third, 36%, had given up by the end of March, and 70% had given up by the end of June.
Whether they count as New Year’s resolutions is debatable, but two of the more commonly discussed post-Xmas changes of behaviour are “Dry January” and “Veganuary”. Most people are aware of both (85% have heard of the former, 54% of the latter), but only a small proportion take part. All in all, 15% of Brits said they are doing Dry January, although a further 13% said they might join in part. The Dry January crowd skew younger (20-24% of those aged 18-44) but otherwise this cuts across all demographic groups. In contrast, Veganuary, which 7% of the population claimed to take part in, is very much more common among the “metropolitan urban elite” crowd – 15% of the 25-44, 14% of Londoners and 15% of those with above national average personal income.
Amusingly, given the stereotype of people doing Dry January telling everyone about it, 81% of us say they know someone doing Dry January, and 64% say they know someone doing Veganuary.
Overall, the picture is an interesting one. New Year’s resolutions seem to be something that younger, wealthier, and more urban people engage in more, and (are more likely to succeed at. Given the expense associated, rightly or wrongly, with self-betterment activities this makes sense. Gym memberships, diets, savings, and new hobbies can be expensive, and take disposable income to achieve. We can see in the data that people with above national average personal income are more likely to say they achieved their 2024 New Year’s resolutions than everyone else (74% vs 65%), and those who earn under £20,000 are far more likely to report that they failed (62% vs 35% overall).
So, all the best to those striving towards their 2025 goal right now, especially those at the lower end of the income spectrum. I hope none of you are being distracted by those enthusiastically re-embracing booze and meat after Dry January and Veganuary.
Learn more:
If you follow sports, use social media, or even just keep up with current affairs, chances are you’ve come across something about American football (or the National Football League – NFL) in the past week.
Maybe it was the buzz around rookie sensation Jayden Daniels, Taylor Swift cheering on her partner at a Kansas City Chiefs game, or, most importantly, the upcoming Super Bowl LIX, where the Philadelphia Eagles will face off against the Kansas City Chiefs in New Orleans.
That got us thinking: how does the UK public feel about the NFL? Do we love it, hate it, or even care about Super Bowl Sunday at all?
Our findings suggest a fair amount of interest, with 19% of the UK population following the NFL during the regular season. That figure jumps to 26% among men, but the most notable trend is the strong interest from younger audiences; 24% of 18–24-year-olds and 31% of 25–34-year-olds follow the NFL, compared to just 14% of 55–64-year-olds.
But here’s the real question: who in the UK is actually staying up past midnight on Sunday to watch Super Bowl LIX? While the NFL has a decent following, does the Super Bowl attract a broader audience?
According to our survey, 12% of the UK public plan to watch Super Bowl LIX. But certain groups are more likely to tune in:
Clearly, the NFL and Super Bowl generate significant interest in the UK, particularly among younger audiences. But could that figure be even higher?
When we asked UK-based NFL followers which teams they support, neither of this year’s Super Bowl contenders cracked the top three. Instead, the Chicago Bears, Buffalo Bills, and Dallas Cowboys were the most popular choices. Could the number of UK viewers have been higher if the Bills hadn’t lost to the Chiefs in the playoffs? We’ll never know for sure.
What we do know, however, is that nearly half (49%) of UK-based NFL followers want to see more regular-season games held in London beyond the current three. That number jumps to 57% among those with children—an interesting angle for the NFL as it looks to expand its UK presence.
The NFL has built a steady following in the UK, with a growing appetite for more games on this side of the Atlantic. As for Super Bowl LIX, let’s hope there aren’t too many tired eyes in the office on Monday morning!
Learn more:
It occurred to me a few months ago that I have been working in or adjacent to the hotel sector for a quarter of century and, in that time, I’ve been fortunate enough to meet and work with some truly incredible people. I decided to reach out to some of those who had inspired me the most and get their views on what makes it such a special sector. Plan A was to produce a long-read article summarising their opinions but a number of the responses and conversations were so interesting that I started to think they deserved to be published in their own right…
As we wrap up another year, the festive season offers us more than just an opportunity to indulge in mince pies and mulled wine. It’s a time to reflect on the power of togetherness, and few things bring teams together quite like a good Christmas party!
Our latest Business Opinion Omnibus survey reveals that 58% of businesses are hosting a staff Christmas party this year. Among businesses that have grown in 2024 or are predicting growth for 2025, that number jumps to nearly 70%.
Recent news has been full of stories about businesses holding back on parties this year, especially following the recent budget. Meanwhile, in the USA, the prime-time comedy show Saturday Night Live delivered one of their signature sketches—a spot-on parody of a stereotypical Christmas party that many would relate to, perhaps more than we’d like to admit.
However, amidst these gloomy or tongue in cheek takes, I would argue that in an era where hybrid and remote working dominate some sectors, the annual Christmas party carries more weight than ever before. It’s not just a chance to let off steam; it’s an essential moment to build connections. Companies are more than the sum of their par–s – they thrive on the bonds their teams create. A party, whether it’s filled with dancing until the early hours, karaoke competitions, games and quizzes (or even the occasional photocopier mishap!), helps forge memories that unify teams for years to come.
There is a very real benefit to creating such memories; behavioural science teaches us that these emotional peak moments help to foster a sense of loyalty to a brand, regardless of whether you are a customer or an employee. According to Kahneman’s peak-end rule, people tend to judge an experience based on its most intense moment (the peak) and its conclusion, rather than the entire duration. By intentionally designing meaningful, positive peak moments—such as celebrating achievements, fostering growth, or creating shared experiences—organisations can elevate employee engagement, satisfaction, and long-term loyalty.
So, if investing in a party is worth it, how much are companies actually paying?
Our research shows that companies are spending an average of £94 per head, with mid-size businesses leading the pack at £116. Regionally, the North tops the charts at £102 per head, while the South comes in lower at £87.50. Naturally, companies that grew this year are more likely to invest in celebrations, averaging £99.55 per head, but even those whose performance declined are still spending £81.44 per head.
But it’s not all about the budget. The way companies celebrate is evolving, thanks to the rise of the “moderation generation.” Stories of alcohol-fuelled antics are becoming less common, replaced by events focused on games, entertainment, and shared experiences. This shift doesn’t just reflect changing social norms; it’s also a practical move. Employers have a responsibility to ensure their events are inclusive and safe, and low or no-alcohol options help achieve that.
Our survey brought many great stories out into the open. One company surprised its team with a karaoke competition, another saw a CEO moonlighting as a bespoke cocktail creator, and a few even witnessed the start of lifelong partnerships on the festive dance floor. These moments highlight what makes Christmas parties so special – they’re not just events, they’re the glue that binds teams together.
As we head into 2025, we know the year may bring challenges, but investing in your people, through moments of celebration and connection, is never wasted. Parties and social events might not be the only ingredient for a happier, more productive workforce, but they’re an important one.
So, whether your team is belting out “All I Want for Christmas Is You” or bonding over a round of pub trivia, remember: these moments matter. They strengthen the foundations of your team, boost morale, and set the tone for the year ahead. And that, in my opinion, is worth raising a glass to. Cheers!
Learn more:
In today’s fast-evolving hospitality world, staying relevant is a game unto itself. One of the most exciting ways hotels are levelling up? Gamification – a creative twist that uses game mechanics in non-game environments to increase engagement. It’s been a hit in tech and entertainment, and now it’s reshaping hospitality too. This isn’t about turning your hotel lobby into an arcade but about crafting experiences that captivate and reward. With competition heating up, the real question isn’t whether gamification will shape the future of hospitality – but how?
Gamification isn’t about flashy games; it’s about bringing an extra layer of fun and interaction to the guest experience. Picture this: a wellness-themed stay where guests earn points for attending a morning yoga class or ordering from a health-focused menu. It’s a whole new way of engaging guests, and more importantly, of building loyalty. Now, guests aren’t just visiting—they’re participating.
Take MGM Resorts’ MyVegas Slots as a prime example. Guests play casino-style games through the app, earning points redeemable for real-world rewards like hotel stays, VIP show access, and exclusive discounts. It’s playful, it’s interactive, and it’s effective. People come back for the rewards, and along the way, they build lasting brand loyalty.
In the past, loyalty programmes were simple: stay more, earn more points. But today’s travellers want more—especially Millennials and Gen Z, who value connection and personal investment. Loyalty programmes now blend personalisation, pride, and play, transforming transactional loyalty into something more meaningful.
Imagine a guest who earns perks not only for staying at the hotel but also for exploring hidden spots around the property or completing unique on-site challenges. This isn’t just about points; it’s about creating memories. And it pays off—studies show that gamified loyalty members are 22% more likely to stick with a brand. Furthermore, gamification in loyalty programme can see up to 15% increase in brand awareness, 47% in customer engagement and 27% in customer retention. For hotels, that’s loyalty at a whole new level.
Guests aren’t the only ones who benefit from gamification; employees do too. Training, a traditionally dry process, can be a dynamic experience. Hilton Garden Inn’s Ultimate Team Play training immerses employees in virtual guest interactions, requiring them to make choices that impact real-world SALT (Satisfaction and Loyalty Tracking) scores. This gamified approach assesses service skills, making training both engaging and practical. It’s a simple idea with profound impacts: gamified training turns learning into an experience, helping employees stay motivated and sharp.
But of course, every game has its challenges. Implementing gamification can be costly, especially for smaller hotels. And then there’s the risk of “game fatigue,” where the novelty wears off. Too many points, perks, and prizes can start to feel forced. Finding the right balance is key—integrating gamification without losing sight of the hospitality that guests expect.
Privacy is another hurdle. Gamified experiences are often driven by data, and consumers today are more protective of their information than ever. A survey found that 85% of consumers worry about data privacy. Hotels must tread carefully, balancing engagement with transparency. After all, no one wants to feel like their personal information is the price of admission.
Hospitality is about experiences, and gamification takes that a step further, adding layers of interactivity and personalisation. From loyalty programmes to employee engagement, gamification is more than a trend—it’s a winning cheat code. And as guest expectations evolve, it’s clear gamification will play a pivotal role in the industry’s future.
A few weeks ago, I wrote an article about Starmer’s first 100 days in power from the POV of Business Leaders. Overall, it was a positive story, certainly compared to general public opinion. However, I stressed that support within the business community was split. With Retail and Services being more pro-Labour than Manufacturing and Construction and with the Budget on the horizon, the Retail sector was nervous about tax increases.
Now that Business leaders have had time to review the budget, monitor the associated media circus and assess the impact it will have on them, has anything changed?
The key finding is that Business leaders are badly split on whether the Budget will have a positive or negative impact on… well pretty much everything. At the overall level (give-or-take 4 percentage points each way) a third of Business leaders think the budget will have a negative impact on them, their business, their sector, their region and the UK overall. Around a third disagree and say the budget will have a positive impact, and another third(ish) are neutral.
Comparing opinions to a similar question asked as part of the 100 Days of Starmer piece back in September (note: not identical wording – the comparison should be regarded as indicative at best) shows that the direction of travel is negative. The sense that government economic policy and the Budget will have a negative impact has increased, while the sense that it might have a positive impact is down.
Furthermore, the differences in opinion by sector are stark. Taking just two of the metrics measured, the impact on the business you work for and on the UK as a whole, shows that business leaders from the manufacturing and construction sectors are far more negative about the impact of the Budget than business leaders from Retail or Services. The former two sectors are net negative in their perception of impact, while the latter two sectors are, like the overall findings, fairly evenly split between negative, neutral and positive.
Looking back at September, our data shows that when it comes to impact on the business they work for, manufacturing and construction have become more negative (35% to 53% and 25% to 43% respectively) while Retail and Services are notably less positive (48% to 36% and 43% to 33% respectively) – with the same pattern being repeated in terms of impact on the UK as a whole. It certainly looks like all four sectors, and business leaders overall, have moved en masse to more negative viewpoint regarding Labour economic policy, and while Labour can still (just about) say that Retail and Services are net neutral in sentiment, they have also certainly lost the argument (for now at least) among Construction and Manufacturing.
We can assess the scale of this shift by looking at voting intent, comparing data taken straight after the Budget and comparing against data collected just before the election in June. Back then the voting intent of business leaders was broadly comparable (vs YouGov polling data) to the general public, although support for Reform was notably lower among business leaders than the public overall.
Now, using Opinium’s polling data for our comparison against the general public (their fieldwork dates lined up to ours – see 13/11/24), shows that business leader voting intent is strikingly similar to the general public’s overall, with only a few percent separating them. Notably this means that support for Reform among business leaders, formerly at 11% in June, is now at 19% and very similar to the 21% they are polling nationally.
Looking at the change in voting intent in detail and looking across the key sectors represented in the BVA BDRC Business Omnibus, is very revealing. Support for Labour has fallen at more or less the same level (a range of -7 to -11 percentage points) across all four sectors. Support for the Conservatives is mostly flat… except among Retail, who had been very Labour back in June, where support rose a startling +16 points.
Reform on the other hand have seen an increase in support from all sectors, but their overall success over the last five months is down to the +12 and +20 increase in voting intent from the Manufacturing and Construction sectors respectively.
While we cannot say with certainty that business leaders who supported Labour in June are now supporting Reform, the changes we can see are for Labour and Reform only – support for the Conservatives is flat (except for Retail).
The first is that, while business leaders are clearly not that supportive of current government economic policy or the Budget, the wider picture is actually fairly positive.As Lloyds Banking Group reported (using data from BVA BDRC) – the overall confidence in the economy metric did fall by 3 points in November, and for the third month running. But it’s still above the survey’s long-term average, which means that the UK is ultimately in a positive position from a longer-term perspective. The results also suggest that while firms have mixed views about the economy, they think their businesses are in a good place to cope with any challenges they might face.
This view is backed up when we ask business leaders about their economic prospects for 2025… and they’re overwhelmingly positive. Of course, it’s in the nature of business leaders to be optimistic about the prospects of their own business, but you’d think that, if they were truly worried about the economy under Labour’s management, they might moderate their ambitions slightly – and not even manufacturing and construction have done so.
So overall, we can have broad confidence in the economy for now.
The second is that voting intent among business leaders seems to be far more in line with the general public than it was, for better or for worse. The Labour Party, with one eye on its economic policies going forward, are going to have to accept the fact that, while they still ahead in the polls overall and their support in Retail and Services is mostly intact, they have haemorrhaged support over the last few months, and that the big winners over that period are Reform.
Labour needs to take care not to lose more of the Retail sector to the Conservatives, and to try and understand the appeal, among the Construction sector in particular, for the economic arguments (or just the appeal) of Reform. While also hoping that Kemi Badenoch, who became leader of her party the week before this survey fielded, does not energise much support (or that it takes support from Reform).
That all said, we are still less than six months into Labour’s first year in office. There is a long way to go yet.
Learn more:
The Autumn Budget has brought renewed focus on how the UK balances its economic recovery with ambitious sustainability targets. With rising living costs affecting many households, the government faces the challenging task of supporting people financially while also making progress toward a greener future.
So, how did some of the budget’s transport measures hold up at addressing these dual concerns?
We wanted to look further into what UK adults are thinking and surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1755 UK adults to gauge their reaction to the transport-related measures from the Autumn budget.
One of the most notable decisions in the budget was the freeze on fuel duty until 2026. This move, which extends the existing 5p cut and cancels a planned inflation-linked rise, was widely supported by 3 in 4 UK adults. With the cost of living still affecting many, stabilising fuel prices offers immediate relief to households facing stretched budgets.
However, this measure raises critical questions about sustainability. By keeping fuel prices low, there’s a risk that it may encourage continued reliance on petrol and diesel vehicles rather than incentivising a shift to greener alternatives. At a time when the government is trying to promote cleaner transport and reduce carbon emissions, some argue that freezing fuel duty sends a mixed message.
One of the more contentious changes was the increase in the single bus fare cap from £2 to £3. This hike was met with frustration, as many see public transport as the backbone of sustainable urban mobility. Respondents pointed out that raising bus fares discourages people from using greener travel options, especially in the context of a cost-of-living crisis.
“If the government wants people to use their cars less, they should keep the fares low”
While this move may generate short-term revenue, it risks undermining efforts to reduce car usage and emissions. Affordable and accessible public transport is essential for achieving sustainability goals, particularly for those who rely on it as their primary means of transport.
“The rise of the bus fares from £2 to £3 is unfair because many travel by public transport 24/7 to get to work and back, and the cost of living is hitting many people hard”
The budget also committed funds to infrastructure projects like the HS2 tunnelling work and the TransPennine rail upgrade. These initiatives, while costly, are aimed at improving long-term transport sustainability by expanding rail networks and reducing road congestion.
Support for these projects was stronger in regions set to benefit directly, such as the West Midlands and London.
One of the few budget measures that drew support was the increased rates applied to flying, as Air Passenger Duty has fallen behind inflation, and private jets have been undertaxed. Although some felt the increase on regular air passengers was too high, the increase in tax on private jets was generally welcomed. This measure makes a positive step and is relatively minor in the views of UK adults.
The latest budget highlights the challenge of balancing immediate economic relief with long-term sustainability goals. On one hand, measures like the fuel duty freeze and road maintenance funding provide much-needed support during a cost-of-living crisis. On the other, some policies appear to conflict with the government’s climate commitments, especially when it comes to encouraging greener transport options. While investment into charging infrastructure is promised to local authorities, some respondents were disappointed in the lack of support for purchasing electric vehicles.
The bottom line: To strike the right balance, the government must take a more holistic approach that addresses both the financial needs of households and the urgent need for sustainable transport solutions.
As the UK faces the twin challenges of economic pressure and climate change, finding this balance will be key to ensuring that policies are both financially fair and environmentally forward-looking.
Learn more:
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)’s recent decision to ban advertisements by, amongst others, Sky and Nike is a particularly interesting one as it reminds me of the powers granted to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC) which received Royal Assent this May. The fact the ASA is “investigating the way firms used this kind of ‘online choice architecture” is something of a shot across the bows of anyone selling wares online that the authorities mean business and intend to use the powers bestowed upon them by UK law. It’s probably reasonable to assume they’ll do so gently at first, but with maximum penalties of 10% of turnover, it could become quite uncomfortable to fall foul of this.
As often tends to be the case, I got to thinking about hotels and how this might affect the sector I have worked in (or with) for what is now a quarter of a century (crikey!).
The largest of the players in this market are not based in the United Kingdom though, so why should they be concerned? Well, the reason is because this legislation has given the UK authorities the power to deem an organisation to have “Significant Market Status” if (amongst other conditions) its global turnover exceeds £25bn or the turnover it derives from UK-based consumers exceeds £1bn, with the CMA also to request the Secretary of State revise these if they are no longer “appropriate”. As well as this turnover condition,
The DMCC affects any organisation that is deemed to have “Significant Market Status” – with that designation made (by the CMA) if any one or more of the following is met.
The biggest change in the hotel sector in the last two decades, despite the emergence of Airbnb and the like, has been in how consumers purchase and book their rooms and the emergence of online intermediaries and aggregators. As well as competing on product, there is also competition both for and within booking channels and, as that becomes more intense, so the tactics used to influence booking and buying behaviour have evolved.
Nudging is a powerful tool for changing behaviour, and with great power comes… well, you know. It’s widely used by Governments and businesses and BVA Nudge Consulting helps clients design interventions where the outcome is that the organisation “wins”, the individual “wins” and society “wins”. (Or at least none of them loses). “Deceptive Nudges”, though, use the principles of Behavioural Science to steer consumers to suboptimal choices and although often not strictly illegal in and of themselves, they are certainly frowned upon by ethical practitioners and can very easily invoke the ire of consumers if detected.
As far back as 2019 the CMA was looking into how deceptive nudges are deployed in the online purchasing environment and forced 25+ online booking sites to change their conduct and marketing, while in 2022, the FCA called out BNPL providers for not making the terms of credit arrangements clear. Further, money experts including Martin Lewis and MPs like Tulip Siddiq (Economic Secretary to HM Treasury) have called for affordability checks to ensure consumers are borrowing appropriately. However, OTAs like Airbnb offer BNPL as an easily accessible alternative to paying in one lump sum.
If you use digital touchpoints – websites, email, apps, digital comms – to sell accommodation you can fall under this legislation and I think it’s reasonable to expect further scrutiny of anything that sets up choices for consumers – things like the order in which options are presented, paid rankings without clear disclosure and the prominent position of the lowest rate – when that applies only in somewhat restrictive circumstances, are things where you may need to check you are not deceiving consumers.
The Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA’s) Consumer Duty is a colossal piece of regulation that sets a significantly higher benchmark for consumer protection than any of its predecessors. With the deadline for closed products now passed, financial firms are obligated to show they’re taking the right action across the product spectrum which creates greater challenge than ever before.
Consumer Duty specifically identifies human psychology and behaviour as essential to consider when developing and providing financial products. But more than that, it specifically calls on financial firms to account for human psychology in customer journeys – making it vital to know both what and how people think.
With decades of expertise in financial research, underpinned by extensive knowledge in behavioural science, we are positioned to advise clients in a way that other data and insight companies are not. By benchmarking performance, testing communications, assessing products and services for ongoing improvement, we are helping clients to strengthen the support they provide across the board:
Blending disgnosis and cure in this way is an alchemy for a winning formula that ensures financial firms do not fall foul of what is expected of them.
In this six part series, you will discover short examples of how we are helping financial clients keep their foot on the gas with Consumer Duty.
Learn more:
The “first 100 days” trope is an interesting one in government. It was born out of the startling activity Franklin D. Roosevelt managed to achieve after he became President of the USA in 1933. In the midst of the Great Depression FDR managed to pass 15 major bills and 76 new laws in an attempt to revive the economy – a remarkable level of activity. Ever since, a president’s first 100 days in office has become an important yardstick for measuring performance and proactivity, and, as ever, where US political trends lead the UK tends to follow.
That said, many say this is a poor measure of success. For instance, the historian David Greenberg, in an article that came out around the time of Obama’s first 100 days in power, asserts that far too much attention is placed on a president’s (or any political leader’s) early days – saying that nothing can prepare someone for the demands and rigours of the highest office, so making too many judgements on early performance is potentially misleading.
Unfortunately, such judgments are always going to be made. As an article in the Harvard Business Review points out; “it’s not that a new President’s hundred days will either doom him to failure or guarantee his success. It’s that transitions are times when momentum builds or it doesn’t, when opinion about the new leader begin to crystallize. It’s a time when feedback loops – virtuous cycles or vicious ones – get established.”
With all that in mind, and with October 11th marking the 100th day since Sir Keir Starmer became Prime Minister and ended 14 years of Conservative power, now would be a good time to see what the UK business community thinks of the government’s performance so far.
Using our Business Opinion Omnibus, a monthly survey of 1200 financial decision-makers in a nationally representative sample of UK businesses, we can assess the views of business leaders about the government’s economic priorities and the level of leadership shown so far.
To set the scene– the priority issues that British businesses want the government to address are broadly the same as they were back in June, with energy prices still top of mind. Inflation and interest rates are still mentioned by a third of business leaders, but both are down 3 points since June. The manufacturing sector is the main champion of inflation being an issue with 38% saying it should be a priority for the government.
One interesting shift in the priority list is on tax levels; 30% think it should be one of the top priorities in September, up by 5 percentage points since June. With Chancellor Rachel Reeves publishing the Budget at the end of this month, and her previous comment “I think we will have to increase taxes in the Budget”, it’s safe to think that this issue will be top of mind for the rest of the year. It’s smaller businesses who think tax levels are a priority issue – 36% of those with 1-9 employees and 33% of those with 10-49.
In light of this, business leaders are still net positive about the impact Labour’s economic policies will have. While they are close to being split on whether the government’s policies will benefit them personally, over two-fifths agree that Labour’s policies will benefit their businesses, their sector and the region of the UK they live in. Beyond that, nearly half agree that Labour’s policies will benefit the UK as a whole.
Policies are one thing – good ideas alone don’t change the world – but do business leaders have faith that Labour has the leadership and the ability? Again, yes. Over two-fifths of business leaders in the UK agree that Labour has the ideas, the leadership and the ability to improve the economy. The manufacturing sector, who were the sector most likely to vote Conservative when we asked them back in June, are far more negative about Labour on all of these metrics.
Manufacturing aside, so far so good for Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Party. But what do business leaders think about the Prime Minister and the Chancellor at an individual level? Taking the Prime Minister first – nearly two-fifths (37%) of business leaders are satisfied with the way he is doing the job, but on the other hand, a similar proportion (36%) are dissatisfied. Around a quarter have no strong opinion, so there are plenty of people whose opinion could change things either way depending on how Sir Keir Starmer plays the next few months (and years). The picture for Rachel Reeves as Chancellor is more or less the same with 35% satisfied and 34% dissatisfied.
It is worth noting (again) that dissatisfaction with both Starmer and Reeves is highest among business leaders from manufacturing (44% and 46%) and construction (51% and 44%). The retail sector on the other hand is very satisfied with both – 47% for Starmer and 43% for Reeves.
This is one place where we can compare and contrast against public opinion. To take data from another polling agency, in this case, Ipsos, we can see that in data released on 23rd Sept, public opinion was far more negative about both the Prime Minister and Chancellor – no doubt driven by the deluge of negative media coverage that has emerged over the last few weeks. For Starmer, Ipsos report that over half(54%) are dissatisfied compared to 33% satisfied, with the stats for Rachel Reeves similar (46% dissatisfied vs 24% satisfied). For now, at least, it appears that Business leaders are more willing to wait and see what progress the new government can make on the issues that are important to them and have not been swayed by recent negative media coverage.
Looking ahead to the end of the month we can expect a new budget, and tax rises have all but confirmed. The form these take, and the arguments made in their favour, will likely shape the next few months of the Labour government, so we thought it might be a good idea to explore the attitudes business leaders have to tax rises.
Perhaps unexpectedly, it’s evident that business leaders are capable of the same level of cognitive dissonance on complex issues like tax as the wider general public. At the highest level, there is clear support for Labour to act to reduce public borrowing (63% agree). Furthermore, the same majority (63%) agree that Labour was right to specifically promise to not raise income tax, National Insurance, VAT or Corporation tax. Notably, there is cross-sector agreement here. But the picture then becomes a bit confused.
While around half (53%) of business leaders agree that cuts to public sector spending should be prioritised over tax rises, a large minority (43%) think the opposite – that tax rises should be prioritised ahead of cuts to public spending and a similar number (45%) think that it is right to impose tax increases to improve public services.
Looking at differences of opinion across the sectors is fascinating. Retail, the most pro-Labour of the sectors so far, is far more likely to agree that cuts to public spending should happen before tax rises (61% vs 53% overall). Manufacturing (unsurprising given their stance on other issues) is the most likely to disagree (34% vs 26% overall) that tax rises should be prioritised over cuts to public spending, and to disagree (33% vs 23% overall) that it is right to impose some tax increases on business to improve public services.
What is true though, whether business leaders think business should be taxed to fund public services or not, is that a clear majority say they are worried about potential tax rises affecting the organisation they work for, and them personally. If the expected tax rises in the coming budget are regarded as excessive or badly implemented, then the remaining goodwill towards the government that exists among business leaders may well evaporate. This is especially a risk for Labour support among the retail sector – a group generally in support of Labour but strongly against tax increases.
Well, far better than among the general public for a start, which is nothing to be dismissed. Less flippantly, it is clear that business leaders have welcomed a degree of political stability and many still have some level of optimism about what the new government plans to do, and faith that Labour has the ability and drive to get it done. I would judge that business leaders are still waiting to see what the new government can do, resisting the swift change of opinion seen among the public. If so, and if Labour can deliver tax rises and other economic reforms (for example the Workers’ Rights Bill is seen as controversial by many) without angering the majority, while also stabilising the economy and addressing inflation and energy prices then it will be well placed to build momentum and a solid standing for the next few years. Especially as it’s likely that Starmer is getting the unpopular stuff out of the way ASAP to focus on the good stuff closer to the next election.
Starmer may not have changed the country in his first 100 days, but he has certainly not undermined his leadership or reputation among business leaders. But the first 100 days are merely the first 100 days – there is plenty of time to go yet.
Need a quick answer from 1,200 UK businesses? Our Business Opinion Omnibus is open for commissions now.
Learn more:
Despite more awareness and openness about mental health than ever before, our research shows stigma still prevents many young people from speaking to a medical professional.
The diverse study of 11,000 people across 11 countries ( 1,000 interviews per country from Ukraine, USA and the UK to Turkey, Croatia and Japan) found that despite seeing mental health as a greater challenge than other age groups, 44% of 13-24-year-olds reported they would feel embarrassed talking to a doctor.
When this issue is so widely discussed and events like World Mental Health Day continue to keep it at the forefront, it is discouraging that poor mental health is still commonly perceived as something to be ashamed of.
The research was originally conducted between 1 and 24 August by Alligator Digital, BVA BDRC and Brand Ukraine for the third Summit of First Ladies and Gentlemen, organised by Olena Zelenska, First Lady of Ukraine, in September.
With the slogan, “Mental Health: Fragility and Resilience of the Future”, the study looked at the growing issue of the Ukrainian nation’s state of mental health amid Russia’s ongoing war, as well as the wider impact that financial turmoil, Covid, climate change, austerity and AI have had on mental wellbeing elsewhere. The First Lady was joined by actor Stephen Fry to launch the findings, that also showed economic conditions as one the biggest factors affecting mental health. The findings presented a mixed picture according to country, with mental health diagnoses reported in
The low number of mental health diagnoses in Ukraine cannot be explained by stigma or embarrassment. The country scored the least likely to associate stigma to mental ill-health, with 79% of people agreeing with the statement “mental illness is an illness like any other”. Unsurprisingly, half of Ukrainians felt emotionally worse compared with three years ago and 77% viewed war as a major challenge over the next five years.
The fact that 38% of young people in the survey were concerned about worrying friends and family could explain their reluctance to seek professional help. A third also believed that it could lead to discrimination in the workplace and affect their ability to get or keep a job. More community mental health education and support services could help remove some of the stigma they feel, according to 60% of all participants.
The research also revealed some optimistic findings. Young people may have the poorest levels of mental health, but they appeared aware of the risks to mental wellbeing caused by smartphones and social media.
The global narrative has typically been that these two factors are largely to blame for the increase in depression and anxiety that has coincided with the rapid rise of digital. But 18 to 24 year olds are far more aware than they’re given credit for, with 79% acknowledging the negative impact social media can have on mental health.
Young people are also more accepting of those struggling with mental health problems who they describe as “brave”, “strong” and “inspiring”.
The research demonstrates the clear value of events like World Mental Health Day that keep the conversation around wellbeing going. Furthermore, insights from such a diverse range of cultures, languages, traditions and global perspectives, help inform how we tackle the problem in an improved, more effective way. Get further insights in our eBook.
The row and now investigation over the dramatic price increases during the sale of Oasis tickets has raised the profile of dynamic pricing and I imagine that consumer response to it (whether in theory or in practice) will come down to an assessment of the situation against a number of concepts, including – but probably not limited to – aspects such as the magnitude of the change, the reasons why the price has changed, the speed at which the price changed, the intrinsic, underlying ‘value’ of the product offered, the similarity of the product, the ability to substitute the product, the ‘perishability’ of the product, the emotional attachment one has to it and the extent to which the news spreads.
There’s likely no set of fixed ‘rules’, but how these all interplay with one another is what is likely to influence opinion.
If we take the case of Oasis tickets, what we had was an established intrinsic price for a ticket (even allowing for different categories, within those categories the product is basically identical) that increased very dramatically and very quickly for no reason other than a high level of demand.
On top of that, it was a product to which consumers had a very strong emotional pull – heightening the disappointment at missing out – and for which there was no immediate substitute available (not even a nearby Blur concert). A media frenzy around the sudden, unexpected “Pax Gallaga” meant the ticket sale was always going to be headline news, consumed and commented-on by millions, the nature of the fixed on-sale date and queueing mechanism meant consumers were effectively shoe-horned into a buying window and the dynamics of the fraternal relationship mean that this is opportunity unlikely to recur again and again. (Frankly, buying for anything other than the opening night is something of a gamble).
What I think really irritated consumers was the immediacy and magnitude of the price correction, the “limited time only” circumstance and the immediate comparability of many thousands of tickets that were ostensibly identical and had been anchored at a particular price. It wasn’t so much “dynamic pricing” as an overall concept that drove annoyance, it was “surge pricing”, which comes across – perhaps rightly, too – as opportunistic and exploitative. Throw emotion into the mix and everything just gets that bit more intense, while there is a special place in hell reserved for those who hoover up these tickets to then attempt to sell them on at a huge mark-up – often while people are still queuing to buy directly. Having experienced the disappointment of missing out on Paul McCartney tickets myself recently, I was amazed at how many Tweeters’ plans had “suddenly changed”, making them unable to attend a concert I was still 18,000 places away from being able to buy.
If you consider hotel rooms, each ‘enquiry’ is different and it has become accepted that there is, as a result, no underlying price for a night in a hotel. The prices don’t tend to fluctuate either dramatically or immediately, and the justifications for higher prices, although significantly linked to demand, are not exclusively explained by it – very few hotel rooms could be considered completely identical* to each other – perhaps dozens at most on only the largest of corridors – so there is always a justification for a different price somewhere. Much as brand owners may like to believe otherwise, very few consumers are so emotionally drawn to a hotel brand that its unavailability will cause distress, and very few brands are so unique that there aren’t half a dozen similar alternatives in immediate proximity. What’s also true is that prices can go down as well as up, something that never got the chance to be tested for Oasis tickets. For that reason, the game feels less rigged – sometimes you’re the statue, but sometimes you’re the pigeon!
Although the hotel sector may find itself, to a certain extent, protected from the worst of the backlash by the differentiation inherent in its offering, the relative stability of its pricing and the relative indifference towards its offering, that shield is not impenetrable. Despite all the above, at the positional excesses of bad behaviour there is still reputational harm to be won by those who try hard enough. Outrageous increases in price for no other reason than ‘because we can’ are likely to make people feel exploited, while cancelling lower-rated rooms to rebook at a higher rate – whatever term of the small print is invoked – just feels unfair.
Although, interestingly, when we looked into the reverse concept – that of guests cancelling a room because they’d found one cheaper – only a very, very small percentage of consumers would refrain on the grounds of fairness to the hotel. The barriers to “book-cancel-rebook” were far more practical in nature; to the point where if someone or something makes it quick, easy and risk-free, there’d be a very, very large slice of the market prepared to do it should the opportunity arise.
‘Big, evil corporations’ just have to put on their big-corporation pants and suck that sort of thing up, I’m afraid.”
*identical size, location, layout, view, configuration, etc, at an identical time
‘Bleisure’ isn’t a new trend, and I’m sure we’ve all extended a business trip into the weekend at some point. What’s new is the rise of ‘blended travel’ – dictated by Gen Z and Millennials mostly, blended travellers seamlessly incorporate leisure and business throughout the trip. They spend evenings relaxing, weekends exploring, and lunchtimes checking out local coffee shops and restaurants – rather than just a few days before or after a business meeting.
Blended travel can be seen as a lifestyle extension of highly popular bleisure travel. Typically, bleisure trips last 3-5 nights, while blended travel can range from a week to a month. Travellers are working flexibly shunning the traditional 9 to 5 pattern and using their time to explore the destination while being productive.
Globally, 53% of both Millennial and Gen Z employees plan to travel for business in 2024, as per Hilton’s 2024 Travel Trends report. Employees in India (65%), UAE (64%) and China (60%) are most likely to be travelling for bleisure. What’s also interesting is that 27% of Gen Z and 29% of Millennial employees plan to take friend or family member with them on a bleisure trip next year.
Quickly growing into a $594.5 billion market, according to Future Market Insights, blended travel is on the rise for many reasons. Number one being the newfound confidence in remote working and flexible working options. This gives employees increased confidence to extend their work trips into more wholesome and rewarding experiences. According to BVA BDRC’s Business Omnibus Survey July 2024, businesses, 42% of the businesses surveyed say that staff add on hotel nights for leisure purposes, e.g. extend their business trips to have leisure time in the location.
We also found that 52% of businesses who add on hotel nights for leisure purposes encourage staff to do this, with only 10% discouraging the practice (the remainder state no difference).
Another influencer is the strong desire to make the most of one’s time while travelling. There is now a willingness to take fewer trips and spend more time at a single destination. Blended travellers also prefer to stay at the same property for both portions of the trip, making accommodations with business and leisure amenities highly desirable. In-room workspace, fast WiFi connections, fitness centres, spas and local experiences are in high demand.
So how can hotels take advantage of this trend?
Hotels need to cater to a wide range of blended travellers who could vary from digital nomads, remote workers, families to people booking workcations. The strategy is not just to identity blended travellers but also to identify the best opportunities within the customer journey to convert a ‘static’ business traveller into a blended one.
Some ideas may include blended travel promotions on extended stay bookings, plus one travel incentives, collaborations with local co-working spaces to help guests experience and interact with locals, designing work-friendly spaces sand providing tech support and the right marketing strategies to reach out to right audience.
The blended traveller is highly flexible and demands spaces that are as flexible. Repurposing spaces and offering flexible check-in and check-out times can go a long way. It’s all about hotels that can leverage experiential, moment-driven spaces for travellers with different travel motivations. Hotels are converting arcades, bowling alleys and mini-golf areas into dynamic break-out spaces that can be used to keep the guest in-house for a longer time. We’ve also seen hotels where wellness spaces on the lower ground have been fitted with lighting systems to resemble natural daylight uplifting the mood of meeting attendees, but can also be used as a wellness centre when events aren’t in session.
With remote work here to stay and the need for companies to offer personal incentives around business travel and better work-life balance, there is a big opportunity for hotels to take up the role of facilitating travellers to make the most of their trips. Business travel is one of the highest motivators of travel in 2024 and will only gain more popularity in the years to come. The demand and planning should be for more dynamic, experiential spaces that encourage travellers to work and stay longer at hotels, experience the destination and bring along family and friends to their next blended trip.
Following the much-anticipated King’s Speech in July, we were keen to know if any of the promises were cutting through and moving the confidence dial of UK businesses. Our Business Opinion Omnibus programme, which surveys 1,200 financial decision-makers in a nationally representative sample of UK businesses, was the ideal way to check the pulse of the business community.
So, what are the issues businesses expect the new Government to tackle in the next (checks calendar) 10 months? The to-do list is lengthy but some items are more pressing than others.
Tackling energy prices (34%) and keeping inflation under control (33%) were the top concerns for businesses. Unprotected by price caps businesses have felt the full force of the UK energy crisis. Energy prices remain significantly higher than a few years ago and have a clear and negative impact on UK businesses bottom line. At 2.2% in July 2024 UK inflation (CPI) may have fallen from its 2022 peak but businesses certainly don’t want a labour government to preside over it rising again.
Tackling interest rates (26%) was also top of mind for businesses, while wage levels (20%), tax levels (20%) and Brexit and EU trade (18%) come across as second-tier priorities.
Although these issues are deemed pressing by businesses across all sectors and sizes, there are some differences in priority order depending on the size of the business and the sector it operates in.
Larger businesses (1000+ employees) place significantly more importance on workplace productivity (15% v 7% for all businesses), whilst the smallest businesses (1-9 employees) are considerably more concerned about the national debt (26% versus 16% for all), Brexit and EU trade (23% v 18% for all) and falling consumer spending (19% v 11% all businesses).
Looking across sectors, manufacturing businesses are the most apprehensive about energy prices (43%), while service-based businesses are worried more than others about inflation (38%).
Did the announced policies have a positive impact on how financial decision-makers view their business, sector, region, and even the whole of the UK? Looking at those who agree that the government has policies that will benefit their respective areas there is a sense of optimism, although the devil is in the detail – while overall positivity is strong, only a small minority claim they ‘strongly agree’.
We also tested the reactions to three key Bills mentioned in the King’s Speech in terms of awareness, their impact on respondents’ own business, and their potential positive impact on the UK economy in the next five years. Whilst all three Bills showed relatively equal scores, the Employment Rights Bill performed slightly better than others; 38%of financial decision-makers are aware of it, 39% think it will have a positive impact on their own business and 49% a positive impact in the UK in the next 5 years. Larger businesses with 1000+ employees are more likely to agree that the Bill will affect the UK economy positively (53%), compared to smaller businesses with 1 to 9 employees (34%). Understandably, businesses in labour-intensive sectors are more likely to think the Employment Rights Bill will harm their business – overall 16% believe the Bill would affect their business negatively, whereas the figure is 18% for businesses in the manufacturing sector, and 21% in hospitality.
In regards to the other two Bills, businesses in construction in particular are pessimistic about their impact on the UK economy; 19% of construction-related businesses disagree that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would have a positive impact, with 30% expressing reservations about the impact of the Budget Responsibility Bill, compared to overall levels of disagreement of 14% and 19% respectively.
Where does that leave us? At an overall level, businesses are cautiously optimistic about the new Government’s ability to positively impact the economy and the country as a whole. More specifically, Labour’s three headline economic bills are receiving a positive, albeit somewhat guarded, response, although some do concede their level of knowledge of the detail of the bills is limited. In summary, while there is a long way to go between delivering the King’s Speech and the policy implementation, Labour should take heart from the reactions we have seen so far.
Need a quick answer from 1,200 UK businesses? Our Business Opinion Omnibus is open for commissions now.
Learn more:
The renationalisation of the rail network has been the subject of much debate after the King’s Speech, which featured the new government’s intention to bring railways back under public control. This has since moved one step closer to a reality as MPs were presented with the bill that would make this all possible.
Data from our recent study, the General Public Tracker—conducted on behalf of the Rail Delivery Group after the election—revealed that 52% of the general public strongly favour re-nationalisation. This is a notable level of support but it also shows that almost half of the population are either undecided or opposed. Followers of politics will recognise the so-called ‘cursed ratio’ from the Brexit vote.
With inflation still weighing on wallets and the cost of rail travel continuing to rise, what will a renationalised network look like for passengers? We don’t have a crystal ball, and much depends upon how renationalisation might come to fruition, but there are some great learnings to take from other global markets that inform the case for and against.
1. Improved value
The General Public Tracker study shows only 29% of the public believe British rail offers better value compared to other European countries. With a return flight from Gatwick to Malaga at £38, and a return train journey from London to York at over £100, travelling via rail within the UK is becoming less appealing each year. Great for air operators, but not so great for the environment! With the rising cost of living, government control could regulate and lower fares, making train travel accessible for everyone.
2. Emphasis on performance
Public ownership may also shift the focus from profit to service quality. Presently, only 41% of people feel services have improved in the past decade in spite of regular engineering works and rail replacement buses increasingly feeling like the norm, rather than the exception. A state-run rail network has potential to prioritise punctuality, cleanliness, and customer service, enhancing the travel experience.
3. More integration
Renationalisation could promote a more integrated transportation system, aligning rail services with buses and trams. This could create efficient and seamless travel options, similar to the French SNCF network, which offers a cohesive travel experience by integrating various modes of public transport. One interesting example showcasing this integrated approach is via the SNCF connect app, which is a single app for searching and booking trips on trains, buses, and trams. This streamlined approach makes navigating different services far easier!
4. Infrastructure investment
A publicly-owned rail network allows for sustained investment in infrastructure, technology, and sustainability. Government investment in modernising the rail network can improve safety and reduce environmental impact.
5. Greater national accessibility
Renationalising the rail network can address regional disparities, ensuring underserved areas receive adequate services. This can promote economic development and social equity across the country. Japan’s JR Group, which is partly privatised but operates under significant government oversight, is renowned for its punctuality, safety, and comprehensive coverage. It effectively balances public control with operational efficiency, offering extensive services across both urban and rural areas, ensuring access to even the most remote parts of the country
1. Tax burden
Renationalising the rail network could impose a heavy financial burden on taxpayers. The significant investment required might divert funds from essential services like healthcare and education.
2. Inefficient oversight
Publicly-run services often face criticism for inefficiency compared to private enterprises. A state-run rail network might suffer from excess bureaucracy, lack of innovation, and poor management, leading to subpar performance. Only 36% of people believe the government has a clear policy for the rail network, highlighting concerns about public sector oversight. Analysis of social media conversation shows some concerns that this will not be a “magic wand that will fix the problems” and that it will have no “effect on ticket prices without new railways”. In France, the SNCF integrates rail with other public transport for a seamless travel experience however, it does also face challenges in financial sustainability and efficiency, showing nationalisation isn’t a universal solution.
3. Loss of competitive impetus
Privatisation fosters competition, driving improvements and innovation. Renationalisation could reduce competitive pressure, potentially leading to complacency and stagnation.
4. Interim upheaval
Shifting from a privatised to a nationalised rail network is complex and costly. Restructuring operations and integrating systems could cause significant short-term disruption.
The renationalisation of the rail network presents a complex issue with significant implications for the country. While it promises fairer ticket prices, improved services, and long-term investment, it also poses challenges such as potential inefficiencies and financial burdens. Ultimately, the future renationalisation will need to carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks, aiming to create a rail system that serves the best interests of the public.
Learn more:
For many people, especially business owners and senior staff members, the impact a new government will have on their place of work or wider sector is just as much an
influence on how they will vote as education or health policy. It is therefore
a bit peculiar that, despite the proliferation of opinion polls exploring what
voters think, there is very little focus at election time on what business
leaders think about policies that affect different industry sectors and their
impact on how they might vote.
The BVA BDRC Business Opinion Omnibus is a monthly survey of 1,200 business
financial decision-makers from companies with a turnover exceeding £250,000 a
year. We ensure that robust sub-samples are included across four main sectors
(Manufacturing, Construction, Retail, and Services), regions across the UK, and
in terms of business size (by turnover and number of employees). This makes it
the perfect vehicle to explore the opinions of UK businesses regarding the
upcoming election and the state of the economy more widely.
Top concerns for growth
Looking at the big picture to start with – business leaders are united in agreement that the same three issues are the main barriers to growth, both for their business but also for the UK generally, as well as being the priority areas for the next
government to focus on. There should be no surprise here – energy prices,
inflation, and interest rates have dominated the news cycle for years.
Looking ahead, the ongoing impact of Brexit and EU trade, along with tax levels, are also issues that businesses want to address. Given that neither Labour nor the Conservatives have committed to re-opening the Brexit debate I suspect many business leaders across the country are going to be disappointed, even if their tax burden falls (which again seems unlikely from what Labour are saying).
Further down, there are several interlinked employment-based issues – wages, skills, and labour shortages – that, if combined, would feature in the top priorities. Labour has certainly committed time to labour reforms, but whether wages will rise (especially those of government employees) is yet to be seen. And given the link between labour shortages and the divisive issue of immigration, clarity is unlikely anytime soon.
The story here may not surprise anyone – most of us could have guessed that these would be the issues prioritised by business. But what does it mean? On one hand, these issues are familiar to everyone, so the idea of any major surprises in economic or industrial policy is small. On the other hand, all political parties have had to have had a stance on these issues for years now – this perhaps benefits Labour, who have been able to comment from a distance and penalises the Conservatives, who have had to publicly deal with (or not depending on your POV) these problems for a while now.
Key areas for economic improvement
Looking more specifically at critical areas facing UK business to understand opinions in more detail is revealing. Over three-fifths of the business leaders believe that improving the country’s economic health requires increased investment spending, lower tax burdens, an overhauled planning system and increased public spending in areas such as infrastructure.
While many of those sentiments are in line with public opinion, there is one issue that has fallen off the public’s radar somewhat that is still an active concern for business: Brexit. A majority of businesses believe it is imperative to review and reassess the existing arrangements that govern the UK’s trade with the EU to reduce the strains that have impacted business over the last few years.
Party preferences
Bearing all that in mind, what level of trust do businesses have in each of the political parties to run the economy? Unsurprisingly to anyone who has watched the news or read a newspaper in the last three months, Labour is in front and with an 11% lead over the Conservatives. Given the latter’s long-established reputation (whether the reputation is fair or not can be debated) as the political party most trusted on economic matters, especially among business, this does nail down the scale of the problems the Conservatives are facing in this election.
That said, despite a track record of ‘broken promises’ and the turmoil triggered by Liz Truss, the Conservatives are still (in some cases, just about) the most trusted party to manage the economy among a handful of industry sectors, namely manufacturing, transport, and financial/business services.
It will be no surprise that the levels of trust business leaders have in each party to run the economy correlate strongly with voting intention. Comparing our data to YouGov’s Westminster voting intention tracker, which had similar fieldwork dates to our Business Opinion Omnibus, there is a clear alignment.
At an overall level, the findings are the same – Labour is well ahead of the Conservatives. One key difference though is that far more voting intent among business leaders is more concentrated in the main two parties, 64% compared to 55%, with fewer opting for one of the smaller parties.
Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats attract the vote of about one in ten business leaders, lower than their share of voting intent among the public. There are far fewer polls of voting intent in Scotland and Wales, but among business leaders between one in six and one in five say they would vote for one of the nationalist parties if the election was tomorrow.
The reasons for Labour’s dominance become clear when you start looking at how the policies of each party are being received. Labour has a clear lead (usually +10pts or more over the Conservatives) among business leaders when it comes to having the best economic policies. And this is on every level – personal, business, sector, regional, and national.
Interestingly,
and cementing the impact that sector policy and outlook has on attitude towards
politics, business leaders from the three sectors previously highlighted (manufacturing,
transport and financial/business services) think that the Conservatives have
the best economic policies – both at the business and sector level as well as
the personal and national. It’s worth noting that only two of three
(Manufacturing and Financial/Business services) are more likely to vote
Conservative than Labour.
From all the
available evidence it seems that a Labour government is inevitable, and that
will bring changes to the economy of the UK over the next few years that is
hard to accurately predict. However, there is a degree of faith in business leaders
in what Labour can do. Nearly half of those we spoke to, and far exceeding the
proportion who said they would vote Labour, agree that over the next 5 years,
Labour can stabilise the economy and the regulatory environment, revitalise the
labour market and drive down inflation and interest rates.
That shows that even some of those who wouldn’t vote Labour have a degree of faith in their competence (and/or the wide geopolitical situation) to stabilize the UK’s economic environment. And that is a good place for any new government to start.
Learn more:
Our Accreditations and Awards continue to be determined by performance and customer experience, not by membership.
We are delighted to announce the following additional Accreditations following the final assessment at the end of Q4 2023.
To be eligible for the Event Planner Feedback Accreditation, which is awarded each quarter, you must have a total of at least 40 responses from Business or Personal Event Hosts over a 12 month period.
Awarded to those venues who receive at least 50 responses over the 12 month period, with an NPS placing them in the top 10% of all subscribers.
Awarded to those venues with a NPS placing them in the top 20% of all subscribers
Awarded to those venues whose NPS exceeds the global ‘average’ (aggregate)
To be eligible for the Mystery Shopping Accreditation, which is awarded each quarter, you must have a total of at least 12 Meetings or Social enquiries over a 12 month period.
Awarded to those venues who submitted a proposal for all of their enquiries within 8 working hours, with a score (meetings + social) placing them in the top 10% of all subscribers
Awarded to those venues with a score (meetings + social) placing them in the top 20% of all subscribers
Awarded to those venues whose score (meetings + social) exceeds the global ‘average’ (aggregate)
VenueVerdict is a great way of measuring your facility’s customer experience; helping you to make improvements in the right places and providing you with an accreditation which highlights your achievements when you succeed.
Learn more:
System 1 thinking: a fast process; it happens automatically, intuitively, emotionally, and with less effort.
System 2 thinking: slower and requires more effort. It is conscious and logical.
Over the last 15 years, there has been a significant shift in the market research industry’s approach to System 2 thinking. Does the multitude of System 2 responses produced in market research interviews, focus groups, and online surveys really reflect what consumers will do in real life? This observation is valid in many sectors, particularly in FMCG, where decisions are often instantaneous and influenced by our subconscious. Even if we are making more ‘effort’, for example, in deciding to buy something new or switch to a new brand, our underlying decisions to do so can be quite illogical.
Clearly, purchases with a drawn-out process, or where people can advise on options, involve more System 2 thinking. Examples include buying a house, financial services, choosing a holiday, and business purchases. These all have a higher value, more complexity, and often the involvement of others in the process. That said, even for these categories, irrationality, intuition, and emotion still creep into decision-making.
One of BVA BDRC’s specialist research areas is international schools, a decision process that exemplifies System 2 thinking. Choosing a school is a high-value purchase decision; an eight-year enrolment at a secondary school in Singapore can cost S$300k-400k. Trade-offs need to be made in choosing schools, e.g. curricular options, facilities, length of commute, school fees, etc. On top of this, choosing a school is a highly emotional decision with dramatic ramifications for a child’s future. Hence, parents spend a lot of time researching their final decision on schools.
Each year, BVA BDRC conducts a market-wide survey of parents in Southeast Asia to assess the brand equity and image of the leading international schools in major markets. In addition, we look at factors that affect how parents make choices on schools. In our recently completed 2023 survey, we observed System 2 thinking by assessing how parents make trade-offs on various elements of the school value proposition.
Conjoint analysis is often used to assess the relative importance of attributes, but this approach can sometimes be unrealistic when asking people to state a relative preference between just two options. It can be more informative for consumers to see what they are trading off in ‘totality’ as this shows them the end product they are buying for themselves.
To assess choices in international schools, we asked parents to ‘construct’ their optimum school based on a limited budget. This involved getting parents to spend ten units (their ‘budget’) across five ‘added value’ elements of a school proposition, including academics, the teaching of ‘life skills’, parent service, sports, and arts.
With ten units across five elements, it was quite easy for parents to undertake trade-ups and trade-offs. Essentially, a spend of two units would indicate the parent viewed the importance of this element as equal to others; any trade-up in one area would ‘force’ a parent to trade down in another.
Prior to the exercise, parents were asked to assign a rating to each attribute to see how the stated importance compared to the trade-off. We found that initially parents had given equal, if not higher, importance to the teaching of life skills compared to the core academics. The trade-off exercise then revealed how much more parents expect the school to invest in academics over life skills teaching. It also highlighted the greater perceived importance of sports compared to arts, at least at an overall market level.
Beyond this, we can drill down further into which specific elements of academics and life skills are important by undertaking further trade-off exercises, again with the ‘easy to manage’ 10-unit exercise.
Another advantage of the trade-off approach is that it allows us to easily identify segments in the market that can be examined in more detail. Some schools are very strong in arts, and while most parents trade these facilities off, the one in three parents who think this is equally, if not more important than other elements, can be profiled and targeted.
While System 2 thinking is important for the international school category, some irrationality can still creep into the purchase decisions made by parents on schools. The ‘wow factor’ of some schools, e.g. the Olympic-sized swimming pool, the theatre, the number of tennis courts, etc, can do a lot to swing parents’ final decisions towards the preferred school. Therefore, in parallel, we also undertake derived importance analysis via brand imagery correlated with propensity to recommend the school.
As you can see, when decisions as complex as choosing a school are being made, it’s important to understand what choices really drive purchase intent. Our International Schools Survey does just that.
As someone who enjoys a moderately healthy, hearty meal, the catering at visitor attractions always catches my eye. Imagine my disappointment when, at various venues in the last year I’ve been priced-out by fine-dining, missed out due to limited stock or put off by ‘beige stodge’. I’ve also seen vegan items ‘temporarily’ (perpetually) unavailable and children’s menus reduced to the bare basics. I’ve had great experiences too, but such is my fear of going ‘hangry’ I now make sure I eat before a visit.
First world problems of course, but if my experience is felt by others then visitor attractions risk losing out on revenue (and good will).
So in this light it is perhaps a good thing that we are seeing brands such as Costa and Benugo increase their footprint across the sector. These established, well-run chains usually offer a range of tasty options, and rarely run out of stock. I may not be blown away by their offering but there is a reassuring sense of familiarity and predictability, which means a reduced risk of disappointment that might go on to taint the entire visit.
That said, when food has the potential to meet both a human functional and emotional need, could ‘predictable’ also represent an untapped opportunity for both the attraction and the 3rd party? I would argue that with a few smart moves, there is potential to add a little extra wow factor for mutual gain.
Take a recent visit to London Transport Museum as an example and source of inspiration.
I was impressed that the Benugo had adapted the menu to offer three bespoke cocktails that reflected the setting – the Elizabeth Line, Routemaster and Red Arrow. The core Benugo offer remained intact, but this relatively simple step forged a clear connection with the attraction and created a memorable moment that added to the visitor experience.
But what about other more fundamental aspects of the experience?
Often, when sipping my flat white in one of these cafés, I no longer feel as if I am sitting in the attraction. I feel I have temporarily stepped outside, perhaps to my local high street or train station. I get this feeling regardless of where the café is situated – be it at the entrance of a city museum or deep inside a rural castle’s walls.
This feeling of disconnect is driven by some logical factors such as the chain’s branding and staff in different uniforms, but also by the way that the chain’s employees represent the attraction. Of course, they are not directly employed to represent the attraction, but visitors may not see it this way.
In 2023 we conducted over 400 mystery visits at visitor attractions, which included a detailed assessment of each venue’s catering offer. Fuelled by my observations, mystery visitors were tasked with asking café staff a question about the visitor attraction. The question had to relate to the site’s visitor experience offer, such as ‘are there any guided tours on today?’
It was striking – if not surprising – that where catering was run by a third-party chain the ability to answer a question about the attraction was dramatically reduced (60% compared to 85% overall).
Moreover, far from just not knowing the answer to relatively basic questions, third-party staff would often proactively disassociate themselves from the attraction with responses such as “I’m not sure, ask the museum staff,” or even “I don’t know – I only work in the café”. The adage ‘it’s not what you say, but how you say it’ comes to mind.
This presents a challenge. Visitor attractions work so hard on consistency of language, message and brand at all points in the visitor experience so any disconnect in the café breaks the flow. Suddenly that sense of escape vanishes and time-travel to World War II, Medieval England or Ancient Egypt becomes a flat white in your 4th favourite High Street coffee chain. Compare that to the likes of Warner Bros Studio Tour London where you can sip a hot chocolate in the Chocolate Frog Café, and the difference in visitor experience is obvious. It’s not too extreme to argue that this break in the flow may even curtail a visit, or at best require visitors to psychologically ‘start again’.
I’m by no means advocating throwing the baby out with the mochaccino – third-party catering chains bring lots of benefits – but our research suggests that more needs to be done to integrate these chains into the whole venue.
We don’t have all of the answers, but training seems to be a good place to start, either with the attractions involving 3rd party staff in their own training or providing some simple guidance so that they have a basic understanding of what’s on at the venue or are able to suggest a helpful alternative when faced with trickier enquiries. Couple that with a sprinkling of magic from some menu adaptation, as we saw at the London Transport Museum, and it could be a recipe for success which benefits everyone.
Don’t let your visitors go “hangry” – fuel the experience with on-brand food that ignites imaginations: Assess catering provision and the visitor experience at your attraction with Mystery Visitor Benchmarking
Mystery Visitor Benchmarking
Speak to Diana directly
A compelling story is unfolding in the rapidly changing world of the automotive industry —one that goes beyond data and trends. Amidst the pandemic, I, like many others, revamped my shopping routine, shifting from in-store experiences to the online platforms that have reshaped how products reach our doorsteps.
The unsung heroes of this transformation? Delivery vans.
The European light commercial vehicle (LCV) sector has seen almost a decade of consistent growth. This trend is set to continue, fuelled by the continuing surge in delivery demands from e-commerce, the expanding online grocery sector, and the recreational-van market’s reliance on LCVs.
Speeding towards a new era of eco-friendly delivery
The transition from internal combustion engines (ICE) to electric vehicles (EVs) has been nothing short of remarkable. In less than a decade, EVs have evolved from niche products to the inevitable future of automotive, and commercial vehicles are no exception. As the UK and Europe commit to ending ICE sales by 2035, the message for fleet managers and business owners is crystal clear: adapt or risk falling behind.
Yet, this shift isn’t without its challenges. Our research reveals concerns among UK fleet managers and LCV drivers about transitioning from ICE to EV. Issues such as high initial costs, insufficient charging infrastructure, ongoing operational expenses, and limited EV range are reasons for apprehension.
“The cost at the moment is high and I could not afford to replace the vehicle I have. I do not have any electric points, places where I can re-charge a vehicle and I do not know how much it would cost to re-charge a vehicle. Do not know how reliable it would be or if anyone could service it.”
“Available charging points may be an issue. The cost to run will probably be better but the initial costs to install charging points at the office would be difficult and the guys take the vans home in the evenings and won’t have access to charging stations.”
“They are more expensive, only the wealthy can afford them. Also, they are stressful to re-charge at times, you do worry about running out in the middle of nowhere.”
Despite these concerns, 52% claim that environmental sustainability will influence their next van purchase. This creates a gap in the market, with SMEs and larger fleets struggling to obtain affordable electric commercial vehicles (ECVs) due to high demand, and limited supply from traditional automakers.
New players are leading the charge
The void left by established automakers in Europe has paved the way for new entrants, particularly those from Asia. ECVs from innovative brands are already hitting the streets at breakneck speed – these players have spotted the opening and are wasting no time in seizing the opportunity.
Take Maxus, from China’s SAIC Motor Corp., as an example: with the eDELIVER3 priced at £34,000 (ex VAT), Maxus has already made substantial sales in Western Europe and Scandinavia and is planning further expansion across Central Europe. In 2022, Maxus already held around 6% of Europe’s new ECV market, surpassing Ford, Nissan, and Fiat.
Maxus isn’t the only brand with eyes on Europe: Geely’s Farizon aims to enter the market by 2024 and B-ON (which acquired the StreetScooter ECV brand) is expanding German production. Meanwhile, in the United States, General Motors’ BrightDrop brand is following suit with its own expansion plans.
The road ahead is long, but the time for action is now
In this evolving landscape, LCV incumbents must prioritise EV adoption to meet customer needs and maintain market share. Every day of delay risks ceding ground to new competitors, as they gain momentum, build brand awareness and acquire customers. The electric van revolution is underway, and the question is whether traditional brands can catch up or risk being left in the fossil fuel past.
The presence of these newcomers also prompts important considerations for commercial van owners and fleet managers. Are they contemplating these new brands for future purchases, potentially disrupting the dominance of traditional van makers? It’s a critical moment in the industry, demanding careful consideration of options.
In concluding my journey from traditional shopping to the heart of the ECV revolution, the path forward appears promisingly electrifying. E-commerce continues to surge, driving demand for last-mile deliveries and cleaner, more sustainable transportation options.
Amidst this transformation, my personal shift from traditional to online retail is a small part of a larger narrative emphasising innovation, adaptability, and the evolving nature of urban logistics. ECVs are no longer a futuristic concept; they are today’s reality, reshaping how we receive online purchases and paving the way for a greener, more eco-friendly future.
What lies ahead for the European van market? The future of electric vans shines brightly, but for traditional brands, clarity remains elusive. One thing is certain: the road ahead is filled with opportunities for those ready to embrace it.
Learn how we can help seize the opportunity:
The appetite for face-to-face meetings will wane this year with growing financial pressures being cited as the main reason.
Our latest look at the meetings and events market was taken through the eyes of our Business Opinion Omnibus and found that nearly half of all business leaders (47%) said their company have used external facilities by the end of 2023.
Many of these recognise that getting people together is good for business with external venues having potential to make a better impression or offer additional facilities, such as catering.
However, looking at this year, 27% anticipate fewer offsite events, with a further 15% undecided and the balance expecting roughly the same amount – a net negative outcome that potentially means fewer events overall as businesses brace themselves for a challenging 2024.
How does this effect spend?
28% of businesses are expecting to spend more on external meeting facilities this year, but this is partially fuelled by an expectation of increased prices rather than a sign of greater demand. Meanwhile, nearly a quarter (24%) of the businesses who said they were likely to reduce spend this year claim it is due to a perception of bad return on investment. But surely bringing people together, will be valuable, productive and a good use of time and money, with benefits that go beyond the immediate facilities on offer?
It’s not as easy as that, though, is it? There is nuance to every role, output, and its execution.
In a recent conversation with Amy Edmondson, Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, we were able to gain some insight into the concept of ‘flexibility’ in the workplace – a hangover from the pandemic that saw us all in our home offices, with pyjama bottoms on, kids running in and cats strolling across keyboards.
“There is flexibility and there are relationships. You can’t have ultimate flexibility and deep relationships – you’re trading one against the other.
Flexibility can be defined as working wherever and whenever you want on tasks that are individually accomplished and modular, meaning the interfaces with other people’s work are uncomplicated. As soon as the interfaces are more interdependent, and tasks more complicated, then flexibility is at odds not just with relationships but with quality of execution.
Step back, look at the work first, what is the nature of the value that we are providing for our customers and how does that value get produced and if part of the answer is through teamwork, through the integration of people with diverse skill sets and areas of expertise, then we have to give deep and long thought to what kind of flexibility works best as a team.”
This view neatly underpins the concept that leads much of Microsoft’s ‘Future of Work’ strategy with AI playing a significant role in making asynchronous participation possible and synchronous participation better.
The balance between output, connection and becoming more cost and ROI-conscious in the face of growing financial pressures is a tough one to strike.
If business leaders’ predicted use and spend on external facilities hold true, we will see a shift towards fewer meetings and event,s and a need to better reinforce the value of those that do take place. One of the best ways to do that is for venues to deliver EPIC experiences and events that leave people invigorated, feeling productive and connected – wanting more, not less.
Learn more:
Our Accreditations and Awards continue to be determined by performance and customer experience, not by membership. To find out more or to be a part of this syndicated research please contact meetings@bva-bdrc.com.
We are delighted to announce the following additional Accreditations following the final assessment at the end of Q2 2023.
To be eligible for the Event Planner Feedback Accreditation, which is awarded each quarter, you must have a total of at least 40 responses from Business or Personal Event Hosts over a 12 month period.
Awarded to those venues who receive at least 50 responses over the 12 month period, with an NPS placing them in the top 10% of all subscribers.
Awarded to those venues with a NPS placing them in the top 20% of all subscribers
Awarded to those venues whose NPS exceeds the global ‘average’ (aggregate)
To be eligible for the Mystery Shopping Accreditation, which is awarded each quarter, you must have a total of at least 12 Meetings or Social enquiries over a 12 month period.
Awarded to those venues who submitted a proposal for all of their enquiries within 8 working hours, with a score (meetings + social) placing them in the top 10% of all subscribers
Awarded to those venues with a score (meetings + social) placing them in the top 20% of all subscribers
Awarded to those venues whose score (meetings + social) exceeds the global ‘average’ (aggregate)
VenueVerdict is a great way of measuring your facility’s customer experience; helping you to make improvements in the right places and providing you with an accreditation which highlights your achievements when you succeed. For more information please contact: meetings@bva-bdrc.com
A trip to a visitor attraction is a chance to get out and enjoy everything from historic UK landmarks to theme parks – with massive potential for memorable experiences.
We have developed a valuable tool which can help visitor attractions design unforgettable customer experiences and strengthen customer relationships.
Behavioural economics brings a new vision of how humans make decisions in real life. We are not rational ‘bots’ making optimal decisions, but humans subject to external influences and prone to making mistakes (some of them systematic). The theory of EPIC framework is that people judge an experience based on how they felt at its peak moments (the most intense points) rather than the sum or average of every moment of the experience.
Benefits of using the EPIC framework for visitor attractions:
Our research look at whether UK visitor attractions deliver EPIC experiences and, more specifically, which key moments are driving these experiences. In general they have exceeded expectations by delivering elevated experiences far beyond other sectors. What does that actually mean in practice, though?
ELEVATION
Elevation is the act of going beyond the routine and the expected, something that pleasantly surprised you. Such experiences are likely to influence word of mouth awareness, where people share their elevated experience with friends and family, and in turn drive repeat visits.
Examples:
PRIDE
Pride is generated when visitors feel recognised and valued. This can be through a particularly special experience, or simply by receiving the care and patience of staff. Value should be conveyed through the experience and at each ‘transition moment’ to help form a deeper connection to the brand. These transition moments happen when visitors are the most open to an emotional response and can occur during booking, arrival, entry and exit from exhibitions, using the café or shop and leaving the building.
Examples:
INSIGHT
Insight relates to enabling visitors to discover something new or find new inspiration which is an important value-add to the overall experience. The ability to gain a deeper understanding of a topic of interest adds to the excitement, and can even trigger a sense of adventure when inspired to get involved.
Examples:
CONNECTION
Creating an emotional connection with visitors can be difficult, but behavioural science can maximise the chances of success. Enabling visitors to be surrounded by people with shared interests, and feel a sense of belonging during the experience can help forge a deeper connection. This increases the likelihood of visitors sharing their experience with friends and family and thus generate additional visits through recommendations.
Examples:
Delivering memorable customer experience goes beyond delivering the basics – it’s about going the extra mile in key moments of the experience that really matter. In short, it’s about being EPIC!
For many leisure hotel guests, the creation of a meaningful and memorable experiences is particularly important, with holidays representing a significant opportunity to reconnect and recharge. A way in which we can judge the success of an experience is through the EPIC framework.
So just how important is EPIC for hoteliers, and how can it generate a positive guest experience? Responses to one of our surveys provide an interesting view of which brands perform best at delivering memorable experiences.
ELEVATION
Elevation refers to positive experiences which are out of the ordinary and unexpected. Brands that successfully differentiate themselves from competitors often have a unique offering that surprises and entices guests. A few brands that performed particularly well on this pillar in our research are Shangri-La, Four Seasons, Sofitel and Hotel du Vin. These are some examples of where hotels deliver elevation:
PRIDE
Pride refers to making guests feel valued, and staff play a key role in achieving this. This is where hotels have a significant opportunity to excel as taking good care of guests is at the core of the hospitality industry. Our ClearSight data shows that this pillar is, by far, the strongest for hotels. Brands that performed well include Malmaison, Mercure, DoubleTree by Hilton and Marriott. Here are some examples of where hotels are creating a sense of pride:
INSIGHT
Insight refers to discovering something new or gaining inspiration from your experiences. In a hotel this could be discovering more about your destination or learning more about the hotel itself. Our data shows that brands that performed best at this were: The Ritz-Carlton, ibis Styles, Four Seasons and Village. These are some examples of how hotels are giving guests insight:
CONNECTION
Connection refers to a sense of belonging and being surrounded by like-minded people. In the hotel setting, this generally refers to the sense of being at ‘home’. Our research found brands that performed best at creating this connection were The Ritz-Carlton, Macdonald, Ramada, and Hilton. Here are some examples of where hotels are delivering this:
Often quick and simple gestures can make a memorable impact on someone’s hotel stay. Personalised and caring service can make guests feel special and valued, contributing to building trust and encouraging repeat visits. This even was reflected in a LinkedIn conversation where we discussed the topic of memorable hotel stays!
I’ve always loved adverts so evaluating the performance of adverts is something of a dream job for me. Having undertaken hundreds of campaign evaluations over the last two decades, I thought I’d share a few things I have learned over the years that consistently make advertising effective.
When I was a kid getting sent to bed after my TV programme finished, it was a running joke in my household that I would beg to watch the ad break before I went. Today I get a real sense of nostalgia looking at ads in magazines I read as a child. When there’s a scene in a UK film from the 80s, I am constantly peering at poster ads in the background, seeing if I recognise any of them.
I brought the products too – at least the ones I was allowed to at the time (and a few I wasn’t).
To this day, I know which toilet roll is soft, strong and very long. I know what beanz meanz. I know which lager refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach. And, I remember the cough I used to get whilst exploring whether happiness was indeed a cigar.
But what makes advertising work – or work harder?
1. The impact of a multi-media campaign can be greater than the sum of its parts
I suspect most of us have those moments where you see a poster ad, and before you know it, you’re humming a jingle in your head from another ad for the same product.
A print ad for an insurance brand featuring a meerkat becomes significantly more effective once you have been exposed to the long-running TV campaign with a meerkat saying “simples” a lot.
This is the beauty of ad media working together.
When we’ve quantified the impact of including multiple media touchpoints in our research, we often see a truly dramatic incremental impact that far exceeds that of any single ad media in isolation.
One such example comes from a study where we evaluated a number of campaigns for Newsworks. Some respondents were only exposed to the print ads, some only to the digital ads (mobile, tablet and/or PC), and a third group were exposed to both.
The results were incredible:
Clearly, something fundamental happens to our perceptions of a brand when we recognise a message we have already seen repeated in a new way or a new context.
2. A face can launch a thousand brand perceptions
We’ve seen George Clooney drinking coffee, Gary Lineker stealing crisps and Nicole Scherzinger getting yoghurt on her nose. A well-known face can be familiar, aspirational and trusted. For advertisers, the power of a celebrity endorsement is nothing new.
When there is an obvious link between the advocate and the product, the effect can be particularly powerful.
I remember a product placement campaign we evaluated where Jamie Oliver had used Uncle Ben’s microwaveable rice in one of his Fifteen Minute Meals.
At the pre-stage, Jamie’s viewers had distinct reservations about microwaveable rice – after all, this audience tended to enjoy cooking and “that’s just microwaving stuff”.
After Jamie used it, though, we saw significant uplifts – not just on the brand KPIs but on perceptions of the whole microwavable rice category. There were significant increases in the view that it always comes out right, it tastes as good as home-cooked rice, and it’s good quality.
If it’s good enough for Jamie, it seems it’s good enough for his viewers too.
3. Targeting is enormously powerful…
We were fortunate enough to start evaluating addressable TV ad campaigns when Sky’s AdSmart product launched.
This proved an interesting and challenging format to evaluate because we wanted to measure both the effectiveness of the ad itself and AdSmart’s ability to target extremely precisely (it can target viewers by postcode, amongst other things).
The solution was to use two control groups – one matched on the same targeted criteria (but not exposed) and one deliberately unmatched.
Measures would typically go up in increments: targeted respondents tended to score higher than untargeted ones on advertiser metrics, despite not being exposed to any advertising, simply because the brand was more relevant to them and they were more likely to be in-market. Exposed respondents scored higher still because they benefitted from the same targeted advantages and were exposed to the advertising on top of that.
Ultimately, we found that, on average, we could attribute 56% of overall campaign impact to targeting vs 44% to actual exposure to the campaign itself.
4. So is context
Channel 4 felt so strongly that context was beneficial to TV advertising they developed a product called Contextual Moments. It uses artificial intelligence techniques to automatically identify a specific moment in a TV programme as being contextually ‘valuable’ for advertisers, who can then place their ad in an adjacent break to ‘match’ this moment.
We undertook a large force exposed study to test whether the product worked as well as expected.
The results proved fascinating, and in some cases, surprising. Compared to the same ad being placed in a non-contextual setting, a spot ad placed in context achieved
To further explore why context works, we developed ‘Erroneous Recollection’, a technique based on an experiment into schematic processing conducted by psychologists W.F. Brewer and J.C. Treyens. Their original experiment found that a significant number of subjects ‘recalled’ seeing books in a room that they had been told was a professor’s study, even though there were actually no books. This demonstrated that the expectation of the presence of an object was sometimes sufficient to trigger its erroneous recollection.
Our test found that those exposed to a Contextual Moments spot ad were indeed – on average – significantly more likely to erroneously “recall” having seen the brand in the programme. Consequently, they attributed the brand with similar positive perceptions they held for the programme.
When it comes to advertising, context is indeed king.
5. Experience drives impact
We have evaluated well over 50 experiential campaigns over the years – these have included branded bars at music festivals, installations at shopping centres and train stations and even an exhibition at the Science Museum.
These are challenging to evaluate because the events are usually so immersive it would be faintly ridiculous to ask brand KPIs at the time of exposure. Instead, we collect respondent’s contact details at the event and do a telephone survey with them two weeks later.
The results to date from these types of campaigns have been truly remarkable.
One such campaign was for Nivea, which undertook a roadshow in shopping centres across the country. Individual skincare consultations were given to determine which products within the Nivea Visage range would be most suitable for the customer and complimentary gift bags were given out.
Two weeks after the event, attendees were 92% more likely to purchase Nivea Visage in future and 47% less likely to purchase Olay – the nearest competitor.
We saw similarly spectacular results with other interactive ad formats, such as TV ads where viewers could interact by pressing the red button (remember those?) and campaigns that encourage dual screening (for example, playing along with the Million Pound Drop on a mobile device and being served an ad).
There is something about interacting with a brand that deeply affects a person, driving consistently strong shifts across the whole purchase funnel.
I’d love to tell you more – such as our findings around how overt a brand should be when undertaking branded content, how takeover ad breaks are not just great fun but also highly effective and how in-game advertising is a great way to engage younger, hard to reach consumers, but I’m limited both by time and confidentiality. If you do have any campaigns that need evaluating, though, feel free to get in touch.
During the pandemic, the residents of Venice found they were happier looking out on dolphins in the Lagoon than cruise ships when the sudden reduction in travel had an immediate impact on the environment around them.
Venice had been one of several global focal points for concerns about over-tourism, and this summer, the city submitted plans to control the number of visitors, in particular day trippers. The proposals were intended to encourage more permanent residents, limit the stock of private apartment rentals and bring in a reservation system with an access fee to manage day visitors. In July, it banned all cruise ships from sailing through the city centre. Good news for the dolphins.
Prior to the pandemic, proposals for charges to visit destinations such as Venice were met with objections over elitism – surely, it’s everyone’s right to visit St Mark’s Square? – but has the pandemic shifted that mindset?
We live in an age where there are more causes than room for badges on a jacket, but our research on brand purpose has found that messaging on environmental issues has broader support than other causes and much less distinction across demographic groups. Political issues may polarise us, but we’re united in our concerns for the environment.
That doesn’t mean that it is without its issues. Consumers have fears over greenwashing and whether brands are selling a message they’re not backing up with action.
And while concern for the environment is high, we have found that it is not the main motivator of leisure travel choices with the weather and price ranking at one and two, respectively. Sustainability trails far behind at 25.
While sustainable standards are not a key motivator of leisure choices, they are becoming a hygiene factor. If sustainable standards are clearly not being met at a leisure organisation, people may start to avoid it – now or in the future.
The good news is that people are happy to undertake a range of different sustainable practices, from recycling their rubbish to flying with lighter luggage. They also showed a willingness to make small sacrifices, such as limited access to conservation areas and a day without meat on the menu – small changes which have been shown to make a difference. Sacrifices should be re-framed as positive actions, empowering visitors to perceive they are helping, not losing out.
The urge to travel is strong and dreams of far-away places mean that long-haul flights will not fall foul of flight-shaming trends. But we have found that, when framed positively, behaviours can be changed to benefit all.
The National Trust has received much of the attention on the subject of historic links to slavery, however a number of our other clients in the attractions sector have also sought to re-evaluate how they talk about it.
A key concern from our clients is the impact any reinterpretation will have on attraction visitor numbers.
Some worry that by drawing attention to the negative side of a place’s history, there is a danger that the ‘idealistic traditionalist’ may decide not to visit.
But others argue that the public’s understanding of how historic sites relate to slavery has shifted. There is an expectation that interpretation conveys the full history of a venue (warts an’ all). By doing nothing, they will be providing a sanitised version of what happened, which will lead to a less fulfilling visitor experience. This will also mean people will decide not to visit.
As individuals, our team has fairly developed opinions on the subject – the excellent Story of our Times podcast on Penrhyn Castle will give you a clue as to mine.
But as consultants who work in the sector, we seek to understand the objective truth, so we put the question to the general public.
We asked a nationally representative sample of the U.K. public (sample size of 1,750) the following question:
In the last couple of years, organisations such as The National Trust have started to examine the links their properties have with colonialism and historic slavery. In cases where slavery has played a large role in the site’s history, how much do you agree or disagree these organisations should include information about their links to slavery as part of their on-site interpretation?
Our findings
The key finding was that the majority of the population (55%) supported information about links to slavery being included in the interpretation. Perhaps more importantly, only a small minority of 15% opposed it. 30% had no firm opinion either way.
Notably, although support for this sort of interpretation falls as people get older, it remains significantly higher than opposition for every single age group. Arguments that there is a huge cultural divide by age are largely unfounded.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is majority support across all ethnic groups, with agreement increasing to 7 in 10 UK residents of black ethnicity. For sites that champion an inclusive agenda (which is every historic attraction we work with), this figure may be enough motivation to update interpretation in itself.
We tried in vain to find an audience that is more likely to oppose, but such was the support for the suggestion, we were unsuccessful. The closest we came was amongst ‘anti-vaxxers’. But even amongst this ‘counter-cultural’ audience, support was higher than opposition – 39% to 27%.
A few words about the minority
This is a complex subject with many layers and nuances, and we don’t expect this one question to provide meaningful recommendations. But we hope it demonstrates that – despite what some tabloids may say – opposition to including links to slavery is only held amongst a minority of the general public.
However, we mustn’t forget this minority either. Although 15% is relatively small, no venue would want to lose this amount of visitors. With any additional interpretation on slavery, this minority will want to be reassured that their ‘traditional visit’ is protected and that extra interpretation adds depth rather than takes anything away.
Our wider research on brand purpose suggests that one possible objection from these detractors is that places are responding to a ‘woke’ political agenda. So it’s important that interpretation is clearly supported by robust source material too.
We are delighted that BVA BDRC is part of the Sustainable Hospitality Alliance, reinforcing our commitment to a low-impact future and using our skills to help the sector work on a cohesive response to the challenge posed by the climate crisis.
The sustainable movement will be the defining initiative of our times and it is vital that we all contribute towards its success.
As an independent research specialist, we can help shape the conversation, ensuring the sector remains connected to the views of travellers, guests and consumers and can retain control of the story.
Our membership of the Alliance will add to our B Corp initiative and commitment to the MRS Net Zero Pledge and MRS Inclusion Pledge, allowing us to use the tools of our trade to help make sense of the world and contribute to a more sustainable future.
Our research has found that consumers wanted to be more sustainable and are calling on companies to “help me help”, creating a so-far-untapped opportunity for hotel brands – in fact 76% of the UK public were ‘very concerned’ about sustainable issues, led by environmental over social.
Given the choice between similar hotels and similar choice with one offering better sustainability offerings, an overwhelming majority chose the sustainable hotel. This was the same when the price went up by 5%.
We believe that companies who help their customers make better sustainable choices can build loyalty and profitability.
The sector is concerned that sustainability is a burden; a tax on operations or an issue for the legal department. We feel that we can help all stakeholders recognise the business opportunity that becoming sustainable provides.
We joined the Sustainable Hospitality Alliance as it launched its revolutionary Pathway to Net Positive Hospitality, providing guidance to help every hotel work towards net positive environmental impact, whatever their starting point.
The Pathway to Net Positive provides a practical, four-stage guidance framework as a free resource that supports all parts of the hospitality value chain to progress in a cohesive, strategic manner. It includes detailed action guidance for hotel operators, brands and asset owners, applicable to both single or multi-unit organisations.
The Pathway recognises that sustainability is crucially important to the sector’s long-term success and that all businesses need to evolve and innovate as stakeholder needs and expectations change.
Sustainable Hospitality Alliance members make up 30% of the global hotel industry by rooms and include 16 world-leading hotel companies with a combined reach of over 35,000 properties and 5.5 million rooms.
According to the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO), the hotel sector accounts for around 1% of global carbon emissions and this is set to increase. Hospitality, like other industries, has a responsibility to manage its impact on our planet.
Research conducted by the Sustainable Hospitality Alliance found that the hotel industry needed to reduce its carbon emissions by 66% per room by 2030, and by 90% per room by 2050 to ensure that the growth forecast for the industry does not lead to a corresponding increase in carbon emissions. The industry will need to go even further to help limit warming to 1.5C and avoid the very worst impacts of climate change.
The hospitality sector has faced a series of disruptions in recent years, from the online travel agents, to peer-to-peer lodging and now the shifts in customer behaviour driven by the pandemic. It is only by acting in harmony that the sector has been able to navigate these issues.
Collaboration will be key to success in achieving sustainability and we hope to be able to act as a trusted third party to the Alliance and provide the opportunity for members to share data without fear of revealing information to their competitors, and with no commercial agenda.
The 2022 Hotel Guest Survey found that 80% of leisure guests had already booked a domestic stay, or were highly likely to, with city breaks the most popular choice. The cost pressures being felt by the consumer were also a factor, with value for money driving booking decisions.
Consumers are becoming more comfortable with the idea of booking an international holiday, but while we are seeing those green shoots for outbound travel, nearly twice as many adults booked a UK holiday during January – the highest incidence since the start of tracking.
Comfort with the idea of staying in hotels and other types of paid-for accommodation jumped significantly as Omicron-driven fears receded and the accommodation sector is closing in on the pre-pandemic norm in terms of consumer comfort levels.
What remains to be seen is whether this recovery will endure, or whether this is one final hurrah before the cost-of-living crisis starts to bite. As we saw from our survey, value is a driver for consumers and there are further factors heading towards us, including the energy price cap increase and possible economic repercussions of Putin’s war on Ukraine.
The domestic leisure market has dominated the sector during the pandemic, with an average of 3.8 leisure trips taken over the past two years, against 1.3 domestic business trips. Beach and resort breaks were popular, as more exotic climes were unavailable.
Jane Pendlebury, CEO, HOSPA, said: “The pandemic drove a rise in domestic holidays caused by necessity – we needed a break but we couldn’t leave the country. In the event we rediscovered what we knew before the growth of budget airlines, which was that the UK is full of wonderful destinations with hotels, restaurants and pubs which offer unique and welcoming experiences.
“Many guests have realised that the UK is not a second-choice destination, but somewhere to explore and be inspired by.”
Ben Harper, group managing director, Watergate Bay Hotel, Another Place and Beach Retreats, added: “The domestic market isn’t a new one, we had been booming before the pandemic. I’m confident of the short term, but I feel even more confident about the medium to long term. There is such an inconsistent landscape in the UK – and no leading brand – which presents a great opportunity.
“Domestic leisure markets across Europe have seen growth in interest from investors, who are looking to build platforms and brands which will bring them healthy returns, but also keep pace with the demands of the mass-affluent travellers who want exceptional design and memorable experiences. These businesses successfully reduce seasonality and create lifestyle through brand.”
Our study found that confidence was growing, with 47% of UK consumers happy to book a domestic trip to be taken in a few months and 32% to go now. As guests have become more comfortable with staying in hotels, they have also started to return to the cities. Looking at future intent for the next 12 months, 47% were planning a city break, while 34% wanted to visit a local area or attraction and 32% were aiming to visit friends or relatives.
David Orr, CEO, Resident Hotels, said: “Whenever restrictions were loosened during the pandemic, we saw people eager to return to the cities, to meet with friends and family, to reconnect with culture and nights out; looking to rediscover the normality the pandemic and strict lockdowns had denied us all, regardless of age.
“We are delighted to see still seeing life return to the cities, recognising that people seeking those lost experiences more than ever cherish and value those moments, so even more focus on “reputation” when it comes to booking a hotel. Reputation is a fundamental qualitative test that reaches across feeling safe and secure, knowing that the teams are looked after well and that guests are looked after well. Reputation uniquely informs the decision of a guest as well as a team member to put their trust in you. Cities we all hope are returning quickly to being the most desired and dynamic of destinations, yet reputation and trust underpins all judgement guests will make when considering investing in their experiences. It is the team at The Resident which the reputation of the hotel is built upon and which will see it become a much-loved destination for a lifetime as we move forwards.”
The survey found that having had a good experience in the past was behind many bookings.
Kevin Edwards, Alliants, said: “Experience is one of the drivers behind booking, in this case experiences which people have had in the past. This is clear proof that, if you want to create those lifelong connections with guests, which will see them return as well as recommend your hotel to friends and family, then you need to focus on experience.
“The hotel sector had become convinced that memorable experiences can only be delivered by a vast team, but the pandemic has persuaded a growing number of hotels that technology can be used intelligently to both free team members to give better service and, with messaging, help create those important bonds. This becomes even more relevant when you see that guests are conscious of value: no-one wants to pay for swarms of staff hovering ‘round reception.”
Many in the sector felt that, once international travel had become more certain, consumers would revert to old patterns and return to their search for summer sun. Instead we can see that the domestic market has outlasted the pandemic and, with the added influence of concerns over price and the impact of travel on climate change, may remain buoyant.
To continue to attract guests, hotels must appreciate that they no longer have a captive market, but must compete, if not on the weather, then value and experience, as consumers look to make the most of their time and money.
Learn more about Hotel Guest Survey.
This is a controversial question – especially for me, having worked with hoteliers for the last seven years – but it’s one I’m willing to put out there to share learnings in the customer experience (CX) arena. After all, we learn from the best.
Hotels were known for providing and leading the way in customer experience, well before we even knew that it was a thing. Hotels are hospitality, and hospitality is CX.
Let’s compare retail CX to hotel CX for a moment. How many shops have you walked into and the assistant tries not to make eye contact with you by looking busy? Or the banks with their vacant counters and building queues while the only visible staff carry out their paperwork? Compare and contrast these experiences with the hotel receptionist trained to drop everything to greet you, or the general managers patrolling their lobbies welcoming guests. Which one of these elevates the customer?
It can be argued, of course, that the likes of John Lewis are much better at CX than the average retail outlet, and Metro bank provides more opening hours than other high street banks. And not all hotels are perfect – some fall a long way short. But, in my opinion, an ‘average’ hotel still trumps even the very best from other sectors.
So why am I putting it out there that homestay may be leading the way in CX?
I’ve recently returned from a trip to Porto. I booked a 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom apartment with a mezzanine and three balconies. I paid around £140 a night for this beautiful apartment, centrally located and immaculately kept. Yes, it was off-peak, but when I looked for a hotel bedroom for £140 a night during the same weekend, I didn’t get a suite, kitchen and three balconies.
However, astounding as they were, it wasn’t the facilities that elevated my experience; it was the hosts.
Before arrival, the hosts contacted me to tell me they were ‘excited’ about our visit and asked what they could do to provide us with ‘the perfect stay’. They gave us local recommendations, a virtual Porto brochure and offers of help to get from the airport. I noticed on the Airbnb app that it tells the booker how quickly hosts reply to their guests, and mine said ‘less than one hour’- that’s impressive!
On arrival, they allowed us to check-in hours before for no extra cost. They waited for us to arrive and provided a guided tour of every facility. Along with this, an honesty bar was available with a personalised wine selection, a local’s manual, a complimentary bottle of port, a message each morning to check we slept well, and whether they could do anything to assist – the list goes on! How many hotels are doing this at £140 a night?
It got me thinking: how can hoteliers compete with this personalised experience? How can they motivate staff to go the extra two miles for their guests (because one is no longer enough)? Is it a matter of ownership? For the most part, your Airbnb host owns the property you’ll be occupying and it is that owner with whom you interact; its reputation as a property and their reputation as a host are one and the same. Every customer experience, because there are relatively few of them, links directly and doubtless very visibly to the likelihood of getting a future booking. The same is less frequently true of a branded hotel and maybe that’s the issue.
A cult-like following
In the Western world, at least, users of Airbnb overwhelmingly become advocates of the concept and the site. I count myself as one; despite hearing about several bad experiences – the sort of experiences you wouldn’t get with a hotel – I have no qualms about booking with Airbnb or recommending it to others.
It seems I’m not alone. Our Hotel Guest Survey records relational Net Promoter Scores amongst recent users of the brands it tracks, and in 2021 Airbnb consistently places ‘on the podium’ throughout Europe and the USA – displaying a level of consistency that most hotel brands would kill for.
So, is homestay a leader in CX? Our research and experience suggest the answer is ‘Yes’, and it’s down to those super hosts who elevate the guest experience with memorable moments.
Learn more about our approach to customer experience and the power of memorable moments.
Recent times have seen economic news hit the front page with daily regularity. While oscillating market conditions have dominated the headlines, consumers have seen letters on their doormats from their mortgage providers and energy companies with bad news. A trip to the shops offers little respite.
And consumers are responding accordingly. Our Moments of Truth study tells us that two in three consumers cut household energy usage. A third plan to leave the car at home, with some of that (1 in 7) taken up by public transport.
The OBR anticipates household incomes falling cumulatively 5.7% over ’22 and ‘23, in part due to tax rises, cuts in energy subsidies and guaranteed rises in fixed-rate mortgages for 2m households (costing each mortgaged household £3,000 extra in 2023). The 9.7% increase in the minimum wage and 10.1% rise in welfare benefits and pensions in April 2023 will however soften the blow somewhat for lower-income households.
Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation for lower-middle-income households describes 2023 as a Groundhog Year – repeating 2022, with another ration of pain on the way.
There is light: according to data from Consensus Economics, aided by falling energy prices and better than anticipated business and consumer sentiment, the UK economic outlook for this year has improved from its most recent darkest days.
But that move towards a brighter outlook has yet to be fully felt in the present. Moments of Truth results show that 75% of consumers felt, either through choice or necessity, the need to be cautious, with discretionary spending largely affected.
Consumer spending on restaurants (51%), entertainment (37%) and holidays (33%) are all being hit, (although the sight of packed bars and restaurants in many towns and cities might give you the opposite impression).
Beyond spending cuts, 25% of consumers expect to dip into their savings this year to tide them over and over one in five have already used their overdraft at least once in the past 12 months.
Regardless of whether these dire predictions pan out as forecast or the economy continues to fluctuate, giving us glimpses of recovery and calming waters, banks simply must invest time and energy into proactively forging strong relationships with their consumers. Moments of Truth tells us that if the attention is given now, they’re in with a good chance of building a lifetime of loyalty.
There is work to do. To date, only 10% of those who claim to be ‘struggling’, expect to discuss their financial situation with their bank in the next three months. If the relationship was sound, we’d expect the trust that comes with it to drive conversations about short- and long-term solutions.
Which banks are getting it right?
first direct is one to watch. According to customer ratings in the Moments of Truth benchmarks, it offers by far the best overdraft customer experience.
first direct also held an impressive lead over its peers for telephone contact throughout 2022. 50% of people contacting the bank got through to a person in just one minute, which is significantly better than the industry average of 20%. On top of that, queries are dealt with swiftly and effectively, without the typical sources of friction or stress. The same cannot be said for some other providers assessed by the study.
Elsewhere, Newcastle Building Society, Coventry Building Society and Monzo offer clear demonstrations of best practice across various offline and online experiences – be that through minimising branch queues, efficient product applications or game-changing app features.
Ultimately, a brand has the power to make or break someone’s day. Operational success or failure can have a huge emotional impact on the end customer, and the shockwaves can be far-reaching when it comes to money – especially if that person is already feeling under pressure.
It is vital that customers enjoy a close relationship with their bank, so that any issues can be resolved before they become crises. Banks and building societies need to be accessible and approachable – just as we are seeing with the top performers in the Moments of Truth results. Recent market volatility placed extra emphasis on the importance of this and we are pleased to see banks and building societies working to create outstanding customer experiences.
The leading players are proof that when customers feel like they have less, they can still experience more.
About the research
Moments of Truth assesses consumer banking experiences through 30,000 online interviews annually, across 80 providers and 16 key customer journeys. Learn more.
The transition to a more sustainable future is underway. The UK government’s current policy aims to end the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, putting electric vehicles (EVs) at the forefront of discussions. But that doesn’t mean they are without controversy. We have been closely monitoring and analysing online conversations (in partnership with Uptowns) about EVs and their impact on society.
Future EV owners have various concerns, including the cost of buying and running an electric car and the range and availability of charging points. However, what interested me were the debates questioning EV sustainability.
While some view EVs as a notable positive change in the fight against global climate change, others remain sceptical about their overall environmental impact. Here are the topics that caught my attention:
1. Resource Extraction
One of the major criticisms of EVs is the extraction of minerals required for their batteries. The monopoly of Chinese companies in the mineral market concerns many online who fear the exploitation of developing countries.
The non-renewable nature of lithium also raises questions about the viability and volume of available reserves, with many foreseeing a future shortage. These concerns are crucial, considering the eco-conscious audiences who expect transparency and responsibility from the industry.
2. Electricity Demand
The electricity required to supply a global fleet of electric vehicles is another critical consideration. National capacities to support such demand are regularly discussed, particularly in countries where the nuclear energy industry remains underdeveloped. What would a complete transition to EVs mean in terms of energy demand? What energy governance challenges would such demand entail? Are the current power generation systems consistent with the “green” credentials of EVs?
3. Infrastructure
Some argue that transitioning to EVs will mean the transformation of cities and the countryside. EVs require charging points that take up space and can be perceived as hazards. In cities, many worry that the installation of charging points will cause damage to historic sites and harm the atmosphere. The speed of change, inclusivity and public dialogue are all essential considerations.
These concerns are not exclusive to the alt-right or radical left but are shared by individuals from all political affiliations. The fact that well-sourced and impartial arguments giving an upbeat assessment of the impact of EVs are rare adds to the scepticism surrounding EVs’ green credentials.
While EVs can potentially be a ‘game-changer’ for the climate, these findings show that many still need to be persuaded about their environmental impact. The industry needs to be transparent and responsible, and the public must be informed and involved in the discussion to ensure a sustainable and eco-friendly future.
BVA BDRC is now part of Ipsos, one of the world’s leading market research companies.
Find us on Ipsos.com.
