March 26, 2026
ArturVerkhovetskiy/Depositphotos.com
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while Gen Zers and baby boomers still choose national brands at No. 1 across most categories versus private label, DTC, and premium alternatives, a major gulf is emerging when it comes to interest, desire to learn or know more, and perhaps even future purchase intent.
“Gen Z still picks national brands when you put four options in front of them. What this data shows is that they’re noticing them less, exploring them less, and in categories like vitamins, they’re a coin flip away from choosing a challenger instead,” said Viki Zabala, Chief Strategy and Growth Officer at First Insight, via a press release.
“The brands that will win the next decade are the ones that understand exactly where they stand in the Gen Z value hierarchy — by category, by channel — and take action before that gap becomes permanent. As Boomers age out of peak purchasing, this isn’t a cycle. It’s a handoff. And right now, challengers are on the receiving end,” Zabala added.
In a summary attached to the report, three embedded signals indicated that the current lead being held by national brands is in danger of eroding.
- The attention gap is widening: Younger U.S. consumers are affording national brands 24% less shelf attention than their boomer counterparts. Filling that gap are store brand, DTC, and premium brand challengers.
- Then, curiosity is shifting: More than one-third (38%) of Gen Z purchasing decisions rest on factors which “most national brands don’t measure or under invest in,” per the report. Further, “challengers are built for exactly those signals.”
- Preference is undergoing rapid change: A majority (59%) of Gen Z consumers are trading down in staples. In particular categories, notably vitamins, a former 20% national brand lead has broken down to just 2% with zoomer buyers.
With Gen Z buyers trading down to private-label food and beverage options (31% said as much) and household goods (24%) at much higher rates than older Americans — in favor of splurging on the pet, health and beauty, and wellness categories — yet another gulf has emerged: When asked “which product stands out to you first?” on the shelf, Gen Z shoppers reliably choose established national brands far less often than boomer buyers. On multi-purpose cleaners, boomers selected the national brand 68% of the time (versus just 44% for Gen Z); and on facial cleansers they chose the national brand 79% of the time (against 52% for zoomers).
“Instead, Gen Z consumers more frequently noticed private-label, premium and direct-to-consumer brands. This shift suggests traditional brand recognition may be losing its advantage among younger shoppers. Visual packaging, clarity, modern design, and contemporary positioning are driving first
attention,” the report claimed.
“The shelf functions like a social feed — and Gen Z scrolls past what feels dated,” it added, pivoting to note that when it came to purchase intentions across CPG categories, “The moat around legacy brands is shrinking with the generation that matters most for long-term growth.”
BrainTrust
Lisa Goller
B2B Content Strategist
Carlos Arámbula
Principal, Growth Genie Partners
Brad Halverson
Principal, Clearbrand CX
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Do you believe that national brands may be in relative trouble versus competitors as boomers ‘age out’ of peak purchasing power in favor of millennials and Gen Z? Why or why not?
How can national brands reverse the trend indicated in the study? What moves are essential for them to make right away?
Poll
Loading …
There is growing evidence that national brands face increasing pressure as purchasing power shifts from Boomers to Millennials and Gen Z. Research consistently points to several drivers behind the rise of private brands: improved product quality, sharper pricing, stronger retailer loyalty programs, and more effective merchandising and placement. Younger shoppers, in particular, tend to be less brand-loyal than previous generations and more willing to experiment—especially when private labels deliver comparable quality at a better value. In that sense, the challenge for national brands is not simply demographic change, but a broader evolution in how consumers evaluate value and trust.
That said, national brands are far from being in “trouble” across the board. Many still offer advantages in innovation, marketing reach, and emotional brand equity. However, they must work harder to justify their price premium. This means leaning into differentiated innovation, stronger storytelling, and clearer value propositions. National brands also need to collaborate more closely with retailers, ensuring their products are supported by compelling digital content, in-store merchandising, and omnichannel visibility that resonates with younger consumers.
To reverse the trend, national brands should move quickly in a few key areas: invest in innovation that clearly differentiates from private label alternatives; strengthen digital and social engagement, particularly with Gen Z and Millennials; and rethink pack sizes, pricing, and promotional strategies to align with value-conscious shoppers. The rise of private brands reflects structural changes in retail, not just temporary consumer behavior. National brands that adapt to those realities—while leveraging their strengths in innovation and brand-building—will be best positioned to remain competitive in the years ahead.
RW’s preoccupation with – and, unfortunately, oversimplification of – demographic effects on consumption continues:. I would submit that loss of brand loyalty has ocurred across all age cohorts…it has much less to do with some mythical “aging out” effect. (Of course this is probably of litlle comfort: it means the situation is actually worse)
Agree- obsession that biological age is a core factor for decision making is odd metric.
But maybe this is exactly the BRAND problem…
their targeting to win over a demo (still after decades), instead of making the brand/product shine bright in cultural and societal life of diversity that it is desired.
The line “As Boomers Age Out of Peak Purchasing” made me laugh out loud. The youngest Baby Boomers are 62, we’re not exactly lining up for the exit. Let’s not write off an entire generation that still has plenty of spending power left. Plus, there are two whole generations between Boomers and Gen Z. What about them?
Of course, Gen Z notices private label and direct-to-consumer brands first because that’s what fills their social media feeds. TikTok and Instagram are full of those brands. I can’t remember the last time a national brand showed on my feed on either of those social medias. Facebook? Sure, but then Facebook caters to my generation.
If you want to capture Gen Z’s attention, show up where they are, and play by their rules.
ha! Are Millennials now ghosted as much a Xer’s?
“show up where they are, and play by their rules”.
Be what they want.
Be the solution/improvement to consumers’ lives. Less push, more pull.
Yes, the power of national brands is slowly eroding, as reflected in the signals outlined in the article. The issue isn’t that these brands have lost all relevance, but that they are beginning to lose attention, curiosity, and cultural resonance with the next generation of consumers.
At the core is a mismatch between how national brands were built and how Gen Z discovers and evaluates products. Gen Z shops in a way that mirrors digital behavior—fast, visual, and driven by immediacy, identity, and clarity of value—which inherently favors challenger brands designed for scroll-stopping impact. Elements like visual packaging, clarity, modern design, and contemporary positioning play an outsized role, and Gen Z also places greater weight on a brand’s stated social consciousness—an area where many national brands have historically underinvested or under-communicated.
That said, leading national brands are not on an inevitable path to decline. What’s required is a more Darwinian approach to product and brand management: adapt or risk irrelevance. These companies have the resources to respond decisively—either by competing aggressively on value or by creating meaningful, differentiated premium offerings—while avoiding the trap of being diluted in the middle.
In parallel, they should actively explore brand extensions or new ventures that operate credibly within the challenger space, allowing them to meet Gen Z where they are while neutralizing competitive threats. The opportunity isn’t just to defend share, but to evolve how demand is created and captured in the emerging new consumer landscape.
“National brand” is interesting concept.
Isn’t a store label a brand?
Isn’t a Kroger store label also a national brand.
The point… are Brands focusing on metrics or qualities that are not relevant to most consumers? Shelf space alone (what the majors vie for) is not the trust builder or desire builder in consumers. (It’s a great default purchase, if price is acceptable).
The more consumers (of all ages) know there are D2C’s and non majors… will that be held against the retail store.
Will consumers who accept a diverse & global world, be wondering why the store CHOOSES to focus on major multinationals (.eg P&G, Clorox, or names that were in their parent’s pantries). Are we at the point where consumers can feel (if not verbalize) that their choice options are narrowed by the store… as opposed to discovery channels.
Brand awareness and trust with every generation is built by showing what makes their product different or better, in sharing stories, and proving it works. And it has to be relevant in language, meeting customers where they are on their life’s journey. But brands would be foolish to wean off Boomers to get to the masses of Gen Z now without embracing Gen X and Millenials, who happen to be in their prime earning years now.
ah, the perpetual holy grail of a 14 yr old!!!
Younger consumers are accustomed to the endless aisle’s abundance of choice, whereas older shoppers remain loyal to legacy brands in part out of habit.
The proliferation of private labels helps retailers grow their top line in 2 ways. They earn store brand sales plus retail media revenue, as national brands buy ads to protect their top-of-mind status.
The problem for brands is that today’s private label is not the same as the private label of the 70s and 80s. Today’s private label offerings are generally every bit as good as national brands, and sometimes better.
Branded products require advertising and promotion. That could be 25% of the cost of the product that customers pay for. That very acceptable PL product merely passes that saving on to the customer.
By the way, is “Trader Joe’s” or “365” considered a private label?
This notion that PL is only a lesser formula is steeped in 1980’s chain store assumptions. I know several independent and regional grocers who’ve sourced and packaged better quality products/ingredients (olive oil, pasta sauce, balsamic, frozen berries, etc) than any of the national brands for their own label programs. Those grocers promote them first for their quality and taste.
“In relative trouble…?” No, in real trouble. And I don’t think it’s about boomers ‘aging out’. I think it’s about consumers of every age discovering the amazing work so many retailers have invested in their own proprietary labels. Branding and pricing is about differentiation and distinction and value. When true differentiation and distinction is offered, the pricing can reflect that. And when it’s difficult for that differentiation and distinction to be replicated the brand continues to enjoy their moat and their market position. When the essence of the product can be replicated, the big brand has lost their moat, and their market share.
Why would we call it ‘trading down’ if I buy the private label? I consider it trading up…in value. More bang for the buck. That’s the whole point. I am not trading down in that I am settling for less. I am getting more for my money. I am stretching my dollar. That’s why national brands are in trouble…with every age and cohort.
Yes. When will we get over the idea that PL is something less?
Either members of the media haven’t done their homework or grocers haven’t done an adequate job in educating shoppers. Or both.
National brands are not losing relevance overnight, but they are clearly losing attention with younger customers. Gen Z does not respond to brand legacy in the same way as previous generations. Their decisions are shaped more by relevance, design and value. When brands fail to stand out in these areas, customers quickly shift to alternatives.
The priority for national brands is to rebuild relevance, not rely on recognition. This means sharper positioning, clearer value, and stronger alignment with what matters to Gen Z across channels. Brands that adapt how they show up, both on the shelf and digitally, will stay competitive. Those that continue to depend on past equity will gradually lose share.
Add in the societal shift.
A knock off/Kmart special negative connotation —> to era of “Dupes” not being hidden
I don’t really buy into this. First, private label penetration is increasing across all age cohorts. Second, older consumers actually penetrate higher for private label than younger consumers. Third, younger consumers tend to be more experimental and less loyal with brands in general, regardless of whether they’re private or national.
An area where major Brands get in their own way.
Still believing that legacy is THE uniqueness or differentiator.
A retailer over emphasizing they have been around for 120 years.(eh, so?)
A major brand focused on holding shelf space by adding 20 versions of “improved” toothpaste or 12 shades of dish soap. (cute, but not solving issue or lasting improvement)
More Discussions
Will Automated Pay Stations Pay Off For Costco?
Costco is making a play into improving its checkout process.Is Bed Bath & Beyond’s Purchase of The Container Store a Smart Play?
Was the acquisition a good move?Can AI Customer Service Actually Replace Humans?
If, and when, AI replaces human customer service, will it be deemed a success?
There is growing evidence that national brands face increasing pressure as purchasing power shifts from Boomers to Millennials and Gen Z. Research consistently points to several drivers behind the rise of private brands: improved product quality, sharper pricing, stronger retailer loyalty programs, and more effective merchandising and placement. Younger shoppers, in particular, tend to be less brand-loyal than previous generations and more willing to experiment—especially when private labels deliver comparable quality at a better value. In that sense, the challenge for national brands is not simply demographic change, but a broader evolution in how consumers evaluate value and trust.
That said, national brands are far from being in “trouble” across the board. Many still offer advantages in innovation, marketing reach, and emotional brand equity. However, they must work harder to justify their price premium. This means leaning into differentiated innovation, stronger storytelling, and clearer value propositions. National brands also need to collaborate more closely with retailers, ensuring their products are supported by compelling digital content, in-store merchandising, and omnichannel visibility that resonates with younger consumers.
To reverse the trend, national brands should move quickly in a few key areas: invest in innovation that clearly differentiates from private label alternatives; strengthen digital and social engagement, particularly with Gen Z and Millennials; and rethink pack sizes, pricing, and promotional strategies to align with value-conscious shoppers. The rise of private brands reflects structural changes in retail, not just temporary consumer behavior. National brands that adapt to those realities—while leveraging their strengths in innovation and brand-building—will be best positioned to remain competitive in the years ahead.
RW’s preoccupation with – and, unfortunately, oversimplification of – demographic effects on consumption continues:. I would submit that loss of brand loyalty has ocurred across all age cohorts…it has much less to do with some mythical “aging out” effect. (Of course this is probably of litlle comfort: it means the situation is actually worse)
Agree- obsession that biological age is a core factor for decision making is odd metric.
But maybe this is exactly the BRAND problem…
their targeting to win over a demo (still after decades), instead of making the brand/product shine bright in cultural and societal life of diversity that it is desired.
The line “As Boomers Age Out of Peak Purchasing” made me laugh out loud. The youngest Baby Boomers are 62, we’re not exactly lining up for the exit. Let’s not write off an entire generation that still has plenty of spending power left. Plus, there are two whole generations between Boomers and Gen Z. What about them?
Of course, Gen Z notices private label and direct-to-consumer brands first because that’s what fills their social media feeds. TikTok and Instagram are full of those brands. I can’t remember the last time a national brand showed on my feed on either of those social medias. Facebook? Sure, but then Facebook caters to my generation.
If you want to capture Gen Z’s attention, show up where they are, and play by their rules.
ha! Are Millennials now ghosted as much a Xer’s?
“show up where they are, and play by their rules”.
Be what they want.
Be the solution/improvement to consumers’ lives. Less push, more pull.
Yes, the power of national brands is slowly eroding, as reflected in the signals outlined in the article. The issue isn’t that these brands have lost all relevance, but that they are beginning to lose attention, curiosity, and cultural resonance with the next generation of consumers.
At the core is a mismatch between how national brands were built and how Gen Z discovers and evaluates products. Gen Z shops in a way that mirrors digital behavior—fast, visual, and driven by immediacy, identity, and clarity of value—which inherently favors challenger brands designed for scroll-stopping impact. Elements like visual packaging, clarity, modern design, and contemporary positioning play an outsized role, and Gen Z also places greater weight on a brand’s stated social consciousness—an area where many national brands have historically underinvested or under-communicated.
That said, leading national brands are not on an inevitable path to decline. What’s required is a more Darwinian approach to product and brand management: adapt or risk irrelevance. These companies have the resources to respond decisively—either by competing aggressively on value or by creating meaningful, differentiated premium offerings—while avoiding the trap of being diluted in the middle.
In parallel, they should actively explore brand extensions or new ventures that operate credibly within the challenger space, allowing them to meet Gen Z where they are while neutralizing competitive threats. The opportunity isn’t just to defend share, but to evolve how demand is created and captured in the emerging new consumer landscape.
“National brand” is interesting concept.
Isn’t a store label a brand?
Isn’t a Kroger store label also a national brand.
The point… are Brands focusing on metrics or qualities that are not relevant to most consumers? Shelf space alone (what the majors vie for) is not the trust builder or desire builder in consumers. (It’s a great default purchase, if price is acceptable).
The more consumers (of all ages) know there are D2C’s and non majors… will that be held against the retail store.
Will consumers who accept a diverse & global world, be wondering why the store CHOOSES to focus on major multinationals (.eg P&G, Clorox, or names that were in their parent’s pantries). Are we at the point where consumers can feel (if not verbalize) that their choice options are narrowed by the store… as opposed to discovery channels.
Brand awareness and trust with every generation is built by showing what makes their product different or better, in sharing stories, and proving it works. And it has to be relevant in language, meeting customers where they are on their life’s journey. But brands would be foolish to wean off Boomers to get to the masses of Gen Z now without embracing Gen X and Millenials, who happen to be in their prime earning years now.
ah, the perpetual holy grail of a 14 yr old!!!
Younger consumers are accustomed to the endless aisle’s abundance of choice, whereas older shoppers remain loyal to legacy brands in part out of habit.
The proliferation of private labels helps retailers grow their top line in 2 ways. They earn store brand sales plus retail media revenue, as national brands buy ads to protect their top-of-mind status.
The problem for brands is that today’s private label is not the same as the private label of the 70s and 80s. Today’s private label offerings are generally every bit as good as national brands, and sometimes better.
Branded products require advertising and promotion. That could be 25% of the cost of the product that customers pay for. That very acceptable PL product merely passes that saving on to the customer.
By the way, is “Trader Joe’s” or “365” considered a private label?
This notion that PL is only a lesser formula is steeped in 1980’s chain store assumptions. I know several independent and regional grocers who’ve sourced and packaged better quality products/ingredients (olive oil, pasta sauce, balsamic, frozen berries, etc) than any of the national brands for their own label programs. Those grocers promote them first for their quality and taste.
“In relative trouble…?” No, in real trouble. And I don’t think it’s about boomers ‘aging out’. I think it’s about consumers of every age discovering the amazing work so many retailers have invested in their own proprietary labels. Branding and pricing is about differentiation and distinction and value. When true differentiation and distinction is offered, the pricing can reflect that. And when it’s difficult for that differentiation and distinction to be replicated the brand continues to enjoy their moat and their market position. When the essence of the product can be replicated, the big brand has lost their moat, and their market share.
Why would we call it ‘trading down’ if I buy the private label? I consider it trading up…in value. More bang for the buck. That’s the whole point. I am not trading down in that I am settling for less. I am getting more for my money. I am stretching my dollar. That’s why national brands are in trouble…with every age and cohort.
Yes. When will we get over the idea that PL is something less?
Either members of the media haven’t done their homework or grocers haven’t done an adequate job in educating shoppers. Or both.
National brands are not losing relevance overnight, but they are clearly losing attention with younger customers. Gen Z does not respond to brand legacy in the same way as previous generations. Their decisions are shaped more by relevance, design and value. When brands fail to stand out in these areas, customers quickly shift to alternatives.
The priority for national brands is to rebuild relevance, not rely on recognition. This means sharper positioning, clearer value, and stronger alignment with what matters to Gen Z across channels. Brands that adapt how they show up, both on the shelf and digitally, will stay competitive. Those that continue to depend on past equity will gradually lose share.
Add in the societal shift.
A knock off/Kmart special negative connotation —> to era of “Dupes” not being hidden
I don’t really buy into this. First, private label penetration is increasing across all age cohorts. Second, older consumers actually penetrate higher for private label than younger consumers. Third, younger consumers tend to be more experimental and less loyal with brands in general, regardless of whether they’re private or national.
An area where major Brands get in their own way.
Still believing that legacy is THE uniqueness or differentiator.
A retailer over emphasizing they have been around for 120 years.(eh, so?)
A major brand focused on holding shelf space by adding 20 versions of “improved” toothpaste or 12 shades of dish soap. (cute, but not solving issue or lasting improvement)