December 5, 2025
tete_escape/Depositphotos.com
Are Digital Twins Really That Big of a Turn-Off For Consumers?
In a recent press release issued by First Insight, a substantial claim was advanced, backed by survey data: Today’s consumers are strongly against a certain iteration of so-called “digital twins,” in this case an AI-generated simulation of their own organic selves, particularly zeroed in on their purchasing habits.
Digital twins, as a concept in retail, comes in an array of forms — Bianca Doerschlag of WD Partners recently outlined the trend of digital twins from a physical spaces/logistics/infrastructure standpoint — but the survey data put forth by First Insight was based on the notion of a simulated copy of individual shoppers, for clarification.
“Once learning that a digital twin is a digital replica of customers built from past purchases, browsing behavior and inferred preferences, 69% of consumers say they would trust a brand less if it relied on digital twins instead of real customer feedback,” the press release outlined, noting that nearly half (48%) of those polled hadn’t heard of the notion of a digital twin prior to the survey.
“Many retailers are using digital twins as a faster, more scalable way to deliver personalized experiences to their customers. But, using these virtual representations of customers to guide decisions and make predictions around everything from products and pricing to inventory and marketing–without ever involving the real customer–is not only largely inaccurate, but can cause brands to lose significant customer trust. More than three-quarters (77%) of consumers say they value authentic, direct communication from brands more than efficiency or automation in how they gather feedback,” the release added.
Digital Twins: The Future of Consumer Insights, As Long as Consent Is Involved, or Will Opposition Stick?
Among the other notable findings delivered by the survey data:
- Should shoppers discover they were being digitally modeled or monetized without their express consent, a majority (58%) would immediately become antagonistic detractors of the brand responsible — less likely to recommend that brand to others, or even to actively warn their associates, friends, or family members away from that brand.
- Gen Z respondents were the most likely to act on information which revealed the above practice involved them — more than half (56%) would reach out to discuss this overstepping with retailers responsible, and nearly equal cohorts would spread articles about the brand’s practices around (54%) or expose the practice themselves on social media (53%). Similar percentages of zoomer respondents indicated they would walk away from brands engaging in this practice entirely (54%), and 52% said they would participate in boycotts of retailers should unauthorized digital twinning be revealed.
- The highest-spending generations, delineated as baby boomers and Gen Xers, were the most firm their opposition to digital twins formed and operating without their consent.
- Human connection appears to be invaluable to shoppers, with an overwhelming majority (91%) stating that authentic human reaction was an important element of their connection with a brand. A full 40% of those polled stated that this factor was “very” important.
“When retailers cut customers out and rely on synthetic replicas instead, trust collapses. You cannot claim to know your customer while replacing them with a model of themselves,” said Greg Petro, CEO of First Insight.
“Consumers aren’t anti-technology, or anti-AI, they’re anti being modeled, simulated and monetized without their consent. The path forward is clear: engage real consumers in real time, reward their input and build AI that strengthens—not replaces—authentic human feedback,” Petro added.
BrainTrust
Cathy Hotka
Principal, Cathy Hotka & Associates
Mohamed Amer, PhD
CEO & Strategic Board Advisor, Strategy Doctor
Shep Hyken
Chief Amazement Officer, Shepard Presentations, LLC
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Is the concept of digital twins as jarring to consumers as presented by the survey data, in your opinion? Why or why not?
What differentiates the concept of digital twins, as outlined above, from traditional usages or modeling of consumer data — if anything? Does this evolution warrant concern?
Are consumers actually likely to ditch a purchase, or a brand, based on revelations that their data has been used to create a portrait of them as a customer — or is this being overstated?
Poll
Loading …
How would consumers know retailers are using digital twins? How are digital twins any less personal than many of the existing segmentations, assumptions, and algorithms retailers currently use? Do consumers really care so long as the experience they want is delivered? I ask these things as I don’t think a survey – which, let’s face it, is designed to generate PR headlines – captures the true feelings and nuance of this.
Exactly: should we worry about how people might feel about something they don’t even know exists (and probably wouldn’t understand if they’d actually heard of it)…particularly since their reaction is going to be based on that single source (the survey itself) of information ?? But, hey, we got to squeeze in an AI question…right ?
Always nice to end the week with a bit of AI… :-/
Every day. The longer the better —-
“Digital twin” may sound downright creepy to the uninitiated and this could be a major source of bias or misunderstanding in an opinion survey like this.
I personally cannot understand why a retailer would even mention it uses this technique to help present curated assortments to shoppers. Nothing but a distraction from the main point, which is, “Show me items I probably am going to want to buy with minimal time and effort.”
On the other hand, offering shoppers an easy way to train their “agent” on their tastes and preferences could be welcome. And using AI data modeling to forecast potential purchase interests may serve the intrests of both shopper and seller.
There’s no reason why retailers can’t use digital twins, but don’t use the name. “Curated selections’ sounds much better, if customers can turn off the curation.
I’m skeptical of the idea that consumer digital twin models are necessarily as jarring as some survey data suggests — but I also think the consumer discomfort behind the numbers is very real and reflects deeper concerns about consent, transparency, and authenticity. The concept of a “digital twin of a customer” (DToC) — a virtual persona generated from aggregated purchase, browsing, and demographic data that attempts to predict behavior — is different in kind from older tools like static demographics, market-research surveys or basic customer-segment clustering. What may feel unnatural to consumers is that this twin isn’t just anonymous aggregate data — it is, in effect, a simulated representation of them. For many shoppers, that can feel invasive or “wrong,” especially when done without explicit consent or transparency. Indeed, recent data suggests a sizable portion of consumers say they would lose trust in a brand if they discovered synthetic replicas of themselves were being used to drive decisions.
That said, the core idea behind digital-twin modeling — using real behavior data to enable better personalization, predict demand, optimize inventory, and customize messaging — is not inherently bad or unnatural for the industry. In other areas (e.g., supply-chain simulation, store layout planning), “twins” have long been used effectively to improve operations. The difference now is applying that concept to people rather than systems. This shift does raise concerns: when a “simulated customer” becomes the default proxy for real feedback, brands risk eroding trust, missing nuances, or reinforcing biases — especially since many digital twin models rely on historical data and may not quickly adapt to changing tastes or contexts.
Ultimately, I believe consumer reactions will vary — some will be indifferent, particularly if personalization is subtle and enhances their experience; others (especially privacy-conscious groups) may reject the concept entirely. I doubt most would abandon a brand solely because data was used to model them — but I do think widespread use of digital twins without transparency could lead to higher churn, erode trust, and generate negative word-of-mouth or social sharing. For retailers considering this, the trade-offs are significant: potential operational efficiency and personalization benefits versus reputational and loyalty risks. My strong advice is to view digital-twin tools not as replacements for genuine customer insight, but as enhancements — build feedback loops, offer customers choices, and prioritize transparency and opt-in consent if you want to deploy them ethically.
Personalization is important to a customer, as long as a brand doesn’t go too far. If a customer consistently shares information about themselves and agrees to let the brand make suggestions, the brand should see this as an honor. It means the customer trusts you. The term “Digital Twin” for this purpose may not be the best choice of words. Really, it’s nothing more than a detailed customer profile. Many years ago, I saw a file card listing my past purchases. My salesperson was using the antiquated, unsophisticated, non-techy version of what we use today. Whether it be a file card or the latest technology, used ethically, it should create a personalized experience that the customer appreciates.
That’s a lot of words to generate a 1 word answer. Yes it’s creepy.
Most consumers don’t know or don’t care about this fabricated consumer problem. The real problem is that retailers are spending heavily to perfect digital twin modeling just as the game shifts from manipulating humans to interfacing with algorithms. AI agents don’t behave; they evaluate. You cannot nudge an algorithm optimizing for consumer priorities. Retailers need to ask themselves: “Why are we investing in systems founded on manipulating human decision-making when we might soon be evaluated by algorithms that can’t be manipulated?”
“Human connection appears to be invaluable to shoppers, with an overwhelming majority (91%) stating that authentic human reaction was an important element of their connection with a brand. A full 40% of those polled stated that this factor was “very” important.”
Aren’t Digital Twins the ultimate in personal connection? They know you better than anyone else.
Does anybody think your connection to online merchants is personal? Way back when Amazon was only selling books, be assured no friend was recommending your next read, unless one considers that big server in the sky their buddy.
This really isn’t about the tech itself, it’s about permission.
People aren’t pushing back on digital twins because they hate innovation. They’re reacting to the idea that a version of them can be created without clear consent. Given how fragile trust around data already is in retail, that line matters.
Digital twins can absolutely help test ideas, but they can’t replace real customers, real feedback, or real context. AI is accepted when it supports people. It’s rejected when it feels hidden or intrusive.
This feels like a moment for brands to reset expectations around transparency and consent. The ones that get this right will win long-term trust and that’s still the hardest thing to earn in retail.
Despite the term itself sounding a bit too personal and futuristic, the concept of presenting relevant, personalized assortments to shoppers is something that consumers have basically been asking for. They don’t want to be burdened with irrelevant products, aisles (or pages) of meaningless items, or other “noise” that slows their shopping and causes friction.
Personally, I think the idea of personalized planograms that meet each shopper where and when they are shopping makes a world of sense (and cents!).
More Discussions
Did Holiday 2025 Mark a Shift Into the ‘Agentic Shopping’ Retail Era?
Salesforce data suggests that holiday 2025 was the retail period in which agentic shopping turned the…Should Facial Recognition for Theft Get Another Look?
Retailers and consumers are hotly debating facial recognition tech: theft deterrent, privacy overstepping, or both?Will Retail Bifurcation Persist (or Intensify) in 2026?
Recent Placer.ai data indicated a deepening divide within retail, at least pertaining to foot traffic.
How would consumers know retailers are using digital twins? How are digital twins any less personal than many of the existing segmentations, assumptions, and algorithms retailers currently use? Do consumers really care so long as the experience they want is delivered? I ask these things as I don’t think a survey – which, let’s face it, is designed to generate PR headlines – captures the true feelings and nuance of this.
Exactly: should we worry about how people might feel about something they don’t even know exists (and probably wouldn’t understand if they’d actually heard of it)…particularly since their reaction is going to be based on that single source (the survey itself) of information ?? But, hey, we got to squeeze in an AI question…right ?
Always nice to end the week with a bit of AI… :-/
Every day. The longer the better —-
“Digital twin” may sound downright creepy to the uninitiated and this could be a major source of bias or misunderstanding in an opinion survey like this.
I personally cannot understand why a retailer would even mention it uses this technique to help present curated assortments to shoppers. Nothing but a distraction from the main point, which is, “Show me items I probably am going to want to buy with minimal time and effort.”
On the other hand, offering shoppers an easy way to train their “agent” on their tastes and preferences could be welcome. And using AI data modeling to forecast potential purchase interests may serve the intrests of both shopper and seller.
There’s no reason why retailers can’t use digital twins, but don’t use the name. “Curated selections’ sounds much better, if customers can turn off the curation.
I’m skeptical of the idea that consumer digital twin models are necessarily as jarring as some survey data suggests — but I also think the consumer discomfort behind the numbers is very real and reflects deeper concerns about consent, transparency, and authenticity. The concept of a “digital twin of a customer” (DToC) — a virtual persona generated from aggregated purchase, browsing, and demographic data that attempts to predict behavior — is different in kind from older tools like static demographics, market-research surveys or basic customer-segment clustering. What may feel unnatural to consumers is that this twin isn’t just anonymous aggregate data — it is, in effect, a simulated representation of them. For many shoppers, that can feel invasive or “wrong,” especially when done without explicit consent or transparency. Indeed, recent data suggests a sizable portion of consumers say they would lose trust in a brand if they discovered synthetic replicas of themselves were being used to drive decisions.
That said, the core idea behind digital-twin modeling — using real behavior data to enable better personalization, predict demand, optimize inventory, and customize messaging — is not inherently bad or unnatural for the industry. In other areas (e.g., supply-chain simulation, store layout planning), “twins” have long been used effectively to improve operations. The difference now is applying that concept to people rather than systems. This shift does raise concerns: when a “simulated customer” becomes the default proxy for real feedback, brands risk eroding trust, missing nuances, or reinforcing biases — especially since many digital twin models rely on historical data and may not quickly adapt to changing tastes or contexts.
Ultimately, I believe consumer reactions will vary — some will be indifferent, particularly if personalization is subtle and enhances their experience; others (especially privacy-conscious groups) may reject the concept entirely. I doubt most would abandon a brand solely because data was used to model them — but I do think widespread use of digital twins without transparency could lead to higher churn, erode trust, and generate negative word-of-mouth or social sharing. For retailers considering this, the trade-offs are significant: potential operational efficiency and personalization benefits versus reputational and loyalty risks. My strong advice is to view digital-twin tools not as replacements for genuine customer insight, but as enhancements — build feedback loops, offer customers choices, and prioritize transparency and opt-in consent if you want to deploy them ethically.
Personalization is important to a customer, as long as a brand doesn’t go too far. If a customer consistently shares information about themselves and agrees to let the brand make suggestions, the brand should see this as an honor. It means the customer trusts you. The term “Digital Twin” for this purpose may not be the best choice of words. Really, it’s nothing more than a detailed customer profile. Many years ago, I saw a file card listing my past purchases. My salesperson was using the antiquated, unsophisticated, non-techy version of what we use today. Whether it be a file card or the latest technology, used ethically, it should create a personalized experience that the customer appreciates.
That’s a lot of words to generate a 1 word answer. Yes it’s creepy.
Most consumers don’t know or don’t care about this fabricated consumer problem. The real problem is that retailers are spending heavily to perfect digital twin modeling just as the game shifts from manipulating humans to interfacing with algorithms. AI agents don’t behave; they evaluate. You cannot nudge an algorithm optimizing for consumer priorities. Retailers need to ask themselves: “Why are we investing in systems founded on manipulating human decision-making when we might soon be evaluated by algorithms that can’t be manipulated?”
“Human connection appears to be invaluable to shoppers, with an overwhelming majority (91%) stating that authentic human reaction was an important element of their connection with a brand. A full 40% of those polled stated that this factor was “very” important.”
Aren’t Digital Twins the ultimate in personal connection? They know you better than anyone else.
Does anybody think your connection to online merchants is personal? Way back when Amazon was only selling books, be assured no friend was recommending your next read, unless one considers that big server in the sky their buddy.
This really isn’t about the tech itself, it’s about permission.
People aren’t pushing back on digital twins because they hate innovation. They’re reacting to the idea that a version of them can be created without clear consent. Given how fragile trust around data already is in retail, that line matters.
Digital twins can absolutely help test ideas, but they can’t replace real customers, real feedback, or real context. AI is accepted when it supports people. It’s rejected when it feels hidden or intrusive.
This feels like a moment for brands to reset expectations around transparency and consent. The ones that get this right will win long-term trust and that’s still the hardest thing to earn in retail.
Despite the term itself sounding a bit too personal and futuristic, the concept of presenting relevant, personalized assortments to shoppers is something that consumers have basically been asking for. They don’t want to be burdened with irrelevant products, aisles (or pages) of meaningless items, or other “noise” that slows their shopping and causes friction.
Personally, I think the idea of personalized planograms that meet each shopper where and when they are shopping makes a world of sense (and cents!).