2019 race may feature many issues: From climate change, debt & housing, to borders and gun violence and, always, Trump.

We are about a year away from the start of the 2019 federal election. Last week, we polled 1,500 Canadian adults on how they are seeing their political choices and the issues that they are most concerned about.

Here are the highlights as we see them:

Our latest polling on the national political mood shows the Liberal Party would win 37% support if a vote were held now, followed by the Conservatives at 33% and the NDP with 18%. This is largely unchanged from last month and mimics the numbers we found in March.

Regionally, we see a significant lead for the Liberals in Quebec, and a dead heat in Ontario, the two provinces that combined will choose 199 of the 338 Members of Parliament next fall.  The Conservatives have a big lead in Alberta, while the Liberals continue to do well in BC and Atlantic Canada.

Some 41% say they think the country is on the right track (42% last month), and 44% approve of the performance of the federal government (the same number as last month).

The government enjoys better approval ratings among those aged under 45.

Today, 43% have a positive opinion of Justin Trudeau and 36% have a negative opinion (unchanged from last month).  For Andrew Scheer, the sentiment is 26% positive and 25% negative, and for Jagmeet Singh results are 22% positive and 26% negative.

We explored the current level of concern about a variety of topical issues and found that Donald Trump, climate change and health care top the list of 9 items we tested, with gun violence and cannabis legalization ranking 9th and 10th.  Housing affordability ranked 4th and the number of border crossings ranked 5th.

For voters under 45, Trump, climate change, and housing affordability are the top three issues while gun violence, border crossing, and cannabis legalization are at the bottom of the list.

For those 45 and over, Donald Trump, the health care system, and housing affordablility are in the top three. Concern about the number of border crossing is higher among these respondents while concern about climate change is somewhat lower.

Among Liberal voters, Trump, climate change and health care top the list, with border crossings, debt, and cannabis at the bottom. Among Conservatives, border crossings and debt are at the top of the list, and climate change is at the bottom.

We also isolated some differences across regions with a focus on those who are extremely concerned about these the issues we tested.

For those living in Canada’s largest cities, gun violence is far more likely to be a concern than those living in other communities. Big city residents are also 5 points more likely to be extremely concerned about housing affordability – although this gap is smaller than some might expect and suggests that housing affordability concerns are not just isolated to Canada’s largest cities.

Big differences also exist between Ontario and Alberta and Alberta and BC, demonstrating the challenge parties will have to appeal to voters in these provinces.

Ontario residents are three times as likely to be extremely concerned about gun violence and twice as likely to be concerned about housing affordability, compared with Albertans.

Despite its shared border, Alberta and BC residents differ in their preoccupations. Housing affordability is a major issue for almost half of BC residents while only 9% of Albertans feel the same. Albertans show comparatively higher concern about government debt and border crossings.

UPSHOT

The race to the 2019 election is starting to take shape and at this point, the Liberals face a highly competitive Conservative Party. Whether Maxime Bernier’s decision to leave the Conservative Party has the potential to undermine the competitiveness of Mr. Scheer’s Tories will be interesting to watch, especially in Quebec, where the Conservative brand had been seeing an uptick in support.

The issue landscape seems unusually crowded and varied heading into the coming election year.  In different provinces, by community size, age, and along party lines, a variety of different issues that have the potential to motivate voter support: at this point, there isn’t a single galvanizing and unifying issue.

Without a doubt, Donald Trump continues to dominate the news for Canadian voters and managing that complex relationship will be an important predictor of confidence in the Liberals. We also note that climate change continues to show a heightened level of public concern, no doubt again this year influenced by news of wildfires that continue to burn in much of BC and Northern Ontario.  Many voters will expect any candidate seeking their vote to offer ideas about combating climate change.

At this point, the border crossing issue is of much higher concern for Conservative voters than others.  Supporters of both other parties, and certainly big city voters under 45, are more likely to be looking for solutions to housing affordability.

METHODOLOGY

Our survey was conducted online with 1,500 Canadians aged 18 and over from August 15 to 20, 2018. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey for a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform.

The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2.5%, 19 times out of 20.  The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Canadian PoliticsMediaPolls

2 in 3 Toronto residents think Ford Government should postpone council size cut until after the election or scrap plan entirely

Last week we conducted a survey of over 900 adult residents of Toronto for the Broadbent Institute and Progress Toronto to gauge the reaction of how the Ontario government approached its decision to reduce the size of Toronto’s city council from 47 to 25 seats.

Here’s what we found:

FINDING #1

By a 3 to 1 margin, Torontonians think that the provincial government should either consider postponing the change in council size until after the election or scrap the proposal entirely.

When asked what the provincial government should do, 47% believe that the provincial government should consider postponing the change until after the election given the timing and lack of consultation. 32% feel that the government should proceed with the change now while 22% want the entire proposal scraped.

Even one in three of those who voted PC in the recent election think the government should either scrap the proposal entirely or consider postponing it until after the election.

FINDING #2

More people disapprove of the way Premier Ford and the provincial handled its decision to reduce the size of Toronto city council, including one in five of those who voted PC in the last election.

In total, 47% disapprove of the way Premier Ford and his government handled the issue while 40% approve of the approach the government took. Another 12% didn’t care either way. Negative reaction to the decision was more intense than positive reaction given the number of folks who strongly disapproved was almost double the number who strongly approved. Almost one in five PC voters disapproved of the way the issue was handled.

FINDING #3

Most Toronto residents believe that the provincial government and Doug Ford did not consult Toronto residents or city officials who run elections enough before making the decision to reduce the size of city council. Another 50% disapprove the timing of the decision given that the municipal campaign had already started.

Most Toronto residents feel that there wasn’t enough consultation with city election officials nor with Torontonians before the decision to reduce the size of Toronto city council was made. 53% think the provincial government didn’t consult with city election officials enough while 14% feel they did more than enough and another 33% think they consulted enough.

More feel that not enough was done to consult with Toronto residents (57%) while 12% feel more than enough was done and 31% said enough was done to consult with Toronto residents. 33% of PC voters felt that the government did not consult enough with city residents.

Half of Toronto residents disapproved (including 30% who strongly disapproved) with the timing of the decision compared with 37% who did approve. 21% of PC voters disapproved with the timing of the decision.

FINDING #4

58% to 42%: Torontonians think that Toronto city council should decide the number of seats on Toronto city council versus Premier Doug Ford and the provincial government.

When asked who should make the decision about the number of seats on Toronto city council. 58% felt Toronto city council should decide while 42% felt the decision should be left to the Premier and the provincial government. One in five (19%) of PC voters felt that Toronto city council should decide the issue.

THE UPSHOT

David Coletto: “While some people may support reducing the size of city council, our survey finds that a clear majority think the way the Premier and his government approached the issue was inappropriate. Most think he should have consulted more and only 37% approve of the timing of the decision given that the municipal election had already begun.

Doug Ford promised to listen to, and govern for, the people. But in this decision, a clear majority of Toronto residents and a sizeable portion of his own supporters think the way he went about making the decision was wrong. They want him to listen and consult more and most think the timing is inappropriate.

In the end, most, including one in three Tory voters, want the government to either postpone the change until after the upcoming municipal election or scrap the idea entirely.”

Methodology

This survey, commissioned by the Broadbent Institute and Progress Toronto, was conducted online with 907 Torontonians aged 18 and over July 30 to August 1, 2018. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from randomly selected Canadian adults who are members of Research Now’s online panel.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 3.3%, 19 times out of 20. The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Toronto’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region of the city. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding

MediaPolls

The Millennial Market of eSports

The global phenomenon of the eSports industry is only continuing to gain more traction, and you guessed it, it’s powered by millennials.

For those who don’t live behind their computer screens, eSports are digital competitions between players of electronic games. Console (think Xbox and PlayStation) and computer games are the most popular, and players either gather in large playing centres or combat over the internet. There are firms who host competitive teams that trade players just like traditional sports teams. As an example, League of Legends, created by Riot Games, and is the world’s most played and viewed video game, is what is called a Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) where players duke it out in an online world until the victory conditions are met. This game attracts both casual amateur players as well as professionally sponsored players. Riot Games hosts world championships for League of Legends, in which they had over 80 million viewers and raked in over 1.2 billion collective hours watched over the course of the 2017 worlds season. League is not the only game to attract large competition, viewers, or money. There are many other games that have a global competitive following such as: Starcraft II, CounterStrike: Global Offensive, Overwatch, Dota 2, and my childhood favourite, Super Smash Bros.

While eSports is dominating in Asia, Europe, and the United States; the professional competition scene is continually growing in Canada and is seen as a legitimate career option by many Canadian millennials. A recent Abacus Data survey found that 1 in 2 Canadian millennials think that professional eSports gaming is a realistic side job and just under that number see it as a fulltime career. Moreover, Canada has and is going to host several prestigious eSports events. In 2016, Toronto hosted the North American Spring Championships for League of Legends (in which all 15,000 tickets were sold out in one day). Vancouver this August will be hosting a Dota II tournament with a prize pool of $13,235,884 (these prize pools will continue to grow). The point being, that eSports are huge and continuing to grow much to the thanks of Canadian millennials. This growth is creating a new industry in Canada and bringing millions of dollars in new revenue where these large events are being hosted.Outside of these large tournaments, gamers are monetizing their passion through screen sharing platforms such as Twitch. Twitch is an online streaming platform that is geared for gamers to upload their content while live gaming and has built a community of viewers in the millions. Twitch reports that 55% of its users are millennials between the ages of 18-34 and their streamers are able to gain subscribers and advertise to gain income. While professional gamers do this on top of their competitive seasons, Twitch is also a platform for amateur gamers to side hustle and gain supplementary income from their hobby.

Now, most discussion surrounding eSports tend to be introspectively targeted at the gaming community itself. Yet, what has been overlooked is the massive market potential that the eSports industry brings to the national table. Millennials are notoriously difficult to reach marketers looking for a way into millennials’ sensory bubble can find one here. The infrastructure surrounding the eSports industry is an untapped market and as more people take interest in gaming and see eSports as a viable career option, corporations should take note of the pent-up possibilities this market possesses. Team or event sponsorships, advertising on platforms, or placing ads in the games themselves are all ways brands can extend their reach and capture more of the millennial market. As fewer millennials view content through traditional means, TV, radio, newsprint and as they become even more segmented online, there is a strong case for marketers to invest time and money into the eSports space.

While the eSports is fuelled by the millennials playing, competing, and buying into the sport; Generation Z is also expected to follow the millennial path of taking part in this industry. The KidsSay Trend Tracker reports that in the United States, 89% of Generation Z (children between the ages of 8-15) own a game console, with many owning more than one. By the time they enter post-secondary school, they will have logged thousands of hours on their gaming console and venerated other eSports legends as modern-day role models. The progression from gaming for fun to gaming for profit will come easily as platforms and markets expand with more innovative prizes such as university scholarships or in-kind prizes like “a lifetime supply of pizza pockets” (an actual prize of a 2011 eSports competition) or other gaming paraphernalia. The Gen Z eSports market will dwarf the eSports scene we see today, and wise marketers will establish their presence now as opposed to arriving late and catching up to earn the trust of a generation that is already hard to reach. eSports has become part of mainstream culture and the only question is, is your organization ready for it?

Generational Change

Leave a comment on The Millennial Market of eSports

Liberals and Conservatives neck and neck as the race to 2019 takes shape

With a little over a year to go before the start of the 2019 federal election, we polled 2,000 Canadian adults last week about how they are seeing their political choices.

Here are the highlights as we see them:

THE SITUATION TODAY

Today, 43% say they would prefer to see the Liberals re-elected next year, and 57% would prefer a change in government.  Last July 50% said they would prefer the Liberals to be re-elected.  This shift means the landscape is more competitive today, but worth bearing in mind that the Liberals were elected with just under 40% of the vote in 2015.

Today 52% say they would consider voting Liberal, 51% would consider voting Conservative up and 49% are open to considering the NDP, an unusually close pattern among the three parties.

If a vote was held tomorrow, 36% would vote Liberal, 34% Conservative, and 19% NDP.  We see competitive races in Ontario and BC (Liberals and Conservatives), while the Liberals lead in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and the Conservatives have a lead on the Prairies.

Today, 42% say the country is heading in the right direction, 44% approve of the job being done by the federal government 43% have a positive impression of Prime Minister Trudeau.

Positive impressions of Conservative leader Andrew Scheer are on the rise but so are his negatives. Impressions of Jagmeet Singh are moving more decidedly negative with his negatives now seven points higher than positives.

THE CHALLENGE FACING THE INCUMBENTS

We explored further among the 57% who say they are inclined to want a change in government in October 2019, and here’s what we found:

When asked if the government could do anything to change their mind, 14% (or 8% of the population overall) said “yes, for sure” while another 33% (19% of the population overall) said “there could be”.  In other words, the number of “hard change” voters is about 30% in total.

Among voters who say they are inclined to vote for a change but could be persuaded to vote to re-elect, 30% voted Liberal in 2015, only 15% would today.  35% voted CPC – 41% would today.  26% voted NDP – 29% would today.

We asked people to tell us which of several potential factors had been contributing to their desire to change the government next year.  Overall, fiscal and tax issues rank high in importance as do immigration and refugees issues and the PM’s trip to India.

However, what is more instructive is to look at separately at the change voters who are leaning toward the NDP and Conservatives.  Among current NDP voters who say they could be persuaded to re-elect the Liberals, the Trans Mountain pipeline is at the top of the list of grievances with the government along with electoral reform and fiscal management.

Among those who say they will vote Conservative but could be persuaded to vote to re-elect, debt/deficits, immigration and refugees and the PM’s trip to India rank one-two-three followed by carbon pricing, taxes, and economic policies.  Conservatives are much more likely to be concerned with the PMs vacation in the Caribbean compared to New Democrats.

THE UPSHOT

Bruce Anderson: “For the most part, polling during a government’s mandate reflects how people are reacting to the government – and not so much about its competitors.  As Canada moves closer to the 2019 election, people will start to evaluate not only the incumbents but the alternatives.

Today’s numbers show ample opportunity for the Conservatives to have a successful election next year, but also show that more people are satisfied than dissatisfied with the direction of the country, the performance of the government and the Prime Minister.  Regional combats in Ontario and BC are shaping up to be where the fight will be won or lost – with plenty of seats on the line, and lots of votes will be up for grabs. A considerable number of voters who’ve shifted rightward from the Liberals aren’t particularly dug in or angry. And many of those who have drifted left may find themselves faced with a tough conundrum – voting to punish the Liberals for the Trans Mountain pipeline might risk electing a government that would kill environmental measures such as carbon pricing.”

David Coletto: “The Liberals are still well positioned about a year before the next election begins. But some storm clouds are approaching including Conservative gains in Quebec, weaker support among older voters, and rising concerns about immigration and refugees, especially among Conservative-leaning voters who are open to voting Liberal.

The pools of accessible voters for all three parties are closer in size than they have been since the last election and increasing volatility in Ontario and Quebec means predicting what will happen over the next 12 months is increasingly difficult.

We can no longer say that the Liberals are the front-runners. But we are seeing a public opinion environment that is more competitive and one where the issue space is forming around fiscal management, immigration and refugees, and energy and the environment.”

Methodology

 Our survey was conducted online with 2,000 Canadians aged 18 and over from July 18 to 22, 2018. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from randomly selected Canadian adults who are members of the Maru Voice Canada online panel.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys.   The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2.2%, 19 times out of 20.  The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Canadian PoliticsMediaPolls

Millennials Not on Vacation

Can’t imagine the workplace without you? Does logging off your work account stress you out? Does spending your paid vacation days on the beach frighten you? If you said yes to any of these questions, then you’re not alone.

It’s July and vacation season is underway, but not for millennials. Despite the abhorrent number of claims that millennials are lazy, the opposite remains as data suggest that millennials are teetering on vacation adverse. So dedicated, that in many cases, they don’t take their paid vacation days and when millennials do go on vacation, they don’t use up all the days they are entitled to and are still plugged in at work via their mobile devices. Millennials shunning vacation time may be derived from peer attitude against vacationing. Millennials feel they need to prove themselves against the stereotype of being lazy and entitled, the burden of a heavy workload, and finances.

Why are millennials becoming known as “work-martyrs”? A few reasons according to the Alamo Family Vacation Study reports that 59% of millennials feel a sense of shame when planning for time off work and on top of that, 47% feel like they have to justify their vacation days. These emotions aren’t necessarily caused by older generations, in fact, the Alamo study found that millennials were more likely to shame their co-workers for leaving the office at 42% (compared to 24% of older generations).

Research by TD tells us that about half of Canadian millennials are not taking their full allotment of vacation days compared to 36% of the national average. 31% of millennials report this to be because of a heavy workload, with 29% being unable to afford travel costs. Workers from Ontario and British Columbia are also tied in taking the least amount of their vacation days.

When millennials are out of the office, they still feel obliged to stay connected to work via their mobile devices. According to Lenovo, 61% of millennials report that flexibility is the preference at work, even if that means working while on their vacation time. Over half of millennials, at 53%, anticipate checking their work accounts while away from the office.

TD reports that 89% of millennials believe vacation time to be essential for well-being and important to one’s life to pursue interests outside of work. Yet, even this salient belief is not enough to break the barriers facing millennials when it comes to taking time off work to recoup.

While Millennials are stressed about falling behind at work or not being seen as hard workers, LinkedIn explains the detriments to not taking a vacation. The main issue with no time off can lead to burnout with 58% of people feeling overwhelmed, 21% getting disorganized, and only 3% having the creative juices flowing for work without a vacation.

In general, both employers and millennials believe vacation time to be an important component of a healthy work-life balance. So, pack your bags and log off your email (if you can’t manage the email part, don’t worry, we understand).

Generational Change

Leave a comment on Millennials Not on Vacation

Canadians are united in believing our country brings good to the world

We asked people whether they thought Canada and several other countries were doing more good for the world or more harm.

Canadians are almost unanimously that our country does more good than harm in the world.

The majority feel the US does more harm; results are almost identical for China.

A broad 80% see Russia as an unhelpful force in the world today.

While issues, generations, gender, regional tensions and political philosophies can lead to disagreements within Canada, on this simple test – do we as a country do more good than harm – there was plenty of pride on display.  90% of each age group say we are a force for good. Men and women are only 3 points different. And more than 85% in every region feel this way.

And, for the politically inclined, it’s worth noting that the differences on this question are small – only 7 points from Liberal voters (94%) at one end and Green Party voters (87%) at the other

THE UPSHOT

Bruce Anderson:  “On Canada Day, it’s worth taking note that despite all the things that can set people apart, and the days and ways that we can be disappointed in our country, we almost all seem to believe that on balance, Canada is bringing something good to the world.

The results for the US are striking – many no doubt see the actions the US is taking under the Trump administration as an aberration for America – but a problem for the rest of the world nonetheless. The results for Russia signal that Canadians are likely skeptical of the motive behind and the prospects for a useful outcome for the world from an upcoming Trump-Putin summit.”

Methodology

Our survey was conducted online with 1,200 Canadians aged 18 and over from May 24 to 28, 2018. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from randomly selected Canadian adults who are members of the Maru Voice Canada online panel.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys.   The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2.9%, 19 times out of 20.  The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Abacus Data Inc.

We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and value-added insight.  Our team combines the experience of our Chairman Bruce Anderson, one of Canada’s leading research executives for two decades, with the energy, creativity and research expertise of CEO David Coletto, PhD.

MediaPollsTechnology

Digital Brand Reputations? They aren’t all equal.

In our latest poll (not commissioned by any company or group) we asked people whether they thought a series of contemporary digital brands were doing more good for the world or more harm. Here are the highlights of our findings:

Google, Amazon, Apple, and YouTube scored very well, with large majorities saying they see more good than bad from these services.

Results were mixed for Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.  In each case roughly as many people said these platforms were bringing more harm to the world as said “more good”.  The most negative opinions were for Snapchat.

To put these results in a bit more context, we asked the same question about other technologies and some cultural influences too. Google, Amazon, Apple and YouTube results are in a range similar to those for satellites, air travel, music and film.  Facebook and Twitter results are closer to those found for religion.

We examined difference across demographic or political groups and noticed:

– Google’s popularity is consistently high across different groups.
– Women are slightly more positive than men about Facebook and Twitter.
– Younger people are slightly more positive towards Twitter. Conservatives are slightly more negative.
– NDP voters are more critical about the impact of religion.
– Music is pretty universally seen as a force for good.

The Upshot

Bruce Anderson: “The Internet has changed life and started a new chapter in the story of civilization.  The power of a search engine to help people learn more, more quickly and to add convenience to their lives has earned it a very positive reputation – it’s value to society is almost universally appreciated. The ability to access music, film, TV anytime and anywhere, through Apple platforms and products is one of the world’s greatest consumer satisfaction and business success stories in decades.  Amazon is re-defining convenience and the modern shopping experience.

Facebook and Twitter are struggling with mixed opinions – many see the positive and the potential to bring people together, but as many see more destructive or harmful influences.

This is obviously topical and relevant in political circles today given the way these platforms can be used to mislead voters and distort facts – but the criticisms are probably also about the way in which these platforms can exacerbate cultural divisions and give oxygen to those with bullying or hostile instincts.  For a pretty considerable number of people, social media come off as more anti-social in their impact.”

Methodology

Our survey was conducted online with 1,200 Canadians aged 18 and over from May 24 to 28, 2018. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from randomly selected Canadian adults who are members of the Maru Voice Canada online panel.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys.   The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2.9%, 19 times out of 20.  The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Abacus Data Inc.

We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and value-added insight.  Our team combines the experience of our Chairman Bruce Anderson, one of Canada’s leading research executives for two decades, with the energy, creativity and research expertise of CEO David Coletto, PhD. For more information, visit our website at http://www.abacusdata.ca/

MediaPolls

Give me a Tip? Give me a Break!

Let’s be honest, the conversation about tipping can be uncomfortable for millennials – especially since CreditCards released their study results that determined Millennials are terrible at it. It thereafter inspired many other articles in the past few days titled along the lines of, “Millennials are the Worst Tippers”. The first thought that struck me when reading this was, ‘is anyone actually surprised by this?’. I am most certainly not caught off guard that millennials tip less – and I don’t think most people should be.

I would like to clarify before this long-winded rant begins, this isn’t about justifying not tipping – this is a plea to give millennials a break. Also, a request for readers to consider the cultural and economic aspects of tipping that make millennials stingier with their wallets.

CreditCards survey suggests that 10% of millennials don’t tip, versus the 3% of older generations that do. They also point out that millennials tip less when they do at a median 15% versus the 18%-20% range of generation X and boomers. The follow-up articles on these statistics are stating that millennials are “less generous”. The use of language is bothersome, so let’s explore why millennials may not be reliable with tipping.

To be frank, millennials are broke and this is not a great time for a lot of them financially. Many are either starting their careers, riddled with student debt, at the beginning of parenthood, and attempting to buy houses (have you seen those mortgage rates?). There’s not as much money going around, and when millennials do have stable sources of income, it goes towards paying off debt or towards their next goal. This makes the comparison of younger generations versus older much more polarizing than it needs to be. Of course older generations tip more on average. Why? Because they can. Those at the height of their career or retired have much more money to spend on tipping while offering higher amounts. Also, because their grandchildren constantly complain about how little they earn working at a restaurant (because legally they can pay below minimum wage).

Another aspect to look at is the choices millennials make when purchasing food. We all hear about how millennials love their overpriced avocado toast and $5 coffee. Yet, usually, this is a reflection of their values. Millennials prefer to purchase more fair trade and organic products, which generally makes them more expensive. A $5 coffee (that becomes $5.50 after a tip) is half an hour of work under British Columbia’s current minimum wage. Maybe there is cause to judge millennials for choosing more expensive options, but don’t forget that the coffee shop industry would not survive without millennials (cafe models are geared directly towards them). They are the fuel that allows those industries to grow, and if millennials aren’t going to get credit for tipping, they should get credit for supporting a 6.2 billion-dollar industry that offers 160,000 jobs in those cafes in Canada (while also supporting more environmentally friendly and ethically sourced production).

Beyond the economic aspects, it’s a cultural thing. Millennials make up the majority of service jobs that are paid at or below minimum wage and require tips to make up the difference. Millennials are unattracted to the system because it disenfranchises them, their friends, or someone they know working in restaurants. They distrust a system that allows restaurants to underpay their workers, so they can re-earn them in tips. They would rather have a system that gives the upfront cost and pay higher, knowing that every worker is getting at least minimum wage. This rings true with millennials who travel more often and go abroad. Leaving North America, for the most part, means dining where tips are not required, and tax is included in the price which making budgeting and spending much more convenient (alright I’ll admit, millennials love convenience). The more millennials travel (which a lot of them of them do) and see for themselves how a restaurant can go without tipping, the more likely they are to be against it and advocate for change.

Now, because millennials are working those jobs – you might think that it makes them more understanding on the need to tip. And trust me, it does. However, when they can tip (which 90% still do according to this survey) it’s usually the lowest possible tip accepted. I would be surprised to find a colleague (which I have many of) that would tip more than 15% while working another job that relied on tips.

Case and point, millennials being the worst tippers is not about millennials being greedy. It directly speaks to the cultural and economic aspects that the generation faces and should be understood with a little more empathy. I’m not saying millennials shouldn’t tip when the system is still at play (because we feel for our fellow millennials who want to make a living allowance), but we should understand that there are reasons rooted in millennials tipping less. I’m glad older generations are stable enough to tip more at the average of 20%. I hope for the day when my peers and I can do that too.

Consumer BehaviourGenerational Change

OUTSOURCED Part 3: Peer Networks: The Currency of Trust

Outsourced

How do we decide whom and what we place our trust in? Generally, you trust your parents and family members because you were born into their lives. You typically trust your spouse because there is an underlying attraction which facilitates its development. But how do you trust a stranger? How do you develop trust in a person or company that you know nothing about and have no references for? Especially if you are looking to place faith on someone who would be in the care of a something you highly value. How can you be sure that the duty of care will be upheld when you’re handing over the keys of your house to some strangers on Airbnb, or letting someone walk your beloved dog for you? When we lived in smaller communities, trust was entrenched as we knew our community members if not by first name at least by their family. But as our community size and diversity increased, trust has become harder to achieve. Nevertheless, despite increasing cosmopolitanism, trust is beginning to be reintegrated into our communities and peer networks are giving us the ability to do it.

This is the final segment in a three-part series that will talk about the “peer to peer network”. How it has affected getting hired, choosing services (from where to eat to transportation), and how they have influenced how businesses build trust with their clients.

Peer Networks: The Currency of Trust 

The trust crux has been at the centre of every heterogenous society since the dawn of human civilization. Ancient Hebrews used to recite a list of their patrimonial heritage until they found a commonly known ancestor between themselves and the stranger they wanted to do business with. Scandinavians found their work around by creating patronymic surname which announces the names or houses of their fathers or mothers (i.e. Leif, Eric’s son = Leif Ericson). Companies have followed suit, forging their own methods to establish trust. The ancient Athenian potter, Euthymides jovially etched his trademarked “hos oudepote Euphronios” to differentiate from his counterfeiters and Cadbury’s purple wrapping reassures consumers of their confectionaries that quality sweets reside inside.

These novelties worked in less crowded markets. Rarely did Cadbury ever have to worry about budding chocolatiers in East Bengal taking its market share, nor did Euthymides have to worry about Meso-American imports flooding his Delian market. A modern world as globalized and competitive as ours requires a new trust layer as our modern-day companies are discovering, so much more so when what is being exchanged is highly valued by the owner.

We have already seen how peer networks have affected modern hiring practices, and we discovered how a crowd-sourced network can make a non-existent restaurant London’s number one place to eat. Today we look at how we build trust with new companies via the peer network.

We are in the renaissance of personal data applications and services are being curated to meet the individual needs. Leading this vanguard of creative disrupters…Wag!. “Wag!” is personalized dog walking service that matches dog owners with local dog walkers and sitters. Wag! dog handlers go through extensive background checks and on top of that you can track your dog walker in real time and before you meet them you can view their profile on Wag!’s mobile app. While background checks and certifications help build trust the clincher for most Wag! users are the ratings and reviews available for each Wag! dog handler.

The reviews come from people just like you. This prompts the question, why do we put value in peer references for these service providers? The simple reason is that that they are other people, just like you. They are fellow dog owners that live in your neighbourhood and they care about their dog just as much as you. These are your people, your dog-owning peers. If they say they had a good experience with this dog walker, it must be right.  People trust others that fit into their own social group and seeing reviews from these people who are similar to yourself builds the bonds of trust needed to let a stranger walk your four-legged companion.  The owner of that profile has been okayed by others in the dog community and they are now allowed into your circle of trust. This phenomenon is known as “social proof” and it is the currency that propelled new economy companies like Uber, Airbnb, and Wag! to their initial success. While now you can forge Cadbury’s hue of purple or Euthymides’s signature it’s much harder to forge the identity of your neighbour or the opinion of your friend. Peer networks and social proof are the trust layer of this generation where trademarks or a leader’s word was to the last generation.

Now, like our previous two parts of this series suggests, the system itself is not infallible. The 6 references for a Wag! dog walker may not be totally authentic, and for all you know, your neighbour was paid to make a positive review. While trust can be a challenge to build, it’s easy to break and the internet offers a multitude of platforms for individuals to post online about their experience, many outside of the control of service providers. We have all seen what effect one viral negative post can do to a company in an order of minutes. We only need to recall Kylie Jenner’s infamous tweet that helped Snapchat lose $1.3 billion in stock value. This is the peril of businesses that build their livelihood on the foundation of the peer network. Positive reviews can create massive windfalls, but negative ones can decimate a company just as quickly – this is an unstable position for the businesses, employees, and customers. The speed of the fall is mainly determined by how much trust has been entrenched between users and the company.

This world is changing. Traditional gatekeepers have lost their position as venerated oracles of trust. Doctors are judged not by their degrees but what former and current patients have to say about them on Google Reviews. People are hired based on the skill set their peers have endorsed on LinkedIn, and people will choose a dog walker based on how they are reviewed by neighbours. The peer network has altered our behaviours, it has helped to build trust between strangers we want to transact with, and it has opened a new world to fraudulent representation. Like all advancements in our history, peer networks can be used for good or for bad but whatever future lies ahead one thing is for certain – it will be determined by our peers.

Generational ChangeWorkplace

Leave a comment on OUTSOURCED Part 3: Peer Networks: The Currency of Trust

OUTSOURCED Part 2: In Peer, I Trust: Outsourcing Our Minds to the Web

Outsourced

Looking for a place to eat out tonight? Well, if you’re like most people you probably started your hunt with a web search of “top 10 restaurants in (insert your location here)”. Dozens of lists from search engines to local bloggers accompanied with a ranking and sometimes hundreds of reviews appear. In committing this mechanical act, you have just sourced your search out to the peer network. We heavily rely on these peer moderated systems, reviewing and ranking businesses, transportation services, and even people. It has streamlined our decision-making processes and takes the worry out of trying something new. But are there consequences to outsourcing your decision making to a crowd network?

This is the second in a three-part series that will talk about the “peer to peer network”. How it has affected getting hired, choosing services (from where to eat to transportation), and how they have influenced how businesses build trust with their clients.

In Peer, I trust: Outsourcing Our Minds to the Web

We all want to trust our peers. Life would be filled with a lot more paranoia if we didn’t. With a decline in trust in institutions, now more than ever we rely on the people we know for advice and decision-making assistance. When our immediate circle of friends aren’t around us we look to “people like us” for their trusted opinions. This is no different when we go online. If we wanted to go to a new restaurant we would usually check with our foodie friends for recommendations, read the reviews, peruse the menu, and even take a virtual tour of the place before deciding whether or not we should go there. But above all these factors, ratings are king. They influence our expectations and even deter us from visiting. But maybe these peer reviews and ratings should be taken with a grain of salt

Here are three cases that showcase how trust in the peer network is built, and broken.

These ratings can be useful when looking for a good restaurant to eat at, but that does not mean it’s always accurate, let alone real. Take, for example, the story of how a nonexistent restaurant managed to become the #1 rated restaurant in London (UK) on TripAdvisor. This “restaurant” was able to rise above more than 18,000 other restaurants in the rankings due to a coordinated campaign of fake comments, planted ratings, and counterfeit photos. This is a classic case study of the false reality that can be created and hosted by these peer generated networks. This is just one illustration of how an unmoderated peer network can be hijacked by at best a deceptive prankster and at worst a malicious grifter.

In contrast, Airbnb, the service that facilitates “hosts” renting out their homes or rooms to people online. This has disrupted the traditional hotel and hostel markets. As opposed to TripAdvisor’s completely open platform, Airbnb adds a layer of moderation. “Renters” are asked to submit a review of their accommodations within 14 days after their stay. This system prevents outsider (or fictional) users from leaving a review. It also annuls the risk of paid reviews, a problem open platforms like TripAdvisor and Google reviews have to cope with. Airbnb added another trust layer to their service with Airbnb Plus. This service sends certified inspectors to the host’s accommodations to verify the quality. This service tier is restricted to more luxurious rental options. By adding this additional trust layer companies like Airbnb ensure that you never end up in a not-as-advertised London loft (or restaurant) again.

Uber, the popular ride-sharing service that has threatened the global taxi industry, has used the peer network to rapidly scale their business in a stagnating and poorly reputed market. After every ride, the rider has the opportunity to rate their experience on a scale of 1 to 5 stars. Uber has often boasted that they only allow drivers to continue with their service if they have a 4.6 star rating or higher. Users of Uber enjoy the certainty of getting into a car that had been reviewed by possibly hundreds of riders before them. Above this, users could also watch the diver approach the pick-up location and the final trip cost.

By having hundreds other people telling you that a driver is the bee’s knees and with a guarantee from Uber that they only partner with bee’s knees drivers, Uber has been able to capture a market share greater than any global taxi company. Peer networks bring with them attribution value. As more peers join the network and they rate the assets on the network (i.e care, house, restaurant) the more people attribute value of those assets and reinforce the network. Simply put, as in the case of Uber, the peer network can accelerate the growth of companies.

So, what is the point of all this? Trust sells. Especially for millennials.

When we asked Canadians to rank a number of global brands Uber and Airbnb came out strong. Of those aware of the brand, 37% of millennials had a positive impression of Airbnb as compared to only 24% of those aged 45-59. Uber had a similar spread with 35% of millennials having a positive impression of them and only 22% of 45-59-year old’s saying the same.

TripAdvisor is an open and free service whose business model is designed to make leaving a review as seamless as possible. Airbnb and Uber are similar to TripAdvisor in that they leave the rating and reviewing of most of their assets to their respective peer network. However, the difference between the two groups is the trust layer. With the goal of ensuring its users against fraud, Airbnb reduced the number of peers in its network by making profiles obligatory to access the platform and limiting interactions to a 14-day window after staying at a host property. Uber reduces uncertainty by allowing users to rate drivers immediately after rides and dropping drivers that get too low of a peer networked score. This added layer of moderation comes with a price seen in the fees attached to renting a property or hiring a car and the time taken to build a profile.

These are just three examples of peer networks but in a world where trusting strangers can get you to show up to a make-believe restaurant, it sometimes pays to pay for trust, but it always pays to think critically and make informed decisions.

Generational Change

Leave a comment on OUTSOURCED Part 2: In Peer, I Trust: Outsourcing Our Minds to the Web