For three decades, I’ve watched consumer behavior evolve across TV, search, and social media. Each change changed the tactics, but not the underlying logic of decision-making.
What I’m seeing happen now is different. And I know I’m not alone. Every seasoned marketer I talk to, whether they’ve spent their careers in offline media or digital platforms, says some version of the same thing: Something fundamental has changed and the old playbooks no longer work the way they used to.
This is not just a platform change. It’s psychological. For the first time in my career, I’m watching users move from searching for information to searching for certainty, and that distinction changes everything.
When behavior was predictable
I remember the time when a celebrity’s face on a television screen was essentially a guarantee. Brand loyalty goes very closely with fan loyalty. If your brand ambassador had a devoted following, those followers would follow them to your product. It was a simple, time-tested formula: attention creates association, association creates purchase. And it worked, consistently, for decades.
The 💜 of EU technology
The latest rumors from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise founder Boris and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Register now!
When the Internet arrived, it digitized that predictability rather than dismantling it. Google and Yahoo turned discovery into a structured, keyword-based system. Users performed searches, engines returned ranked results, and companies that appeared at the top of those results gained customers. For the better part of a decade, through multiple algorithm updates, through the rise of paid search, through the SEO arms racethe fundamental principle was maintained: be visible and you will be chosen.
Both eras rewarded the same thing: reach. Who could perform in front of the most people, most often? That question shaped marketing strategy for almost thirty years.
What has really changed
The change I’m describing is not about which platform wins or loses. It’s deeper than that, it’s about how people make decisions.
Celebrity credibility has been eroded like never before. It’s not that people distrust celebrities, it’s that modern consumers understand the business ecosystem in which they operate. They know that a backup is a transaction. And with global information available at their fingertips at all times, they also know that a single endorsement is not enough of a reason to spend money.
Younger consumers in particular, Generation Z and recent millennials, have shifted almost entirely toward first-hand experience. Your own experience, or that of someone in your closest circle, your age group, your specific context. Not someone famous. Someone identifiable. And yet, they verify it.
The distinction between online and offline has also largely dissolved. A consumer seeing a product in a store will take out their phone before putting it in the cart. A consumer who hears a recommendation from a friend will verify it before acting on it. Behaviors that once lived in separate worlds—browsing a physical shelf, reading an online review, asking a colleague—now occur simultaneously, fluidly, and constantly.
What the research showed me
To test whether what I was observing professionally reflected broader patterns of behavior, I conducted an in-person field survey from mid-2025, with almost 500 people—not a formal academic study, but deliberately diverse: college students, working professionals, housewives, and retirees from different age groups and economic backgrounds. The results confirmed the pattern I had been feeling.
Among young people between 16 and 20 years old, 87% said that their main trust when making purchasing decisions is in friends, parents or teachers, people in their immediate circle. In the 21-30 age group, 73% combine peer input with social media and select who they follow, but 96% of that same group said they double-check suggestions before acting on them. Almost all. Among people aged 31 to 40, 65% show similar verification behavior. Even in the 41 and older segment, 44% now follow the same pattern, slower adoption, but in the same direction.
The common thread across all age groups: trust is no longer accepted. You win and then you verify. Consumers of every generation have become active validators, not passive recipients.
Are LLMs an innovation or a response to market pressure?
If we look at the history of technology, about every ten to fifteen years a pattern emerges: radio gave way to television, television to the Internet, the Internet to search engines, search engines to social media. Each revolution not only created a new platform, but changed buyer behavior. Which means, if you’re a marketer trying to understand the age of AI, the first question isn’t “How do I optimize for this platform?” Is “How has buyer behavior changed and why?“
The rise of large language models (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and others) is a direct response to the psychological shift I’ve been describing. These tools did not create the verification instinct in modern consumers. They responded.
Traditional search engines offered a list of options and left the user to review the competing claims. LLMs synthesize. They aggregate information from multiple sources and return a structured response. For a consumer whose instinct is to check, compare and achieve certainty before deciding, that is not only convenient, it is exactly what they were already trying to do, and it gets done faster.
Here’s the idea that I think gets overlooked: the tech giants that have invested most aggressively in this space (OpenAI, Google, Microsoft) weren’t motivated solely by innovation. They understood something more uncomfortable. The audience that once lived on their platforms was fragmenting. Attention was divided between social media, e-commerce platforms and dozens of other channels. LLMs are, in part, a strategic attempt to reaggregate that audience under a single, trusted interface.
They’re not building these tools because they want to. They are building them because remaining passive risks losing The next interface layer of the Internet..
And that changes the stakes considerably. Because an LLM that users trust enough to make purchasing decisions is an LLM that must remain unbiased. The moment when users feel commercial favoritism in a recommendationThey abandon it and move on to the next tool that seems more neutral to them. The entire value proposition of these platforms depends on them being perceived as trustworthy.
What this means for brands
The move from visibility to credibility is not subtle. In the old paradigm, a brand that appeared frequently and loudly enough would eventually be chosen. In this paradigm, showing up is necessary, but not sufficient. If your brand can’t survive the moment a potential customer decides to verify your claims—through an AI tool, peer networks, reviews, or independent sources—it’s unlikely to remain in the consideration set.
A useful example of this change can be seen in how consumers now make even relatively small purchasing decisions. A user can first discover a product through TikTok or Instagram, search for reviews on YouTube, compare opinions on Reddit, compare alternatives through Google, and finally, ask ChatGPT or Perplexity to summarize the best option for you before purchasing. What matters is not the number of platforms involved, but the behavior itself.
Another example: Take for example a procurement manager who evaluates CX Outsourcing Providers. They can first find a shortlist through an AI overview, check reviews on Clutch, G2 or Trustpilot, search for case studies on the provider’s site, scan Reddit or industry forums for unfiltered opinions, and finally ask ChatGPT to compare the best options. A company that has invested in verified reviews, documented case studies, and third-party editorial coverage survives that journey. He who has not done it, does not do it.
Consumers are no longer dependent on a single source of authority. They are building trust through layered verification, and for brands, that change in behavior has a concrete consequence.
In practice, this means thinking less about impression counts and more about data integrity. Are your claims verifiable? Are you consistent across all surfaces a user can look at: your website, third-party reviews, discussion forums, AI-generated summaries? Is there enough high-quality, legitimate information within trusted ecosystems for an LLM to accurately showcase its brand? These are not marketing questions. They are infrastructure issues.
Most brands are still optimizing the old game: reach, frequency, creative impact. Those who are ahead are doing something different. They are becoming easy to trust at the exact moment a skeptical consumer decides to take a closer look, not by being louder, but by having nothing to hide when someone else does.
The deepest change
What I keep coming back to, after everything I observed in my survey and in three decades of watching market movements, is that the underlying human need has not changed. People have always wanted to feel safe before committing. What has changed is the threshold for that certainty and the speed at which they hope to reach it.
The search has not become less important. He has become more decisive. Increasingly, users are not simply looking to explore; They seek to reduce uncertainty quickly. And if your brand can’t be a part of that moment, in a way that stands up to scrutiny, then in that specific moment of decision, your brand simply doesn’t exist.
That’s a harder problem than doing SEO right. But it is also more honest, because it forces brands to ask not only “How do they find me?” but “Do I deserve to be chosen?“
In the age of AI, that’s the only question that really matters.
