For years, many brands have operated under a quiet assumption:
The more culturally specific you are, the greater the risk.
Traditional logic suggests that neutrality protects mass reach and that leaning into specific cultural identity may create controversy or alienate audiences.
But new data from ThinkNow challenges that belief directly.
We conducted an online survey among residents of the Los Angeles DMA, exploring perceptions of Bad Bunny’s selection as the Super Bowl Halftime performer. The findings do not reveal hesitation. They reveal validation.
The myth of cultural risk does not hold up under data scrutiny.
Download the full report here.
Overall sentiment toward Bad Bunny’s participation is clearly favorable among all Los Angelenos.
Consumers are not reacting defensively to representation. They are recognizing it as culturally meaningful and aligned with broader shifts in American culture.
The assumption that cultural specificity shrinks reach is not reflected in audience perception in one of the country’s most culturally influential markets.
Sports engagement among LA DMA residents is widespread:
Rather than fragmenting audiences, cultural relevance drives additional engagement.
If representativeness were truly a brand risk, perception metrics would reflect hesitation or backlash. The data shows the opposite.
When asked how a brand using Bad Bunny in a Super Bowl commercial would affect perception:
On perceived risk:
In other words, perceived controversy is limited.
The commercial upside, however, is measurable:
Brands using Bad Bunny are most commonly associated with being inclusive, youth-oriented, and trend-forward.
This is not reputational erosion. It is brand strengthening.
Los Angeles is widely viewed as a cultural hub.
Among LA County residents:
LA is not a peripheral market. It is a leading indicator of where culture is moving nationally.
The data does not support the belief that cultural representation creates brand danger.
It shows the opposite:
The myth of cultural risk appears to exist more in corporate caution than in consumer behavior.
For brands planning national campaigns, especially in high-visibility moments like the Super Bowl, the question is no longer whether representation is risky.
The question is whether ignoring cultural reality is the greater risk.
Because for consumers, representation is not a gamble. It is a need.
If you are planning national or multicultural campaigns, this study provides concrete evidence of how consumers actually respond to cultural representation.
Download the full report to explore the complete findings, data, and analysis from the LA DMA study.
Bad Bunny’s selection as the Super Bowl halftime performer raises practical questions for brands. Does his presence drive awareness and help sales? Does featuring an outspoken Latino performer during the nation’s largest sporting event, at a time when Latinos are at the center of immigration raids, inject politics into brand marketing? Can a joyful, dance-driven reggaeton performance help change the narrative and connect with the broader market?
To answer that, ThinkNow conducted a nationally representative survey of 1,500 U.S. adults examining awareness, reaction, cultural meaning, and brand implications surrounding Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl appearance.
Download the full report here.
Awareness of Bad Bunny is solid but not universal. Just over 60% of U.S. adults say they know who he is, with awareness concentrated among Hispanics and Gen Z. Awareness that he is performing at the Super Bowl halftime show is highest among Hispanics, followed by non-Hispanic Whites, with only modest variation by age.
This establishes the baseline reality. Bad Bunny is mainstream, though not evenly so, and his strongest recognition remains rooted in Latino and younger audiences.
Initial reactions to Bad Bunny as the halftime performer are strongly positive among Hispanics and younger generations. Interest in watching the halftime show because of Bad Bunny follows the same pattern.
This Super Bowl lands at a tense cultural moment. Latinos are at the center of the current immigration raids, facing heightened enforcement, fear, and public scrutiny. Visibility has increased at the same time political rhetoric has hardened. Bad Bunny’s reggaeton-forward, dance-focused, joyful energy matters here. While Bad Bunny is skipping the U.S. on his current World Tour schedule because of concerns that ICE would be present outside shows, his music isn’t overtly political. It celebrates Hispanic, specifically Puerto Rican, culture.
The data reflects this reality. Younger audiences and Hispanics overwhelmingly see Bad Bunny’s performance as affirming and forward-looking. Older and non-Hispanic White audiences show more ambivalence. This divide mirrors broader debates about whether multiculturalism continues to expand or whether a narrower vision of American identity reasserts itself.
Sixty percent of respondents say Bad Bunny performing at the Super Bowl is good for Latino cultural representation in mainstream media. Agreement is strongest among Hispanics and younger generations and weaker among older and non-Hispanic White audiences. Nearly two-thirds of respondents agree that his performance reflects the growing influence of Latino culture in the United States.
Using Bad Bunny in a Super Bowl ad generates positive brand perceptions across most demographic groups. The effect is strongest among Gen Z, Millennials, and Hispanics. Non-Hispanic Whites show a more muted response.
Spanish-language music or reggaeton significantly increases brand recall among Hispanics and younger audiences. Recall gains decline among Gen X and Boomers, reinforcing that cultural specificity drives impact within aligned segments.
Bad Bunny also drives word-of-mouth intent among Hispanics and younger consumers, though overall lift at the total market level is limited.
When asked what values a brand signals by featuring Bad Bunny, respondents most often select youth-oriented, trend-forward, and inclusive. These associations are especially strong among Hispanics, Gen Z, and Millennials.
In terms of Bad Bunny’s appeal in advertising, English-language ads featuring Bad Bunny are preferred. Hispanics stand out as the only group that shows a stronger preference for Spanish-language or bilingual advertising.
Elements that make Bad Bunny feel most authentic include Latino cultural references, reggaeton or dance-driven music, and Puerto Rican cultural cues. These resonate most strongly with Hispanics, Black audiences, and younger consumers.
A fun, party-focused creative centered on cultural pride emerges as the most appealing ad concept overall. Cross-cultural collaborations resonate more with Black and Asian audiences.
Only about one-third of respondents believe featuring Bad Bunny in Super Bowl advertising carries risk for brands. Concern is highest among non-Hispanic Whites, but remains a minority view even within that group.
Purchase consideration follows familiar lines. About one-third of adults say Bad Bunny in a Super Bowl ad would make them more likely to consider buying from the brand. The lift is significantly stronger among Hispanics, African Americans, Gen Z, and Millennials and much lower among Boomers and non-Hispanic Whites.
Most respondents were unaware that Turning Point USA plans to run an alternative “All American Halftime Show.” When given the choice, the official halftime show is preferred by a ratio of 5 to 1 by Latinos, 2 to 1 by Asian and African Americans, and by a plurality of non-Hispanic Whites.
Bad Bunny delivers real brand value, though his strongest impact lies with Hispanics and younger consumers, particularly when cultural authenticity is embraced directly.
This moment is a test. It asks whether brands believe cultural progress pauses during periods of backlash or whether it continues through celebration, visibility, and confidence.
The data points to an answer. Latino culture continues to advance. Joy continues to travel. Music continues to move people forward. Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance reflects that reality. Latinos are here to stay. The darkness will pass. Celebration remains.
Download the full report here.
Los Angeles is entering a three-year period unlike anything in marketing history. Between the 2026 World Cup, 2027 Super Bowl, and 2028 Olympics, billions in brand investment will flow through a single city. But while the attention and spending will be unprecedented, most marketers are still planning for L.A. using outdated assumptions.
ThinkNow’s new study, The World in One City, challenges those assumptions. The data shows that Los Angeles is not just diverse. It is structurally, culturally, and demographically different from any other U.S. market. And in 2026, brands who fail to recognize these differences will waste significant resources.
Key findings:
If your brand treats L.A. like any other market, you will miss what truly drives cultural relevance and performance here. The city already lives in the demographic future the rest of the country is moving toward.
The complete findings are available in ThinkNow’s new strategic mini-report, including:
Download the report to see the real Los Angeles, and to build campaigns that perform in 2026 and beyond.
Alcohol consumption in the United States continues to evolve, shaped by health concerns, economic pressure, and changing social norms. ThinkNow’s 2025 Alcohol Consumption Report, based on a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults age 21+, offers a clear picture of how, where, and why people are drinking today—and how those behaviors vary sharply by generation and cultural background.
Download the full report here.
Across generations, Millennials stand out as the most active alcohol consumers. They are the most likely to drink weekly or more often and show the highest participation across nearly every beverage category, including beer, wine, cocktails, hard liquor, and hard seltzers. Unlike older cohorts, Millennials’ drinking occasions span both everyday relaxation and special celebrations, reinforcing their role as the industry’s most versatile consumer segment.
Gen X follows closely behind in frequency, while Boomers show steadier, less variable habits. Gen Z, in contrast, is notably less likely to drink frequently and more likely to report cutting back altogether.
Regardless of age or ethnicity, alcohol consumption is now primarily an at-home activity. Nearly three-quarters of drinkers say they most often consume alcohol at home, far exceeding restaurants, bars, or social gatherings. This shift reflects lasting changes from recent years, including cost control, convenience, and lifestyle reprioritization.
While Millennials remain the most likely to associate drinking with celebrations, Gen Z is the least likely to drink at home, suggesting a looser attachment to alcohol as a routine behavior rather than a default social accompaniment.
A critical takeaway from the report is that moderation is rising. More adults report decreasing their alcohol consumption over the past year than increasing it. Health and financial considerations dominate the reasons for cutting back, with improvements in physical health and saving money cited most often.
These motivations vary by age. Younger adults, especially Gen Z, are more likely to consciously reduce consumption, while Boomers largely report no change, indicating that habits stabilize with age.
Among Millennials specifically, avoiding hangovers is a disproportionately strong driver of reduced drinking, highlighting growing awareness of alcohol’s short-term physical costs even among heavy participants.
For those who are drinking more, stress is the dominant factor. Roughly half of adults who increased their alcohol consumption cite stress or anxiety as the primary reason, followed closely by discovering new beverages they enjoy. Socializing more often and having greater disposable income also contributes to a lesser extent.
This contrast, health-driven reduction versus stress-driven increases, underscores the polarized role alcohol continues to play: both a potentially unhealthy choice and a coping mechanism.
About half of alcohol consumers say their preferences have changed in the past year, whether in brands, flavors, or beverage types. These shifts are most pronounced among younger consumers, particularly Gen Z and Millennials, who are far more likely than older adults to experiment.
Two-thirds of drinkers overall say they are open to trying new brands or flavors, but openness declines sharply with age. Boomers overwhelmingly prefer familiar options, while Millennials and Gen X occupy a middle ground between exploration and brand loyalty.
When buying alcohol, trusted brands and social enjoyment matter most across the board. Affordability, alcohol content, and perceived quality also rank highly. However, Millennials consistently evaluate more factors than any other generation, placing greater emphasis on brand prestige, recommendations, packaging, and trend relevance.
This suggests a more complex decision-making process, where functional attributes and social signaling intersect, especially for younger and mid-aged consumers.
Just over one-third of alcohol consumers say global events, including economic shifts or trade changes, have a moderate or significant impact on their access to or preference for imported alcohol. Sensitivity to global influence is highest among Asians, Gen Z, and Millennials, indicating that international supply chains and pricing dynamics increasingly shape consumer choice.
Alcohol consumption in 2025 is defined by moderation, experimentation, and context. Consumers are not abandoning alcohol, but they are thinking more carefully about when, why, and what they drink. Health concerns are pushing behavior in one direction, while stress and discovery pull in another. For brands and retailers, understanding generational and cultural nuance is central to staying relevant in a market that is becoming more selective, more intentional, and more fragmented.
Download the full report here.
Gen Z, now between the ages of 13 and 28, has had very different life experiences than the Millennials that preceded them. Many of them were children during the financial fallout of the Great Recession and navigated adolescence during the COVID-19 pandemic, all formative experiences that have shaped their values, beliefs around work, and their place in society. Since many of them are still charting their career paths, ThinkNow set out to understand how this generation perceives service in the U.S. armed forces.
Our latest study surveyed a nationally representative sample of 476 Gen Z adults (ages 18–24) to uncover what motivates or discourages them from serving, and to explore how these perspectives differ across cultural backgrounds.
While most of Gen Z was too young to have served during the U.S. wars in Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghanistan (2001-2021), four out of five Gen Z respondents know someone who has served in the military, whether a family member or friend. This familiarity appears to be creating a foundation of respect and recognition for military service with half of Gen Z holding a favorable view of the U.S. military overall.
This familiarity and positive opinion may be responsible for roughly three in ten Gen Z adults saying they would consider joining the military. That is higher than was seen towards the end of the Middle Eastern wars. Ten years ago, Department of Defense tracking polls showed youth interest levels averaging between 13-16%. In comparison, today’s 30% represents a significant increase in openness to service among young Americans.
For those considering enlistment, the top motivators are career growth, education benefits, and skill development. Gen Z sees military service as both a path to purpose and to opportunity. They value discipline, teamwork, and leadership, but also want clear evidence that their commitment will lead to tangible outcomes in civilian life.
Interest varies across groups. Men lean toward the Marine Corps, while women favor the Air Force. Non-Hispanic Whites express the strongest overall favorability, while Hispanic and African American respondents are somewhat less likely to have close family ties to service. Recognizing these nuances allows for more authentic, culturally relevant communication.
Among those uncertain about joining, higher pay, stronger benefits, and guaranteed post-service employment stand out as the top motivators. These are practical, achievable levers that can further expand the pool of interested young adults.
Gen Z’s willingness to consider military service is a bright spot in a decade-long trend of declining youth engagement. Their 30% interest rate signals renewed openness and suggests that the right combination of purpose, opportunity, and security can attract a new generation of service-minded Americans. Understanding what drives Gen Z’s choices helps not only the military but any institution seeking to connect with a generation that values authenticity, balance, and progress.
The flu season is an annual reminder that personal health decisions often have broader consequences. New ThinkNow research on U.S. attitudes toward flu vaccination shows that while just over half of adults received the flu shot in 2024, fewer plan to do so in 2025. This trend is concerning, not only for individuals but for communities that rely on high vaccination coverage to reduce transmission.
Download the report here.
The survey, conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,500 adults, found:
The most common reasons for declining the flu shot are rooted in personal health perceptions: believing it is unnecessary, rarely getting sick, or having never had the flu. Concerns about side effects and doubts about effectiveness also remain.
Doctors and healthcare providers continue to be the most trusted influencers for flu shot decisions across all groups. Younger adults, particularly Millennials, also rely heavily on family, friends, and personal research. This suggests that messages about flu vaccination must be reinforced through both medical professionals and personal networks.
Getting a flu shot is not only a personal health decision but also a civic responsibility. The flu spreads easily, and one person’s illness can quickly become another person’s hospitalization. In fact, from 20,000 to 50,000 people die from flu-related respiratory illnesses in the U.S. each year. Choosing vaccination protects the vulnerable: infants too young for vaccination, older adults, and individuals with weakened immune systems.
Vaccination also reduces the burden on hospitals, keeps workplaces and schools safer, and contributes to a healthier and more productive society.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that everyone 6 months and older get a flu vaccine every season. This guidance includes people who are healthy and those with chronic health conditions. Certain groups face a higher risk of flu-related complications and should prioritize vaccination:
The CDC also recommends that vaccination occur by the end of October each year, although getting the shot later in the season still provides valuable protection.
The ThinkNow findings underscore a troubling reality: intent to get the flu vaccine is declining, even as experts stress its importance. Vaccination is an act of personal protection, but it is also an act of community care. By getting the flu shot, individuals shield themselves from illness and help prevent spreading it to others.
The message is clear. Flu vaccination is about more than avoiding a week of discomfort. It is about protecting families, coworkers, neighbors, and communities. The flu shot is one of the simplest, most effective steps we can all take for the common good.
Download the report here.
In 2000, the United States declared that measles had been officially eliminated as a contagious disease, as there had been no person-to-person transmissions in the previous twelve months. That feat was achieved due to the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine and high vaccination rates. However, as of May 16, 2025, there were over 718 reported cases of measles, including two deaths in West Texas and another 50 cases in New Mexico. Most measles cases in this recent outbreak are occurring in unvaccinated children between the ages of 5 and 17. This troubling trend prompted ThinkNow to conduct a nationally representative quantitative survey of 1,500 U.S. adults on attitudes and behaviors surrounding vaccination, and the results are concerning.
Download the report here.
Herd immunity against infectious diseases requires a 95% vaccination rate. Back in 2000, the vaccination rate was 90.5%, demonstrating that disease elimination is possible with slightly lower coverage. Our recent study, conducted in March and April of this year, found that 86% of parents have vaccinated or plan to vaccinate their children against illnesses like measles, polio, and chicken pox. That percentage may increase as more children enroll in school. Still, the widening gap between current levels and the herd-immunity threshold contributes to the size and scope of today’s outbreak.
Further complicating prevention efforts is the variability in vaccination rates, from 79.6% to 98.3%, across states and within communities. Gaines County, the epicenter of the current Texas outbreak, has an 82% vaccination rate, largely attributed to many Mennonite families in the area who opt out of childhood vaccinations. At a national level, our study found that aside from religious exemptions, parental age and race significantly influence vaccination decisions. While 12% of parents overall say they don’t plan to vaccinate their children, that number rises to 29% among African American parents and 17% among Gen Z parents.
The most cited reason for vaccine hesitancy is the belief that immunization is unnecessary. This perception is especially prevalent among Gen Z parents who opt out of vaccinations. Concerns about adverse reactions and misinformation about vaccine ingredients also play a significant role.
Key findings from vaccine-hesitant parents include:
These attitudes point to a clear need for better education and communication, particularly among younger parents and communities of color, about the role vaccines play in preventing serious illness.
While 61% of parents overall report confidence in the safety of childhood vaccines, only 39% of Gen Z parents say the same. Nearly one-third of Gen Z respondents say they’re neutral on the issue. In contrast, confidence among older generations is much higher, 70% among Gen X and 72% among Baby Boomers. These generational differences suggest a broader erosion of trust in public institutions and medical guidance among younger adults, an emerging challenge for public health leaders.
Physicians remain the most trusted source of information about vaccines, cited by 76% of respondents. However, social media and online influencers are increasingly shaping the views of younger and minority parents. Among African Americans who support vaccination, 30% say online sources have influenced them. Among Gen Z, while most still cite doctors as a top source, many also report being swayed by peers, influencers, and online content.
To improve vaccine uptake, public awareness campaigns must reach younger parents where they are—on social platforms—and reinforce science-based messages through trusted, culturally relevant voices.
One-third of parents who oppose childhood vaccination say nothing could change their minds. But not all are immovable:
These findings point to the potential power of community storytelling and consistent, transparent communication in shifting attitudes.
Seventy-one percent of parents believe vaccines should be required for public school attendance, regardless of exemptions. However, among Gen Z parents, support for mandates drops. Fifty-two percent believe vaccination should be entirely optional, compared to just 15% of Boomers. Still, many parents acknowledge the broader social benefit of vaccines. The idea that immunization protects not just one child but the entire community continues to resonate, even among those with reservations.
Our recent findings reveal a shifting landscape. While most U.S. parents continue to support childhood vaccinations, confidence is slipping, particularly among Gen Z and African American parents. Addressing this decline in trust will require more than data points. Listening, cultural understanding, and amplifying trusted voices within communities will be necessary to shift the conversation.
As we confront the re-emergence of preventable diseases, rebuilding vaccine confidence must be a top priority. Because when trust breaks down, the consequences ripple far beyond the individual and put us all at risk.
Download the report here.
Agencies like the CDC and USDA rely on government insights solutions. Discover what ThinkNow Government offers the public sector.