We live in a world saturated with screens and feeds, don’t we? A paradox that defines the media landscape: young people are consuming more news and content than ever – yet they trust less of what they see. For brands, this isn’t just a media problem. It’s a credibility crisis that demands a fundamental rethink of how stories are told, sourced, and sustained.
Gen Z – roughly the cohort born between 1997 and 2012 – is the first generation to grow up entirely digital. In India alone, reports indicate that Gen Z spends 5-6 hours daily on social and video platforms, consuming a mix of short-form video, social posts, and creator-driven content. But unlike previous generations, they do not equate attention with belief. Watching doesn’t imply trust.
Shooting the messenger hasn’t helped either. India’s Gen Z is often described as impatient, distracted, or addicted to short-form content. That diagnosis is convenient and wrong. What this generation is actually displaying is a deep mistrust of how information is produced, packaged, and pushed at them.
Gen Z are watching more content than any generation before them. But they are believing far less of it.
This shift didn’t happen overnight. It has been shaped by lived experience. Gen Z in India has grown up watching breaking news change within hours, influencer opinions flip with sponsorships, and viral narratives collapse under scrutiny. They’ve seen misinformation spread faster than corrections – from health advice during the pandemic to financial tips during bull markets. Trust, for them, is no longer assumed. It is earned reluctantly.
Consider how young Indians consume news today. Many will scroll past a headline, open a reel, listen to a creator’s explanation, and then still Google the topic or check another source. Watching is only the first step. Verification is the second. This is why sensational headlines may generate clicks, but rarely conviction.
We’ve seen this play out repeatedly in India. During the cryptocurrency boom, for instance, flashy endorsements and influencer-driven narratives flooded social media. Gen Z watched. Many even participated. But when the cycle turned, trust evaporated almost overnight. What remained credible were not the loudest voices, but the few explainers who had consistently warned about risk, volatility, and long-term fundamentals.
The same pattern appears in public discourse. During major national events – elections, policy changes, economic announcements – Gen Z may consume content from multiple platforms, but they reserve trust for voices that explain why something matters, not just what happened. Depth beats drama. Context beats outrage.
This behaviour has profound implications for brands.
For years, Indian brands relied on repetition and reach. If a message appeared often enough, it was assumed to stick. Gen Z has broken that model. They see frequency without substance as manipulation. They are quick to disengage from brands that show up only during campaigns, crises, or trend cycles.
What they reward instead is consistency. Brands that communicate clearly, acknowledge complexity, and avoid exaggeration tend to retain credibility even when they make mistakes. Those that oversimplify, overpromise, or chase virality often lose trust faster than they gain attention.
A telling example is how Indian FMCG brands approached sustainability claims over the last few years. When “eco-friendly” and “plastic-neutral” messaging became fashionable, several brands rolled out vague green language in ads without explaining how those claims were achieved.
Gen Z didn’t reject the idea of sustainability – they rejected the lack of detail. In contrast, brands like Hindustan Unilever earned comparatively higher credibility when they backed sustainability communication with specifics: recycled plastic percentages, refill models, and public sustainability roadmaps. The difference wasn’t moral positioning; it was evidence. Gen Z didn’t expect perfection, but they expected transparency. Brands that explained trade-offs retained trust. Those that relied on slogans were quietly discounted.
This generation also values proximity. Regional creators explaining national issues in local languages often feel more trustworthy than polished national narratives. It’s not anti-institutional sentiment; it’s a preference for relatability and lived context. In a country as diverse as India, credibility often travels through familiarity.
For brands, this means credibility can no longer be manufactured through campaigns. It must be cultivated through behaviour. PR cannot be episodic. Content cannot be cosmetic. Trust is built the same way it is lost – slowly.
India’s UPI story offers one of the clearest examples of how Gen Z separates usage from trust. Platforms like PhonePe and Google Pay scaled rapidly on convenience and cashback. But as UPI fraud incidents rose, Gen Z users became wary of brands that celebrated transaction milestones without addressing risk. What preserved credibility for these platforms was not denial, but education – persistent in-app warnings, scam alerts, and public-facing communication around fraud patterns. Gen Z didn’t stop using UPI, but they became selective about which platforms they trusted to keep them informed. Adoption remained high; blind faith did not.
Gen Z’s media habits are forcing brands to confront an uncomfortable truth: attention can be bought, but belief cannot. In an environment overflowing with content, credibility has become the rarest asset of all. Brands that understand this will evolve. Those that don’t will continue to confuse visibility with influence. The clean beauty wave in India exposed how quickly Gen Z interrogates claims.
Mamaearth became one of the most visible brands to push “toxin-free” and “natural” messaging at scale. While this drove reach, it also triggered scepticism among Gen Z users who began asking harder questions about ingredient definitions, certifications, and regulatory clarity. In contrast, brands that leaned into ingredient literacy – explaining formulations, limitations, and trade-offs – saw more patient engagement, even if they grew slower. The lesson was clear: slogans invite scrutiny; explanations invite trust.
In news, Gen Z’s behaviour is equally instructive. While they discover stories through social feeds, trust often settles with institutions like a large media house I truly respect (without naming the brand), known for explainers, sourcing, and follow-ups. Viral clips may spark interest, but credibility accrues to outlets that provide context and continuity. Gen Z uses algorithms for discovery – and institutions for validation. Brands misread this when they optimise only for reach.
The future belongs not to the loudest storytellers, but to the most reliable ones.