Gen Z Spends Less Per Trip But Shops More Places. Here’s What That Means for Brands

A report from Attain and dentsu zeros in on some seemingly contradictory assumptions about Gen Z spending with transaction-level evidence

Gen Z is the demographic every marketing plan is asked to account for. It’s also one of the hardest to read accurately. 

Most existing portraits of the generation are built from stated attitudes, platform engagement signals, and category assumptions. Those are useful for seeing where Gen Z pays attention. But when it comes to having insights into how Gen Z spends? Not so much. 

A report from Attain and dentsu, drawing on Attain’s consumer purchase panel and survey responses covering September 2025 through August 2026, attempts to separate the signals from the noise. All figures are indexed against the average U.S. shopper, with 100 representing parity. 

Gen Z’s story starts with a smaller wallet.

The picture that emerges is of a group of young shoppers with smaller overall budgets than the average U.S. consumer. Still, despite their tighter wallets, Gen Z’s spending is distributed across more merchants. One thing they have in common with previous generations at their age is spending patterns tilted heavily toward non-essential categories like dining and entertainment. 

As they’ve joined the workforce, Gen Z seems to have embraced the mantra of “do more with less.” And they’ve taken it to their personal lives. Gen Z visits 6% more distinct merchants than the average shopper while making roughly the same number of transactions, with each purchase running about 23% smaller, the report notes. 

This younger set allocates 66% of its everyday wallet to “discretionary categories,” such as restaurants, fast food, coffee, entertainment, travel, clothing, electronics, beauty, and rideshare, compared with 58% for the overall population.

Emily Singer, associate manager of strategy at Attain, draws out the marketing implication directly. “Their spending is thin and scattered rather than concentrated with a few favorite stores,” Singer says. “That changes the question from ‘which channel do they spend time in?’ to ‘which moments do they actually pay for?’”

Where the Money Actually Goes

The report indicates not only shopping categories areas that Gen Z frequently engages in, but also those which command a disproportionately large share of their wallet. 

For example, public transit carries a reach index of 137 and a wallet-share index of 196 against the average U.S. shopper, meaning Gen Z is 37% more likely to use it and it takes nearly twice the share of their spending compared to the general population. Rideshare follows a similar pattern, with a reach index of 121 and wallet-share index of 184. Gyms and fitness centers, casinos and prediction markets, and video games all over-index on both dimensions.

The under-indexes are equally telling. Groceries show a reach index of 99; Gen Z is as likely as anyone to buy them, but with a wallet-share index of just 65, groceries take a far smaller portion of Gen Z’s total spending than they do for the average shopper. Club stores index at 91 on reach and 55 on wallet share. 

 Singer outlines the competitive consequences for brands “The chances to reach them are tied to how they move through their day, not just where they scroll,” she says. “For a brand, that means the competition for Gen Z’s dollars is wider than its own category.” 

McCord Chapman, VP of commerce marketing at Public Label, a commerce and experiential marketing agency, extends that observation into a planning critique. “With 66% of Gen Z’s everyday wallet going to categories classified as discretionary, the competition for spending extends across dining, entertainment, fitness and other priorities,” Chapman says. 

“Marketers need to understand what role the purchase plays in someone’s life and what makes it worth choosing,” Chapman adds.

Price Sensitivity Is the Wrong Frame

The characterization of Gen Z as primarily price-driven doesn’t hold up against Attain’s survey data. The report finds Gen Z is 25% more likely than the average shopper to say brand names matter more than price, 19% more likely to prioritize saving time, and 18% more likely to prioritize customer service. They under-index on everyday low prices at 88 and on getting a deal at 94.

Singer describes the distinction carefully. “Low everyday prices ranked lower for Gen Z than for the average shopper, and so did hunting for a deal,” she says. “A better description is that they are willing to pay for what saves them effort or means something to them. Brands that lead only with discounts risk competing on the lever Gen Z cares least about.”

Chapman reframes the same finding through what he calls an opportunity-cost lens. “What matters is what a purchase delivers relative to what else that money could buy,” Chapman says. “A smaller wallet makes earning a place in it more important; it doesn’t automatically make the cheapest option the most compelling.”

Brand Affinity Without Brand Loyalty

Perhaps the most commercially significant tension in the report is this: Gen Z is 25% more likely to say brand names matter more than price, yet 18% less likely to say they usually buy the same brands. Brand recognition earns consideration. It doesn’t guarantee a second purchase.

Singer is clear about what that means to bridge measurement and relationship-building. “Measurement should start with knowing who your new buyers are, wherever they bought, not just at one retailer,” she says. “From there, brands can retarget those buyers to move them up the loyalty funnel. Gen Z buys from more places and is less likely to stick with the same brands, so tracking brand touchpoints across every channel is the best way to turn a first purchase into a lasting customer”

In addition, take on loyalty centers on reducing friction, maintaining presence across the many merchants where Gen Z actually shops, and evaluating success over months rather than a single campaign. 

Chapman views the same dynamic within a retention framework. “Loyalty can mean being chosen repeatedly, without being chosen exclusively,” he says. “Brands should aim to earn a place in a trusted rotation by serving a clear occasion, delivering consistently and making the next purchase easy.”

What Brands Are Getting Wrong

Both Singer and Chapman point to the same category of error: conflating platform attention with purchase intent, and defining competitive set too narrowly.

Singer notes that real transaction data can challenge conventional assumptions about competition. A brand’s only competitors aren’t necessarily other stores or the products on the shelf right next to it: “Gen Z’s spare dollars are just as likely to go to a ride, a game or a coffee,” she says. 

The report’s brand takeaways reinforce the structural point: with Gen Z spending approximately 25% fewer dollars, but 6% more across a variety of merchants, no single retailer sees the whole shopper.

Chapman puts the correction in terms of marketing strategy. “Brands can spend too much energy trying to ‘speak Gen Z’ while defining value too narrowly around price and competition too narrowly around their category,” he says. 

The shift the report points toward is occasion-based spending rather than demographic. As Singer sees it, brands should try to  understand these shoppers have a need to be solved as they seek value in a given moment, rather than be targeted as a monolithic generation.

“Gen Z moves around a lot and is less likely than average to stick with the same brands, so a one-time sale tells you very little,” Singer says. “The real proof is whether they come back.”