Each month, we choose a potential say-do gap to put to the test. Consumers may think they know themselves and their habits – but how well do they, really? We know survey data is flawed, and in previous experiments, we’ve seen where consumers’ best intentions break down in the real world. This month, our in-the-wild experiment is tackling the notion that most people prefer to cook at home vs spend on takeout. Do you think it holds true? Let’s find out.
It's giving experiences-over-things — and honestly, it tracks.
Ask any Millennial how they spend their money and you'll hear some version of the same answer: experiences, memories, moments over material things. It's not just what surveys confirm — it's a value genuinely embedded in an entire generation.
70% of millennials say they prefer to spend money on experiences over material things.
For brands targeting millennials, that number isn’t a surprise. It's become foundational for go-to-market strategies.
And it’s not without grounding. Millennials watched their parents accumulate things and still come up short on happiness. That understanding has reframed what “worth it” means. They came to value experiences over material purchases — things that create emotional resonance, connection, and personal meaning. With social media constantly amplifying travel, events, and shared moments, experiences feel more visible and more worth sharing.
But stated preferences are exactly that: stated. Will these values still hold in a real moment of choice?
The do
We built two ads and dropped them directly into consumers' social feeds, framed as tweets — the kind of offhand thought that shows up between memes and news mid-scroll.
Message A leaned into experiences: “booking a trip at 2am is just a really aggressive form of self-care"
Message B leaned into material purchases: “a shopping spree at 2am is just a really aggressive form of self-care"
We deliberately framed both messages around self-care — a value millennials are increasingly centering as they move away from "rise and grind" culture. Because "booking a trip" inherently carries more emotional weight than "buying things," we leaned into "shopping spree" framing to give both ads equal emotional and experiential footing. Then we measured click-through behavior to see where engagement actually went.
70% of millennials said experiences. When we tested it, they meant it.
Experience-framed messaging scored 119 on the Orchard Index. Material purchases landed at 81.
We expected behavior to tell a messier story. This month, it didn’t.
Placing value on experiences over material purchases shaped how millennials see themselves as a generation. Experiences got tied to authenticity, personal growth, and real happiness — and when surveys ask, millennials answer from that place.
That's usually where stated preferences start to crack. Surveys have a way of capturing the socially desirable answer, and "I spend on experiences" is a more admirable one than "I like buying stuff."
But here's the thing: you only know the survey was right because you tested it. That's not a small distinction. A brand betting on experience-led positioning doesn't want a cited statistic — it wants a green light. This month, testing in the wild gave one.
And it raised a more interesting question in the process.
We chose to test millennial values because the line between material purchases and experiences has genuinely blurred. A carefully built skincare routine is a ritual. A home setup — the desk, the lighting, the art on the wall — is a sanctuary built over time. Millennials grew up curating aesthetics on platforms that existed before "aesthetic" was everywhere: Pinterest, Tumblr, early Instagram. These weren't shopping channels. They were vibes-first. And they trained an entire generation to understand the difference between a life that looks curated and one that actually feels lived.
That distinction still holds. A last-minute flight to Mexico City with your dad outlasts anything on a shopping list. Experiences generate meaning that compounds in a way purchases can't replicate — and millennials, more than most, know it. They watched it play out in real time, on the same platforms that helped shape who they are.
This gives brands a clearer question to answer: which products in your portfolio have real experiential meaning, and which ones are relying on functional value alone? Experience-led messaging won't be equally effective across both, and behavioral data can help identify where that framing actually works.
An interesting question, too, might be how this finding holds up across other generations. Are their younger cohorts in Gen-Z likely to feel the same, or does their worldview of scrolling and online status fuel their purchasing behavior more? What about the older Gen-X cohort, who grew up in and were shaped by a different world altogether? Testing in the wild can show you where the generational divide shows up or where desires may be universal.
For experience-led brands — travel, live events, hospitality, dining — this is a green light. The preference is real, it's verified, and the opportunity is in the framing: not "here's a trip," but "here's the story you'll still be telling in ten years."
For brands selling material goods, the more useful question is whether your product earns experiential meaning or assumes it. Some do. A lot don't. Knowing the difference is what separates messaging that resonates from messaging that just sounds like the category.
None of that, though, accounts for time.
Stated preferences drift. Life stage, financial priorities, and shifting cultural values quietly reshape how people actually spend even when what they say stays consistent. A value that held at 27 doesn't always hold the same weight a decade later. The millennial who booked a last-minute flight to Mexico City at 1am might, at 38, be putting that money toward a kitchen renovation. One that feels like an investment. One that becomes the backdrop for every holiday, birthday, and dinner party memory for the next ten years.
Is that a material purchase? Or an experience?
Surveys will always be late to catch that shift. That’s exactly what in-the-wild testing is for. You don’t see change in what people say — you see it in what they do, when you’re watching the right signals at the right time, where decisions are actually made.