76% Blame Global Conflict for Cost-of-Living Pain

Four years after the energy shock that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the global cost-of-living story has taken another anxious turn. Ipsos’s ninth Cost of Living Monitor, covering 33 countries, finds that war and geopolitical conflict now overshadow governments and the economy as the perceived cause of rising prices.

The new blame game is geopolitical

Asked what is pushing the cost of living up, 76% point to conflicts around the world and their consequences. That is ahead of national governments and the global economy. In the next six months, 70% expect to pay more for energy and utilities, which suggests people are bracing for another squeeze rather than expecting relief.

For marketers, this is a shift in where consumers locate the problem. When people blame an external, uncontrollable force, messaging about government policy or the economy can feel hollow. The dominant mental model is that prices are being done to them from outside.

Comfortable now, anxious about tomorrow

The global headline looks mildly positive: 38% say they are financially comfortable or doing alright, while 27% say they are finding it difficult. But that masks an income split. Lower-income households are more likely to be struggling—38% find it difficult, against 24% who are comfortable or alright. Higher and middle-income groups lean the other way.

There is also a striking present-future gap. In the Netherlands, for example, 61% say they are comfortable or doing alright, yet 39% expect their disposable income to fall over the next twelve months. The English-speaking world and much of Europe feel stable today but pessimistic about holding that stability. LATAM, by contrast, has been trending downward over the past year.

What this means for brand and pricing strategy

Consumers who feel comfortable but fearful are different from consumers who are already struggling. Brands need two messages, not one.

• For the squeezed lower-income segment: lead with practical value, smaller packs, and reassurance that the brand understands immediate pressure.
• For the comfortable-but-worried middle: offer future-facing certainty—price locks, predictable subscriptions, energy-saving claims—because their fear is about the next six months, not today.
• For markets trending down, such as parts of LATAM: avoid optimism that ignores lived experience; acknowledge the drop before selling the solution.

A useful behavioural frame here is perceived control. When consumers attribute inflation to conflict, they feel less able to change their circumstances. Brands that restore a sense of control—through transparent pricing, flexible plans or small commitments—can stand out without having to compete on price alone.

The framework: present comfort vs future fear

Marketers often segment by income or age. The Ipsos data suggests a more useful cut is time horizon: how someone feels now versus how they expect to feel soon. A person who is comfortable today but expects their disposable income to fall will respond to different messages than someone already struggling. Map your audience on those two axes—current strain and expected strain—and position accordingly.

With midterm elections due next month and several European elections over the next year, the outlook is unlikely to settle quickly. Brands that acknowledge the anxiety without adding to it will earn attention.

Source: Ipsos