In January, Bank of America analysts noted that self-care services like salons and gyms were notable economic standouts that have been “solid” for the past two years. Boomers led beauty spending, while Gen Z and millennials aimed for more self-care and gyms, including wellness trends like red light therapy and cold plunges.
Now, Business Insider reports that analysts are noting that the “generational shift” in spending towards “healthy habits is driving growth in wellness-related stocks,” according to a Bank of America note on Tuesday.
Gen Z and millennials are prioritizing movement and fun, spending their money on leisure activities like pickleball and wellness-focused discretionary spending like anti-aging treatments.
Related: The Majority of Gen Z Is Streaming Movies and TV Shows at Work, According to a New Survey
Investing.com notes that credit and debit card data from the bank showed a year-over-year increase in fitness spending of 7% in February, which they said was the biggest growth in a year and a half.
“We believe there is an ongoing generational shift toward healthy habits, which is supportive of wellness stocks,” Bank of America wrote.
The bank wrote that younger generations are also shunning the bar and instead opting for the gym.
“Millennials and Gen Z are allocating a higher percent of their budget to fitness [that’s] surpassing bars/pubs,” Bank of America noted.
Related: The ‘Lipstick Effect’ Exposes a Surprising Truth About Our Priorities in a Recession. Here’s How Businesses Can Cash In.
In November 2024, a report from the Global Wellness Institute found that the industry reached a record-high worth of $6.32 trillion in 2023 — bigger than the pharmaceutical and sports categories.
All of this data could lead to what Business Insider is calling a “recession-resistant corner of the market.”
Still, spending on beauty, or what is known as the “lipstick effect,” is not unheard of in times of economic strife.
During the Great Recession in 2008-2009, cosmetics expenditures increased among women ages 18 to 40 (though they gravitated towards lower-cost brands), per the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics.
