Prices top global list of shopping irritations, ICERTIAS survey says

• Prices are the strongest visible irritation, but the broader cost-related theme shows consumers are reacting to total perceived financial pressure

• Value for money now depends on more than price; consumers judge whether quality, terms, service and aftercare justify the cost

• Friction has become part of perceived cost, with waiting, crowds, delivery problems, returns, queues, parking and apps increasing consumer irritation

A new ICERTIAS global consumer survey, conducted online in June 2026 among 8,200 respondents across 50 countries, asked consumers one deliberately simple open-ended question:

“What annoys you most when shopping today? Please enter only one single word.”

After responses were translated, standardised and coded into English for global reporting, “prices” emerged as the most frequently cited standardised term, mentioned by 16.8% of respondents. It was followed by “waiting” at 7.4%, “crowds” at 5.9%, “fees” at 4.8%, and “delivery” at 4.1%.

At first glance, the result appears straightforward: consumers are frustrated by high prices. That interpretation is correct, but incomplete.

Cost-Related Irritation

When related responses were grouped into broader themes, cost-related irritation represented the largest overall area of concern, accounting for approximately 26% of all responses. This broader category included terms such as prices, fees, discounts, inflation, expensive, costs and other closely related responses.

That distinction matters. Consumers are not simply saying that products are expensive. They are also expressing frustration with how costs appear, how offers are framed, how fees are added, how discounts are explained, and how much confidence they have that the final value is fair.

In other words, the consumer problem is not only price. It is price plus perceived friction, uncertainty and distrust.

Top 10 most frequently cited standardised terms globally
 

1. Prices — 16.8%
2. Waiting — 7.4%
3. Crowds — 5.9%
4. Fees — 4.8%
5. Delivery — 4.1%
6. Quality — 3.8%
7. Misleading — 3.2%
8. Discounts — 2.9%
9. Returns — 2.6%
10. Shortages — 2.3%
 

Together, the ten most frequently cited standardised terms accounted for 53.8% of all responses.

Other frequently cited terms included service, staff, queues, inflation, parking, stock, apps, choice, noise and packaging.

Managerial Challenge

The pattern points to a broader managerial challenge. Consumers are evaluating the shopping experience through three connected questions:

Is this worth the money?
Is this worth the effort?
Can I trust what I am being told?

For business leaders, that is the strategic implication of the survey.

Value Beyond Price

Value is no longer only a price equation.

The most common response in the survey, “prices,” confirms that affordability remains central to consumer decision-making. But the broader pattern of responses shows that consumers are reacting to more than the number on the shelf.

A product can feel expensive because its price is high. It can also feel expensive because the discount lacks credibility, the final cost changes at checkout, delivery fees appear unexpectedly, returns are unclear, service is poor, or the consumer doubts the quality behind the price.

This is why brands should be careful about treating price pressure as only a pricing problem. The deeper issue is perceived value.

Consumers may accept a higher price when the value is clear, the quality is credible, the terms are transparent, and the buying experience feels reliable. But when any of these elements is weak, even a moderate price can feel unfair.

The survey suggests that quality, value for money and customer care still matter deeply. They simply now operate inside a broader test of fairness.

“Quality” appears directly among the leading concerns, while “service,” “staff,” “returns,” “delivery” and “misleading” show that consumers judge the whole buying relationship, not only the product itself.

Value for money, in this environment, is not a simple comparison between low price and acceptable quality. It is a judgement about whether the price, promise, product experience and aftercare form a coherent whole.

The managerial question is therefore not only: Should we lower the price?

It is also: Have we made the value obvious enough, trustworthy enough and reliable enough to justify the price?

Friction as Cost

Friction has become part of the perceived cost.

Several of the most frequently cited terms — waiting, crowds, delivery, returns, queues, parking and apps — are not directly about money. They are about effort.

This matters because consumers increasingly experience friction as a form of cost. Waiting in line, searching for unavailable products, navigating poor digital interfaces, dealing with delivery uncertainty, or facing complicated returns all increase the perceived burden of a purchase.

The business consequence is simple: a competitive price can be weakened by a difficult experience.

Retailers and brands often treat operational friction as a service issue. Consumers may experience it as a value issue. If the process is slow, unclear or unreliable, the consumer feels they are paying not only with money, but also with time, attention and patience.

In that context, reducing friction is not merely a customer experience initiative. It is part of the value proposition.

Transparency as Advantage

Transparency is becoming a competitive asset.

The presence of terms such as fees, misleading, discounts and inflation suggests that consumers are highly sensitive to how commercial information is presented.

This does not mean consumers expect every product to be cheap. It means they expect the buying process to feel honest.

The issue is not only whether a discount exists, but whether it is credible. Not only whether a fee is legal, but whether it is expected. Not only whether a product claim is persuasive, but whether it feels supported.

For companies, transparency should not be treated as a compliance function alone. It is increasingly a trust function.

Clear pricing, credible promotions, simple terms, reliable delivery estimates, visible return policies and evidence-based quality claims can reduce consumer irritation before it becomes a complaint, lost sale or reputational problem.

Availability Matters

Product availability appeared in several forms. “Shortages” ranked tenth and “stock” ranked sixteenth, while related responses included out-of-stock, unavailable, missing and empty shelves.

Availability matters because it sits at the intersection of promise and execution. When consumers invest time and attention in a shopping journey and the product is unavailable, the brand or retailer has not only failed to complete a transaction. It has created wasted effort.

This is especially damaging in a high-friction environment. A consumer who already feels price pressure may be less tolerant of wasted trips, missing products or unreliable inventory information.

The more consumers feel economically cautious, the less patience they may have for preventable operational failures.

Leadership Priorities

What leaders should do? The survey suggests four practical priorities for companies that want to reduce consumer irritation. First, make pricing easier to understand. Avoid surprising consumers late in the purchase journey. Make the full cost visible early.

Second, make value easier to prove. If quality, durability, service, convenience or trust justify a higher price, those benefits need to be clear before the consumer is asked to pay.

Third, reduce avoidable friction. Waiting, delivery uncertainty, complex returns, weak apps and poor stock visibility all increase the perceived cost of buying.

Fourth, treat transparency as part of the product. Consumers are not only buying goods or services. They are buying confidence that the offer is fair, the promise is real and the company will behave reliably if something goes wrong.

The companies that perform best in this environment may not be those that simply offer the lowest price. They may be those that reduce the consumer’s sense of risk, effort and uncertainty most effectively.

Methodology

The ICERTIAS Global Consumer Survey was conducted online in June 2026 among 8,200 respondents across 50 countries. The survey covered all OECD countries, together with 12 additional major global and regional consumer markets: China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Nigeria. The survey was designed to capture broad global consumer sentiment. It was not designed to provide representative rankings for each individual country. Results should therefore be interpreted as a global directional view of consumer sentiment rather than as country-level findings. The questionnaire was developed in English, translated into the relevant local languages, and reviewed for semantic consistency across markets. Open-ended responses were translated, standardised and coded into English for global reporting. Respondents were asked one open-ended question and instructed to provide only one word in response: “What annoys you most when shopping today?” Responses were reviewed and grouped by equivalent meaning where appropriate. For example, equivalent or closely related responses in different languages were standardised into common English reporting terms.

Coding was conducted using a structured codebook. Responses were first reviewed for direct meaning, then checked for equivalent expressions across languages. Ambiguous responses were reviewed separately before being assigned to a standardised term or excluded from the ranked list if their meaning could not be reliably determined. Quality checks were conducted to ensure consistency in translation, coding and grouping. The average number of respondents per country was approximately 164, although the survey was not designed to produce equally weighted or representative country-level samples. Global figures are based on the total analysed response set and were not intended to represent population-weighted country-level estimates. Percentages are based on total responses received. Minor variations may occur due to rounding.