Andrew Lewis: We're all fascinated by the idea of looking into our future. And ultimately, while the future is fluid and unwritten, a compelling question to ask is, what do we hope to see? What does the future we really want look like? And presented with different paths which inspire hope and optimism for us and which create fear, and why? And for the brands and organisations that play a role in our lives. What do these themes mean for how they should be looking, to show up, to be of real value and to help us progress?

Hello and welcome to Frame, a podcast dedicated to the art of knowing people. And over a series of three episodes, we'll be unpacking the findings from our latest Mood of the Nation study entitled the 'Future We Want', where we spoke to thousands of Australians and New Zealanders about what lies ahead, their hopes, their fears, their optimism and their scepticism.

I'm your host, Andrew Lewis, managing director at TRA, The Research Agency. In each episode, I'll be joined by thought leaders from different human science disciplines to discuss the findings. By layering their unique perspectives on the topic, we're going to search for the truths that others don't, the uncommon truths. In this first episode, I'll be joined by Colleen Ryan, partner at TRA, who led the research, and Laura Mulcahy, futurist and head of cultural foresight at TRA, to help us make sense of what's next.

Andrew Lewis: Welcome both, and great to have you here today.

Colleen Ryan: Yeah, thanks, Andrew. I'm delighted to be here today. It's been my favourite mood of the nation so far.

Andrew Lewis: Fantastic.

Laura Mulcahy: I'll back that up. I'm always excited to talk about the future. So excited to be here.

Andrew Lewis: Great, great. Well, we'll get started then. Colleen, you led the research. What's it all about and why are we looking at this?

Colleen Ryan: Well, like you said, it's all about the future. You will remember because you were part of this podcast series with me earlier in the year, we looked at progress and Kiwis and Australians told us they were expecting to make progress in life. They were pretty optimistic in a way, but it was a pretty generic way. It wasn't really looking at what the future might look like and how that progress might play out. So that's what this work is about. And now we know people aren't very good at imagining what the future might look like. So, we helped them along the way. We created nine scenarios.

Colleen Ryan: They weren't either leaning towards being dystopian or utopian. They were just descriptions and, you know, so that people could live them. We made them a day in a life of. So, nine in total. They covered all sorts of things, very individual type futures. They covered things like how we work together, we play together, how we live together, we expose people to those scenarios. And we asked them what, what they thought of them, how they would imagine their own lives in that context. Lots of people, like you said, 2000 quantitative, supported by Dynata. Thank you for providing panel for us.

Colleen Ryan: And a whole lot of qualitative work as well.

Andrew Lewis: Okay, so quite a comprehensive study. You've seen the data, you've seen the stories of what was found, headlines, what stood out for you.

Colleen Ryan: It's amazing how complex it is. There's just not one story in this, you know, there's just not one narrative. I've never done work where people in the same breath have been incredibly positive about something and incredibly negative. Okay, so what was interesting is, overall, if you push people to be more positive or negative about what the future might look like, you know, with these scenarios, you know, people give it a go. Like most people will be positive, three quarters of them will be positive. But equally, if you ask them if they're more sceptical or more trusting, you get the flip side. Two thirds of them will say they're more sceptical.

Andrew Lewis: So, they're more positive and more sceptical.

Colleen Ryan: Yeah, exactly. And it's, you know, we always look at how people feel first and then think and then act. And this was a case of people's feelings being just a hot mess. You know, they'd lean in, then they'd lean out and they'd get excited about something and then they'd frown. They'd talk about the wonders that AI could bring. But then if you give them a superpower and say, it's your choice, you know, do you want to unplug AI, for example. They go, yeah, yeah, doing that. Majority of people would turn it off. It's extraordinary.

Colleen Ryan: It was a really interesting piece of work.

Andrew Lewis: So that's really interesting. So, big headline. There's not really a single narrative about how people feel about the future. They have these conflicting emotions. I think that's immediately interesting to contrast to the progress study, where at a simple level, everyone expects to make progress in life broadly, but when shown some different possible realities and what might play out with technology, that's a lot. There's a lot more nuance and stuff going on in that. When you pull back and look across the groups, then see there's all this conflicting stuff. Were there themes, though, that kind of kept coming through?

Colleen Ryan: Yeah, that was the common denominator. And just before I go into the themes for organizations who are developing products, services, platforms. All the work that organizations do towards the future, you know, they need to remember that they're facing this hot mess of emotions. Because you can do one really small thing, for example, in developing a product or a service that can will just flip it one way or the other. You know, that kind of nuance means you walk very fine lines. And the fine lines are because the kind of the same themes came through all the time. You know, they recognize the value clearly of what will be possible in the future, but they're very worried about things like what I'd call human things like losing spontaneity. You know, if technology allows us to be incredibly efficient and organized, everything sorted, where's the stuff that just, you know, just goes wrong and can be fun sometimes to go wrong or you kind of learn something from it.

Colleen Ryan: The power of discovery is really important to us as human beings. I remember a quote somebody said, I used to hate avocados. I don't know why, I just look, they just, you know, now I eat them four times a week. But I had to discover that. So, discovery is really important to people as well. So those kinds of just human things and making mistakes, everybody recognizes that's how we learn. If you don't make mistakes anymore because technology allows you always to do the right thing, how do you ever grow and learn? And I guess the big one for me is you can't read anything, can you? That doesn't talk about AI and humanity. But you try getting someone to define what humanity means, you know, and a 17-year-old defined it for me.

Colleen Ryan: She said, I can imagine that in the future. You know, for at the moment, if I walk down the street and I see someone with poor eyesight trying to cross the road, I would naturally go up to them and say, can I help you? You know what, what can I do? Would you like to take my arm? In the future, there'll be a robot there by cross, you know, by road crossings. And that robot will help that person, person cross the road. So, I don't need to. So is humanity like a muscle if you don't use it, it atrophies. And I thought all of the intellectual stuff we hear about humanity and that captured it for me. And that's what people are actually worried about. That's. They don't want to lose that at all.

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah.

Andrew Lewis: And a big lesson, I think, for brands and organizations around technology and talking about it. This idea that when you're presenting people with scenarios based on technology and what it can do. It inspires these conflicting positive and negative emotions. And actually, what it's really about is people searching around for what that means in certain human outcomes, for what's happening. So really making sure we're framing things around those outcomes is actually far more important than narrowing the technology, et cetera, in the first place.

Colleen Ryan: Yeah, 100% true. And it's, you know, it is about, like, the push and pull of control as well, and the freedom to do things, things the way you want to do them. We control freaks, human beings. You know, we're comfortable when we're in control. We not so comfortable when we think that we've sort of somehow lost control or handed it over to somebody else. And it's not just about us individually. It's also about society. So, you know, people talked about, if everything's optimized for me, do I care about how my neighbours are doing or my colleagues at work? You know, that the sense of community.

Colleen Ryan: And also, you know, a lot of discussion about fairness and whether in the future we will force more polarization because, you know, the future will hold wonderful things for some people, but will it hold that for everybody? So, it's a bigger societal thing as well as the individual aspects of it.

Andrew Lewis: It is a really interesting idea of if everything's optimized around me and my tastes and my needs, et cetera, what does that actually mean for, you know, one of the things we saw in another previous, different study from previous, the progress one, was a connections work, where actually it's our belonging to groups and the shared experience we have with those groups. You know, people, when we're doing that study, strongly rejected hyper personalization in the sense that, you know, it doesn't give any signals of where you belong, you know, which I think is an interesting thing seems to be coming through here.

Colleen Ryan: Yeah. And I know you'll cover this off in one of the other podcasts we looked at hyper personalization of brands.

Andrew Lewis: Laura, you're a futurist, you know, looking at this work, you know, does it line up with the stuff you're kind of seeing more generally when you're looking at culture, currents and forecasts?

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah, I think, like within the futures and foresight community and, you know, more broadly, there's an infamous or famous saying from author William Gibson that the future's already here. It's just not evenly distributed. And I think if there ever was a study that sort of reinforced this, this take, it was the future we want because, you know, we've experienced this with clients in the past, particularly with foresight work, when you get into that space or when you put people, you know, in a headspace where they're thinking about their future, they're strategizing what that could mean, all the repercussions for their brand, for their strategy and positioning.

You know, you're always going to see different speeds of adoption, so there will always be the early adopters and you know, those who are more familiar with the concepts that you're talking to and ones that aren't. And that really played out in the qual we presented those scenarios and for some it was like, what are you talking about? This is my life today. And for others it was, I can't see where this seems really far-fetched, this one, like I don't know about this one sort of thing. So, I think it's really important to just remember when you're taking on futures research or futures thinking is that the future is, is not a fixed meaning. We don't share the same meaning of what the future is.

You know, it's rooted in cultural context, in our beliefs, in our religion, in our, in ancestral knowledge. It's very personal. The way culture is, is personal. So that's just something that, you know, the research really reinforces of. You've got to understand that before you get into futures work and sort of read through those gaps of understanding about kind of what the future is and how it will impact us.

Andrew Lewis: Yeah. And that probably speaks a lot to the kind of contradictions and emotions and why we can see such variation in different people based on that.

Laura Mulcahy: Exactly. And I think there was this feeling of inevitability about the future, that the future is happening to us, not the other way around. So that feeling of autonomy or control or agency that, you know, we like to feel about planning for the future and what's ahead of us. There was definitely a sense of, you know, feeling kind of rudderless, that, you know, all these technologies and innovations, they're, they're happening anyway. What people were caring about is, is what we pointed to earlier is, you know, how is it affecting what I hold dear to me?

Andrew Lewis: Yes, exactly. And that comes back to those human outcomes that we're trying to seek to understand in these scenarios. What will this do to my agency, my control, my freedom?

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah, both good and bad. Like you've got to look at across the spectrum of those ripples that your product or your brand will be putting out there.

Andrew Lewis: Well, let's try and bring all this to life a bit more with one of the scenarios we tested. So, one of them, I think, was called Device Free Zones was one of the nine scenarios which was sort of trying to get people to picture a future where a space where phones are switched off and people can kind of step away from the constant pool of technology. Laura, can you help us? Can you tell us a bit about kind of that scenario and kind of how people responded?

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah, the offline cafe. Now, what probably struck me about this is, you know, this is just a regular cafe, probably 30 years ago. It's not necessarily, you know, new or futuristic, but in the context, the context of today, a place where you are detached or you are encouraged to or discouraged to be connected to your phone, to your devices, this felt like the future for many people.

Andrew Lewis: A revelation.

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah, so it, it was a really interesting premise and I think, you know, having that in there in the context of the other scenarios, which were really about technology and efficiency and, you know, machines being able to think before you could think, it kind of was quite, quite different. So, there was a lot of positive sentiment, actually, towards this, probably the biggest across all our scenarios.

And what was most interesting in Australia, it was actually the most popular amongst our younger cohorts. So, 18-34s, 65% would be all positive or mostly positive, you know, with some maybe. How they feel towards that. So that's 65% compared to, you know, 59% for 35 to 54s and 53% for 55 and over. So, this, this nostalgia, this yearning for a life or a space without tech, we've seen it happening or bubbling up within culture, but this, this kind of like reflected that in the data, that young people are really curious about a time before devices and what that allowed, what that gave.

Andrew Lewis: I think it's fascinating you had some quotes I've read. I think it'd be great to chat to them because they give you kind of a sense of, kind of why. Why would you be so nostalgic for this kind of thing? And I think in those quotes there's something quite interesting about how what people imagine would take the place of technology.

Laura Mulcahy: Totally. Like, people talked about it, gave me a sense of safety and security, so I didn't have to watch what I was saying. We talk about cancel culture a lot, so there's kind of that threat, you know, taken out of the scenario.

Colleen Ryan: Yeah, it was interesting, Laura, wasn't it, in the groups, you know, when you showed this scenario, they, you know, looked at it and were discussing it. Like there was almost a sort of communal sigh when people went, oh, it's just so peaceful. Their shoulders dropped, you know, their body language relaxed. It was, you know.

Andrew Lewis: Well, that's interesting itself, isn't it, the relaxation?

Colleen Ryan: Yes, because we hear this all the time from this work. We heard it and we hear it in other work. People are often talking about just being exhausted, just always there. And, you know, this was a way of kind of bailing out of that. But again, you know, I started off by saying, this is a hot mess of, you know, mixed opinions. They really quickly jump into. But what if the school needed to get hold of me? You know, if my child had had a fall or something? You know, that sense of needing to be always on. On the other hand, just wanting to just get off the bus occasionally.

Colleen Ryan: And a bit of, you know, people admitted to a bit of secret guilt, like, well, somebody will deal with it. Somebody will take them to hospital. You know, it's probably only a twisted ankle, you know, like, how can you just live with that moment, you know?

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah, and I think what you were talking about before, Colleen, about this idea of discovery being really important. Right.

Andrew Lewis: I think. Yeah. I love that the future looks like a 90s cafe smoking the filterless camels. But it's sort of a. There's this romance for a simpler world there, but not necessarily all about going back. That kind of seems in here, that sort of. There's elements of the connection and stuff like that that you're not walking back from. And so, yeah, there's that dichotomy there, but there's that theme of respite from technology.

Andrew Lewis: And, you know, a lot of those themes really are about those same ideas about humanity and connection and things, you know, and how people are acting in this cafe.

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah.

Colleen Ryan: And even in today's world, you know, the cognitive overload squashes spontaneity and discovery in a way because you don't have time for it. You know, there's no. There's no oxygen left for those sorts of things. Yeah.

Andrew Lewis: There was another scenario we tested around the idea of similar but different, of an identity vault, this idea of a secure place to lock down and control your personal data. And it sounds, from what you've said, that for some, it's quite empowering in terms of being able to control their information. For others, there's all kinds of immediate questions about safety and what happens if this vault is hacked or misguided. Do you know, like, can you tell me a bit more about that one? How did that play out?

Colleen Ryan: Yes. That was, again, you know, a dilemma. You know, empowerment and fear, they're kind of sitting opposite scales here. And depending how people were looking at it, you know, they'd lean one way or the other. Which is what I was saying earlier about organizations. You can just tweak your product development one little bit one way and you drop into the fear mode rather than the empowerment mode or you know, vice versa.

Andrew Lewis: Same with messaging, right? Like you can imagine how easy it is.

Colleen Ryan: Yeah, and it can be very slight things, you know, really unforeseen consequences I think are going to become a challenge for the businesses going forward. So, you know, they immediately jumped on to, you know, that's marvellous. My image can't be used or you know, I can control it, I might even be able to make money out of it.

But then instantly the, you know, the fear. But the other thing is it's something else to manage. You know, I've got cognitive overload. Now I've got to worry about managing my identity as well. Like, it's kind of adding, this is technology that's supposed to make life better, but it's adding to the things that I've got to worry about and, look after and you know, stay on top of it. So, kind of that the nervousness and excitement sit alongside.

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah, and you know, that William Gibson quote comes to mind there again of, you know, the future is, you know, happening at different speeds just depending on basically who you are and where you find yourself. And what is farfetched for some is just the norm for others. And this particular scenario, when we're talking about personal data, we weren't talking about the things that people are quite familiar with, needing to protect like their phone number, their address, account numbers, credit card information, etc.

We were specifically talking about things that have been bubbling up in terms of your name, image and likeness. So, you know, someone being able to use your image, your, your name, your persona, who you are and you know, either you can like protect it and make money out of that or you know, it being, it being hacked in some way in, in a malicious way.

So we're getting into this idea of surveillance as well, of people being much more aware of how much they're being surveilled and you know, the efficiencies that come along with sort of being known and being understood by biometric data and things like that that allow us to move around freely or you know, have access to certain things, they're also the things that can be compromised as well. So just that awareness or unawareness, you know, people have one person's sci fi movie is another person's reality when, when we're talking about some of these scenarios.

Andrew Lewis: Yeah. And again, I think that entirely presents this idea of the wildly contradictory emotions when you kind of talk about tech futures based on where you're at now, based on your interpretation of what that means for these more human qualities that really signify progress and wellbeing for you. Also talks a bit probably to the ideas of trust I think inherent in a lot of these ideas as well.

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah, especially like you touched on the connections report, Andrew. It was like we, we trust not so much those bigger figures in our life or the celebrities and those kinds of more well-known things. We connect with people on, you know, a shared interest or something that's, you know, a lot more intimate and niche. And so, when we're getting into these spaces of trusting people because they're in our interest circles or we're connected by that, you know, knowing who is, who is who and who is real is just to Colleen's point, going to start becoming a cognitive overload that we add to the mix in the future.

Andrew Lewis: This study wasn't just about kind of how the future could impact personal lives in these kind of very day to day ways. We talked about some other things too, like work and skills were also part of these scenarios and part of the discussion. I'm interested Colleen and Laura, what you heard from people around this space out of the scenarios.

Colleen Ryan: Yeah, so the, one of the scenarios around work was allowing people to be able to monitor in real time their skill levels and new, you know, because everybody reads the headlines, you know, your job won't be around or there'll be title job titles you've never heard of. So, this was a way of you being informed when new skills were being needed and you could upskill and you could get like a score almost for, you know, how my skill value has gone down. You know, like you don't need to work in Excel in real time.

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah, yeah.

Colleen Ryan: And it's got, I mean it's, that's got implications for ownership. Laura, the work that you've been doing in that space, hasn't it?

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah, absolutely. I mean we, we explored this idea of okay, if, you know, if everything is just a knowledge base that we're tapping into, if everything is sort of, you know, available and you're sort of just moving one thing to another or repackaging something, what is mine? Like how do I feel as a person who is, you know, providing value to a company or an organization like, how do I feel valued as an employer and not just someone else who could kind of insert into my role, but how am I going to be able to measure my value to the company but also like my own emotional ownership over work? Like, where do I start? And you know, AI begin. I think that is becoming something that people are starting to, are starting to really grapple with. Yeah, yeah.

Colleen Ryan: I mean, I love that quote, you know, I'm more than just my skill rating score. So, on the one hand, you know, but anyone who likes to count, count their steps or their calories or all of that, you know, we're quite, got quite excited about, oh, I'll get a score for my skill rate. But then very quickly went, is that it? That's all I am my, you know, what about my. How collaborative I am with my colleagues at work? You know, how, you know, honest or, you know, my integrity in my working environment. My skills I might like, you know, and someone actually used. It makes you feel like a hamster in a wheel, you know. So the good news, yeah, look, I can make sure I stay ahead in the career game, you know, by making sure I've got the skills that are going to be needed.

Colleen Ryan: On the other hand, it's reducing me.

Andrew Lewis: Yeah, I'm reduced down to these miserable.

Colleen Ryan: Absolutely, and it's quite interesting again, on the progress work we did earlier this year, we asked people questions, how can companies help make progress? And a lot of what they talked about was, well, just treat your staff well. You know, you're an employer. So, because we thought they'd say make better products and, you know, make the products cheaper. And they went, just be. Look after your, look after your staff. And so, you know, we're seeing that again here. Don't just reward me because I've got a skill rating.

Colleen Ryan: Reward me because I'm a good egg and I work well with other people and maybe I don't have the same high skills, but I contribute in other ways, you know, to the organization.

Andrew Lewis : Yeah, I mean, that raises a lot of big questions about kind of what's my value and on what basis.

Colleen Ryan: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

Andrew Lewis: In the future there. But certainly, when people think about future work and skills, there's not just jobs and tech, there's this fairness and identity and those kind of aspects to it and belonging to as well. Laura, how do you see that playing out, you know, from a futurist perspective in terms of signals? You see.

Laura Mulcahy: Yeah. What was interesting about some of the scenarios is when he put them to people, people calling out the absences. And you know, what about this? I don't hear this in this scenario. And you know, as Colleen was pointing to like this is, it was a very dry way of evaluating someone's, you know, resume or skill set, you know, and someone actually called this out and I said the focus on technical skills, not soft skills and how empathy and humanity, can sort of, you know, change the future. So even in this work environment, people are, you know, it's not just black and white. We know that there is so much more to work than just earning, you know, a pay check. It's how we connect with people. It's how we, you know, find our self-worth.

Laura Mulcahy: So, when we're breaking things down to a scorecard purely just about, you know, optimizing an efficiency, it's kind of made people stop and think, well, why are we just measuring that? Why is that the, you know, the, the litmus test for a good and all prospective employee? So, there's just way more nuance in the humanity than a scorecard. And I think we saw that a lot. The good and bad of technology that we're living through that's becoming a trade-off more and more.

And it's really tempting, like the offline cafe to think that there's just an off button for technology or there's an off button for this kind of technological process. But we can't wind back the clock on technology. Social media is both harmful for mental health, especially among young people, but it's also basically infrastructure at this stage of connecting daily with our friends and family. And when we're talking about the humanity and what people are trying to find in all this, which is connection, like just trying to take that away, people will find a way around that. They're not going to stop connecting, especially young people.

They do not take well to being told no or given sharp rules.

Andrew Lewis: So, coming back across that a bit, we covered a lot of ground. One of the interesting things that came up when we looked at future of work and skills is more than a number. And actually work is a lot about belonging and finding connection with people. And I think it's fascinating the idea there's not a lot of sense of discovery or of self or spontaneous growth in the ideas of optimized skill counter, wearable or whatever it is there.

But like you were talking about sort of with the social kind of stuff as well, there's really important parts of technology that are about connection and belonging. And that's a really big part of progress and how it goes hand in hand. But I guess it's sort of all coming back to that same idea of there's good and bad and tensions in the technology. And it's sort of.

I think if we thought of ourselves from an organizational perspective and trying to add value to people's lives with technology, then making sure the technology is focused on the human outcomes and the human narrative, not the technology itself.

Colleen Ryan: Yeah. And the frailty of human beings. We like our frailty in a way. We like making mistakes. We like knowing that we evolve and we now eat avocados when we didn't before. Like, all that weirdness is part of who we are and that sense of self. And there is this fear that the better we become at being efficient and optimized and the less of that self will be present.

Andrew Lewis: It's fascinating, isn't it? So where does that leave us? People are both optimistic and sceptical when that mix really matters. So, when we kind of present people with these scenarios of technical progress, we see both rising to the surface and both really link to the same idea at heart. Maybe depending on where you're starting with technology is how does all of this enable humanity?

How do we enable these ideas of control or freedom or connection? Progress in the heart with people? So, I guess it's interesting. The future really isn't good or bad. You can be excited and anxious at the same time. And any organization designing for the future has to navigate both of this hot mess of emotion, was it Colleen? And I guess that's why this study matters and is interesting. Progress must feel human.

That's the core of this and the future really. I guess we need to build with care here in terms of protecting people's sense of agency and enabling that humanity to come through. Before we wrap, Colleen and Laura, if you had to sum it all up into one line, what do people want most from the future?

Colleen Ryan: They want organisations to work with them. Okay. Not designed for them. So, you know, this is not organisations assuming that you know what people want and therefore designing the perfect solution for you. You know, the most telling thing for me was, you know, people who've talked about the wonders of AI and technology will be able to do. Surgeons can do microsurgery from the other side of the world, but when you give them a superpower, they pull the plug. They would.

They, you know, clearly. Well, as Laura said, there's no turning history back. Everybody knows it's coming whether we like it or not. But. But, you know, that's how they feel about It. And I think that's a really loud message for organizations. You know, design the future that people actually want. Don't try and make it perfect, don't think for them, and don't assume that they want everything to be frictionless.

More than one line. Sorry.

Andrew Lewis: That's fantastic.

Laura Mulcahy: I know that's a really hard, probably the hardest task you'll ask of us. Andrew, one line. But I think just following on from what Colleen was saying, like, we've just seen it in the last couple of weeks, you know, the rollout of the AI platforms, ads and brand positioning and, you know, we won't go into the success of them, but the ones that have been, you know, not receiving great feedback is the ones that are saying, you know, AI will be your friend.

This is your friend sort of thing. And to superimpose kind of that humanity on technology is, is not what people we hear in this, this study asking for where we're hearing, like, think about my humanity first and put that at the centre rather than the technology at the centre. But for me, I guess this study wasn't solely about what people want from the future. It's really to show brands, to show organizations how important futures thinking and foresight is to strategy and brand building. Investing in this kind of work really is done by the best organizations in the world, from Nike, McDonald's, L'Oréal.

They know the importance of actively thinking about the future, investing in research, kind of about. About the motivations and the human needs of customers in the future. So, you know, that that kind of, I guess, space for thinking and strategizing about the future is, is really the takeaway for me is just how illuminating it can be. So, you're ahead of the game. So, you're not waiting for the future to happen to you. You know, an active participant and creator of the future as a brand.

Andrew Lewis: Fantastic. A wonderful discussion. Thank you both for joining me today in the studio.

Laura Mulcahy: Thanks, Andrew. Thanks, Colleen.

Colleen Ryan: Thanks, Andrew. Great conversation.

Andrew Lewis: In the next episode, we'll turn to brands and customer experience and ask how personal views shape the way people want brands to show up in the future. Thank you for listening to Frame, a podcast by TRA, dedicated to the art of knowing people. TRA is an insight agency, and by layering perspectives from the science of human understanding, we see things others don't. The uncommon truths.

If you'd like to go deeper into what we've been discussing today, download our Mood of the Nation report 'The future we want' from https://www.theresearchagency.com/future. And for more signals and uncommon truths, look for the link on that page to subscribe to FRAME, our place for fresh thinking on the forces shaping tomorrow.

‍

‍