.svg)
The B2C Buyer Experience Report 2026
How AI is being embraced by consumers and what brands need to do to meet their expectations.
After a year of rapid AI rollouts and innovation, consumers are taking notice
A year ago, integrating AI into the buying journey was still debatable for consumer brands. They were rushing to deploy it, while consumers were openly resistant, and marketing and CX leadership anxiously analyzed whether the risk was worth it.
A year later, the debate has quieted, in part because the AI got better. It's faster, more polished, and more useful. So good, in fact, that nearly two-thirds of US consumers can't reliably tell when they've been talking to AI or a person. And the share who say their last AI interaction made things worse has dropped sharply since last year.
The brands that deployed AI well over the last year have been rewarded by consumers grateful for rapid, reliable service. In many cases, it’s so good that consumers just don’t care whether it was AI helping them or not. But when AI interactions go wrong, keep in mind that consumers are quick to blame the brand that chose to deploy it, not the vendor who made it for you. By nearly three to one.
This changes the calculus of AI investment for marketing and CX leaders. AI has cemented its importance in the buying journey, but a new question—and risk—has emerged: is your AI good enough to protect your brand and hand off to a human when it can't?
Read on for what consumers told us, what's changed since 2025, and where the data points your CX investments next.
At a glance
Most consumers have encountered a brand’s AI, and most don't mind anymore
The negative sentiment that defined the 2025 conversation about brand AI has softened across nearly every measure, suggesting the technology is improving. Most telling is the 11-point drop in those who said AI made their buying experience worse.
And yet, the share who say AI made their experience meaningfully better has only ticked up modestly. The bulk of the movement is from "worse" to "neutral." AI is no longer making a bad impression—it's making no impression at all. For consumer-facing technology like this, going unnoticed is a reasonable goal.
If it helps solve my problem quicker, then it is fine.
Boomer · healthcare / telecom purchase
Many US consumers can't tell when they're talking to AI
One of the most striking findings in the 2026 data is also the simplest. When we asked US consumers whether they had ever realized, after the fact, that an interaction they thought was with a human was actually with AI, only 37% said yes. The other 63% either said they have never had that realization or weren't sure.
This indicates that AI technology has crossed a quality threshold. A year ago, brand AI was identifiable by its stiffness, scripts, and a general refusal to deviate from preset paths. Today, voice and text AI is good enough that many consumers can't reliably distinguish it from a human agent.
Because artificial intelligence is so lifelike, it’s really no different than talking with human beings.
Millennial · multiple categories
When AI fails, brands take the blame by a wide margin
We asked consumers when an AI interaction with a brand goes badly, who do you primarily blame? The result is a wake-up call for any CMO or CX leader who places responsibility for AI functionality on vendors.
While it’s awfully nice of the nearly 20% who don’t blame anyone, those who blame the brand for AI missteps outpace blame on the technology itself by nearly 3 to 1. Add the consumers who hold the brand at least partially accountable, and roughly two-thirds of US consumers will tie a bad AI experience back to the company that chose to deploy it. The vendor takes none of the heat.
The company does not care enough to hire or get humans to properly handle customer service.
Gen X · travel purchase
Consumers want AI to introduce itself
Consumers have made up their minds about whether AI should identify itself in customer interactions. Over 80% say that it matters that a brand’s AI clearly identifies itself. Consumers will not wait for regulators to force the issue. They already expect disclosure, so for brands, this is a low-cost, high-trust tactic to deploy now.
I feel they should let you know before throwing you to AI. It feels like a lie.
Millennial · automotive / healthcare purchase
"Forced" feelings are easing, but the volume hasn't dropped
A year ago, 60% of US consumers said they felt forced to interact with a brand's AI most or all of the time. That figure has dropped only slightly this year.
The risk for brands is complacency. Consumers are fickle, and while they are more accepting of AI assistance overall, over 40% still feel that brands that use AI to assist them value them less. This hasn’t changed much since last year, and it’s a reminder that consumers want clear, simple choices about whether to interact with AI or a person.
I like AI, but I don’t want to be forced to resort to AI instead of a real person. I also don’t want to opt for AI, because while it is a great tool, it isn’t as great as talking to a real person.
Gen X · automotive / healthcare purchase
Consumers prefer AI for simplicity and speed
We asked consumers when they actually prefer AI to a human, and the answers are remarkably consistent with last year—simplicity and speed win.
The "avoiding waiting on hold" finding is the one that should move investment decisions. More than one in three US consumers will choose AI specifically to avoid a hold queue, meaning brands without a competent AI frontline are losing good leads at the moment they’re most likely to convert.
I like AI for quick answers, but for complex stuff or big decisions, I want a human who can actually understand my situation. Best of both worlds.
Millennial · multiple categories
Speed is the conversion battleground
If there's a single piece of data in this report that should change a marketing budget, it's the gap between what consumers expect and what they actually get in terms of response speed after filling out a lead form.
There is a 20-percentage-point gap between expectation and delivery, and a near-universal willingness to walk if a faster option appears.
What do consumers do when the response is too slow? 46% try to contact the brand again, but 27% move to a competitor, and another 3% give up on the purchase entirely. Only 24% wait it out. The cost of a slow response is a lost conversion.
I start wondering if they really care about getting my business and usually look for faster, more responsive options.
Gen Z · travel purchase
Consumers still prefer to call when they need help
The buying journey almost always begins in digital channels, but consumers still pick up the phone when they need help with a high-stakes purchase. Over 40% prefer calling when they have a problem and need help—more than any other channel. The phone has steadily been the consumer's preferred help channel over the last three years, rising from 32% in 2022 to 44% in 2025 and holding at 41% in 2026.
I would rather speak with a human if possible, feel I’d get clearer response in that moment.
Gen X · home services / travel purchase
Consumers mostly call for more information
When US consumers call a business during a high-stakes purchase, they're most often seeking more information. These are expensive, even life-altering purchases, and consumers want to be confident they’re making the right decision.
Disturbingly, 26% called because the information they needed wasn't available online, a stat that has barely moved in three years despite continued investment in digital experiences.
Closing this online information gap is one of the highest-leverage CX investments a brand can make.
Trust issues. Am I getting all my questions answered? Sometimes feels like conversation going in circles. I can hear in a human if I am getting all the information I need and if they sound trusting.
Gen X · home services / financial services / travel purchase
Generative AI use when researching purchases is growing rapidly
We asked consumers whether they had used a generative AI tool, like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude, to help research a high-stakes purchase. The result is one of the biggest year-over-year shifts in the dataset.
A year ago, generative AI was something younger consumers experimented with. This year, it's a default research step for most adults.
The Boomer story: AI is winning the holdouts
The biggest generational shift in this year's data isn't among the digital natives. It's among the older holdouts.
While Boomers are more open to using AI, they haven't softened on every front. 85% of US Boomers still prefer a human representative when both options are equally available. 92% say human connection is important during a high-stakes purchase.
The picture that emerges is of an older audience that is now using generative AI as a research tool, while still preferring human-led conversations when they're ready to make the decision. The implication for brands targeting older consumers: AI matters at the discovery stage, humans matter at the close.
I’m thinking it saves time and makes the process easier, especially when I just need quick answers or updates without calling customer support.
Boomer · telecom purchase
Human connection still wins where it counts
For all the AI advances, US consumers haven't changed their minds about what they want at the moment of a high-stakes purchase decision. Nearly 60% prefer human help to AI when both are equally available, and an overwhelming 96% said that a human connection during a high-stakes purchase is important.
These numbers are essentially flat versus 2025. Across every generation and industry, US consumers continue to anchor the moments that matter on human contact. The 2026 data simply adds a layer of nuance: AI is welcome in the journey, especially upstream, but the human stays in the loop when the customer is ready to commit.
Humans would help better with complex situations and be more flexible and more empathetic with solutions.
Gen X · automotive / telecom purchase
Consumers are more tolerant of bad experiences, but they're hanging up faster
These two data points look contradictory at first, but tell a connected story on a second look.
Consumers will not wait. They expect to be heard, and if they're not, they'll abandon the call but not necessarily abandon the brand.
Consumers became substantially more forgiving year-over-year, a 26-point drop in the share saying they'd stop after one bad experience. But if you don’t answer their call quickly, you’ll never get a chance to make that first impression.
It also makes me feel like my purchase and time are not important, which in the long run deters me from returning as a customer.
Millennial · telecom / travel purchase
AI voice agents have arrived, and consumers are open to them
This year, we asked US consumers whether they had spoken to an AI voice agent on the phone during a recent purchase journey. The result confirms what brand-side data has been hinting at for months.
That's a majority who have either definitely or possibly spoken to an AI voice agent in the last year. The market has moved from novelty to ubiquity faster than any prior CX automation we've measured. Among consumers who interacted with an AI voice agent, the modal answer when asked how the interaction compared to a human is "about the same."
I was getting more accurate responses and being able to get what I needed without attitude and being put on hold.
Gen X · telecom purchase
AI has found its place in the buying journey, but it can’t replace the human touch
The 2026 data shows that we’re at an inflection point. Consumers demand fast service when making important purchase decisions, and they’re more open to getting it from AI than ever. As always, they also want to choose how and when to engage with your brand.
What it boils down to is properly balancing fast AI automation and empathetic human connections. One does not replace the other. AI must be deployed well enough that consumers hardly notice it, human help must be available whenever they need it, and every touchpoint has to be connected from clicks to AI chats to calls and conversions to make the journey seamless. The more effectively you can connect with your buyers at every moment, the more likely you are to convert them.
Discover Invoca’s AI →Methodology
For this report, Invoca surveyed 1,356 consumers in the US and UK who researched and made a high-stakes purchase in the last 12 months across seven industries: automotive, healthcare, home services, insurance, financial services, telecommunications, and travel. Only US data is used in this version of the report, representing 693 respondents. A high-stakes purchase is one where consumers take time to weigh options, research, and put more thought into the decision because of cost or complexity, generally above $500, or above $1,000 for travel. Results may not total 100% due to rounding and multi-select question formats. The field survey was performed via the Gather conversational survey platform between May 8 and May 22, 2026.
Respondents by industry
Respondents by generation
Results may not total 100% due to rounding and multi-select question formats. Multi-select questions are clearly flagged on each chart. Year-over-year comparisons reflect minor differences in question wording where noted in the body of the report. The "industry" cut is based on the high-stakes purchase the respondent made in the last 12 months and is multi-select, so a single respondent could appear in more than one industry if they purchased across categories. Generational definitions follow the Pew Research Center cutoffs. Powered by Gather (gatherhq.com).