Innovation
January 14, 2026
How trends are constructed
Behind the reports that shape decisions lies a complex process, requiring rigorous observation, analytical responsibility, and care in communication
The reports of trends have been gaining momentum each year. In January, it is common to see social networks, newsletters, and different media, digital or traditional, flooded with publications that promise to “reveal” the main trends for markets, sectors, consumer behaviors, or social dynamics. The search for anticipating what is to come, however, is not a recent phenomenon. It has accompanied humanity since its beginnings and, over time, has given rise to entire disciplines dedicated to the analysis of the future, as I comment on in the column about foresight, as well as increasingly structured methods of observation, interpretation, and organization of signals.
In contexts marked by sociopolitical instabilities, climate anxiety, and a growing sense of unpredictability, it is natural for many people to find a kind of cognitive shortcut in these reports. A ready-made scenario analysis, a future presented in an organized way, which reduces the effort of exploring deeper and often more distressing layers of reality. Thus, materials produced by large consultancies, institutes, or organizations often end up shaping our view of what the future will be and influencing how we think about possibilities, risks, and opportunities.
According to the dictionary, the word “tendency” can be defined as “a force or action that determines the movement of a body”. From this perspective, trend reports seek to identify which social, technological, economic, cultural, or environmental forces are acting on certain systems and what kind of changes these forces tend to provoke. More than predictions, these studies aim to map vectors of change, offering possible interpretations of ongoing transformations.
In this text, I propose to explore the importance of understanding how trends are formed, opening space for a more critical debate about their interpretation and encouraging a more pragmatic view on the subject.
Superficial reading
In practice, it is common for readers to jump directly to the report pages where trends appear in a synthesized and visually appealing way. Sections explaining methodology, approach, analytical cuts, or observed spectra are usually ignored. The result is a superficial reading, which accepts the findings without understanding or questioning the paths that led to them.
As already discussed in another text, by synthesizing behavioral patterns and market projections, these reports exert strong influence on tactical and strategic decisions. When they gain wide visibility, they can generate what we call self-fulfilling prophecies. Scenarios that, by being disclosed as probable, start to guide investments, strategies, and behaviors, increasing the chances of them materializing not due to their inevitability, but due to the collective adherence they provoke. This cycle tends to reinforce trends without their assumptions being duly questioned. Therefore, regardless of the approach adopted, it is fundamental to remember that no scenario is deterministic.
Understanding how a trend is identified, constructed, and validated therefore becomes essential. Otherwise, we run the risk of having our vision of the future and our present decisions defined by reports consumed without knowledge of their foundations, limitations, and intentions. Curiously, many people who disseminate trends tend to highlight predictions that have come true, but few revisit or critically analyze those that have not materialized.
Therefore, it is relevant to observe methodologies and layers analyzed before assuming trends as absolute truths, even when presented by consolidated organizations. This text does not aim to criticize specific reports or institutions. On the contrary, as an enthusiast of the subject, I recognize its relevance. However, as in any serious study, it is necessary to critically analyze methods, scopes, and objects of observation. Reports dealing with social, technological, environmental, and economic layers should not be consumed with the same logic as ephemeral content, such as popular short videos from various social networks. This is, above all, an invitation to critical reading.
Identification methods
There are different methods for identifying trends. Some are more empirical, such as coolhunting, which is based on active observation of emerging signs and movements, especially in culture and consumption. This approach usually analyzes layers such as pop culture, fashion, and behavior, often from observations or research with younger audiences, seeking to identify what is perceived as new or desirable and that can gain scale. It is a method used by marketing agencies, also known as trend spotting.
On the other hand, there are approaches with more structured processes and well-defined methods. This is the case of WGSN, one of the largest trend forecasting organizations in the fields of fashion, consumption, and lifestyle, which adopts its own method, STEPIC, combining signal observation, data analysis, and cultural interpretation. Other organizations with consolidated methodologies, such as Gartner and the Institute for the Future, also transparently maintain materials that explain their processes, approaches, and analytical premises for those who wish to delve deeper into the subject.
Trends observe multiple layers of reality, and each organization adopts distinct ways of analyzing them to arrive at trends or macro-trends. Regardless of the method, it is important to recognize that no trend is neutral. All carry the lenses of those who formulate them, reflecting geographical cuts, cultural perspectives, interests, theoretical premises, and implicit values.
Another fundamental point is the temporal localization of trends. Are we talking about the next semester, the next year, a two-year period, or a decade? In studies of possible futures, the separation by temporal horizons is essential to make sense of the analyses and avoid misinterpretations.
Regardless of the sources, perhaps the most important aspect when dealing with trends is to remain open to multiple perspectives, treating these materials as interpretive signals and not as closed truths, always considering the context in which they will be applied.
The context or scenario is a central element that rarely appears faithfully portrayed in trend reports. This limitation becomes even more evident when we consider geographical, economic, and cultural particularities, from micro to macro, both of the Global South and of the specific reality of each organization. Therefore, interpreting and translating how these trends manifest in a given context is fundamental. Not every signal indicates causality; many only point to correlations.
Understanding the perspective adopted by these reports also helps to reveal the worldview that underpins them and the vectors that guide their reading of the scenario. In this sense, it is worth recalling the contribution of Raymond Williams, one of the most influential thinkers in 20th-century cultural studies. When analyzing processes of cultural change, Williams proposed the organization of signs into three major categories: residual, dominant, and emergent. Although originally focused on cultural analysis, this lens offers valuable contributions to the reading of trends.
The term “residual” refers to elements formed in the past that remain active or influential in the present. “Dominant” relates to that which possesses strength and hegemony in the now, the mainstream that guides consumption, discourse, and practices. “Emergent” involves new practices, meanings, and values in formation, that which begins to gain space and visibility.
A superficial reading of trends, without considering scenarios, temporalities, and influences, can lead to the mistaken interpretation that only the emergent constitutes a trend. The triad proposed by Williams helps precisely not to reduce the analysis to what is evident at the moment, while also allowing the identification of long-term forces and future transformation vectors. A consistent trend usually articulates residual, dominant, and emergent elements.
Although formulated for cultural analysis, this approach can be extrapolated to understand behaviors and how they influence technological, social, and consumption trends. The identification of trends is a complex process that requires rigorous observation, analytical responsibility, and care in communication. Nevertheless, we see a growing volume of publications that ignore this rigor, which ends up discrediting serious and well-founded work.
Similarly, interpreting ready-made signals or reports requires preparation and critical thinking, especially when these readings begin to support strategic decisions in organizations. This phenomenon is common in the influencer economy, where opinions are often justified by supposed studies with low scientific rigor. Being aware of the trends that influence a market is fundamental, regardless of the source, but pursuing all of them reactively can become an exhausting exercise. As Tiago Mattos provocatively states, the adaptable is an attentive latecomer. More than reacting, it is necessary to act proactively, observing signals, interpreting trends, and promoting transformations in the sector itself.
Understanding trends, therefore, is not about seeking certainties about the future, but about expanding our capacity to read the present. The future is neither linear nor deterministic. It is from this multiplicity that more responsible, adaptive, and conscious strategies can be built.
| To access the references of this text click here. |
Who wrote this column
Lucas Tangi
