UBS took a sweeping look at the AI revolution and concluded the ‘visible' impact is at least 3 years away for consumer firms
'It's becoming an essential strategic focus and a competitive differentiator across the entire value chain, not just a tool for efficiency,' the authors write. They see wide-reaching use cases, from demand forecasting to supply-chain automation to product recommendations, and believe it should provide a 'more pleasant customer experience' on top of improving operations. The use of AI will be a critical factor going forward that separates winners and losers in the consumer space, they add. It's just so early.
Despite prominent case studies and a surge in executive attention, UBS finds the direct, quantifiable financial impact of AI remains limited, stating simply about profits and loss statements, or P&L: 'AI's impact on P&L is not material, but we expect it to be visible in the next 3 years.' Meanwhile, despite many headlines about AI-related layoffs, UBS finds little evidence of reductions in headcount: 'We have heard some anecdotal evidence but not within our coverage.' Such reductions in force are likely to come, though, UBS added.
Drawing on in-depth interviews with analysts and company disclosures across more than 20 global sectors, the report details how AI is reshaping everything from supply chains and marketing to customer experience, while underscoring the most significant changes—and competitive divides—are yet to fully appear. 'Most consumer companies expect the impact of generative AI to be more visible in 3 to 5 years,' the note adds.
AI moves from back office to boardroom
A central theme: AI has moved beyond being a back-office efficiency tool to a core part of business strategy. Large retail and consumer-oriented firms, notably Walmart, are appointing executives dedicated to AI transformation, underscoring its rising importance. The number of AI mentions on consumer-sector conference calls has doubled since 2022, and major investments are being made not only to streamline operations, but also to power growth through personalized recommendations, smarter inventory management, and targeted marketing.
Leading companies are finding a wide range of AI applications, the UBS Evidence Lab found.
Walmart uses AI-driven recommendations and assistants to personalize the shopping experience and optimize fulfillment. Automation in its supply chain is credited with up to 30% reductions in unit costs at fulfillment centers.
L'Oréal leans on AI for marketing optimization and product innovation, reporting 10%-15% productivity gains in advertising tasks due to its bespoke BETiq tool, which it expects to cover 60% of its marketing spend by 2024.
P&G utilizes AI for logistics, and it has quantified a potential $200 million-$300 million in savings from smarter truck scheduling.
Globally, consumer-facing companies are also deploying AI for tasks ranging from product design (e.g., Robam's proprietary LLM called 'AI Gourmet' in China), to dynamic pricing, to smarter labor scheduling. In Australia, travel firms and retailers have cited cost savings and improved margins from AI-enabled automation.
Bigness will matter
A recurring takeaway is that large, well-capitalized incumbents are set to benefit most in the near to medium term. These players, such as Walmart, Home Depot, Coca-Cola, L'Oréal, and China's Midea and Haier, can better afford the investments and have the customer data troves needed to maximize AI's benefits. In contrast, smaller and less technologically advanced companies may struggle to compete, potentially accelerating industry consolidation or leaving followers at a disadvantage.
While patterns of AI adoption are broadly similar worldwide, impacts vary by region and sector. U.S. retailers and restaurant chains have focused on operational efficiency and customer engagement. The European luxury sector, more dependent on craftsmanship and brand, should see less near-term impact from AI. In Asian markets, market leaders are leveraging AI to drive product differentiation and cost advantages, but there is little evidence of broad profit impact yet.
Only a handful of companies, usually industry giants with deep pockets and rich data sets, are reporting clear improvements in margins or revenue directly attributable to AI adoption. Most firms, especially smaller ones, have yet to see material P&L enhancements. In many cases, AI's efficiency gains are being reinvested to spur growth, rather than dropping to the bottom line.
Outlook: gains to materialize over 3–5 years
Most analysts expect the true financial benefits—higher margins, revenue growth, and labor productivity—to become 'visible' within three to five years, as AI applications mature and become more deeply integrated into core business processes. In the meantime, a wave of experimentation—particularly in marketing, logistics, and customer experience—is laying the foundation for a potentially transformative decade for consumer industries.
For now, UBS concludes that for all the excitement, the AI revolution's effects on consumer-sector profits and workforce structure are only just beginning to be felt.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Snap-on Incorporated (SNA): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on Snap-on Incorporated on The Reservist's Substack by Yehoshua Zlotogorski. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on SNA. Snap-on Incorporated's share was trading at $321.19 as of July 31st. SNA's trailing and forward P/E were 17.11 and 17.24, respectively according to Yahoo Finance. An engineer at a workbench surrounded by automotive parts, tools, and microchips. Snap-On's latest earnings report reinforces the author's conviction in a trade built on a favorable risk/reward setup. The position, entered with a tight downside near $300 (a 3% loss), is based on Snap-On's strong fundamentals and dominant market position, which help anchor valuation. The key bullish thesis is that the post-pandemic lull in tool and equipment purchases—now entering its final stages- will fade by late 2025 into 2026, setting up for a cyclical rebound. This quarter supports that view: the Tools Group returned to growth (+1.7%) after four quarters of decline, RS&I also expanded, and while C&I fell 8%, the drop was attributed largely to temporary effects, with a recovery seen as the quarter progressed. Management continues to deflect with macro and geopolitical explanations, but the author sees the stagnation as a result of pandemic-era pull-forward, supported by weak financing data for big-ticket items. As these loans roll off over their typical four-year cycles, demand should return. The author also sees Snap-On as a likely beneficiary of tariff relief and potential industrial spending from the so-called 'Big Beautiful bill,' both of which could drive relative outperformance. Meanwhile, margins remain strong, cash builds, buybacks persist, and the 2.75% dividend provides a steady return while awaiting the upturn. The stock could rise 30% back to its historical $370–390 range, with minimal downside. Sized at 4% of the portfolio, the position provides lower beta industrial exposure while retaining the upside target common across the author's broader trading strategy. Further adds are possible on dips near $300. Previously, we covered a on Snap-on Incorporated (SNA) by William Fleming-Daniels in November 2024, which highlighted strong margins, stable cash flow, and long-term growth. The company's stock has depreciated ~11% since our coverage, as the thesis hasn't played out yet. Yehoshua Zlotogorski shares a similar view but emphasizes a near-term cyclical rebound driven by financing roll-offs. Snap-on Incorporated is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 36 hedge fund portfolios held SNA at the end of the first quarter which was 32 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the potential of SNA as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Office Hellscapes And AI Process Mapping
Why are human workplaces so disorganized? In some ways, it's a question people have been asking themselves ever since the first cubicle dwellers rose up from the primordial swamp - whenever that was. We know that larger systems tend to be disordered, especially if they're administrated by humans. Just go read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and it might remind you of the modern office – people and products and materials strewn about a gigantic footprint, with very little centralized control. You get the same kind of idea reading the most recent piece by Ethan Mollick on the site where he posts his essays, One Useful Thing. I always follow his posts, interested in his emerging take on the technologies that are so new to all of us. Mollick has MIT ties, and an excellent track record looking at the AI revolution from a fresh perspective. The Office Dilemma Human wothis most recent piece, he talks about process mapping and how AI can help people to sort through the disorganization of a business. Think of a company with 100 or more employees, and probably a dozen locations. The first thing you tend to find is that sense of disorder. Mollick talks about a 'Garbage Can' principle, which posits that most businesses are a collection of disparate processes thrown into a large, disorganized bin. To me, you could use the analogy of what programmers used to call 'DLL hell' in the earlier days of the Internet. DLLs are digital libraries. Their application was often chaotic and disordered. There were dependencies that would flummox even the most seasoned engineers, because things were complicated and chaotic. That's what a large company is often like. Everyone for Themselves Mollick also pointed to some numbers that I've seen in various studies, and presented at conferences where we've talked about AI over the past year. His number was 43% – the number of employees who are using AI in the workplace. But as Mollick points out, and as I've heard before, most of them are using AI in personal ways. The use of the tools is not ordered across an organization – it's piecemeal. It's people using an AI tool like you would use a hammer, or a saw, or a drill, or a lathe --- largely in an unsupervised way. However, in general, it seems AI is largely catching on, especially when it comes to product development. You have resources like this one from the Texas Workforce Commission, referencing thousands of AI jobs. So even if there's not much centralized AI in the boardroom, there is abundant AI in business processes. It's just that those processes may or may not be unified. The Bitter Lesson Then Mollick references something called the 'Bitter lesson' that's attributed to Robert Sutton in 2019. It's the idea that AI will prove to be cognitively superior to humans without a lot of poking and prodding – but given enough time and compute, the system will find its own way to solve problems. That phrase, problem solving, is what people have been saying is the unique province of humans. It's the idea that AI can do the data-crunching, but people are still doing the creative problem-solving. Well, that bastion of human ingenuity doesn't seem that safe anymore. Mollick references the early days of chess machine evolution, where eventually Deep Blue beat Kasparov. He notes that there are two ways to go about this – you can program in innumerable chess rules, and have the system sort through them and apply them, or you can just show the system thousands of chess games, and it will make those connections on its own. Back to Machine Learning Principles Reading through this, I was reminded of the early days of machine learning, where people talked a good bit about supervised versus unsupervised learning. We often used the analogy of fruit in a digital software program enhanced with machine learning properties. Supervised learning would be labeling each fruit with its own tag – banana – apple - or grapes. The program would then learn to correlate between its training data and new real-world data. That comparison would be its main method. And that comparison isn't hugely cognitive. It follows the tradition of deterministic programming. The unsupervised version would be simply to tell the program that bananas are yellow and long, that grapes are purple or green and have clusters, and the apples are red or green and round. Then the system goes out, looks at the pictures and applies that logic. The interesting thing here is taking that analogy to the bitter lesson. Is AI more powerful if it simply analyzes reams of training data without applied logic? Or is it more powerful if it can actually distinguish between various kinds of outcomes based on requested logical processes? Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The theory of the bitter lesson seems to be that the system can actually do better through supervised learning. But that supervision doesn't necessarily have to be human oversight. The machine gets a practically infinite set of training data, and makes all of its own conclusions. That's contrasted to an approach where people tell the machine what to do, and it learns based on those suggestions. Back in the era of supervised versus unsupervised learning, the unsupervised learning seemed more powerful. It seemed more resource-intensive. But AI might finally show us up just by doing things in a more efficient way – if I can use one more analogy, it's the traditional idea of the Laplace demon, an invention of the physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace who suggested that if you know enough data points, you can predict the future. In other words, brute force programming is king. We learned a lot of this in the big data age, before we learned to use LLMs, and now we're seeing the big data age on steroids. In Conclusion I also found a very interesting take at the end of Mollick's essay where he talks about businesses going down one or the other avenue of progress. Sure enough, he suggested that these companies are playing chess with each other – that one of these chess teams consists of companies using AI to be logical, and that another chess team consists of businesses using it for brute force programming and classification. If all of this is a little hard to follow, it's because we're pretty securely in the realm of AI philosophy here. It makes you think about not just whether AI is going to win out over human workers, but how it's going to do it. I forgot to mention the exponential graph that Mollick includes showing that we're closer to AGI then most people would imagine. Let's look back at the end of this year and see how this plays out.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
iPhone Fold could cost less than Galaxy Z Fold 7 — under $2,000
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Buying the rumored iPhone Fold may not set you back as much money as expected, according to new analysis from Swiss investment bank UBS and Jimmy Yoon (seen by Fortune). The core reason for this is the analysis' estimate of the foldable iPhone's bill of materials - the total price a company pays for the parts for its products. Because of Apple's ability to buy memory, chipsets and cameras for cheaper than rivals (likely thanks to the iPhone's prominence and Apple's capacity to bulk buy components), plus the now established supply chain for other parts, UBS estimates the iPhone Fold's bill of materials as $759. For comparison, the Galaxy Z Fold SE, the predecessor to the newly launched Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7, cost Samsung $790 per unit. As a result, the UBS analysis predicts Apple will price the iPhone Fold between $1,800 and $2,000, when accounting for manufacturing and Apple's usual profit margin on its phones. That would be at worst the same price as, if not cheaper than, the Galaxy Z Fold 7, which now costs $2,000 in the U.S.. A much more appealing idea than the rumored $2,100 - 2,300 price we've heard before. Limited quantities but a big impact UBS' report also believes Apple will initially produce 10 - 15 million iPhone Folds, less than half of what just the Pro Max version of a given iPhone generation tends to sell. The report goes on to name various companies that will likely supply Apple and build the foldable iPhone, including Samsung Display, which will apparently build the 7-inch main display for the device. Finally, UBS makes a prediction that the launch of the iPhone Fold will increase adoption of foldable devices across the whole market. And that seems like a safe bet. iPhone users make up a huge chunk of the smartphone market, and as tempting as the best foldable phones might be, they all currently run on Android. That benefit may also extend to larger folding tablets and laptops according to UBS, although there are fewer of these devices on the market. While it's been six years since the first generation of foldable phones emerged, Apple's first foldable could cause a renaissance for the category. That big revival may still be some time coming though, as 2026 is the latest estimate for the launch date for the iPhone Fold. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button. More from Tom's Guide iPhone 17 Pro Max just leaked in a surprising new color — get ready for orange I just tested the Galaxy Z Fold 7's new selfie camera vs. the Fold 6's under-display camera — and the results are drastically different Galaxy Z Fold 7 vs. Honor Magic V5: Which foldable will win?
