AI is inevitably changing the way we shop. It can recommend products based on what we have searched for, help us compare prices and increasingly guide us through the sheer volume of choice available online. For consumers, a big part of the appeal is that shopping becomes quicker and more relevant. Yet gifting presents a more complicated challenge.
When we buy something for ourselves, the decision often comes down to what we need or want. When we buy for someone else, there is another layer to consider. That is because we are trying to choose something that says we understand that person. That makes gifting a particularly interesting test of how far consumers are willing to let AI influence their decisions.
The gap between recommendation and understanding
There is a growing assumption that, as AI becomes better at predicting what consumers want, it will naturally become better at helping them choose gifts. But prediction and understanding are two different things.
Figures from Vercel and the World Retail Congress found that just 10% of shoppers would spend more time with an AI shopping assistant than with a human. That suggests consumers are still cautious about handing over too much of the shopping journey, even as they become more familiar with AI.
In gifting, that hesitation makes sense. A recommendation can be based on data about someone’s previous purchases or interests, but the reason a particular gift feels right can come from somewhere else entirely. It might be connected to a conversation that happened months ago or a shared memory that has no place in a shopping profile.The challenge for AI in gifting is whether it can understand the thinking behind a choice and what that gift represents to the person giving it.
That distinction is easy to overlook as retailers focus on increasingly sophisticated personalisation. The more accurate technology becomes at predicting behaviour, the greater the temptation to assume it has understood the consumer. In gifting however, that assumption could easily be misplaced. For instance, someone may know that a friend likes cooking, but that alone does not explain why a particular cookbook would make a meaningful gift. The personal context behind the choice is what makes it relevant.
The act of giving still matters
There is also something important happening beyond the choice of the gift itself. The way people give remains part of its value.
Research from BHN illustrates this particularly well in Ireland. It found that 55% of consumers use physical gift cards compared with 22% who use digital alternatives, with 64% of those choosing physical cards saying they value being able to give them to the recipient in person. More generally, across EMEA, three quarters (75%) of consumers also still buy gift cards in store.
The difference between a physical and digital card may appear small from a retail perspective. From the recipient’s perspective, however, the experience can feel very different. One creates a physical exchange and a moment between two people. The other can arrive with the same monetary value but without that personal interaction.
This matters because it shows that convenience has a limit when the purchase is emotionally driven. Consumers may welcome technology that helps them find a gift, but that does not necessarily mean they want technology to take over the experience of giving it.
For retailers, this should be an important consideration as more of the customer journey moves into digital spaces. The opportunity is to make technology work around the emotional value of gifting rather than treating that value as something that can be automated.
Making AI useful without making gifting feel automatic
There is a strong case for AI to play a bigger role in helping people choose gifts. Anyone who has struggled to find the right present will understand the appeal of having a tool that can narrow down the options. During busy gifting periods, that support could save considerable time and help consumers move beyond the obvious choices.
The most valuable AI experience may therefore be one that gives people a starting point rather than a final answer.
A recommendation can spark an idea. From there, the consumer can bring their own knowledge of the recipient into the decision. That is where technology becomes genuinely useful as it reduces the effort involved in navigating choice while leaving the judgement with the person who actually knows the recipient.
For retailers, this creates a different way of thinking about AI. The goal should not always be to remove another step from the customer journey. Sometimes the better experience is one that gives consumers better information at the point where they need to make a decision for themselves.
That could also help build trust. Consumers are more likely to embrace technology when they feel in control of the outcome. In gifting, where the decision can feel personal, that sense of control becomes even more important.
Gifting gives retailers a glimpse of AI’s future
The debate around AI in retail often focuses on what technology can automate. Gifting shifts the conversation towards what consumers still want to own themselves.
As AI becomes better at understanding preferences, retailers will have to think carefully about the difference between personalisation and personal connection. The former can be delivered through data. The latter comes from knowing the person on the other side of the gift.
That does not make AI less relevant to gifting. It arguably makes its role more interesting. Technology can help people deal with choice, find inspiration and feel more confident about a purchase. What matters is that the technology leaves room for the thought that gives the purchase meaning. Gifting is ultimately a human act, even when the purchase takes place entirely online. The strongest retail experiences will recognise that distinction and use AI accordingly.
The opportunity for retailers is to therefore make AI the tool that helps people find the right gift, while keeping the reason it feels right where it has always belonged – with the person giving it.
