Qualitative study reveals distinct generational motivations and constraints in coffee consumption across age cohorts, suggesting the need for age-tailored service strategies.
Purpose This study explores how consumers from Generations X, Y and Z in Türkiye interpret coffee consumption through the interplay of habits, motivations and constraints. Rather than treating coffee as a matter of preference alone, it examines its social, cultural, experiential and practical meanings across generations. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative design was adopted. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 37 coffee consumers representing Generations X, Y and Z in Türkiye. The data were analyzed using content analysis, and inductive codes were organized around consumption habits, motivations and constraints. Findings Generation Z perceives coffee through the lens of pleasure and socializing, often integrating it into sports routines and preferring brand-led corporate venues. Generation Y emphasizes cultural meanings, showing a preference for stronger coffee and valuing the aroma of freshly ground and brewed beans. In contrast, Generation X prioritizes practicality, opting for milder milk-based coffees and quieter, more authentic settings. Across all cohorts, high prices and health concerns emerge as primary constraints; however, while Generations Z and Y often continue consumption despite discomfort, Generation X is more likely to reduce intake. Research limitations/implications The findings suggest that coffee businesses should adopt lifestyle-sensitive and generation-aware service strategies, particularly in relation to café atmosphere, sensory quality, communication, pricing and consumer experience management. Originality/value By integrating habits, motivations and constraints within a single qualitative framework, this study offers a generation-sensitive interpretation of coffee consumption in Türkiye and shows how these dimensions jointly shape everyday consumption practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Doğan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: