Gen Z as in Zoom: Coronavirus and the Disruption of Compelling Reasons

Generation labels are literally defined by age brackets, such as Gen X are those born between 1965 and 1981; or Gen Z, those born between 1997-2015.

Such names are helpful because they connote key societal, cultural, and technological changes, innovations, and disasters that had the greatest impact for each age cohort. Massive wars, recessions and depressions, the rise of computers and the Internet, or such singular events as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, are major developments that shaped the lives and attitudes of those who came of age and entered the workforce during those time periods.

The COVID-19 coronavirus global pandemic seems to qualify as a generation-defining event, especially if some changes in how we live prove to be long-lasting. There will be changes at the margins in how humans get together for events large and small, how and where we work, what percentage of goods will be home-delivered, and much more. What will vary is just how large that margin of disruption will be.

Gen Z got its name because of alphabetical order (following Gen X and Gen Y), but now it could be Gen Z as in Zoom, the popular video meeting platform. I think the COVID-19 pandemic’s driving increased use of Zoom and similar platforms will be a generation-defining characteristic.

Members of Gen Z are currently in middle and high school, college, or just entering the workforce. So they will be the first generation to come of age with this shift to increased virtual meetings in place. You could call them Gen V for Virtual if you don’t want to use a product name in the label, but unless Zoom’s popularity fades I’ll stick with the existing generation name. 

How big will this shift to virtual via video be? In the past, engaging in various activities online was possible but often was pursued only as an alternate or backup plan. In many contexts the preference was participating in activities together and in-person, only resorting to together and online when other factors (travel costs, lack of a venue, etc.) made online more attractive or the only option.

Once we are well past the peak of the pandemic, in what contexts will we invert our default presumption, and flip the question from: "Is there a compelling reason to do this online?" to "Is there a compelling reason to do this in person?" I think there will be many such contexts, but multiple factors are involved beyond the relative value of the online vs. the in-person experience: prior trend lines, regulations, the power of tradition, entrenched special interests, and other considerations will come into play to determine how large the margin of change will be for each activity.

Considering only the impact of the current Zoom and similar video teleconferencing platforms (that is, not looking further into the future of virtual reality platforms), here are some types of activities that I think are ripe for disruption:

• Telemedicine and telecounseling. Any impediments from billing or privacy laws likely will not hold up very long, as such practices allow patients to stay out of transit and waiting rooms, and help relieve some stress on a healthcare system (in many countries, not just the U.S.) that suffers from crowded emergency rooms, long waiting lines, and difficult demographic trends (i.e., seniors living longer) that will only exacerbate those issues.
• Professional services. Like doctors and counselors, professionals such as accountants, lawyers, and many others can and are meeting with clients without the need for office visits. This opens far more options as people can look for the best across the country and not be limited to their local areas.
• Higher education. There are many reasons for a college experience early in adult life, and education is only one of them. But that has become grotesquely expensive, so for some kinds of classes (not lab or other hands-on work, but conceptual lectures with discussion), the use of video conferencing finally could be disruptive.
• Television interviews. This COVID-19 time period has already made viewers comfortable seeing political, financial, sports, and other experts interviewed from their homes, rather than formal TV studio sets. The occasional mix-up, like a toddler escaping a spouse or nanny and appearing on camera, is a risk. But those occurrences actually help humanize the celebrity or talking head and don’t detract from the value of the interview.
• Yoga, cardio, etc. Prior to COVID-19 the explosion of Peloton stationary bikes was a hint of what was to come. Now yoga and other forms of exercise that don’t require much equipment (i.e., not strength training) are shifting to online group sessions. And an added bonus is the ability to select from the best instructors and most interesting classes anywhere—again, opening your selection beyond the limits of local communities.
• Museums. One value of exhibits lies in viewing artifacts and displays and reading their descriptions. An online experience provides this—and is perhaps even an improvement that enables you to see more without the weariness of walking and standing. In many cases both virtual and in-person experiences will be offered, especially when an in-person visit may inspire a sense of awe or wonder.
• Lawmaking. Perhaps I am na?ve and overly optimistic, especially given the lobbying issues arising from corrupt government and crony capitalism. But couldn’t modern video teleconferencing allow lawmakers to work from home, or at least hometown offices, where they could remain closer to constituents? If so, could it even lead to an increase in the number of representatives involved? Consider the U.S. House of Representatives alone, where each member now represents 700,000-plus people, compared with about 30,000 when the country was founded. Avoiding the presence of all leaders in one place would also provide them greater safety, especially when contagious plague can be added to the threat list of terrorist attacks, mass shootings, natural disasters, etc.

Other activities could be disrupted at the margins by video conferencing, but in these cases I think the impact will be relatively small:

• Business and science conferences. Where the value of the event lies mostly in lectures by experts, an event could go fully digital. But if much of the value is gained from serendipitous meetings between attendees, or between attendees and vendors in an expo hall, then we won’t be ditching the massive hotels and convention centers for a series of Zoom sessions.
• K-12 schooling. There are strong forces involved here (e.g., teachers’ unions and politicians) that have been and, I think, will continue to be fearful of too much disruption. But the bigger issue is that most parents are not interested in or available to support home schooling, even if trained teachers are providing the instruction. That is because K-12 schools (with the exception of perhaps the final high school years) are as much purveyors of childcare as they are of education. Decades-long trends toward single-parent homes and those in which both parents work outside the home mean that kids need supervision during the day.
• Some entertainment experiences. We have more on-screen leisure and entertainment options than ever. But certain types of entertainment and experiences have value that just doesn’t translate fully to video-only. Large-screen movie experiences, amusement parks, some museums, architecture/mansion tours, sporting event attendance (not to mention participation), and much more will make their way back into our lives after the COVID-19 pandemic. And I think these physically interactive experiences will likely remain popular even if, and when, virtual reality technology makes our current Zoom meetings look quaint.

What do you think? What kinds of activities are being disrupted enough by Zoom video conferencing that we’ll see a generational-level shift in behavior? For which activities in the near future will we switch our default question to “Is there a compelling reason to do this in person?” instead of “Is there a compelling reason to do this online?”