The Generation Myth

I attended a Business to Business marketing exhibition this year. There were a number of free seminars available, so I sat in on a few. One well attended talk was about marketing to Generation Z.

Most people who read a weekend paper will have come across articles about the five generational groups that most of us fall into; Traditionalists (Pre1945), Baby boomers (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1980), Millennials (1981-1996), and Generation Z (1997-2012). I don’t think anyone has dreamed up a name for those born after 2012 yet. ?

These terms for generational groups were coined by journalists and authors over the years to pithily describe the characteristics of a defined 15-20 year period in which a group was born. In themselves, Baby boomers and the others, are useful journalistic tools used to write frivolous articles for a good Sunday morning read. However when companies are being asked to spend advertising budget on these groups, these generational definitions require further scrutiny.

I was told, at this seminar, that Generation Z want the brands they buy from to have a stance on the Environment. ‘When asked’ announced the person at the lectern ‘90% of Generation Z said they would only buy products from a company that has a strong environmental stance.’?We all frantically scribbled down this unassailable fact and mentally made a note to speak to the marketing team about accelerating our efforts to tell people about our recycled packaging and donations to Greenpeace.

But really, that statement means nothing. In fact, I am surprised that it is only 90% and applaud the 10% who actually answered truthfully. If anyone, from any generation, is asked ‘Would you prefer to buy products and services from a Company with a strong environmental stance?’ How may of us would say no? But when it comes to actually purchasing the product, where on the list of priorities does the environmental philosophy of a company lie? Before price, delivery, convenience and quality?

The growth of fast fashion, cheap imports and disposable living betray the idea of a generation that is any more (or less) environmentally focussed than any other.

My own analysis is purely anecdotal, and, as such open to anecdotal counter argument. However, in the absence of any sensible scientific or psychological studies of these generational terms, I feel that there is an element of validity in my observations.

If we look at buying habits, we can see visible buying groups in our shops, sporting venues, festivals, holidays and so on. In each of these areas one observes a diverse age range in action. Anyone watching the World Cup will see supporters aged from 10 to 80 at the Stadia, this is the same for any other sport. Clothing is much less age defined than in previous decades and most high street shops are no longer defined by a demographic. Music festivals attract a huge range of ages and holiday destinations are increasingly catering to all age ranges; Madeira, for instance, being a perfect example.

Next we only need to look around at people in our community, friendship group and even our families, to recognise that the attributes given to the journalistic generations soon fall apart. I have two Millennial children and one Gen Z. Each of them is completely different socially, politically, and psychologically. I believe that most parents will look at their Millennial and Gen Z kids and find more differences than similarities.

Now let’s look at regions and economic status. As marketers we are being asked to economically group together a privately educated graduate investment banker with the Deliveroo driver who brings him his pizza. The social and economic environment of someone living in Mayfair cannot be aligned with someone of the same age living in an economically deprived community in the North East.

My only real experience in making funded marketing decisions is historical: Generations have always moved through life with changing priorities and attitudes. Youth, Middle age and Old age have always been more easily definable by changing attitudes to Health, Risk, Security and Money.

?I realise that this article is necessarily short and I have not explored, in any detail, what the characteristics of these generational groups is supposed to be, My reasoning is that they are fictional and you can Google them if you need to.

My view is that neat Journalistic terms for generational groups are now being taken too seriously by advertisers and marketers, and large amounts of money are being spent erroneously on The Generation Myth. ?