Talking About Their Generation (II)

Previously, on Praxis . . . In the end, what began as a helpful FYI initiative on Jeff's part turned into a somewhat unsettling conundrum, one I've been thinking about quite a bit ever since.

Before getting back into this, I need to state for the record that on the whole, I'm personally a proponent of the type of research we've been discussing -- research that profiles a consumer segment of interest. Marketers realized long ago that the ability to identify specific segments of the consumer population -- where members share common attitudes, aspirations, and behaviors -- opens up a gold mine of opportunities to create products, advertisements, etc., that "speak" to those segments. I've worked on many such studies myself and stand by the approach. (In fact, we'll soon be releasing a report that deconstructs the music consumption habits of consumers across the generational spectrum, and identifies the unique challenges the music industry faces from each age segment.)

Now, that was a very broad, generalized statement about the value of this type of research (broad, generalized -- please hold that thought). Let's break things down a bit and focus on three concepts: concreteness, interpretation, and tendencies. Any research that profiles a consumer segment is on safest ground when it:

• Focuses on phenomena that can be measured concretely;
• Focuses on phenomena that can be interpreted unambiguously; and
• Doesn't lose sight of the fact that it identifies tendencies rather than absolutes.

I'm not saying these studies are worthwhile only if they meet these criteria. But there are implications once you move beyond this.

• First, let's say you read somewhere that Millennials are more likely than Boomers to own an iPod. No controversy there at all -- a concrete measure of behavior that's about as unambiguous as you can get (you either own an iPod or you don't). And we're clearly talking tendencies -- group A is more likely to own an iPod than group B. (Explaining the degree of difference would be even more helpful -- 1.1 times more likely, 10 times more likely -- but let's not get too greedy here.)

• Now let's take things to an attitudinal level. You read that Millennials are more likely than Boomers to agree with the statement: work/life balance is important to me. Not as easy to interpret as owning an iPod, but the measure is concrete (agreement with a statement) and the focus is still on tendencies. Check.

• OK, what about this: Millennials are more likely than Boomers to value work/life balance. That doesn't sound much different, does it? But now we're talking about group A's greater tendency to feel a certain way rather than their greater tendency to agree with a statement. What does "work/life value" mean, after all? Does it mean that Millennials are less likely to work on a weekend? To be more likely to take a day off to drive grandma to the doctor? Maybe, but things are beginning to get murky. (Although at least we're still emphasizing the tendencies bit.)

• And now, a little devil appears on your shoulder. Big execs just want to get to the bottom line -- they don't want to keep reading "more likely than." It sounds weak. It's not punchy. And everyone understands we're talking about tendencies anyway. Voilà: As a generation, Millennials value work/life balance.

Welcome to the dark side.

Now take this:

• "Mr. Tapscott identifies eight norms that define Net Geners. . . . Net Geners value freedom and choice in everything they do. They love to customize and personalize. They scrutinize everything. . . . They expect everything to happen fast." The Economist, November 13, 2008.

And this:

• "Over the past few decades the prevailing disposition among college students -- today labeled Generation Y or Millennials -- has slid into full-blown narcissism. . . . The 'all about me' shift . . . points, says the study's author, to a generation's lack of empathy, its inability to form relationships -- and worse." Christian Science Monitor, March 2, 2007.

And:

• The video wall.

And:

• The people in the same generation who look at the video wall and say, "That's not me at all."

Come on -- didn't our staff MAs understand that Sachs was just reporting on tendencies among this segment? That "more likely than" is understood in all of this? That they were using marketing shorthand to make the presentation more powerful? That the people in the clips don't necessarily represent all MAs?

Tune in to my third installment for some startling answers!