Ditch the Labels: Market to People, Not Generations

Originally published on AdAge.

‍

For as long as research has shaped marketing strategy, categorizing people by generation has made it easy for brands to focus on stereotypes rather than individuals. What many marketers overlook is that as each generation enters responsible adulthood, their behaviors and attitudes increasingly reflect those of the generation immediately preceding them. Is marketing’s fixation on generational behaviors misguided? Like stereotyping itself, it’s not that simple.

Seeing Baby Boomers as technophobes or millennials as self-absorbed gives brands a convenient way to shift blame for their lack of customer understanding onto the consumers. Marketers often say, “We’re struggling to connect with Gen Z,” rather than, “We don’t understand why certain people don’t buy our brand.”

Generational stereotyping is based on two flawed assumptions.

First, human beings are dynamic, not static. Unified mindsets formed in adolescence become less so based on the evolution of each individual’s influences, experiences, and growing responsibilities.

Second, when facing new challenges, people tend to seek advice from contemporaries with recent, similar experiences—people between five and 10 years older. This results in bifurcation within each generation as its youngest members approach age 30, leading to confusing hybrids such as “Xennials” and “Zennials.” These mentoring moments between generations provide brands unique, time-sensitive opportunities to engage with the distributors and the recipients of this wisdom.

‍

How millennials became Xennials

The ideals of each generation are shaped during childhood and adolescence by three evolving sets of factors: innovations, existential threats and the experiences of those who came before. In 2013, Time declared that millennials would “save us all” by placing less value on wealth and consumerism than previous generations.

Millennials were predicted to resist purchasing homes and cars, leaning instead toward communitarian platforms such as Airbnb, Uber and Zipcar. And they would hold off on having children, embracing the idea that each day offers another opportunity to shout “YOLO” while fist-pumping through another new experience.

Looking back, these predictions made some sense. Millennials were the first to grow up with the internet and awareness of climate change, hyper-consumerism and predatory lending as existential threats. They witnessed their parents and grandparents grapple with economic challenges following the banking collapse of 2008, transforming retirement from a feasible goal into an impossible dream for many.

Yet, in the 12 years since that Time cover story, we can see those predictions were greatly exaggerated. Now that the oldest millennials approach middle age, the ideals of their youth have reached a compromise with the realities of adult life. Innate human desires for security, shelter, mobility and legacy motivated these individuals to make choices quite different from those expected when they were younger.

Did the forecasters get it all wrong? Not really. Millennials did buy homes at a significantly lower rate than their predecessors, although this was at least partly due to economic factors. That said, modern life is a moving target. People often make decisions at age 35 that they could not have predicted at 22.

‍

How brands can contribute to “learning ladders”

As millennials aged, rather than seeking the advice of their parents or institutions, they followed the wisdom and examples of those five to 10 years older who had recently faced the same decisions in a similar environment. This led older millennials to behave more like Gen X than their younger millennial counterparts.

With Gen Zers entering their earning years, we now see them displaying behaviors akin to younger millennials. In terms of careers, finances and parenting, as members of each generation transition into adulthood, they seek advice from individuals who have successfully navigated life under similar technological, societal and economic circumstances.

This is a significant reason why Gen Z follows the financial examples of young entrepreneurs rather than established money experts. Trust often arises from relatability, highlighting the influence of the “learning ladders” established during these transitional periods.

The challenge for these accidental mentors is that they are not content creators and don’t always have the best information or tools at their fingertips. Rather than public social postings used by typical influencers, they influence people on a one-to-one basis via text messages, e-mails and private social channels.

As an example, a brand wanting to connect meaningfully with new parents would do well to facilitate the sharing of expert content from parents of school-aged children. And since people trust other individuals (even strangers) three times more than they trust brands, there’s a halo effect when branded content is shared in this manner.

‍

Generational thinking is real, but it also evolves

In 2023, Pew Research announced they would de-emphasize generational research in favor of more sophisticated ways of understanding specific behaviors. Yet, each generation starts with a relatively unified mindset that runs counterculture compared to the economic ruling classes of their time. Much of that is the nature of youth, especially when unbound by financial and other adult responsibilities.

As life evolves for each generation, it becomes equally important to understand their influences on the next two or three rungs of the learning ladder below to truly understand and anticipate how these young adults will maintain their youthful ideals while navigating the realities of adulthood.

‍