Archive for the 'Generations' Category

Why Your Child Hates Sports

It surprises many to learn that on most measures of well-being today’s youth are the healthiest generation in history. Violent crime against and by young people is historically low. Teen pregnancy and birth rates continue to decline. Most measures of drug and alcohol use among teens and young adults show significant declines from a generation ago. Tobacco use is at a low point. In short, most problems that are a result of choices young people make have shown marked improvement since information on Millennials entered the data sets.

But an important measure of well-being has tracked significantly worse during the Millennial and post-Millennial era:  childhood obesity. According to the CDC, the prevalence of obesity has roughly tripled in the past 40 years. This is a frightful statistic.

This is not new news as many books, documentaries, and scholars have presented possible reasons for the spike in youth obesity. Beyond genetics, there are two likely determinants of obesity: 1) nutrition and 2) physical activity. Discussions of obesity’s “nutritional” causes are fraught with controversy. The food industry involves a lot of interests and money, nutritional science is rarely definitive, and seemingly everyone has their own opinions on what is healthy or unhealthy to eat. The nutritional roots of obesity (while likely very significant) are far from settled.

However, the “physical activity” side of the discussion tends to not be so heated. Nearly everyone agrees that today’s youth aren’t as physically active as they should be. There are likely many causes for this as well, but I believe the way youth sports operate merit some discussion.

When I was young, sports were every bit as important to my life as they became to my Millennial children. The difference is my sports experiences as a child were mostly kid-directed. Almost daily, we gathered in the largest yard in the neighborhood and played whichever sport was in season. It took up an hour or two on most days and sometimes the entire weekend. The biggest difference to today’s youth sports environment is there wasn’t an adult in sight. There were arguments, injuries, and conflicts, all of which got resolved without adult mediation.

Contrast this to today’s youth sports environment. Today’s kids specialize in one sport year-round and from a very young age join travel and elite leagues organized by adults. There is a general dearth of unstructured play time. Correlation and causation are never the same thing but the rise in youth obesity has correlated closely with the rise in youth sports leagues organized by adults. Once adults started making the decisions about sports, our kids got fatter.

As a matter of personal perspective, I have two adult children and I can count six sports (baseball, soccer, ice hockey, track, skiing, cross country) that they played in an adult-organized fashion while growing up. We encountered situations where I had a child who was one of the least talented kids on a team, others where I had a child that was the star of the team, and many others where my child was somewhere in the middle. Between them, my kids were on teams that dominated their leagues and went undefeated, they were on some that lost almost every game, and they were on some teams that both won and lost. I coached for a while and my wife was “team mom” for most teams they were on.

Along the way I noticed that kids seemed to have the most fun when they won just a few more games than they lost. The kids didn’t seem to think it was as fun to dominate the competition and it was even less fun to be constantly on the losing end. 

I remember once when in the car after a hockey game I asked my son what he wanted to happen when he had the puck. He said, “I want to score.” I asked him “suppose you scored every single time you touched the puck. Would that be any fun?” At 10 years old, he didn’t have to think long to say that wouldn’t be very fun at all. But, that is what most hockey dads are hoping will happen.

There seems to be a natural force kids apply to sports equality when adults get out of the way. Left to their own devices, the first things kids will do when choosing up teams is to try to get the teams to be evenly matched. Then, if the game starts to get too one-sided the next thing they will do is swap some players around to balance it out. This seems to be ingrained – nobody teaches kids to do this, but left on their own this is what they tend to do. They will also change the rules of the game to make it more fun.

I’ve encountered many parents who are delusional when it comes to the athletic capabilities of their children. I don’t think I have ever met a dad (including myself) who didn’t think their child was better than he/she really was. We want our kids to succeed of course. But we have to have the right definition of success. Are they having fun? Are they improving? Learning how to work as a team and treat competition with respect? Making friendships? That is what is going to matter down the line.

Far too many parents look to the future too much and don’t let their kids enjoy the moment. They will spend thousands and sacrifice nearly every weekend to send their kid to a camp that might get them noticed by college recruiters. The reality is, their child probably won’t get an athletic scholarship, and if he/she does it probably won’t come close to offsetting the money spent getting him/her to all of the camps and travel league games. Parents also don’t realize that most kids don’t find participating in college sports to be as fun as participating in them was in high school.

When I coached Little League baseball, I used to tell the kids to play catch with their mom or dad every day. I remember a mom once asking me why I was pushing them to do this so much. I told her that playing catch with a baseball in the backyard with your kid is one of the great moments in parenthood. It forces you to talk and listen to your kid. I told her that her son would remember that time with his mom or dad far more than playing on our team.

There are debates over rewards for participation in sports. In my day, you had to win to get the trophy and sometimes you didn’t even get that. Now, kids get trophies for showing up. That is not necessarily a bad thing. As Woody Allen says, “80% of success is showing up.” So, why not reward it?

My youngest son was fortunate to run cross country for a coach that most would classify as a local legend. He has coached the team for 30+ years, has had many state championship teams and individuals, and is widely respected. My favorite memory of him was something I observed when he didn’t know I was looking and it had nothing to do with championships and developing elite athletes.  For the first race of a new season, he took the varsity teams to an out-of-state invitational. The girls team was quite good, and for his 7th (and slowest) runner he brought a freshman girl who was inexperienced and running her very first race. She didn’t do very well and came in about 120th place in the race. I saw the coach come up to her right afterword with a beaming smile on his face. The first thing he said to her was “was that FUN or what?” as he gave her a hug. She smiled, hugged him back and ended up staying on the team for all four years of high school and last weekend (8 years later) I saw her jogging in a local park. She didn’t excel at running in high school, but the coach sparked a lifelong interest in fitness in her.

To me, that signified not just what sports should all be about, but what adults’ role in sports should be all about. We have a real problem with childhood obesity. The cure is to make sports and physical activity more fun, and many times that means getting the adults out of the way.

Is getting a driver’s license still a rite of passage for teens?

In the 80’s and 90’s, before the Millennial generation hit their teen years in force, we would use “driver’s license status” as a key classification variable in studies. Rather than split focus groups by age or grade in school, we would often place teens who had their license in one group and those who did not have their license yet in another group. Regardless of the topic of the group. We found that teens with licenses were more independent of their parents and more capable of making decisions without parental input. Drivers license obtention was often better predictor of consumer behavior than age.

Young people experience many rites of passages in a short period of time. These are experiences that signify a change in their development. They ride the school bus for the first time, get their first smartphone, enter high school, go to the prom, leave home to go to college, vote for the first time, etc. As marketers, we have always looked at these inflection points as times when consumer behavior shifts. The obtaining of a driver’s license is traditionally seen as a watershed moment as it signifies a new level of independence.

However, this wisdom no longer holds. Millennials, particularly second wave Millennials, are not as focused on obtaining drivers licenses as their Boomer and Xer parents were. Where I grew up, we couldn’t wait until our 16th birthday so we could get our learner’s permit. My classmates and I usually took our road tests at the first opportunity. Failing the road test was a traumatic experience, as it caused us to remain in our parents’ control for a few more months.

This is no longer the case. In 1983, 46% of America’s 16-year-olds had a driver’s license. That is now less than 25% currently. I was very surprised to notice that my children and their friends seemed to be in no particular rush to get their licenses. Many times, it was the parents that pushed the kids to take their road test, as the parents were tiring of chaperoning the kids from place to place.

There are likely things that have caused this change:

  • Today’s parents are highly protective of children. Parents no longer push their children to be as independent as quickly.
  • There are societal pressures. In most states, there are more stringent requirements in terms of driving experience to be able to take a road test and more restrictions on what a younger driver can do with his/her license. The license simply isn’t as valuable as it used to be.
  • Driving has peaked in the US. People are driving less frequently and fewer miles when they do. There has also been a movement of the population to urban areas which have more mass transit.
  • The decline of retail has played a part. Going to the mall was a common weekend activity for Xer teens. Now, staying home and shopping on Amazon is more common. Millennials never went to the mall to socialize.
  • Online entertainment options have proliferated. Movies and shows are readily streamed. Many teens fulfill a need for socialization via gaming, where they interact with their friends and make new ones. This need could only be met in person in the past.
  • Teens are working less so have less of a need to drive to work. Of course, this means they have less of their own money and that tethers them to their parents even longer.

There are likely many other causes. But the result is clear. Teens are getting licenses later and using them less than they did a generation ago.

As a result, researchers have lost a perfectly good measure! Obtaining a driver’s license is not as strong a rite of passage as it used to be.

We’ve been thinking about what might make a good alternative measure. What life event do young people experience that changes them in terms of granting their independence from parents? Leaving home and living independently for the first time would qualify but seems a bit late to be useful. There may be no clear marker signifying independence for Millennials, as they stay dependent on parents across a much wider time period than in the past. Or, perhaps we need to change our definition of independence.

Is segmentation just discrimination with an acceptable name?

A short time ago we posted a basic explanation of the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal (which you can read here). In it, we stated that market segmentation and stereotyping are essentially the same thing. This presents an ethical quandary for marketers as almost every marketing organization makes heavy use of market segmentation.

To review, marketers place customers into segments so that they can better understand and serve them. Segmentation is at the essence of marketing. Segments can be created along any measurable dimension, but since almost all segments have a demographic component we will focus on that for this post.

It can be argued that segmentation and stereotyping are the same thing. Stereotyping is attaching perceived group characteristic to an individual. For instance, if you are older I might assume your political views lean conservative, since it is known that political views tend to be more conservative in older Americans that they are in general among younger Americans. If you are female I might assume you are more likely to be the primary shopper for your household, since females in total do more of the family shopping than males. If you are African-American, I might assume you have a higher likelihood than others to listen to rap music, since that genre indexes high among African-Americans.

These are all stereotypes. These examples can be shown to true of a larger group, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that they apply to all the individuals in the group. There are plenty of liberal older Americans, females who don’t shop at all, and African-Americans who can’t stand rap music.

Segmenting consumers (which is applying stereotypes) isn’t inherently a bad thing. It leads to customized products and better customer experiences. The potential problem isn’t with stereotyping, it is when doing so moves to a realm of being discriminatory that we have to be careful. As marketers we tread a fine line. Stereotyping oversimplifies the complexity of consumers by forming an easy to understand story. This is useful in some contexts and discriminatory in others.

Some examples are helpful. It can be shown that African-Americans have a lower life expectancy than Whites. A life insurance company could use this information to charge African-Americans higher premiums than Whites. (Indeed, many insurance companies used to do this until various court cases prevented them from doing so.) This is a segmentation practice that many would say crosses a line to become discriminatory.

In a similar vein, car insurance companies routinely charge higher risk groups (for example younger drivers and males) higher rates than others. That practice has held up as not being discriminatory from a legal standpoint, largely because the discrimination is not against a traditionally disaffected group.

At Crux, we work with college marketers to help them make better admissions offer decisions. Many colleges will document the characteristics of their admitted students who thrive and graduate in good standing. The goal is to profile these students and then look back at how they profiled as applicants. The resulting model can be used to make future admissions decisions. Prospective student segments are established that have high probabilities of success at the institution because they look like students known to be successful, and this knowledge is used to make informed admissions offer decisions.

However, this is a case where a segmentation can cross a line and become discriminatory. Suppose that the students who succeed at the institution tend to be rich, white, female, and from high performing high schools. By benchmarking future admissions offers against them, an algorithmic bias is created. Fewer minorities, males, and students from urban districts will be extended admissions offers What turns out to be a good model from a business standpoint ends up perpetuating a bias., and places certain demographics of students at a further disadvantage.

There is a burgeoning field in research known as “predictive analytics.” It allows data jockeys to use past data and artificial intelligence to make predictions on how consumers will react. It is currently mostly being used in media buying. Our view is it helps in media efficiency, but only if the future world can be counted on to behave like the past. Over-reliance on predictive analytics will result in marketers missing truly breakthrough trends. We don’t have to look further than the 2016 election to see how it can fail; many pollsters were basing their modeling on how voters had performed in the past and in the process missed a fundamental shift in voter behavior and made some very poor predictions.

That is perhaps an extreme case, but shows that segmentations can have unintended consequences. This can happen in consumer product marketing as well. Targeted advertising can become formulaic. Brands can decline distribution in certain outlets. Ultimately, the business can suffer and miss out on new trends.

Academics (most notably Kahneman and Tversky) have established that people naturally apply heuristics to decision making. These are “rules of thumb” that are often useful because they allow us to make decisions quickly. However, these academics have also demonstrated how the use of heuristics often result in sub-optimal and biased decision making.

This thinking applies to segmentation. Segmentation allows us to make marketing decisions quickly because we assume that individuals take on the characteristics of a larger group. But, it ignores the individual variability within the group, and often that is where the true marketing insight lies.

We see this all the time in the generational work we do. Yes, Millennials as a group tend to be a bit sheltered, yet confident and team-oriented. But this does not mean all of them fit the stereotype. In fact, odds are high that if you profile an individual from the Millennial generation, he/she will only exhibit a few of the characteristics commonly attributed to the generation. Taking the stereotype too literally can lead to poor decisions.

This is not to say that marketers shouldn’t segment their customers. This is a widespread practice that clearly leads to business results. But, they should do so considering the errors and biases applying segments can create, and think hard about whether this can unintentionally discriminate and, ultimately, harm the business in the long term.

Congrats to Truth Initiative – Wins Gold at Ogilvy Awards!

Congratulations to our client Truth Initiative on winning Gold at the David Ogilvy Awards. The Ogilvy awards are unique in that they celebrate campaigns that effectively use market research to spark an insightful campaign. Truth Initiative won gold in the “Unexpected Targeting and Segmentation” category.

The Truth Campaign was called “Stop Profiling.” It centered on a social justice theme – that today’s youth will ban together if they perceive a segment of the population is being treated unfairly. Truth’s ad (“Market Priority”) can be seen here.

Crux Research partnered with CommSight to provide formative research, copy testing, and campaign tracking. We are excited to be a part of this award-winning effort – and this award is the third Ogilvy we have been involved in for Truth Initiative.

Millennial College Students Are Torn Between Open Speech and Protecting the Vulnerable

We recently completed a poll of 1,000 college students on the topic of free speech on campus. Previous postings (here and here) have shown that students are reticent to support controversial speakers on campus and do not support any speakers who might have viewpoints that some students find to be uncomfortable.

In this final post on our poll results, we take a look at some contradictions in our data that demonstrate that today’s college students are torn between a desire to favor a campus that promotes free and open debate and an ethos that makes them want to protect the vulnerable from feeling uncomfortable.

There has been a long-held belief by conservatives that colleges are bastions of liberal thinking and perhaps indoctrination. Our poll results lend support to this viewpoint, as 52% of college students feel their professors tend to be more liberal in their thinking than the nation as a whole while just 23% feel their professors are more conservative:

Compared to the views of the nation as a whole, would you say that your current professors/instructors tend to be:
More conservative in their thinking 23%
About the same as the nation as a whole 25%
More liberal in their thinking 52%

Students tend to express a desire for their professors to be given a wide latitude to express their views and are largely not in support of administrators censoring how professors express their views to students.

Which statement below comes closest to your opinion?
College administrators should closely monitor what professors/instructors teach to make sure all students are comfortable 33%
College professors/instructors should be given a wide degree of freedom to express their views to students 67%

The result below shows that students report that colleges should encourage students to have an open mind to ideas that they may find uncomfortable. At first glance, college students seem to favor an atmosphere of openness on campus.

Which statement below comes closest to your opinion?
Colleges should attempt to shield students from ideas and opinions they may find unwelcome and offensive 25%
Colleges should encourage students to be exposed to ideas and opinions they may find unwelcome and offensive 75%

Millennial college students also recognize that free and open speech is central to university life. For example:

  • Two-thirds (66%) agree that the intellectual vitality of a university depends on open and free expression of ideas.
  • 63% agree that free speech, including controversial speech, is central to college teaching and learning.
  • 57% agree that student-run newspapers have a first amendment right to publish controversial stories without running afoul of college administrators.

That said, this poll also shows that Millennials also hold some views that run counter to the free speech ethos they express:

  • 57% agree that students should be encouraged to report instances of professor bias to administrators.
  • 48% feel that students should be provided warnings in advance to alert them to potentially troublesome readings.
  • 45% feel that colleges should provide intellectual safe spaces, where students can retreat from ideas and perspectives that are at odds with their own.

And, as we discussed in our previous postings, students shy away from permitting almost any type of speaker on campus that could potentially communicate anything that might cause a subgroup of students discomfort.

So, there are some contradictions in our findings that needs explaining. We feel that there is likely some nuance on Millennial opinion. The Millennial college student seems torn between realizing that exposure to ideas counter to their own is essential to their education and a strong ethos of protecting the vulnerable.

Which statement below comes closest to your opinion?
It is more important that colleges stick up for the vulnerable 50%
It is more important that colleges stand up for a spirit of inquiry 50%

This nuance is difficult for Boomer and Xers (who make up most college administrators and professors) to grasp. Older generations grew up not only at a time when free and open speech was held to a higher standard but also at a time where the college/university campus was the nexus of student opinion and influence. Today’s Millennial student has experienced more cultural diversity on campus and has established digital meeting spaces are their nexus for opinion and community. Millennials are exposed to diverse and controversial opinions constantly, to the point where their desire to protect the campus from controversy and discomfort may be a defense mechanism. It is an environment they can control.

What this all means for the university has yet to be seen. But, campus life is changing, and it will be key that the pendulum that is now swinging towards safety and comfort doesn’t swing so far as to limit student exposure to valuable viewpoints and a well-rounded worldview.

Who is an appropriate campus speaker? Almost nobody!

US colleges face many free speech challenges. Traditionally, colleges have been places where diverse viewpoints are encouraged even if ideas expressed are seen as controversial. But recently, there have been many instances of invited speakers to college campuses sparking protest, being shouted down, and even being physically confronted by students on campuses. It seems that a generational shift is taking place whereby Millennial students are highly concerned about inclusiveness and protecting vulnerable groups from potentially harmful speech. Prior generations of college students (Xers and especially Boomers) seemed to hold the concept of free speech in higher regard and seemed willing to permit more controversial speech on campus.

This is a fascinating issue and we covered it in depth in a poll of 1,000 US college students conducted last fall. This poll tackled a number of issues regarding how today’s college students view the balance between free speech and protecting vulnerable groups. We will be making a number of posts to share the results of this poll, and our first one relates to who today’s college students view as appropriate speakers to bring to campus.

We brainstormed a number of potential speakers, some liberal and some conservative. We listed government officials who, even though they have strong political opinions, we felt most of academia would say have a legitimate right to be heard. And, we listed celebrities accused of some reprehensible acts, speakers who have already generated controversy on college campuses, and foreign leaders considered to be rivals of the United States. Our goal was to see where Millennials draw a “line” – at what point is a speaker so controversial or so offensive that he/she would not have the support of students to come to campus to speak. In total, we listed 24 individuals.

The table below shows the percentage of US college students who would support each speaker coming to their campus to speak:

Person Support
Barack Obama 71%
Bernie Sanders 59%
Joe Biden 48%
Hillary Clinton 39%
Colin Kaepernick 35%
Elizabeth Warren 27%
Donald Trump 24%
Caitlyn Jenner 23%
Paul Ryan 21%
Mike Pence 20%
Louis CK 20%
Chelsea Manning 19%
Bill Cosby 19%
Vladimir Putin 19%
Al Sharpton 18%
Rachel Maddow 17%
Bill O’Reilly 17%
Kevin Spacey 16%
Milo Yiannopoulos 16%
OJ Simpson 16%
Ann Coulter 14%
Kim Jong-un 13%
Steve Bannon 13%
Betsy DeVos 11%
Harvey Weinstein 10%

Some interesting conclusions can be made from whom students are willing to support coming to their campus to speak:

  • Only two speakers, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, receive support from a majority of college students.
  • Liberal politicians lead the way – with 5 of the top 6 most supported speakers being leading Democrats.
  • Donald Trump, our current president, is only supported by about 1 in 4 (24%) college students as a campus speaker.
  • Celebrities accused of sexual harassment (Louis CK, Bill Cosby, Bill O’Reilly, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein) are among the least supported potential speakers.

We can also look at the same list, but this time sorted by the percentage of students who oppose them coming to their campus to speak:

Person Oppose
Kim Jong-un 61%
Donald Trump 53%
Bill Cosby 47%
Vladimir Putin 47%
OJ Simpson 45%
Harvey Weinstein 45%
Mike Pence 39%
Kevin Spacey 34%
Caitlyn Jenner 33%
Betsy DeVos 33%
Bill O’Reilly 28%
Steve Bannon 28%
Louis CK 27%
Hillary Clinton 27%
Milo Yiannopoulos 25%
Paul Ryan 24%
Ann Coulter 23%
Colin Kaepernick 18%
Al Sharpton 18%
Rachel Maddow 16%
Chelsea Manning 16%
Joe Biden 15%
Elizabeth Warren 13%
Bernie Sanders 12%
Barack Obama 10%

Here we see that:

  • Donald Trump is clearly polarizing among college students, with 53% saying they would oppose him coming to their campus to speak.
  • The most opposed speakers are foreign leaders/rivals (Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin), Donald Trump, and celebrities who have been accused of serious crimes (Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson, Harvey Weinstein).
  • Surprisingly, some speakers who have had challenges when speaking at college campuses in the past (Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos) don’t have high levels of opposition in this poll.

These results are disheartening to those who feel that open expression of ideas is central to collegiate life. Perhaps the key conclusion from these data is how few speakers students support – showing a clear tendency of students to avoid perspectives they may find uncomfortable. This attitude has caused many college administrators to stop allowing potentially controversial speakers on campus as they worry about security and the unrest it may cause. Free speech advocates are likely to feel that today’s students are missing out on an educational opportunity – to listen to different perspectives to help shape a world view.

In either case, attitudes towards free speech on campus are very different than a generation ago – a topic we will be pursuing as we release other data from this poll.

 “Gen Z” should make you cringe!

Adults have a number of misconceptions about youth generations. A glaring one is a tendency to think that a new generation will become a more intense version of the previous generation. That is rarely the case – new generations tend to sharply break with the old.

Let’s start by reviewing what a generation is. A generation is a cohort of people who share a common location in history. A generation progresses through life stages together and experiences key life events (childhood, adolescence, family life, retirement) at the same time. While our life stages change as we age, our generation does not. There is a commonality of experience and perspective that influences how a generation reacts to challenges presented by any given life stage.

While generational beginning and end points are hotly debated by academics, they tend to be bounded by historical events. For instance, the Boomer generation is known as the generation born after WWII ended as birth rates rapidly grew. Xers are those that were born during the subsequent demographic dip. Millennials began as an “echo” boom occurred as the large Boomer generation had their own children.

Generational change is abrupt and disruptive.  My own experience with this goes back to when the Millennial Generation (born 1982 – 2004) was coming of age in the 1990’s. At the time I was conducting studies of young people and was noticing clear breaks in the data sets. Inflection points often appeared when we graphed research measures by age. It took me years to realize these inflection points weren’t linked to a stage of development or age as they were migrating upwards over time. Eventually, I discovered these inflections were happening right at the generational break line – as soon as individuals born in the early 80’s came into the data sets, things changed.

It took me years to figure this out because this generation was most commonly referred to as Gen Y at the time. What does Gen Y mean? To me, it meant this new group would be a continuation of Gen X – only they would exhibit Gen X traits at higher intensity. I went to many youth conferences where speakers said precisely this. I often left puzzled, as what they were saying didn’t line up with what I was seeing in the data we gathered.

This new generation wasn’t behaving anything like Gen X. While Gen X was filled with latchkey kids who had developed a strong sense of individualism, independence, and self-worth, this new generation was all about teamwork, parental structure and oversight, and continuous feedback and validation. Calling them Gen Y seemed ridiculous as it implied they were merely an extension of Gen X. Thankfully, although the Gen Y moniker persisted, the term Millennial soon took hold.

Generations have unique characteristics and tendencies. These characteristics are almost never simply continuations of a previous generation’s characteristics. We can all agree that Boomers have not acted at all like their Silent Generation predecessors or that Xers haven’t been at all like Boomers. Millennials represent a further break with Xers.

There is no authority that has been commissioned to name a generation. Generations prior to Boomers weren’t really named during their time and many will claim that the Boomers were the first named generation. Prior generations were largely named by historians long after they had existed. For example, nobody called the WWII generation the “greatest generation” or the “GI generation” at the time – these terms took hold well after Boomers had been named.

Generational names evolve. Names often begin as something that underscore how adults don’t understand that generations are not just continuations of the previous generations. As an example, Gen X was most commonly called “the baby bust” generation at first, implying that they were  merely a consequence of a birth rate decline extending from the baby boom era. The term “Gen X” was popularized in a novel by Douglas Coupland. It became popular not because of the letter X but what this letter signified – a lack of a name for a largely forgotten generation, but also one that wasn’t particularly interested in being categorized or targeted.

The term Millennial was also established relatively late in the game. It was popularized in a book called Millennials Rising, and prior names either reflected a continuation of a parental generation (“the echo boom”, the “boomlet”) or of Gen X (“Generation Y.”). Millennials is a much better name and has largely taken over for “Generation Y.”

The whole purpose of naming generations from a marketing sense is that generations represent segments of consumers with unique needs. Our goal in naming them should be to show how they are distinct from each other.

Which brings me to Gen Z. This is a term we are seeing more and more, and I am tending to feel that those who use it are displaying a fundamental ignorance not only of generational change but even what a generation is. Gen Z tends to be used to describe today’s adolescents. But, because the youngest Millennial is currently 13 years old, the term Gen Z isn’t being applied to a new generation at all. It is being used to describe young, late-stage Millennials, which is sort of a segment of a segment.

The key characteristic of this microsegment (late-stage Millennials) of interest to researchers is that their parental generation has changed. Whereas the oldest half of the Millennial generation was largely parented by Boomers, the younger half has been parented by Gen X. This has some implications, but today’s teens are still Millennials and will exhibit Millennial traits.

The term “Gen Z” makes is cringe-worthy as it lays bare a fundamental misunderstanding of the generations. I even saw a study released recently on “Gen Z college students.”  Not sure I understand that, as the leading edge of the generation after Millennials is at most 12 years old currently. We are at least five years from the first member of the next generation showing up on campus.

“Gen Z” is also being used to refer to the generation that will come after Millennials (currently children aged up to 12 and yet to be born).  I have also seen this new generation referred to as “post-Millennial.”  And, what are we to name the generation that comes after this Gen Z? We’ve run out of letters, so perhaps we will have to use a spreadsheet convention and call them Generation AA.

Just like for previous generations, I’d expect to see today’s youngest generation eventually named in a way that describes who they are. I have heard some reasonable candidates:  The Homeland Generation, the iGen, The Pluralist Generation, etc. These all are descriptive. If the past is any indication, sometime in the next 10 years some name will achieve consensus (and it won’t be “Gen Z”).

For now please join me in cringing whenever you hear someone say the term “Gen Z.” J.

Are Teenagers Widgets?

Many educational strategy proposals to better engage students assume that all students are similar in how they are motivated to do their best. Yet, students are likely to respond to educational challenges put before them very differently. Students may be engaged in different ways and perhaps not fit into a “one best model” of schooling. Ask any parent that has more than one child, and he/she is likely to tell you just how different their kids are.

Crux Research recently completed a project for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute entitled What Teens Want From Their Schools: A National Survey of High School Student Engagement. This project was based on more than 2,000 interviews and six focus groups of US High School Students. A central feature of the project was a segmentation model that highlighted that although there are many aspects of student engagement that students hold in common, students tend to be strongly associated with one of six primary engagement tendencies. In short, it is unlikely that one model of schooling can be optimal for all children.

A full report of this project is available here.


Visit the Crux Research Website www.cruxresearch.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.