Archive for the 'Youth Marketing' 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.

The most selective colleges have the least effective marketing

Recently, Stanford University made headlines for deciding to stop issuing an annual press release documenting its number of applicants and acceptances.

There has been a bit of an arms race among colleges with competitive admissions to be able to claim just how selective they are. The smaller the proportion of applicants accepted, the better the college does in many ranking systems and the more exclusive the “brand” of the college becomes.

This seems to be a bit crazy, as publicizing how few students are accepted is basically broadcasting how inefficient your college marketing system has become. We can’t think of any organization beyond colleges that would even consider doing something analogous to this – broadcasting to the world that they have enticed non-qualified buyers to consider their product.

I learned firsthand how ingrained this behavior is among college admissions and marketing personnel. About five years ago I had the pleasure to speak in front of a group of about 200 college marketers and high school counselors. I created what I felt was a compelling and original talk which took on this issue. I have given perhaps 200 talks in my career, and this one might have been the single most poorly received presentation I have ever delivered.

The main thrust of my argument was that as a marketer, you want to be as targeted as possible so as to not waste resources. “Acquisition cost” is an important success metric for markers: how much do you spend in marketing for every customer you are able to obtain? Efficiency in obtaining customers is what effective marketing is all about.

I polled the audience to ask what they felt the ideal acceptance rate would be for their applicants. Almost all responded “under 10%” and most responded “under 5%.” I then stated that the ideal acceptance rate for applicants would be 100%. The ideal scenario would be this: every applicant to your college would be accepted, would then choose to attend your institution, would go on to graduate, become a success, and morph into an engaged alumnus.

I used an analogy of a car dealership. Incenting college marketers to increase applications is akin to compensating a car salesperson for how many test drives he/she takes customers on. The dealership derives no direct value from a test drive. Every test drive that does not result in a car purchase is a waste of resources. The test drive is a means to an end and car dealers don’t tend to track it as a success metric. Instead, they focus on what matters – how many cars are sold and how much was spent in marketing to make that happen.

Colleges reward their marketers to get students to test drive when they should be rewarding their marketers for getting them to buy. This wouldn’t matter much if a high proportion of applicants were accepted and ending up attending.  But, even at highly selective colleges it is not uncommon for less than 10% of applicants to be accepted, less than 33% of those accepted to choose to attend, and less than 50% of those that enroll to actually end up graduating. At those rates, for every 1,000 applicants, just 17 will end up graduating from the institution. That is a success rate of 1.7%.

These are metrics that in any business context would be seen as a sign of an organization in serious trouble. Can you imagine if only 10% of the people who came in your store qualified to buy your product? And then if only a third of those would actually decide to do so? And then if half of those that do buy don’t end up using your product or return it? That is pretty much what happens at selective colleges.

This issue is a failure of leadership. College marketers I have worked with can often see this problem, but feel pressured by their Deans and College Presidents to maximize their applicant base. Granted, this can help build the college’s brand, but it is a huge drain on resources that are better spent ensuring targeting applicants who are poised for success at the institution. It has happened because selectivity is considered important in building a college’s brand. Stanford has taken a useful first step, and hopefully other colleges will follow their lead.

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.

 “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.

Americans value money and brains over looks

We recently posed a question on a national poll which required Americans to make an interesting choice:

If you could have one of the following, which would you choose?

  • I would have more money than I have today
  • I would be smarter than I am today
  • I would be better looking than I am today

This is a provocative cocktail party question. How would you answer it? How might your answer change depending on your life stage – would you answer it differently 15 years ago or 15 years into the future?

Across all ages (18+), 61% of Americans choose more money. It would be interesting to pose this question internationally to learn if this finding reflects American culture and capitalism or if this result reflects something universal to all people. Overall, 26% of US adults choose being smarter and 12% choose being better looking. So, it can be said that Americans value money and brains over looks.

We should note that there wasn’t a gender difference in the results. Males and females were just as likely to say all three options. There were a couple of interesting racial differences. Hispanics were least likely to say they would like more money and most likely to say they would like to be smarter. Blacks were as likely as others to say “money” but were more likely than others to say “better looking” and less likely to say “smarter.”

But, by far the largest and most interesting differences in this question related to the generation of the respondent. We’ve seen the Millennial generation maligned quite a bit recently, hearing that they are entitled and a bit lazy. We’ve never quite believed that, as the perception that a youth generation is disrespectful and lazy has been true since before the term “generation” was coined.

For instance, this is a quote from Socrates, and is about 2,400 years old:

“Children today are tyrants.  They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Mark Twain, late in his life, had this to say about children:

“When a child turns 12 you should put him in a barrel, nail the lid down, and feed him through a knot hole… When he turns 16, plug the hole.”                                              

One of the more cynical (and unintentionally humorous) quotations about children came from Clarence Darrow, almost a century ago:

“The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents and the second half by our children.”

But, back to our poll question.  There are currently five living generations:

First birth year

Final birth year Current youngest member

Current oldest member

Silent

1925

1942 75

92

Boom

1943

1960 57

74

Gen X

1961

1981 36

56

Milllennials

1982

2004 13

35

Homelanders 2005 2017 0

12

Which one do you think would be the most apt to choose “more money” in our question? We’d presume that most people would predict it would be Millennials. But, in reality, it is Boomers who are most likely to say money:

More Money Smarter Better Looking
Silent

54%

37%

9%

Boom

71%

19%

11%

Gen X

65%

26%

10%

Milllennials

52% 31%

17%

There are fascinating generational differences in this table.  Howe and Strauss have developed an excellent generational theory, and one aspect of it is that a generational cycle recurs through four archetypes. So, typically, a current youth generations will have a similar type and outlook as the oldest living generation. This theory is supported by the table above. It is the oldest (Silent) and youngest (Millennials) generations that are least concerned with money and relatively most concerned with being smarter.

Boomers come across as the most money-obsessed generation, which is interesting as they are in a life stage where personal net worth tends to peak. 71% of Boomers would prefer more money to being smarter or better looking.  Of course, with all generational conclusions, it could be more of a life stage issue at work – Boomers are currently between 57 and 74 years old and perhaps pre- and early-retirement are particularly money-centric life stages. But, we suspect that if we had conducted this poll over time Boomers would have been highly concerned with money compared to other generations throughout all life stages.

Finally, these results underscore a point we like to make with clients. It is challenging to fully understand a generation unless we widen the sampling frame and interview other generations as well. Had this question just been asked of Millennials, we may have concluded that money was an overriding concern for them. It is only when comparing them to other generations that we see that they value intelligence and smarts more than others.

Battle of the Brands is available for purchase!

boxing-glove

How does your brand compete with others in the battle to win today’s youth?

Crux Research has conducted a syndicated study of 57 youth-oriented brands that is available for purchase on Collaborata.  We have a “data only” option for sale for $4,900 and an option including a full report and consultation/presentation for $9,500.

Brands that succeed with Millennials can enjoy their loyalty for years to come. This study’s 13- to 24-year-old group is often given short shrift by brands that have a more adult target. That can prove to be short-sighted thinking. Teens and young adults not only spend significant amounts of their own money, they also influence the spending of parents, siblings, and other adults in their lives. They are the adult shoppers of the future; building a relationship with them now can translate into loyalty that lasts their lifetime. This study shows you exactly where your brand fares among this critical cohort right now and what you need to do increase young consumers’ engagement with your brand.

More information about this study can be found here.

Objectives for our “Battle of the Brands” project are as follows:

  • Compare and contrast the relative strengths across a variety of measures of 57 youth-oriented brands.
  • See how your brand is “personalized” — learn where it statistically maps across 32 brand personality dimensions.
  • Discover how the 57 brands fare on the key measures of Awareness, Brand Interaction, Brand Connection, Brand Popularity, and Motivation.
  • Take away key insights into why some brand succeed, while others struggle, with these Millennials and Gen Z consumers.
  • These brands have been selected from a wide range of categories, including social causes, media and entertainment, retail, technology, and consumer packaged goods.

Become a co-sponsor of this actionable today! Increase your brand’s youth standing tomorrow.

Asking about gender and sexual orientation on surveys

When composing questionnaires, there are times when the simplest of questions have to adjust to fit the times. Questions we draft become catalysts for larger discussions. That has been the case with what was once the most basic of all questions – asking a respondent for their gender.

This is probably the most commonly asked question in the history of survey research. And it seems basic – we typically just ask:

  • Are you… male or female?

Or, if we are working with younger respondents, we ask:

  • Are you … a boy or a girl?

The question is almost never refused and I’ve never seen any research to suggest this is anything other than a highly reliable measure.

Simple, right?

But, we are in the midst of an important shift in the social norms towards alternative gender classifications. Traditionally, meaning up until a couple of years ago, if we wanted to classify homosexual respondents we wouldn’t come right out and ask the question, for fear that it would be refused or be found to be an offensive question for many respondents. Instead, we would tend to ask respondents to check off a list of causes that they support. If they chose “gay rights”, we would then go ahead and ask if they were gay or straight. Perhaps this was too politically correct, but it was an effective way to classify respondents in a way that wasn’t likely to offend.

We no longer ask it that way. We still ask if the respondent is male or female, but we follow up to ask if they are heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc.

We recently completed a study among 4-year college students where we posed this question.  Results were as follows:

  • Heterosexual = 81%
  • Bisexual = 8%
  • Lesbian = 3%
  • Gay = 2%
  • Transgender = 1%
  • Other = 2%
  • Refused to answer = 3%

First, it should be noted that 3% refused to answer is less than the 4% that refused to answer the race/ethnicity question on the same survey.  Conclusion:  asking today’s college students about sexual orientation is less sensitive than asking them about their race/ethnicity.

Second, it is more important than ever to ask this question. These data show that about 1 in 5 college students identify as NOT being heterosexual. Researchers need to start viewing these students as a segment, just as we do age or race. This is the reality of the Millennial market:  they are more likely to self-identify as not being heterosexual and more likely to be accepting of alternative lifestyles. Failure to understand this group results in a failure to truly understand the generation.

We have had three different clients ask us if we should start asking this question younger – to high school or middle school students. For now, we are advising against it unless the study has clear objectives that point to a need. Our reasoning for this is not that we feel the kids will find the question to be offensive, but that their parents and educators (whom we are often reliant on to be able to survey minors) might. We think that will change over time as well.

So, perhaps nothing is as simple as it seems.


Visit the Crux Research Website www.cruxresearch.com

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