Posts Tagged 'Millennials'

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 our public places too noisy? Americans think so!

Crux Research recently conducted a poll for the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. It found that many Americans are concerned about their exposure to noise when taking part in out-of-home leisure activities. Many also say that noise lessens their enjoyment of many activities and causes them to decide not to take part in them at times.

Perhaps most surprising is that Millennials were just about as likely as Boomers to be concerned about noise when taking part in leisure activities.

For more information on this poll, ASHA’s press release is here.

And, a detailed summary of the poll can be found here.

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.

Will Young People Vote?

picture2

Once again we are in an election cycle where the results could hinge on a simple question:  will young people vote? Galvanizing youth turnout is a key strategy for all candidates. It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that Millennial voters hold the key to the future political leadership of the country.

But, this is nothing specific to Millennials and to this election. Young voters have effectively been the “swing vote” since the election of Kennedy in 1960. Yet, young voter turnout is consistently low relative to other age groups.

The 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971 giving 18-21 year olds the right to vote for the first time. This means that anyone born in 1953 or later has never been of age at a time when they could not vote in a Presidential election. So, only those who are currently 64 or older (approximately) will have turned 18 at a time when they were not enfranchised.

This right did not come easily. The debate about lowering the voting age started in earnest during World War II, as many soldiers under 21 (especially those drafted into the armed forces) didn’t understand how they could be expected to sacrifice so much for a country if they did not have a say in how it was governed. The movement gained steam during the cultural revolution of the 1960’s and culminated in the passage of the 26th Amendment.

Young people celebrated their new found right to vote, and then promptly failed to take advantage of it. The chart below shows 18-24 year old voter turnout compared to totalvoter turnout for all Presidential election years since the 26th Amendment was ratified.

picture1

Much was made of Obama’s success in galvanizing the young vote in 2008. However, there was only a 2 percentage point gain increase in young voter turnout in 2008 versus 2004. As the chart shows, there was a big falloff in young voter participation in 1996 and 2000, which were the last elections before Millennials comprised the bulk of the 18-24 age group.

It remains that young voters are far less likely to vote than older adults and that trend is likely to continue.

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.

“I wish that I could be like the cool kids”

In today’s digital environment, marketers are often seeking a viral way to spread news about their product or to stoke a trend. Traditional thinking was that trends spread predictably. Trends were seen to launch on the west coast (usually from urban environments), spread to the east coast, and eventually make their way to middle America and a mass market. This is why so many “cool seeker” or “trend seeker” researcher panels were established. By connecting to the cool kids in the right environments, marketers could get an early sense of what was going to happen next and get on board for the ride. They could seed ideas with the right audience and let nature take its course.

The Internet has largely blown up this paradigm. It has become a great “leveler” of youth trends. Now, a trend can start anywhere, become viral seemingly randomly, and spin out of control quickly. A geographic center of trends is hard to pinpoint if it exists at all. In research, “trend seeker” panels have become more of an oddity in market research – and have been supplanted largely by online communities of teens from across the country.

How can a communications and “connecting” technology (the Internet) have such a profound impact on how innovations and trends take hold?

Innovation diffusion to the mainstream has been the subject of academic study for some time.  Perhaps the most seminal work in the field came in 1962 when Everett Rogers published The Diffusion of Innovations. This book has been required reading at MBA marketing programs for more than 50 years.

In this book, Rogers outlines a classic theory. Innovators (2-3% of the population) start using a product. Early adopters (10%-15%) see what the innovators are doing and jump on board quickly. Next, the early majority (30%-35%) jumps on board as the hype around the product peaks. The late majority (30%-34%) gets on board. Finally, eventually the laggards (10%-15%) join in.

For decades, this thinking caused marketers to focus a disproportionate effort on the innovators – the 2%-3% of the population that supposedly spark new trends. This concept is the underpinning of why marketing dollars flow towards young people, urban consumers, minorities, etc. as marketers hope to start a chain reaction through the Rogers segments. Why have we had such a focus on youth marketing? It isn’t because they have a lot of money to spend, as compared to other age segments they don’t.  It is because marketers feel they are influential.

New media and viral marketing has made this thinking even more prevalent. If we can just reach the influencers, we’ll let loose a viral effect and sell a lot of product. Unfortunately, this thinking is a good example of applying an old paradigm to a new world.

Even in the pre-Internet past, this thinking tended to work more on a “fad” than a “trend” level. To illustrate this, in presentations I often ask the audience to write down what they think the most successful marketing brands and products have been in the past 10 years that are youth-oriented. I pause, and then list them out on a whiteboard. Typical responses are as follows:

  • The iPhone
  • Harry Potter franchise
  • American Idol
  • Barbie
  • National Football League
  • Various Boy Bands

I then point out that franchises like these, which have hit it incredibly big with youth, all have one thing in common. They didn’t diffuse to the mainstream in the Rogers fashion. They didn’t start by being popular with cool kids. Rather, they found a way to go directly to the mainstream. Oftentimes, they got there by being shunned by the cool kids.

I believe the rise of the Internet will eventually (once they catch on) cause marketers to stop thinking in the traditional way about how new trends diffuse to the mainstream. The introverted kid in the Midwest who has a popular blog is fast becoming more influential than the hipster on the street in Los Angeles. Marketers will find more direct tributaries to the mainstream, and the cool hunter research panels that still exist in the market research industry will disappear.