Posts Tagged 'Youth marketing'

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.

Congratulations to Truth Initiative!

Congratulations again to our client, Truth Initiative!  Last week Truth won 4 Effies and 2 Big Apple awards for its anti-tobacco campaigns.

Read more about these wins here:  truth campaign grabs 4 effies, 2 big apple awards.

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.

How the truth campaign plans to end youth smoking once and for all

Excellent article on a great client!

http://www.fastcocreate.com/3049629/behind-the-brand/how-the-truth-campaign-plans-to-end-youth-smoking-once-and-for-all

Millennials as Entrepreneurs?

shark-tank-sharks

A few years back, I followed a symposium speaker who described how today’s youth generation (Millennials) were likely to be highly entrepreneurial. Her reasoning seemed to be that big ideas and companies tend to be launched by young trendy people willing to take risks, that experiences such as the founding of Facebook show how far technology can take a young person with big ideas, and that there are so many Millennials that big things were about to happen.

I disagree. Here is a prognostication to file and look at in about 20 years: when all is said and done, history will judge Millennials as one of the LEAST entrepreneurial of the recent generations.

Why? There are some key characteristics of Millennials that lead strongly to this conclusion.

  1. Millennials are risk-averse. If you look at long term trends on almost any risk behavior, you will see that Millennials are on the good side of history.  Drug, alcohol, and tobacco use has plummeted, crimes committed by young people have declined, teen pregnancy rates are at their lowest in decades, and college attendance is at an all-time high.
  2. Millennials have grown up in a world of structure and protection. This is a “comfortable” generation that largely hasn’t felt a need to act out or to fend for themselves as children.  Just a generation ago Gen Xers were known as lightly-parented, latch-key kids, who as a consequence had to learn to find their own creative solutions to problems they encountered.  Millennials have not had to develop these types of skills. In fact, many Millennials expect to move back in with their parents for a time post-college, and much of this boomerang mentality is from a desire to return to their parents, not just out of economic necessity.
  3. As Millennials have come of age, the education system has evolved in a narrow way, with an almost exclusive focus and reward structure around STEM fields. Many would say that creativity has become collateral damage along the way. This develops college graduates with incredible technical skills, but boxes them in creatively.
  4. Today’s employers are focusing more than ever on the care and feeding of their Millennial employees. They no longer hire gobs of college graduates and let them fight their way to the top.  Rather, they have instituted career advancement and mentorship programs and seem much more willing to invest in the development of their young employees.
  5. Finally, Millennials seek structure and security in employment. Each year Universum conducts a college student survey which asks pending college graduates whom their ideal employer is. Just as the Millennial generation started graduating college, larger organizations, former startups that had become huge companies, and even governmental agencies started taking over the top 10. Would you believe that the #3 most desirable employer among humanities graduates is currently the US Department of State? Or that #4 is the United Nations? Or that #6 is the FBI? Incredibly, even the NSA makes the top 10.

Millennials seem perfectly formed for larger organizations that take the time truly understand them. They will desire the structure and caring these organizations can provide as it parallels the structure and caring that has surrounded them their whole lives.  They will of course want to be able to express their ideas and find creative solutions to problems.  What we are now seeing in large organizations is a willingness to allow them to do so.

This is not to say that in 20 years we won’t look back and see some incredible firms that were started by Millennials, as we certainly will. But, compared to their Gen X predecessors, I’ll be very surprised if this generation is characterized as entrepreneurial in a historical sense.

Just ask them: 9 out of 10 high school students are above average

0001

We often have a need to ask a question that relates to academic performance in studies – so we can analyze results across a range of academic achievement. We necessarily have to rely on self-reports, and kids and teens tend to paint a fairly optimistic performance of their academic performance.

I used to think that this sort of optimism associated with your grades tended to result from faulty memory more than anything intentional. I know that my high school GPA and my college track times have miraculously improved as I have aged. But our results suggest that this isn’t the case – that students will greatly overstate their academic performance while they are still in high school.

The question we ask is straightforward: Which best describes your academic performance so far?

What we find is the following …

  • 7% of students will say they are in the top 1% of the class
  • 17% will say they are in the top 5%
  • 38% will say they are in the top 15%
  • 61% will say they are in the top 25%
  • 90% will say they are in the top 50%

So, 90% of high school students feel they are above average academically.

Is this a problem? I tend to think not – having confidence and a healthy sense of self-worth can be a good thing as children move out on their own. However, when this inflated sense of performance moves towards narcissism or unrealistic expectations it can be setting our children up for failure.

It can be challenging to ascribe a cause to this. Most commentators agree that the Millennial generation is characterized as being over-protected and having adults in their lives who continually reinforce how special they are. Grade inflation in schools and colleges can engender this feeling. Youth sports have moved to encouraging and reinforcing participation at least as much as rewarding successful competition. I suppose this all yields a generation with a healthy ego, but not necessarily one that has learned to deal with failure.

When searching for causes, we need to look towards parents as well, as they set the context for their children. In a parallel study, we have shown that parents are even more likely to feel their children are above average than the children themselves are. Among parents …

  • 11% will say their child is in the top 1% of the class
  • 40% will say their child is in the top 5%
  • 63% will say their child is in the top 15%
  • 84% will say their child is in the top 25%
  • 93% will say their child is in the top 50%

Again, while there may be positives in parents being optimistic regarding the abilities of their children, it can also be a cause of complacency. Why does the US lag other countries in test performance? Perhaps when this many parents overstate their children’s academic achievement it is difficult to create any urgency behind the issue. It is quite common on surveys to see parents state that the nation’s schools are doing a poor job, but their local district is outstanding.

“Well, that’s the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.” –Garrison Keillor

The Evolution of Youth Marketing

Youth marketing is sometimes described as an “industry.” It has its own consultants, specialized agencies, and researchers. In my own lifetime I’ve seen marketing to kids move from something to be feared to something that is expected.

It can be somewhat disturbing to attend youth marketing conferences and hear militaristic terms used to describe children. Youth have become “targets,” a segment to be “captured,” and a demographic to be “penetrated.” I’ll never forget being at a youth conference where a presenter came dressed in full camouflaged military regalia and carried a fake shotgun. His theme was that if you want to capture the youth market, it is necessary to “hunt” them in their native habitat. More disturbing than the talk was the 200 or so youth marketers in the audience that didn’t seem disturbed by his characterization of children.

It is interesting to think about how we have gotten to this point as marketers. Viewing youth marketing through a historical and generational lens can yield some insight. So, let’s travel in time together and look at the evolution of youth marketing.

If we go way back, to when the Silent Generation (born 1925–1942) were children, we see that these were the offspring of some very difficult times. They were children of the Depression and war years, and were characterized as desiring conformity and security. At this time the marketing world itself was just getting established, and marketers were struggling to promote their wares at a time of economic uncertainty and war rationing. There was no “mass” way to reach consumers, as movies/news reels, local newspapers, and magazines were the key media of the day. Youth marketing at this time simply didn’t exist. Marketers were treading careful waters with adults.

The Boomer Generation (born 1943–1960) brought forth a huge increase in the number of children in the US, as well as America’s prominence in the world economy. These were Dr. Spock babies – raised by permissive parents, who became quite rebellious and self-centered later. This marked the advent of the TV age, and with limited channels and programming, marketers could reach a mass of consumers at the same time. For youth marketers, we typically call this the “children are to be seen and not heard” era. This time period witnessed the birth of the brand management system. Many marketing techniques in use today were created and refined at this time. But, there was such unfettered growth in adult markets that children were largely an afterthought for marketers.

This changed as Xers (birth years 1961–1981) came of age. Xers were born at tough time to be a kid. Divorce rates skyrocketed, parents focused on their own achievements, and the term “latch-key child” took hold.  Xers have been fiercely independent ever since, as they had to learn to do many things on their own. Just as marketers had a new way to reach kids directly (Saturday morning TV, and later kid cable channels), many brands began to mature, and marketers started hunting for growth.  One place they found was children. But, at this time, we remained in a parent-centric world, so marketing to children was really done by proxy – by marketing to Mom. Marketers discovered the youth market at this time, but addressed this market largely via their mothers.

Then came the Millennials (birth years 1982–2004). This is a sizeable generation (the Echo Boom) that has been watched and studied since they were born. They are characterized by over-protective parents, being reared largely in boom economic times, and as being risk-averse, team oriented, and in constant need of affirmation. Far from the “children are to be seen and not heard” era, this period marked a transition where youth became a central focus of society. Digital media came on the scene, allowing more targeted marketing approaches. So, how did marketers address them? Marketers quickly saw opportunity in youth markets and started applying sophisticated marketing techniques to them. For most of this era, marketers made what we consider to be a monumental mistake:  they concentrated on youth largely to the exclusion of parents. There was a sense among marketers at this time that if you try to market to both parents and kids at the same time you will fail at both. Marketers (who often hailed from Gen X themselves) often felt children were as independent as they were, and despite the sophisticated tools at their disposal, had a difficult time understanding the partnerships that were developing between children and their parents.

Which brings us to today’s kid generation, the Homeland Generation (birth years 2005 onward). These are kids growing up not just in an era of protectiveness via their parents, but also via society and the government. Political leaders often couch their policies in how well they will keep our children safe. Our culture is concerned that our children truly might not be better off than we were. Homelanders are also very much a “home centered” generation, as they don’t need to leave home (because of technology) to be entertained or to socialize, and they don’t wander much towards unstructured activities.  So, what are marketers learning now?  Largely, they are learning that youth marketing isn’t a matter of applying previous techniques to kids. Decision making processes are much more complex. For instance, think about the decision to buy a new video gaming system for the household.  Who makes that decision?  Mom?  Dad?  The Child?  Who pays for it? Who makes the actual transaction?  Who uses it once it is bought?

The decision process isn’t so clear cut because what you are really marketing to these days is a collaborative decision making unit and not an individual.  There is a marketing firm in our industry who says that youth marketers need to realize that their consumer has two heads, four arms, and four legs. We have seen many marketers who desperately want to be “kid-centric” stumble because they don’t truly understand the role of parents and just how collaborative households have become.

Historians typically resist writing about anything that has happened in the past 20 years because it is truly hard to understand larger trends without the benefit of a long-term perspective. The same is true about youth marketing today. Someday we’ll be able to look back and document what happened, but for now our best path is to look to broader, generational trends, and realize there is something happening here and we don’t know what it is.