Mediatel Logo original-file's-desc Mediatel Logo Connected: Display Connected: Media Landscape Connected: Regional Connected: AV Consumer Surveys Connected: Direct LinkedIn LinkedIn logo icon Twitter Twitter logo icon Youtube Youtube logo icon Flickr Flickr logo icon Instagram Instagram logo icon Mail Mail icon Down arrow

Marketing needs more generational research, not less

23 Oct 2018  |  Tracey Follows 
Marketing needs more generational research, not less

As advertisers, we should be thinking critically about current Millennial beliefs and behaviours - and what that is now creating in the next generation, writes futurist Tracey Follows

The bashing of generational research has become a trend in recent marketing commentary.

Just as it was fashionable around the turn of this century to eat and repeat anything about this exciting new cohort called ‘Millennials’, now it is fashionable to rubbish the very idea of such a group. Trend agencies double down on their research whilst the commentariat either ignores or reviles it. That’s right, the discourse itself is part of a predictable trend: polarisation.

As usual the truth lies somewhere between two extremes.

But more than that, it is the tendency of marketeers to oversimplify generational issues that has left the more nuanced (and I would argue more interesting) insights about how and why generations behave as they do unexplored and on the innovation battlefield.

Millennials are people interested in nothing but avocados and Airbnb, if we believe many a pen-portrait of this group. Equally, generational naysayers depict them as young and idealistic, something they will grow out of when they graduate to their next life-stage.

All of this is nonsense. All of it is a caricaturing of a group of people who are huge in number and are actually, at the upper level, pushing forty.

The man who coined the term 'Millennial' was of course the historian and economist, Neil Howe. He has described Millennials as communitarians, but also as those who have lost trust in the system.

He writes: "[They] first arrived when Baby-on-Board signs appeared. Child abuse and child safety became hot topics while books teaching virtues and values became best-sellers. Today politicians define adult issues in terms of their effects on children. Hollywood is replacing cinematic child devils with child angels and cable TV and the internet are cordoning off child-friendly havens."

Notice that it is not with technology per se that he describes the world into which Millennials came, but the social attitudes and cultural influences that formed how they were treated by other generations. His description, written in 1997, already hinted at why 20 years later we might be using the word 'snowflakes' so enthusiastically.

The thing is, never does he describe Millennials in isolation - as separate from our understanding of other generations and their traits, beliefs and behaviours.

Anyone who knows anything about Howe and his co-author, William Strauss, knows that they believed one of the reasons foresight into future events and cultural context is so lacking is because present day society has such a linear view of time. Certainly, within media and marketing, aided by the faith in technological advancement, there is a belief that we are moving irreversibly in an upward, forward direction.

What we hear in politics we hear in marketing too: 'progressive' parties become 'progressive' consumers. It is a straight line extrapolation from the past - no bends, no reversals, no counter-trends... just 'onwards and upwards.'

But trends are cyclical, and I fundamentally believe that, like nature, change in our society and culture is too. Trends only describe more of something or less of something, rather than something that is brand new and did not exist before.

Sadly, because academia is so bent on either ignoring our past or completely reinventing it in a way that is unrecognisable to most of us, we are discouraged from looking at the past to help inform the future. As William Faulkner put it: "The past is never dead, it's not even the past." In losing our appreciation of the cyclical nature of change (the impact of the past on the present and on what lies ahead), we have lost our full appreciation of context.

If you want to understand people, to communicate with them and perhaps even persuade them, it is better to spend more time thinking not about your message, but the response that it will create. That was one of the great lessons I learnt from the works of Stephen King.

Just as in advertising, in generational research and foresight we also need to better understand not what a specific generation want, or value, or do - but what response that will create in those that come after. As Strauss, who ran political cabaret, was famous for saying: “Our generation’s punch line is the next generation's set up line."

The Millennial generation is not only heavily influenced by the generation that went before it, but by the other generations that still occupy status in the global order - those who rule us, or who sit as judges of us, or hold academic sway over us. It is the seniors in academia and in politics who are the ones pushing a radical agenda today - the boomers, not the Millennials or generation Y’s or Z’s. Their views and values need to be properly understood too.

Let’s not dismiss Millennials, let us understand them. They are neither angels nor villains but merely a product of the world around them. In understanding them more (not less) we will understand what is likely to happen, or certainly the context for what could happen, in the future.

I will admit that I find Strauss and Howe’s Fourth Turning rather persuasive. I do think that there is something to be said for treating the saeculum as one seasonal cycle of history and that every 20 years or so there is a generational change, or turning, that refreshes the social mood somewhat and strengthens or weakens institutions, creating or destroying what it needs to at the time.

Those familiar with their work will know that in 1997, Strauss and Howe forecast a fourth turning - a crisis that would last about a generation, or twenty years - that would come about in or around 2005. Since then we have awarded the Global Financial Crisis of 2007/8 with that mantle.

We are living through that turbulent fourth turning now, but what’s more interesting is to investigate why Millennials in particular (and all of us more generally) have reacted to the turbulence in the way we have. For it was the undisciplined Boomers who decided not to impose moral restraints on adults but on children, and the non-committal Generations X’s who have let Millennials linger longer in childhood than any generation before.

This is what is manifesting within our time. No-one should be surprised at the emergence of the morality police who monitor what we can and cannot say, or the daily demands of sociable, team-orientated group-lead activism. These are not only Millennial manifestations but manifestations of the responses to generational behaviour that has gone before.

As Howe and Strauss wrote in 1997, Millennials will not rebel but will mobilise for public purpose:

“Where Boomer children came to the conclusion the adult world was culturally deficient but well run, Millennial children will come to the opposite discovery; that adults understand values well enough but don’t know how to apply them to public life. They will reach voting age acutely aware of their own potential power to meet this need. They will organise huge youth rallies and produce vast voter turnouts.

"A new breed of college activists will band together not to resist national leaders but to prod them into taking bolder steps. Starting with the election of 2000, when the first Millennials will vote, anything perceived to be a barrier to their future will provoke heated political argument.”

I don't think we want less generational research but more, and we should start by thinking critically about current Millennial beliefs and behaviour and what it is bringing about in the next generation - a generation of compliant children, discouraged from risk-taking and familiar with safe-spaces.

And we should be asking now how their in-built anxiety will affect the civic lives, and the consumer lives, of us all in the future.

Tracey Follows is the founder of Futuremade and writes on the subject of strategic foresight each month for Mediatel


Leave a comment

Thank you for your comment - a copy has now been sent to the Mediatel Newsline team who will review it shortly. Please note that the editor may edit your comment before publication.

MikeFollett, Managing Director, Lumen on 28 Oct 2018
“It must be hard being an opinion writer. You get paid for your opinions on something, so you don’t want to waste too many words on setting the scene - you want to get on with opinioning. But this article could have really done with some facts to act as a foundation for the opinions. Fact 1: proof that Millennials exist. Is it worth having an opinion about something until we are pretty sure it exists? Is there such a thing as the Millennial Generation except in the mind of ‘futurologists’? It seems to me a very provincial and unhistorical concept: it makes no sense in India or China, or amongst poor communities within Western countries, or any other society at any other time in the whole of human history. If no one else, anywhere, ever has taken ‘generational research’ seriously, isn’t it incumbent on a writer to justify its validity as a conceptual tool?

Fact 2: history is a series of ‘Turnings’. This isn’t a new theory, though Howe and Strauss have plumbed a new low in the idiocy and mendacity of their thinking. In the West, the idea that the past can directly predict the future was popularised by the millenarian (as opposed to Millennial) monk Joachim of Fiore. He thought that there were four ages too, and, guess what, that we were about to enter the fourth (futurists always think we’re about to enter a new stage, usually the fourth of four. I think it helps with book sales or page views). But this article doesn’t adduce any facts to support the idea that there are Turnings in history, or that there are four of them, or that we’re living through the fourth. Probably for the best, because there’s very little evidence to support the idea. Howe and Strauss’s combined thinking is even more blinkered and provincial than Howe’s solo writing. Their book is solely concerned with rich, white Americans. It says nothing at all about Europe, India or China - or even next door neighbours like Mexico. Do all nations go through the same pattern at the same time? Are we all in sync, or are the Canadians on Stage 4 and the Congolese on Stage 2? When will someone write the definitive account of the Great Belgian Turning? Howe and Strauss’s thinking is hermetically sealed off from the rest of human experience: as apocalyptic and self-regarding as the Book of Daniel (which was, incidentally, the inspiration for Joachim of Fiore). The truth is that there are no Turnings in the world. It’s just a story that we tell ourselves, and not a very good or useful story.

Tracey keeps on saying that marketers (and ‘futurologists’, I presume) should learn from history. Too right. I just think that she should eat her own biscuit. She should read more (and better) history books, and perhaps think about reading some historiography too. She would learn that all of history is just a story that we tell ourselves, and that many of these stories are not any good or very useful. But that at least would make her seem less naive in her statements about the past, and the future.”
CharlieMakin, Managing Director, Pintarget on 27 Oct 2018
“Research exists to explain behaviour, my concern is that if you start with a strong theory, for example that date of birth is the key to explaining behaviour, it limits real insight. What about the differences in location and links that cross generations within local communities? I'm reading David Goodhart's The Road to Somewhere, which divides the population into Anywheres and Somewheres, not by age, but economic prospect. Location is as important as age, look at BBC2 The Mighty Redcar and compare it to Made in Chelsea, similar generations, fundamentally different attitudes and consumer behaviour. More research into generational behaviour needs to understand location and complex community relationships, in my view a millenial in Redcar has little in common with one Chelsea, it might be an extreme example but explains the need to delve deeper than date of birth to explain behaviour.”


27 May 2020 

Data from Mediatel Connected
Find out more about the UK's most comprehensive aggregator of media data.

Arrange a demo

Mediatel News bulletins

Receive weekly round-ups of the latest comment, opinion and media news, direct to your inbox.

More Info
Sign up now