Millenials killed broad generalizations: generational politics

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Millenials killed broad generalizations: generational politics

«‹›3 »

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Baronash posted:

The assumption you're making, which I disagree with, is that culture is a monolith and shifts for everyone equally. The US isn't one culture, it's a wide variety that exist together. I'm not just talking about ethnic groups either. Cattle ranchers of the American Southwest have a different culture than Greater Chicago-area suburbanites, or even fruit and vegetable farmers of the Pacific Northwest. Even if, for example, a technological change was constant across all cultures in the US, the different sociopolitical, economic, and environmental factors at play would result in a number of different cultural shifts occurring simultaneously. That's not really important, however, because change is never constant. Access to broadband internet has been subject to geographical factors since its inception, and there is still a significant digital divide in rural areas. Moving forward, self-driving cars are unlikely to be a significant presence on the road for several decades, but that same technology will have a much more immediate impact on farming. As a result, linking cultural shifts to a specific period of time, and then making assumptions about people based on those shifts, is akin to astrology.

Also the ~20 year time periods are just an arbitrary thing to make world war II into some weird zero AD. 9/11 is clearly a huge factor that changed a ton of people's lives and the culture of the US in a major way for lots of people but it gets to sit in an awkward place in generation definitions, while everything about world war II got to sit neatly. And if there was a nuclear war with north korea or something massive that effected everyone it'd get to be in an even sillier place for generation definitions and events just need to be lucky to land in a set of years that makes it fit well for describing "a generation" with their preset cycle of resetting every two decades.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 00:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 21:20

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Baronash posted:

Generations as a concept are such a joke that I don't even understand why we're taking them seriously. This is US-centric, but I'm sure most of it applies elsewhere.

By their very nature, generations give the impression of suddenness in cultural change. We ascribe certain features to people born in an arbitrarily-defined period, and for whatever reason assume that these features emerged out of thin air. Instead of recognizing and highlighting trends, generations reduce change to a binary system: this generation has job loyalty, this generation doesn't.

Even assuming that the characters of millions of people can be reduced to a handful of generalizations, which is an absurd notion, these generalizations are constructed based on a comically narrow group: middle to upper class, minimum second generation, generally white Americans. The common image of prosperous WWII vets (the "greatest generation") moving to the suburbs and raising the Baby Boomers paints a rosy picture of what was the most concentrated period of white flight in the 20th century.

If technological change is a driver of cultural and societal change, then generations can not accurately map cultural change in an era of rapid advancement. 1980-2000 seems to be a fairly common range of birth years for the alleged millennial generation, a group of people described as "digital natives." At 15, a kid born in 1980 might have had a family computer in the house, possibly with a dial-up connection that was fairly expensive and mostly for his parents' use. At 15, a kid born in 2000 could very well have a computer more powerful than that in their pocket, with round-the-clock connectivity and a far more engaging array of uses. To call both of these individuals "digital natives" and expect it to mean anything about their relationship with technology is loving laughable.

But the greatest reason to rebuke the concept of generations is that their entire existence in pop culture is as a tool to dismiss people. "Why aren't young people buying houses? Well because they're millennials of course! They're selfish, aren't interested in serious relationships, and want to mooch off their parents." It's an opportunity to turn off the brain and make yourself feel better by employing stereotypes about those older or younger than you. We have millions of people with varied experiences reacting to numerous social, environmental, and economic pressures. Instead of trying to recognize these pressures and perhaps bring about change, we allow pop scientists and opinion writers to convince us that these are simply problems with people of a certain age.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 01:44

Wild Horses: Oct 31, 2012; There's really no meaning in making beetles fight.

I like horoscopes myself.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 03:41

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

Baronash posted:

Generations as a concept are such a joke that I don't even understand why we're taking them seriously. This is US-centric, but I'm sure most of it applies elsewhere.

By their very nature, generations give the impression of suddenness in cultural change. We ascribe certain features to people born in an arbitrarily-defined period, and for whatever reason assume that these features emerged out of thin air. Instead of recognizing and highlighting trends, generations reduce change to a binary system: this generation has job loyalty, this generation doesn't.

Even assuming that the characters of millions of people can be reduced to a handful of generalizations, which is an absurd notion, these generalizations are constructed based on a comically narrow group: middle to upper class, minimum second generation, generally white Americans. The common image of prosperous WWII vets (the "greatest generation") moving to the suburbs and raising the Baby Boomers paints a rosy picture of what was the most concentrated period of white flight in the 20th century.

If technological change is a driver of cultural and societal change, then generations can not accurately map cultural change in an era of rapid advancement. 1980-2000 seems to be a fairly common range of birth years for the alleged millennial generation, a group of people described as "digital natives." At 15, a kid born in 1980 might have had a family computer in the house, possibly with a dial-up connection that was fairly expensive and mostly for his parents' use. At 15, a kid born in 2000 could very well have a computer more powerful than that in their pocket, with round-the-clock connectivity and a far more engaging array of uses. To call both of these individuals "digital natives" and expect it to mean anything about their relationship with technology is loving laughable.

But the greatest reason to rebuke the concept of generations is that their entire existence in pop culture is as a tool to dismiss people. "Why aren't young people buying houses? Well because they're millennials of course! They're selfish, aren't interested in serious relationships, and want to mooch off their parents." It's an opportunity to turn off the brain and make yourself feel better by employing stereotypes about those older or younger than you. We have millions of people with varied experiences reacting to numerous social, environmental, and economic pressures. Instead of trying to recognize these pressures and perhaps bring about change, we allow pop scientists and opinion writers to convince us that these are simply problems with people of a certain age.

I agree, and a lot of that stuff is stuff I mentioned in my original post.

I think a lot of what you are attacking is a strawman, although a strawman that maybe isn't a strawman because you will actually see powerpoint presentations where it lays out bullet points of how people born between 1965-1980 behave. Like I don't believe there are walls where suddenly people born after a certain year suddenly start behaving differently.

But the fact that there is no single point where you can say generational changes are obvious doesn't mean that in the scale of things they don't make a difference. Someone born in 1995 and someone born in 1965 obviously have big differences in experience and worldview. And just personally, as someone born in 1979, I do feel that my experiences are closer to someone born in 1995 than they are to someone born in 1965, even though in terms of years, that doesn't quite add up.

But I am not asking anyone to believe my generational experiences are someone objectively valid, that is why I posed the question.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 04:10

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

glowing-fish posted:

But the fact that there is no single point where you can say generational changes are obvious doesn't mean that in the scale of things they don't make a difference. Someone born in 1995 and someone born in 1965 obviously have big differences in experience and worldview. And just personally, as someone born in 1979, I do feel that my experiences are closer to someone born in 1995 than they are to someone born in 1965, even though in terms of years, that doesn't quite add up.

But someone in 1965 in sub Saharan Africa or Russia or whatever wouldn't have anything in common based on birth year and once you admit that stuff varies geographically you have to ask why it applies across the whole US.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 04:21

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Baronash posted:

Even assuming that the characters of millions of people can be reduced to a handful of generalizations, which is an absurd notion, these generalizations are constructed based on a comically narrow group: middle to upper class, minimum second generation, generally white Americans. The common image of prosperous WWII vets (the "greatest generation") moving to the suburbs and raising the Baby Boomers paints a rosy picture of what was the most concentrated period of white flight in the 20th century.

I think this, and the general criticism of generations, is essentially valid. That said, the idea of society shaping people as a group toward certain behaviors still seems to make sense; it's just that this shaping is very different for the people enjoying the status quo, the ones who get to reshape the status quo in their image, and the ones who are being held down by the status quo.

Obviously what is the status quo is not uniform across the Earth, but if you accept that it's more of a per-society generalization about the political majority it might be decently descriptive.

Baronash posted:

If technological change is a driver of cultural and societal change, then generations can not accurately map cultural change in an era of rapid advancement. 1980-2000 seems to be a fairly common range of birth years for the alleged millennial generation, a group of people described as "digital natives." At 15, a kid born in 1980 might have had a family computer in the house, possibly with a dial-up connection that was fairly expensive and mostly for his parents' use. At 15, a kid born in 2000 could very well have a computer more powerful than that in their pocket, with round-the-clock connectivity and a far more engaging array of uses. To call both of these individuals "digital natives" and expect it to mean anything about their relationship with technology is loving laughable.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Also the ~20 year time periods are just an arbitrary thing to make world war II into some weird zero AD. 9/11 is clearly a huge factor that changed a ton of people's lives and the culture of the US in a major way for lots of people but it gets to sit in an awkward place in generation definitions, while everything about world war II got to sit neatly. And if there was a nuclear war with north korea or something massive that effected everyone it'd get to be in an even sillier place for generation definitions and events just need to be lucky to land in a set of years that makes it fit well for describing "a generation" with their preset cycle of resetting every two decades.

I don't think I've ever seen millennials defined either that neatly, nor that widely. The way I've seen them defined, millennials aren't defined as people born right up to the end of the millennium, it's people who actually got to consciously take in the the last years of 20th century. Basically, people who first absorbed the "End of History" optimism of the 90's in their childhood, then had that optimism dashed, first by 9/11 and the reaction to it during their adolescence, then the economy making GBS threads itself some years later when they should be establishing their careers. All of which are probably broadly applicable, not just in the US, but also Western Europe.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 14:12

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I don't think I've ever seen millennials defined either that neatly, nor that widely. The way I've seen them defined, millennials aren't defined as people born right up to the end of the millennium, it's people who actually got to consciously take in the the last years of 20th century. Basically, people who first absorbed the "End of History" optimism of the 90's in their childhood, then had that optimism dashed, first by 9/11 and the reaction to it during their adolescence, then the economy making GBS threads itself some years later when they should be establishing their careers. All of which are probably broadly applicable, not just in the US, but also Western Europe.

I mean, that is why it would be useful to talk about people that grew up in that time frame.

But like, weather that is a generation or just a random time frame depends entirely on if it fits some weird arbitrary cycle that people started at world war II as the origin point then made up generations forwards and backwards out from.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 14:51

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

You are allowed to admit that they're generalisations that aren't reliable on an individual level and subject to a lot of bullshit stereotypes, but also function as useful shorthand for segments of society experiencing real issues and phenomena.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 16:38

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Inescapable Duck posted:

You are allowed to admit that they're generalisations that aren't reliable on an individual level and subject to a lot of bullshit stereotypes, but also function as useful shorthand for segments of society experiencing real issues and phenomena.

Is it useful though?

Notice how people stopped talking about generation X about the very moment that it stop being a way to whine about MTV? And 90% of the time when people say "millennials" they mean tweens and young teenagers who are not millenials and rarely mean 30 year olds.

Like the whole use of "generation" theory is to talk about the baby boomers who seem to be a real cohort then just to whine about children sucking.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 16:54

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

But someone in 1965 in sub Saharan Africa or Russia or whatever wouldn't have anything in common based on birth year and once you admit that stuff varies geographically you have to ask why it applies across the whole US.

Because the US is a substantially more politically homogenous entity than Saharan Africa vs Russia.

It has a federal government and a single currency and a lot of centralized policy decisions that affect the entire population, or a large majority of it.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 16:58

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

But like, weather that is a generation or just a random time frame depends entirely on if it fits some weird arbitrary cycle that people started at world war II as the origin point then made up generations forwards and backwards out from.

Well, the Boomer generation is at least a fair starting point, being the most defined generation - since they're defined firstly by being part of the post-war baby boom. As you say, a real cohort. I was going to write something else, but thinking it through and looking at how other people define Millennials, I've kinda ended up in the "generations are useless" camp. I mean, if they actually divided birth years according to some relevant shared context then they might be a useful term for people that experienced that context, but if the same generation can have definitions which differ by like a decade in terms of duration then they're obviously not about some shared context. I can believe people born in the early 80's to early 90's could have some shared "Things were pretty good when I had no real responsibilities, then started turning to poo poo the moment I got some"-experience, but then you have people extending the Millennial term to include people born in the early 00's too who have pretty much only lived through the societal mood of a religion/culture war coupled with an economic crisis.

e: The definition of the upper-bound of a Millennial should be whether you got introduced to porn through magazines (likely in the form of woods porn) or the internet.

OwlFancier posted:

Because the US is a substantially more politically homogenous entity than Saharan Africa vs Russia.

It has a federal government and a single currency and a lot of centralized policy decisions that affect the entire population, or a large majority of it.

The US is even so politically, economically, and culturally powerful that US trends/generations will be reflected outside the US too, though of course some commonality is from living in a globalized world and not strictly the US affecting things directly.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Oct 5, 2017

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:29

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

A Buttery Pastry posted:

The US is even so politically, economically, and culturally powerful that US trends/generations will be reflected outside the US too, though of course some commonality is from living in a globalized world and not strictly the US affecting things directly.

And some are international to begin with, Thatcher/Reagan both having very similar outlooks at the same time.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:35

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

OwlFancier posted:

And some are international to begin with, Thatcher/Reagan both having very similar outlooks at the same time.

Yeah, we had our own version in Denmark too at the same time, who was followed by a third-way Social Democrat, and then a more military minded right-winger. If you mash Reagan and Bush Sr. together, the terms line up pretty much exactly. We were actually more synced with the US than the UK in this regard during this period.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:48

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Well, the Boomer generation is at least a fair starting point, being the most defined generation - since they're defined firstly by being part of the post-war baby boom. As you say, a real cohort.

I think you'd still be allowed to identify actual events that actually impacted people without trying to make it some codified 20-25 years thing.

Like you could "say people between X and Y ages were affected by 9/11 generally this way." without then having to make some framework to explain the next set of X to Y age people getting their own thing too.

Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Oct 5, 2017

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:48

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Also the average age of first parenthood in the US is now 26 years old so it's not even like the 20 year cycle even actually matches up with actual human generations even anyway. An actual real family would slip way out of sync with what "generation" their kids are supposed to be.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:51

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Generations are a marketing concept and are extremely useful in that framework, because marketing to people absolutely does differ based on their generational experience.

Using it for marketing makes sense, using it to define sociological trends...less so.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:52

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I think you'd still be allowed to identify actual events that actually impacted people without trying to make it some codified 20-25 years thing.

Like you could "say people between X and Y ages were affected by 9/11 generally this way." without then having to make some framework to explain the next set of X to Y age people getting their own thing to.

Yeah, the "fixed" interval thing plus having to stuff everyone into neat boxes is probably the biggest issue. Having the intervals be as long as 20-25 years is another, though making them much shorter makes the use of the word "generation" even weirder.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:55

DACK FAYDEN: Feb 25, 2013; Bear Witness

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

And 90% of the time when people say "millennials" they mean tweens and young teenagers who are not millenials and rarely mean 30 year olds.

No way. The millennials that are killing industries are the ones that make their own purchasing decisions, not the ones young enough that their parents still buy things for the entire household.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 18:22

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

I know it's been said a few times before, but generations are largely marketing and pop culture distinctions. For example, just look at all those beloved 80s and early 90s franchises that are getting movie remakes and such just as people who were kids in the 80s and 90s are finally starting to have the independence and money necessary to spend money on them.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 18:24

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

DACK FAYDEN posted:

No way. The millennials that are killing industries are the ones that make their own purchasing decisions, not the ones young enough that their parents still buy things for the entire household.

Are people born in 1976 the people that are using snapchat to send selfies with dog filters? Or even eating avocado toast?

When people talk about millennials they mash the definition around till they mean 18-30 year olds, but the "generations" timeline didn't split well to make that a thing so they have to just talk about like, a group that is half way in the millennial generation but only the younger half and half way into the pepsi generation or whatever dumb next thing they decide for a name but only the oldest part.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 18:40

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

The "official" Millennial generation cut off I've seen mostly agreed on is being born between 1982 and 2000.

When people want to rant about kids these days assuming they're talking about people below 18, they really mean the post-Millennial generation, which we haven't agreed on an "official" name for yet.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 18:46

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

I'm a millennial and I've never even seen avocado toast and don't have Instagram or Snapchat, but I have had to move thousands of miles for a raise!

# ? Oct 5, 2017 19:14

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Avocado on toast definitely sounds like the kind of awful thing my mum would eat.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 19:38

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Arglebargle III posted:

I'm a millennial and I've never even seen avocado toast and don't have Instagram or Snapchat, but I have had to move thousands of miles for a raise!

The process of moving sucks but moving new places and seeing different things even within your own country kinda rules. (Not that you should feel like you have to.)

Being in the same place, or god forbid the town you grew up in for too long rots one's brain.

edit: oh forgot this was d&d, pretend I said something even vaguely more thoughtful

# ? Oct 5, 2017 19:42

big trivia FAIL: May 9, 2003; "Jorge wants to be hardcore,
but his mom won't let him"

WampaLord posted:

The "official" Millennial generation cut off I've seen mostly agreed on is being born between 1982 and 2000.

When people want to rant about kids these days assuming they're talking about people below 18, they really mean the post-Millennial generation, which we haven't agreed on an "official" name for yet.

And even that is too broad; Someone who lived their entire childhood (someone born in 1982) and was 18 when someone else was born (someone born in 2000) will have such drastically different experiences that it's not even remotely sane to lump them together.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 21:36

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Arglebargle III posted:

I'm a millennial and I've never even seen avocado toast and don't have Instagram or Snapchat, but I have had to move thousands of miles for a raise!

I spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars to fly to australia and eat avocado toast and I feel like I could not be less interested in owning a house ever

# ? Oct 5, 2017 22:51

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars to fly to australia and eat avocado toast and I feel like I could not be less interested in owning a house ever

Disgusting

# ? Oct 5, 2017 23:26

BlueBlazer: Apr 1, 2010

As much as it is a marketing distinction, bridging digital divide really is the largest distinction barrier between the generations. Yes olds learn to use digital resources and there are youngs who have never used a CPU. Generally I'd say the younger you are the more likely you are to land on the digital side.

There is something different about someone who is wired to have the answers at finger tips all the time, the distinction isn't made as much by age I would think as by class if you are to remove the geographic element. 1st world country vs 3rd world.

What markers of generalization should be preferable? Marketing distinctions? Social Distinctions? Class? Racial? Geographic? If someone got really smart I bet they could make a model to show ones relation to the digital divide; if it hasn't already been done.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 23:34

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

What kind of marketing firm is using "generations" as their audience metric? That feels very 20 years ago. Marketers now have everything sliced up into a bunch of hyperfine bins of exact people that they know a bunch of super detailed aggregate data about.

Like what marketing firm in 2017 is going like "generation X? lets market to them"

quote:

Disgusting

the food or making it to your mid 30s unmarried and without kids and having infinity disposable income to fly around the world eating gross toast for no good reason instead of following the proscribed life path of past 'generations'?

Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Oct 6, 2017

# ? Oct 6, 2017 01:53

the old ceremony: Aug 1, 2017; by FactsAreUseless

i'm

# ? Oct 6, 2017 02:24

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Like what marketing firm in 2017 is going like "generation X? lets market to them"

Whoever was responsible for the Emoji movie, for example?

# ? Oct 6, 2017 03:59

Ramrod Hotshot: May 30, 2003

OP, I've read The Fourth Turning and it is a fun read. Strauss and Howe have a lot of circumstantial evidence for generations and their theory of history, and it is especially interesting given that they wrote it in the halcyon days of 1997 and predicted the current era of "crisis" (inasmuch as it is one) we have today. But if you think about for even a moment it's obvious the whole thing consists of absurdly broad generalizations, pseudoscience, circular reasoning, and even numerology. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

It's ironic that Strauss & Howe's most enduring contribution, identifying the "Millenial" generation, has been twisted into a byword for "kids these days". As a "hero" generation, we were supposed to work together as a unit, dissolve our fragmented countercultures into Starship Troopers-esque conservatism, and blindly follow our crusading Boomer leader into war. All while being indulged by older generations who would not stand for any obstacle being placed in our way, like student debt.

Instead, "Millenial" is a synonym used by Boomers and Xers for young, lazy, entitled, tech-obsessed and narcissistic. And far from coming together, we've got CHUDs vs SJWs - our latest iteration of the culture wars.

# ? Oct 6, 2017 04:52

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Main Paineframe posted:

Whoever was responsible for the Emoji movie, for example?

There was some great discussion in the retail thread about how most grocery stores were able to gather a poo poo ton of data on their customers but weren't able (or didn't want to spend the money) to properly analyze it for useful results.

# ? Oct 6, 2017 05:27

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Going back, the more I think about it the more than the fact 90% of all discussion about generation X ended the second it wasn't to talk about the evils of MTV shows how worthless generation labels are and how much that one was "welp, this demographic doesn't have any specific traits and is just arbitrary but rules say they gotta get a label too"

# ? Oct 6, 2017 14:17

Polygynous: Dec 13, 2006; welp

Only '90s Kids Will Get These Generational Labels

# ? Oct 6, 2017 14:28

the black husserl: Feb 25, 2005

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

What kind of marketing firm is using "generations" as their audience metric? That feels very 20 years ago. Marketers now have everything sliced up into a bunch of hyperfine bins of exact people that they know a bunch of super detailed aggregate data about.

Like what marketing firm in 2017 is going like "generation X? lets market to them"

Jesus christ you are constantly talking out your rear end. You don't know poo poo about marketing! Quit pretending you do!

The answer to your inane question, by the way, is Google. That's the kind of marketing firm that cares about generations in 2017: the biggest of them all.

the black husserl fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Oct 6, 2017

# ? Oct 6, 2017 16:20

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

the black husserl posted:

Jesus christ you are constantly talking out your rear end. You don't know poo poo about marketing! Quit pretending you do!

The answer to your inane question, by the way, is Google. That's the kind of marketing firm that cares about generations in 2017: the biggest of them all.

That's pretty interesting and also funny that google published something that indicates that 40+% of teens use google plus.

# ? Oct 6, 2017 16:38

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

What kind of marketing firm is using "generations" as their audience metric? That feels very 20 years ago. Marketers now have everything sliced up into a bunch of hyperfine bins of exact people that they know a bunch of super detailed aggregate data about.

Like what marketing firm in 2017 is going like "generation X? lets market to them"

lmao if you think "everything" is actually segmented down to the nearest detail- it certainly can be, but lmao in practical terms it very much isn't (not least because doing a proper segmentation with adequate sample size is expensive- often prohibitively so)

if you've got a boatload of quality data you can get quite a bit more in-depth, but you're very grossly overestimating the extent and sophistication of what most people/companies are actually working with

generations are frequently used because, fundamentally, when you're looking at a continuous range you've got to decide on some way to arbitrarily divide them- thinking of Gen-Xers as a fundamentally different kind of person than a Boomer is going to be misleading, but such categories are genuinely quite useful when looking at the way age and life-stage influence behavior at an aggregate level

# ? Oct 6, 2017 19:39

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

the black husserl posted:

Jesus christ you are constantly talking out your rear end. You don't know poo poo about marketing! Quit pretending you do!

The answer to your inane question, by the way, is Google. That's the kind of marketing firm that cares about generations in 2017: the biggest of them all.

Using "teens" as a demographic is literally the exact opposite as using "generations".

# ? Oct 6, 2017 19:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 21:20

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Using "teens" as a demographic is literally the exact opposite as using "generations".

I take it you didn't read past the second page, then? No worries, I missed all the pages dedicated to comparing Gen Z to previous generations too the first time I looked at it.

# ? Oct 6, 2017 21:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Millenials killed broad generalizations: generational politics

«‹›3 »