Here's someone else getting it wrong:





? More From The Oregonian

Living News


Talkin' 'bout my generation

05/13/02

KRISTI TURNQUIST

Demographics used to be as simple as 1, 2, 3. You had old people, middle-aged people and young people.

Well, wake up and smell the marketing report: That age breakdown is now as antique as a rotary dial telephone. We're living in the golden age of demographics, when the number of eyeballs that see a TV show, movie or ad are less important than how old those eyeballs are.


From Our Advertiser




Take the recent tempest on the tube, when ABC threatened to forcibly retire Ted Koppel and "Nightline" as the network tried to woo David Letterman away from CBS. It wasn't Dave's cranky personality ABC was lusting after. It was the promise of more viewers in the demographic sweet spot of 18 to 34, advertisers' favorite age group.

The demographics derby shows no signs of running out of gas. An ever-expanding fleet of consultants and specialists are hard at work, sifting data, studying buying patterns and issuing new and improved breakdowns of which demo slice is likely to buy this brand of jeans or watch that movie. Hard on the heels of coinages like "matures" (born from 1909-45), "baby boomers" (1946-64) and "Generation X" (1965-mid-'70s), comes "Defining Markets, Defining Moments: America's 7 Generational Cohorts, Their Shared Experiences, and Why Businesses Should Care" (Hungry Minds, $24.99, 363 pages).

Authors Geoffrey Meredith and Charles Schewe argue that society should be broken into seven "generational cohorts" that help explain why we are the way we are. "The understanding that we've come to from the work we've done," says Schewe, "is that what happens to us from external experiences or events that we share when we're coming of age, roughly from age 17 to 23, create values that stay with us all of our lives."

Schewe and Meredith's cohort seven-pack: Depression (born 1912-21); World War II (1922-27); Post-War (1928-45); Leading-Edge Baby Boomer (1946-54); Trailing-Edge Baby Boomer (1955-65); Generation X (1966-76); and N Generation (born from 1977 on). The previous, broader categories are off-target, Schewe says, because how much does a 57-year-old "mature" have in common with an 80-year-old "mature"?

What's behind this ongoing obsession with demographics? "For one thing, we've got better data than ever before," says Schewe, a 59-year-old member of the Post-War cohort. Technology has allowed companies to keep track of what you buy, how many kids you have, what their names are, and what they buy. Marketers crave this info and use it to send their message out courtesy of the ever-proliferating world of media, adds Schewe, who is a marketing professor at the University of Massachusetts and a principal at Lifestage Matrix Marketing, which helps companies target the over-50 group.

And to people who complain that such groupings reinforce stereotypes, Schewe has an answer. "We are all individuals, but look around at all the people your age." If you're a baby boomer, for example, "tell me they aren't into being youthful. Why is Botox so popular today? It would have never caught on with the Depression cohort, because staying young wasn't part of their values." You can agree or disagree with the descriptions of your particular cohort, Schewe says. "But I'll bet you say, 'Boy, I know lots of people like that.' " You can reach Kristi Turnquist at 503-221-8227 or by e-mail at kristiturnquist@news.oregonian.com.

[quote]
On 2002-05-13 19:35, Vince Lamb '59 wrote:

On 2002-05-10 17:24, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Mr.Vince Lamb has been enthralled by his very shrewdness. HTH

Virgil, I think you're throwing up a Rohrschach blot to draw out some kind of confirmatory response, whether you actually know anything about why I was off T4T or not!

However, in a way, I was. While running the annual awards program on RAMD, I was not in a mood to spend time reading weighty social, political, and cultural discussion. Instead, I spent my time at surviiivor.com trying to improve my score at Survivor Pick'em and Surviiival. It worked. My scores are improving.

I am sorry Mr. Lamb and all. I meant that shrewdness as a collective noun rather than as a description of your nature. I was well aware of your vernal rites. The plain of farmers has something similar each spring. HTH

Perhaps, I mock too much and should have made plain by "enthralled by his very ruffle and embouchure."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-05-14 13:11 ]</font>

On 2002-05-14 11:14, Mark Y wrote:
I don't know about you, but I think Gen-Y is funnier than Gen-X :smile: It exemplifies how "creative" us Americans are. And Gen-Z? That's hilarious!

:lol: Although the person who's most into alphabet letter generations gives a better characterization of those born in the early-to-mid eighties than anyone else...

Great, so now instead of being in Generation "Y" or Generation "I", I'm in Generation "N". Now I guess I can spell "ninny". Now, what makes 1909 so special for the Mature boundary? I've seen that before.

On 2002-05-14 10:38, Mark Y wrote:
Ty, nice letter...but you know and I know that no one will waver on their definition of the boom. Even when they quote S & H more times than not people who wrote the article use the familiar '46 to '64 definition (which really should be '46 to '58 because after '58 birth rates started to drop). That definition is as American as apple pie. As crazy as that sounds (a Gen-Y kid born in '77 could easily have a sibling in the Boom), people are brainwashed and hence stick to the definition.

Actually, birth rates peaked in 1957, and began their drop in 1958. Just look at all Anthony's research on this. But S&H's generations are not based on birth rates anyway, and they shouldn't be.

Correct Susan...I don't think that fecundity rates define a gen. But demographers feel that the beginnings of Gen-W (George W. Bush i.e. Boom)and Gen-Y are directly correlated to rising birthrates (while the beginning of Gen-X, curiously enough, is not exactly related to falling birthrates, although most demographers claim it is)

[quote]
On 2002-05-14 13:07, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-05-13 19:35, Vince Lamb '59 wrote:

On 2002-05-10 17:24, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Mr.Vince Lamb has been enthralled by his very shrewdness. HTH

Virgil, I think you're throwing up a Rohrschach blot to draw out some kind of confirmatory response, whether you actually know anything about why I was off T4T or not!

However, in a way, I was. While running the annual awards program on RAMD, I was not in a mood to spend time reading weighty social, political, and cultural discussion. Instead, I spent my time at surviiivor.com trying to improve my score at Survivor Pick'em and Surviiival. It worked. My scores are improving.

I am sorry Mr. Lamb and all. I meant that shrewdness as a collective noun rather than as a description of your nature.

I went over to dictionary.com to see how "shrewdness" could be used as a collective noun and came back with "an aggregation of apes"

While I sometimes share that opinion of the regulars on RAMD, I don't think that's very flattering to come from an outsider. There are three senior drum and bugle corps in The Land of 1,000 Lakes and if I ever win the lottery, I'll be sure to pay one of them enough to travel from St. Peter, St. Paul, or Minneapolis to serenade you up on the River Pike! :razz:

I'd rather you'd have used the term as a description of my nature.

I was well aware of your vernal rites. The plain of farmers has something similar each spring. HTH

An awards ceremony? Or traversing over the field? Do advise.

Perhaps, I mock too much and should have made plain by "enthralled by his very ruffle and embouchure."

Yes, you were being both too obscure and too mocking. Ruffle and embouchure would definitely have been more effective communication.

Mr. Vince Lamb, surely a material causist would rather a shrewdness than a host. To those bangers of drums and tooters of bugles with religiosity, I do most humbly apologize.

[quote]
On 2002-05-14 19:43, Vince Lamb '59 wrote:

On 2002-05-14 13:07, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

I was well aware of your vernal rites. The plain of farmers has something similar each spring. HTH

An awards ceremony? Or traversing over the field? Do advise.

We in the plain too cover much ground in pattern and make a great deal of <S>noise</S> sound.


There was an awards ceremony this month of a sort...it was the Farm Bill that Dubya signed much to the sorrow of the other Mr. Lamb, the editors of the Washington Times, the editors of the Washington Post and myself.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-05-14 20:55 ]</font>

Dr. Lamb writes,
"While running the annual awards program on RAMD, I was not in a mood to spend time reading weighty social, political, and cultural discussion. Instead, I spent my time at survivor.com trying to improve my score at Survivor."

Pray tell this not so! We at T4T are weighty compared to survivor.com? I am even now in search of less weighty yet greener pastures.

Do wish me Godspeed upon my search. :smile:

"While running the annual awards program on RAMD, I was not in a mood to spend time reading weighty social, political, and cultural discussion. Instead, I spent my time at survivor.com trying to improve my score at Survivor." --Dr. Vince Lamb


"History is bunk." --Henry Ford (1863-1947)

"Perhaps there was some golden age when most Americans knew their history. It seems unlikely, but without good survey data before the 1930s, we cannot know. Since then, we do know; we're dummies." --Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post


Is it time to go searching for greener pastures, boys and girls?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-05-15 07:45 ]</font>

Please let us know where sheep may safely graze, Mr. Lamb.

Quoting from the article Marc cited:

But what we don't know doesn't prevent Americans from acquiring the bedrock values -- the love of freedom, the belief in individual dignity -- that are the nation's social glue.

I really like this. It's hard for me not to be a reflexive ISTJ and frown on the idea that people don't know the facts about the Constitution, but maybe I'm missing the big picture. People are living the American ideal anyway, even if they don't know they've doing it.

An interesting feature from Nursing News discussing Gen X and Gen Y workers and the cusp between the two.

http://community.nursingspectrum.com...e.cfm?AID=6245

I enjoy how being born in 1978 makes you both Gen X and Gen Y.

On 2002-05-06 16:09, Miss Anthrope wrote:
I think Millennials are way too overprotected. I feel sorry for them. Xer kids, in spite of being underprotected, had freedom as children--freedom to be creative, freedom to plan their own activities, freedom to explore the world around them. They often had to make their own activities, as child-friendly activities were not planned for them, and of course this carried some risk. But they also learned to think for themselves. Boomer children lived in a child-friendly world, and also had room to explore and discover, but in a friendlier environment for children. They did not *have* to be supervised so much, and so they were not. They also learned individuality this way, but did not have to be as survival-oriented as Xers.

It seems to me that Millennial kids have everything planned for them, every minute of their time must be accounted for, and then some. This teaches them obedience and dependence. I have even seen grade-schoolers forced to use day-planners! I went to a management seminar where the topic was using day planners. What's wrong with this picture? Kids should be allowed to be kids. Sure, they should be safe, but this whole business with having lessons and planned activities every minute of every day is pathetic. They can't climb trees or get dirty. They can't ride a bicycle without being decked out like an astronaut in training. When I was a kid, there were no bike helmets and even if there were, anyone who wore one would be laughed off the block.

"Would have been laughed off the block"?

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...um=2&start=440

Jesse, are you implying that Susan Brombacher is now posting as Miss Anthrope? :lol:

I do see the similarities. :smile:

On 2002-05-07 14:47, mmailliw wrote:

But your parents probably cherished you, planned you to death, planned your childhood and adolescence to death, encouraged you to become the overachiever that you have become.

I'm probably only about as much of an overachiever as Kiff '61 (all right, maybe a little bit more; I always interpreted 'overachiever' to refer to my Jarvard classmates for whom academic achievement was pretty much their whole life and therefore they achieved more than their raw ability)

That's what I thought of "overachiever" as meaning too. Average intelligence but does anything and everything to get A's in school. And as for having your whole childhood and adolescence planned out for you? Your parents didn't really do that, did they? That doesn't sound like something parents of 1984 kids did, certainly not as teenagers. I remember when I was in high school and no one had their adolescent path planned out by their parents.

You are a far cry from the Gen-X babies who were "inconveniences" and kind of hung out while their parents "found themselves" (or even if they had loving parents, society hardly tolerated them).

And also a far cry from the 89 or 91 born Millie babies who had every moment planned from birth to adulthood and never got to go on unstructured excursions

Now, maybe THEY sound more like it. Perhaps THEY have every moment planned from birth to adulthood, or perhaps not, but they are described on this board as having their day filled up with schedules. And maybe someone born in 1984 or 1982 wasn't an inconvenience and unwanted, but how about someone born in 1981 (like me) or even 1979 or 1977? Would you consider these people not to be Xers, Jenny? After all, it's not like many of them felt rejection as babies and were left out by parents who didn't want them because they'd rather find themselves. Maybe this is more evidence that the late seventies babies are in the same generation as a 1982 baby rather than being Nomads. I've suspected it for a long time.

On 2002-05-15 17:37, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

On 2002-05-06 16:09, Miss Anthrope wrote:
I think Millennials are way too overprotected. I feel sorry for them. Xer kids, in spite of being underprotected, had freedom as children--freedom to be creative, freedom to plan their own activities, freedom to explore the world around them. They often had to make their own activities, as child-friendly activities were not planned for them, and of course this carried some risk. But they also learned to think for themselves. Boomer children lived in a child-friendly world, and also had room to explore and discover, but in a friendlier environment for children. They did not *have* to be supervised so much, and so they were not. They also learned individuality this way, but did not have to be as survival-oriented as Xers.

It seems to me that Millennial kids have everything planned for them, every minute of their time must be accounted for, and then some. This teaches them obedience and dependence. I have even seen grade-schoolers forced to use day-planners! I went to a management seminar where the topic was using day planners. What's wrong with this picture? Kids should be allowed to be kids. Sure, they should be safe, but this whole business with having lessons and planned activities every minute of every day is pathetic. They can't climb trees or get dirty. They can't ride a bicycle without being decked out like an astronaut in training. When I was a kid, there were no bike helmets and even if there were, anyone who wore one would be laughed off the block.

"Would have been laughed off the block"?

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...um=2&start=440

That's good detective work, Jesse. Okay, for that you deserve the truth. I 'fess up! Surprised? (and you thought I was Justin!) I did attempt to disguise myself (without actually making up anything) just for fun and see how many people could guess it was me. But no one did, until now. I think I'll still use this handle from time to time because I like it, but I guess I'll have to think up something else if I really want to be anonymous. :wink:

On 2002-05-07 15:30, Ty Webb wrote:
Going back generations....

Ill start...lets see, I got 8 great grandparents, so Ill start with them...

Paternal Great Grandparents
1891-194?
1894-1965
1891-1966 (Siblings extended from 1891-1903)
1893-1920 (Siblings etended from 1887-1900)

Maternal Great Grandparents
1884-1953
1881-1969
1885-1936
1892-1982 (Siblings born 1885ish-1900ish)
........................................
Paternal Grandparents
1916-1996 (Siblings born 1914-1927ish)
1918 (still living--only child)

Maternal Grandparents
1923-1967 (one sibling b.1913)
1924 (still living--siblings born 1914-1930)
....................................

Uh guys, something's getting to me about these birthdates. Go to this page and take a look at the note posted on August 2 at 16:38:


http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=7&start=20&29

How do you do that, Jesse?

On 2002-05-07 21:35, Xer of Evil wrote:

Why do you want to be an Xer anyway? I think that being a Millie would be pretty cool.

XoE

Millie? You can't mean "Millie" in the S&H sense, can you (or, actually, as S&H always write themselves, "Millennial")? They pretty much defined Millennial as the definition of uncool.

I think Jesse is T4T's new full-time Archivist. :smile:

Regarding that nursing article ( http://community.nursingspectrum.com...e.cfm?AID=6245 ), is it me, or did the authors mix up a couple of the characteristics of Generations "X" and "Y"?

At age 25, Rowe?s birth date places her on the cusp between Generations X and Y. On the one hand, she?s a confident, X-like independent who knew what she wanted in a career and how to get it. ?I?m an idealist,? she says. ?I always believed I could have anything I wanted if I tried hard enough, and I wanted nursing.?

On the other hand, Rowe?s a bit of a Y-like pragmatist who prizes high-tech help. ?Growing up, I didn?t even have a VCR, let alone a computer,? she says. ?But I learned about technology, and I now constantly rely on it. It?s everywhere, from balloon pumps, to computers, to fax machines. I?d be crippled without it.?

Yay, this is my hundredth post! (and to those who can't stand my "fear" that I'm in Generation "Y", it must feel like the thousandth)

I wonder if he's an 80 cohort...

He couldn't be, since everyone born in 1980 turned 21 in 2001 and would already be 21 at the start of 2002.