Originally Posted by Heliotrope

I am not sure where this should go, so I'll just put it here. This thread has been dead now for awhile anyway.

I have noticed that more Xers these days seem to want to disown their generation. l Most of those who do seem to be late wave Xers, like Mark Y '78 (is that right?) or Matt '81, who identify more with Millennials, or with the Jones-like Generation Y.

But even some first wavers bristle and balk at being told they're part of Generation X, like my friend Dave '66 (not a poster here), who labels his own generation dark, depressed, and cynical. Though he is often depressed himself, my friend does not wish to be identified with his generation's cynical and "soulless" reputation. He tends to stereotype Xers as harshly as some Boomers often have and do. And yet he is no Boomer. While Dave is anything but cynical and soulless (those in the know realize that Xers are not really soulless and any cynicism is a protective device), he has no idea how much of a Xer he really is. He just doesn't see it.

Anyone care to comment?

The thing is, most people born within the years characterized in Generation "X" do not want to be associated with it. Survey after survey has shown that the vast majority of "Xers" want nothing to do with that generation. All they think of that generation is just a bunch of angst-ridden slackers living in their parents' house at 30 listening to Nirvana all day (the last part of the description really isn't that terrible, by the way...). Here's what I think...First wave "Xers" (61-67 or so, if we go by S & H definitions) feel that "X" really is people who were in college during the peak of the Nirvana era (which was roughly fall 91 to spring 94, or years from '70 to '75 (second wave "Xers")...Second wave "Xers" (68-74) either think that "X" are the teenagers of the '90s (last wave "X"ers or first wave millies), or they just change the subject when "X" is mentioned...last wave "Xers" (75 or 76 to 81) think that Gen "X" was just before them. They're the people who feared the Soviets in the early 80s during nuclear proliferation/Star Wars. They're the people who complained about the national debt and their personal finances (even during the booming 90s).

I do NOT...repeat...do NOT think that I am a Millie (hence my annoying signature). I DO, however, feel that once you get to 77 or 78, you really start to see a trend towards being Milliesque. Not completely, mind you, but I personally think that being born in 1978 rather than 1977 makes all the difference in the world. Technological events (Internet, computers in schools), world events (Nuclear paranoia, Berlin Wall), and other events in my experience seemed to divide people born in 77 rather than 78. I have no scientific basis on that theory, but there definitely seems to be a trend.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

I am not sure where this should go, so I'll just put it here. This thread has been dead now for awhile anyway.

I have noticed that more Xers these days seem to want to disown their generation. l Most of those who do seem to be late wave Xers, like Mark Y '78 (is that right?) or Matt '81, who identify more with Millennials, or with the Jones-like Generation Y.

But even some first wavers bristle and balk at being told they're part of Generation X, like my friend Dave '66 (not a poster here), who labels his own generation dark, depressed, and cynical. Though he is often depressed himself, my friend does not wish to be identified with his generation's cynical and "soulless" reputation. He tends to stereotype Xers as harshly as some Boomers often have and do. And yet he is no Boomer. While Dave is anything but cynical and soulless (those in the know realize that Xers are not really soulless and any cynicism is a protective device), he has no idea how much of a Xer he really is. He just doesn't see it.

Anyone care to comment?

The thing is, most people born within the years characterized in Generation "X" do not want to be associated with it. Survey after survey has shown that the vast majority of "Xers" want nothing to do with that generation. All they think of that generation is just a bunch of angst-ridden slackers living in their parents' house at 30 listening to Nirvana all day (the last part of the description really isn't that terrible, by the way...). Here's what I think...First wave "Xers" (61-67 or so, if we go by S & H definitions) feel that "X" really is people who were in college during the peak of the Nirvana era (which was roughly fall 91 to spring 94, or years from '70 to '75 (second wave "Xers")...Second wave "Xers" (68-74) either think that "X" are the teenagers of the '90s (last wave "X"ers or first wave millies), or they just change the subject when "X" is mentioned...last wave "Xers" (75 or 76 to 81) think that Gen "X" was just before them. They're the people who feared the Soviets in the early 80s during nuclear proliferation/Star Wars. They're the people who complained about the national debt and their personal finances (even during the booming 90s).

I do NOT...repeat...do NOT think that I am a Millie (hence my annoying signature). I DO, however, feel that once you get to 77 or 78, you really start to see a trend towards being Milliesque. Not completely, mind you, but I personally think that being born in 1978 rather than 1977 makes all the difference in the world. Technological events (Internet, computers in schools), world events (Nuclear paranoia, Berlin Wall), and other events in my experience seemed to divide people born in 77 rather than 78. I have no scientific basis on that theory, but there definitely seems to be a trend.

Originally Posted by Mark Y

First wave "Xers" (61-67 or so, if we go by S & H definitions) feel that "X" really is people who were in college during the peak of the Nirvana era (which was roughly fall 91 to spring 94, or years from '70 to '75 (second wave "Xers")...Second wave "Xers" (68-74) either think that "X" are the teenagers of the '90s (last wave "X"ers or first wave millies), or they just change the subject when "X" is mentioned...last wave "Xers" (75 or 76 to 81) think that Gen "X" was just before them.

So, the general reaction to being called Xer is, "Me? Gen X? Nah, they're all older/younger than I am."

I don't blame them for not wanting to be labelled as angst-ridden slackers. It wasn't exactly a stereotype they chose for themselves, was it?

Originally Posted by Mark Y

First wave "Xers" (61-67 or so, if we go by S & H definitions) feel that "X" really is people who were in college during the peak of the Nirvana era (which was roughly fall 91 to spring 94, or years from '70 to '75 (second wave "Xers")...Second wave "Xers" (68-74) either think that "X" are the teenagers of the '90s (last wave "X"ers or first wave millies), or they just change the subject when "X" is mentioned...last wave "Xers" (75 or 76 to 81) think that Gen "X" was just before them.

So, the general reaction to being called Xer is, "Me? Gen X? Nah, they're all older/younger than I am."

I don't blame them for not wanting to be labelled as angst-ridden slackers. It wasn't exactly a stereotype they chose for themselves, was it?

hmm... Mark's theory is very interesting ("first wavers" would consider themselves cuspers, "second wavers" would likely call themselves "children of the eighties" even though many were adults for a large part of that decade and "third wavers" would likely call themselves "Generation Y") but there are enough proud Xers out there that I doubt that it's COMPLETELY accurate - although it seems that with respect to Columbine, those who identify with Generation X (Justin '79) consider the attackers to be Millies and those who identify with the Millies consider the attackers to be Xrs - so I'd say it's a safe bet that they're cuspers

Helio, it might definitely be possible that he is indeed an Xer but there's also a chance that you have "TFT syndrome" ;-) (reading a person's personality traits as representative of a generation with respect to birthyear); not having met him I don't know for sure though

hmm... Mark's theory is very interesting ("first wavers" would consider themselves cuspers, "second wavers" would likely call themselves "children of the eighties" even though many were adults for a large part of that decade and "third wavers" would likely call themselves "Generation Y") but there are enough proud Xers out there that I doubt that it's COMPLETELY accurate - although it seems that with respect to Columbine, those who identify with Generation X (Justin '79) consider the attackers to be Millies and those who identify with the Millies consider the attackers to be Xrs - so I'd say it's a safe bet that they're cuspers

Helio, it might definitely be possible that he is indeed an Xer but there's also a chance that you have "TFT syndrome" ;-) (reading a person's personality traits as representative of a generation with respect to birthyear); not having met him I don't know for sure though

Helio, it might definitely be possible that he is indeed an Xer but there's also a chance that you have "TFT syndrome" ;-) (reading a person's personality traits as representative of a generation with respect to birthyear); not having met him I don't know for sure though

That's true, two people from different generations could say exactly the same thing and have it be interpreted differently based on their birthyear alone (kind of like astrology).

It might work like this: Take the statment, "The sky is blue."
Here's how it might be interpreted based on generation:

Silent: "I don't wish to discuss anything unpleasant or upsetting, so I would rather talk to you about blue skies."

Boomer: "The sky is blue, it is not any other color. I am right and you are wrong if you believe otherwise."

Xer: "The sky is blue, that's the way it is, deal with it, whatever."

Millie: "Look what a great world this is! Look at the beautiful blue sky! Let's all form a committee to talk about the physics behind what causes its color."

Helio, it might definitely be possible that he is indeed an Xer but there's also a chance that you have "TFT syndrome" ;-) (reading a person's personality traits as representative of a generation with respect to birthyear); not having met him I don't know for sure though

That's true, two people from different generations could say exactly the same thing and have it be interpreted differently based on their birthyear alone (kind of like astrology).

It might work like this: Take the statment, "The sky is blue."
Here's how it might be interpreted based on generation:

Silent: "I don't wish to discuss anything unpleasant or upsetting, so I would rather talk to you about blue skies."

Boomer: "The sky is blue, it is not any other color. I am right and you are wrong if you believe otherwise."

Xer: "The sky is blue, that's the way it is, deal with it, whatever."

Millie: "Look what a great world this is! Look at the beautiful blue sky! Let's all form a committee to talk about the physics behind what causes its color."

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Helio, it might definitely be possible that he is indeed an Xer but there's also a chance that you have "TFT syndrome" ;-) (reading a person's personality traits as representative of a generation with respect to birthyear); not having met him I don't know for sure though

That's true, two people from different generations could say exactly the same thing and have it be interpreted differently based on their birthyear alone (kind of like astrology).

It might work like this: Take the statment, "The sky is blue."
Here's how it might be interpreted based on generation:

Silent: "I don't wish to discuss anything unpleasant or upsetting, so I would rather talk to you about blue skies."

Boomer: "The sky is blue, it is not any other color. I am right and you are wrong if you believe otherwise."

Xer: "The sky is blue, that's the way it is, deal with it, whatever."

Millie: "Look what a great world this is! Look at the beautiful blue sky! Let's all form a committee to talk about the physics behind what causes its color."

Here's a different interpretation:

Silent: The sky is blue. It may not be if we have a nuclear war.

Boomer: The sky is blue. The acid must finally be wearing off.

Xer: Dad, the sky is blue. Lay off the acid and you'll be able to see it for yourself.

Millie: The sky is blue? I'd been too busy surfing the Web to notice.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Helio, it might definitely be possible that he is indeed an Xer but there's also a chance that you have "TFT syndrome" ;-) (reading a person's personality traits as representative of a generation with respect to birthyear); not having met him I don't know for sure though

That's true, two people from different generations could say exactly the same thing and have it be interpreted differently based on their birthyear alone (kind of like astrology).

It might work like this: Take the statment, "The sky is blue."
Here's how it might be interpreted based on generation:

Silent: "I don't wish to discuss anything unpleasant or upsetting, so I would rather talk to you about blue skies."

Boomer: "The sky is blue, it is not any other color. I am right and you are wrong if you believe otherwise."

Xer: "The sky is blue, that's the way it is, deal with it, whatever."

Millie: "Look what a great world this is! Look at the beautiful blue sky! Let's all form a committee to talk about the physics behind what causes its color."

Here's a different interpretation:

Silent: The sky is blue. It may not be if we have a nuclear war.

Boomer: The sky is blue. The acid must finally be wearing off.

Xer: Dad, the sky is blue. Lay off the acid and you'll be able to see it for yourself.

Millie: The sky is blue? I'd been too busy surfing the Web to notice.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Helio, it might definitely be possible that he is indeed an Xer but there's also a chance that you have "TFT syndrome" ;-) (reading a person's personality traits as representative of a generation with respect to birthyear); not having met him I don't know for sure though

That's true, two people from different generations could say exactly the same thing and have it be interpreted differently based on their birthyear alone (kind of like astrology).

It might work like this: Take the statment, "The sky is blue."
Here's how it might be interpreted based on generation:

Silent: "I don't wish to discuss anything unpleasant or upsetting, so I would rather talk to you about blue skies."

Boomer: "The sky is blue, it is not any other color. I am right and you are wrong if you believe otherwise."

Xer: "The sky is blue, that's the way it is, deal with it, whatever."

Millie: "Look what a great world this is! Look at the beautiful blue sky! Let's all form a committee to talk about the physics behind what causes its color."

Here's a different interpretation:

Silent: The sky is blue. It may not be if we have a nuclear war.

Boomer: The sky is blue. The acid must finally be wearing off.

Xer: Dad, the sky is blue. Lay off the acid and you'll be able to see it for yourself.

Millie: The sky is blue? I'd been too busy surfing the Web to notice.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Those are much better than mine! Thanks

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Helio, it might definitely be possible that he is indeed an Xer but there's also a chance that you have "TFT syndrome" ;-) (reading a person's personality traits as representative of a generation with respect to birthyear); not having met him I don't know for sure though

That's true, two people from different generations could say exactly the same thing and have it be interpreted differently based on their birthyear alone (kind of like astrology).

It might work like this: Take the statment, "The sky is blue."
Here's how it might be interpreted based on generation:

Silent: "I don't wish to discuss anything unpleasant or upsetting, so I would rather talk to you about blue skies."

Boomer: "The sky is blue, it is not any other color. I am right and you are wrong if you believe otherwise."

Xer: "The sky is blue, that's the way it is, deal with it, whatever."

Millie: "Look what a great world this is! Look at the beautiful blue sky! Let's all form a committee to talk about the physics behind what causes its color."

Here's a different interpretation:

Silent: The sky is blue. It may not be if we have a nuclear war.

Boomer: The sky is blue. The acid must finally be wearing off.

Xer: Dad, the sky is blue. Lay off the acid and you'll be able to see it for yourself.

Millie: The sky is blue? I'd been too busy surfing the Web to notice.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Those are much better than mine! Thanks

Interpretations of "Hi. How are you?":

GI: I'm giving a chance for you to prove to me that you're not a Nazi spy. Hurry up before I shoot.

Silent: Hi. How are you?

Boomer: See, I'm treating you as a human. Those GI's and Silents would never have done that--except, of course, for the good ones like Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. Since I'm treating you as a human by saying hi, now you are obligated to come to the antiwar rally. Strawberry Alarm Clock will be providing entertainment.

Xer: As if I didn't know the answer: crappy.

Millie: Are you on or off Ritalin at this moment?

Interpretations of "Hi. How are you?":

GI: I'm giving a chance for you to prove to me that you're not a Nazi spy. Hurry up before I shoot.

Silent: Hi. How are you?

Boomer: See, I'm treating you as a human. Those GI's and Silents would never have done that--except, of course, for the good ones like Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. Since I'm treating you as a human by saying hi, now you are obligated to come to the antiwar rally. Strawberry Alarm Clock will be providing entertainment.

Xer: As if I didn't know the answer: crappy.

Millie: Are you on or off Ritalin at this moment?

"I love you."

GI: Can I at least get a kiss? I'm off to Europe tomorrow!

Silent: Can I at least get a feel? I could get killed in tomorrow's game.

Boomer: There, is that good enough? Now get out of my bed before you discover the pot stashed under the mattress and embarass me into having to share it.

GenXer: (pathetically whining) Please tell me this isn't just a one night stand! I took you out for sushi, even!

Millie: Can I at least get a b.j.? Rangel wants to reintroduce the draft!

"I love you."

GI: Can I at least get a kiss? I'm off to Europe tomorrow!

Silent: Can I at least get a feel? I could get killed in tomorrow's game.

Boomer: There, is that good enough? Now get out of my bed before you discover the pot stashed under the mattress and embarass me into having to share it.

GenXer: (pathetically whining) Please tell me this isn't just a one night stand! I took you out for sushi, even!

Millie: Can I at least get a b.j.? Rangel wants to reintroduce the draft!

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

But even some first wavers bristle and balk at being told they're part of Generation X, like my friend Dave '66 (not a poster here), who labels his own generation dark, depressed, and cynical. Though he is often depressed himself, my friend does not wish to be identified with his generation's cynical and "soulless" reputation. He tends to stereotype Xers as harshly as some Boomers often have and do. And yet he is no Boomer. While Dave is anything but cynical and soulless (those in the know realize that Xers are not really soulless and any cynicism is a protective device), he has no idea how much of a Xer he really is. He just doesn't see it.

Anyone care to comment?

How does Dave '66 feel about being a "Thirteener"?

People I've talked to around his age (particularly parents) feel okay about being GenX once I explain that they are like the flappers who did the dirty work during the Great Depression and WWII and that they are the ones who protect their young and do the cleanup work after the Boomers and Silents trashed the place. They know that the "Baby Boomer" or "just past Baby Boomer" tag never fit them.

I'm thinking of a discussion I had with my the parent of one of Linda's friends (Shelly '65), who felt that my spin on GenX fits her to a tee.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

But even some first wavers bristle and balk at being told they're part of Generation X, like my friend Dave '66 (not a poster here), who labels his own generation dark, depressed, and cynical. Though he is often depressed himself, my friend does not wish to be identified with his generation's cynical and "soulless" reputation. He tends to stereotype Xers as harshly as some Boomers often have and do. And yet he is no Boomer. While Dave is anything but cynical and soulless (those in the know realize that Xers are not really soulless and any cynicism is a protective device), he has no idea how much of a Xer he really is. He just doesn't see it.

Anyone care to comment?

How does Dave '66 feel about being a "Thirteener"?

People I've talked to around his age (particularly parents) feel okay about being GenX once I explain that they are like the flappers who did the dirty work during the Great Depression and WWII and that they are the ones who protect their young and do the cleanup work after the Boomers and Silents trashed the place. They know that the "Baby Boomer" or "just past Baby Boomer" tag never fit them.

I'm thinking of a discussion I had with my the parent of one of Linda's friends (Shelly '65), who felt that my spin on GenX fits her to a tee.

Ok,
I am going to make a statement in rgards to the war in Iraq. So far the US has lost 45 soldiers in this war whose families have been notified.
Right now many of us on this board are speculating that the authors have been correct. That we are in a 4T.
On the CNN website they listed the soldiers that were killed and their ages.
Birthyear Number
1960-61 1
1961-66 0
1966-67 1
1967-68 0
1969-70 1
1971-72 2
1972-73 2
1973-74 1
1975-76 2
1976-77 2
1977-78 2
1978-79 0
1979-80 0
1980-81 2
1981-82 2
1982-83 2
1983-84 3


My statement is that if this is a Fourth Turning, then soldiers who may have seen combat in early conflicts, like Kosovo, or Grenada, would be Nomads, as they had assumed an adult role during the 3T.
Those that are seeing their first conflicts in this new "total war" are Millennials.
The army has also changed its recruitment slogan and strategies since 2000.

I think they changed their slogan because a) it needed to be something new, and b)they market everything else, why not war?

I'm of the mind that we should implement most of the Libertarian Party's policies. Of course, it would never work, but I think if more people wanted something like that, things would change. I've just about had it with rampant commercialism of everything, even protesting.

Originally Posted by Justino

Ok,
I am going to make a statement in rgards to the war in Iraq. So far the US has lost 45 soldiers in this war whose families have been notified.
Right now many of us on this board are speculating that the authors have been correct. That we are in a 4T.
On the CNN website they listed the soldiers that were killed and their ages.
Birthyear Number
1960-61 1
1961-66 0
1966-67 1
1967-68 0
1969-70 1
1971-72 2
1972-73 2
1973-74 1
1975-76 2
1976-77 2
1977-78 2
1978-79 0
1979-80 0
1980-81 2
1981-82 2
1982-83 2
1983-84 3


My statement is that if this is a Fourth Turning, then soldiers who may have seen combat in early conflicts, like Kosovo, or Grenada, would be Nomads, as they had assumed an adult role during the 3T.
Those that are seeing their first conflicts in this new "total war" are Millennials.
The army has also changed its recruitment slogan and strategies since 2000.

Does that include the 79 and 80 cohorts from the Class of 2002 in college who decided to join the army AFTER graduation - or who decided to go to a military school (e.g. West Point) for 98-02?

Originally Posted by Justino

The army has also changed its recruitment slogan and strategies since 2000.

I question whether that is a good thing. "An Army Of One" might appeal to still-Nomadic tail-end Xers, however i don't see it selling very well to team-oriented Millennial Heroes. Ironicallly, the old "Be All That You Can Be" Joneser-era slogan might be more effective at recruiting today's HS grads.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Justino

The army has also changed its recruitment slogan and strategies since 2000.

I question whether that is a good thing. "An Army Of One" might appeal to still-Nomadic tail-end Xers, however i don't see it selling very well to team-oriented Millennial Heroes. Ironicallly, the old "Be All That You Can Be" Joneser-era slogan might be more effective at recruiting today's HS grads.

I think "Army of One" sounds ridiculous!

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Justino

The army has also changed its recruitment slogan and strategies since 2000.

I question whether that is a good thing. "An Army Of One" might appeal to still-Nomadic tail-end Xers, however i don't see it selling very well to team-oriented Millennial Heroes. Ironicallly, the old "Be All That You Can Be" Joneser-era slogan might be more effective at recruiting today's HS grads.

I think "Army of One" sounds ridiculous!

Of course you do-- you're a Millie! The Army is being postseasonal, William. The "Army of One" campaign is obviously designed to appeal to Nomads who pretty much think of themselves that way anyway-- lone free agents against the rest of the world. The Army haven't quite caught on to the fact that Generation X are no longer their target audience for recruitment, that there is a new generation of youth in town.

Interesting article...notice that Tulgan & Martin extended their Gen "Y" to 1988 (from 1984 and later 1986)

http://www.brandchannel.com/features...id=156#archive


What do these new trends mean for brand owners trying to reach the youth market? And what can other markets learn from these US trends?
Stung by their failure to recognize the unique features of then twenty-something X-ers, brand owners embraced Gen-Y as the next youth generation in the early 1990s. Gen-Y was identified at that time as the current crop of teenagers born between 1974 and 1980.

Gen-Y was defined through a linear extension of trends noted for X-ers. During the early 1990s teen crime, drug use and other negative youth trends were on the upswing. Popular culture continued a decade-long trend embracing the cynical, ironic, and apolitical. Children were said to be growing up too soon, and prophets of doom predicted a coming wave of teen super-predators.

Today, Gen-Y continues to be characterized by many as a sort of super-sized Gen-X -- larger in number and more diverse, individualistic, pierced, skateboarding and in-your-face than Gen-X. Marketers aiming at Gen-Y frequently assume they respond to brands with hip, edgy statements that cut through media clutter and push the boundaries of style and taste. Growing up with no memory of the economic malaise of the 1970s, Gen-Y is a marketer's dream -- they'll buy simply because it is cool to do so.



If this "edgy" Gen-Y is an adequate description of youth in 2003; kids today should be more 'tude-laced and purchase-happy than ever before. But US teens and college students have switched directions to a very un-Y path. It's not that the edginess of Y-style isn't out there, but as Dr. Carolyn Martin of Rainmaker Thinking, an authority on young people in the workplace, says "there are broader truths that need to be articulated" about teens and young adults.
These truths include unexpected trends among US youth, such as:


Violent crime by 12 to 17-year-olds is down by over 50 percent from its 1992-1993 peak (US Bureau of Justice Statistics).

Despite media reports of casual sex "hookups" among college students, the late 1990s saw overall teen sexual activity decline and virginity rise (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, US).

School shootings were down by more than half in the late 1990s (less than 15 per year) compared to the early 1990s (over 40 per year).

Smoking, drinking and drug use among 8th, 10th and 12th graders fell simultaneously in 2002 for the first time (University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research).

According to Gallup more than 90 percent of teens report being very close to their parents; in 1974, more than 40 percent of baby boomers said they'd be better off without their parents.

Suicide rates for teens have fallen significantly since their 1988 to 1994 peak (National Center for Health Statistics, US).

Today's kids are more apt to trust parents (86 percent), teachers (86 percent) and the police (83 percent) than music celebrities (35 percent) and athletes (30 percent) (Applied Research & Consulting LLC).

Volunteerism is up. A University of California (UCLA) survey of college freshmen from fall 2001 showed an all-time high of 86.2 percent of students who reportedly engaged in volunteer work, compared to 66 percent in 1989.

Teens now form the most religious age bracket in the US. Participation in church groups among teens rose from 17 percent to 28 percent between 1995 and 2001 (Roper). In 2002, the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center PACES project reported that 67 percent of teens supported federal aid to religious organizations -- versus 40 percent of adults ages 27 to 59.

Teen marriages rose steadily after a low around 1990 -- a trend running counter to older US generations, which are getting married later (US Census).



Clearly, teens and young adults have reversed many trends that peaked in the early 1990s -- the same time that Gen-Y was defined. Was Gen-Y wrong from the start? It could be that the description of the edgy youth culture of 1993 was a description of the end of a generation, rather than a beginning.
How can this statement be reconciled with standard generational boundaries? Looking at absolute birthrates, Gen-X represents the "baby bust" decline in births in the US after the 1950s boom. Gen-Y is often described as an "echo boom" of rising births after 1975. This definition makes sense for marketers and advertisers, since it focuses on the differential size of their audience in each generation.

However, if one believes that generations are real social entities (in other words, that people born in particular eras of history really share common traits), other indicators become important. If US generations are defined by birth rates, the late 1970s rise in births simply reflects the baby boom entering childbearing age. It wasn't until after 1982 that actual birth rates began to rise. This boom was long lived -- birth rates in the US rose above replacement levels in 1990, fell slightly during the decade, and reached a second peak in 2001. In contrast, Europe and Japan show long-term declines in birthrates. According to Claire Raines, author of Generations at Work, "Culturally, we're much more focused on kids; parents are very involved in their children's lives and vice versa."

Other factors point to the early 1980s forming a natural generation boundary. An unprecedented bull market took hold in the US in 1982 and lasted until 2000. Boomers discovered parenting and promptly created a culture of child protection ranging from no-tolerance schools to standards-based learning. Mainstream moviemaking turned away from Exorcist-style, "devil child" films popular during the 1970s to "beautiful baby" films like Three Men and a Baby, Raising Arizona, Baby Boom and Little Man Tate. This trend continued into the 1990s with Disney's second golden age of animation and the appearance of super-smart movie tweens in Spy Kids and the Harry Potter series.

Based on the evidence, the Gen-Y characterization needs serious revision. One approach is to confine Gen-Y to the late 1970s cohorts responsible for early 1990s youth trends, and define a new, "Millennial" generation with birth dates running from the 1980s to 2000 or 2001. This approach was first developed in the work of William Strauss and Neil Howe, who discussed Millennials in their 1991 book Generations and more recently in Millennials Rising. These authors assign late 1970s cohorts to Gen-X and put the dividing line between generations in 1982. Back when "Gen-Y" and "disturbed" were often said in the same breath, Strauss & Howe predicted that by 2000, "teen pathologies -- truancy, substance abuse, crime, suicide, unwed pregnancy -- will all decline."

More recently, Lynne Lancaster and David Stillman assigned Gen-Y birth years between 1981 to 1999 in their book When Generations Collide. Like Strauss & Howe, these authors noted the close parent-child bonds lacking in the "edgy" Y model. Ron Zemke, Claire Raines and Bob Filipczak defined a similar post-X generation born between 1980 to 2000 in their book Generations at Work.

In contrast, Rainmaker's Martin feels it's necessary to classify the 1978 to 1988 cohorts as a unique, mini Gen-Y. According to Martin, "the problem with longer definitions is that they're too huge" -- in other words, they cover too much societal change. This analysis puts the Gen-Y teens of the early 1990s into a unique buffer zone between X-ers and Millennials.

Whatever the generational division, there is agreement that kids currently entering college are something new. According to Strauss and Howe, Millennials diverge from older Gen-Y models in several key aspects:


Unlike earlier generations, Millennials have a near-zero generation gap, and parent-child co-purchase decisions are common. Martin agrees, saying: "When you ask this generation who their heroes are, the majority say their parents." Brands seeking to appeal to this generation in the name of rebellion will increasingly fall flat.

Millennials are expected to retain close parental bonds even after leaving home, and they are more likely to consult with their parents on major decisions. Marketing aimed at this generation should consider the input of parents on big-ticket purchases.

The "helicopter parents" of Millennials are increasingly found on campus, monitoring any physical or moral threat to their children's progress. Parental input must increasingly be factored into any beliefs about the greater susceptibility of Gen-Y versus Gen-X to marketing messages.

Millennials show greater interest in family, religion, and community -- at the expense of celebrity role models and their associated brands.

Trash-talk pop culture may lose its influence with today's teens. The rise of Avril Lavigne -- an ordinary-looking, midriff-free, non-dancing singer hailed as the "anti-Britney" -- may presage this generation's backlash against over-hyped, X-treme 1990s culture. Edgy brand associations may fail to appeal to this increasingly conventional generation, which looks for social consensus instead of pushing the limits of taste. In the words of Generations at Work author Raines, "If the Gen-Y concept is about extra edginess, then, yes, it's got to go. Marketing efforts targeted at today's teens and young adults that are based on that picture will be totally misguided."

Under constant pressure by their parents and society to achieve, Millennials find little common ground with the "slacker" archetype of youth. Advertising lampooning hard work and celebrating the accidental success of airheads does not speak to this generation.

In contrast to ultra-individualist X-ers, Millennials are group-oriented -- meaning that they are less interested in an "army of one" and more interested in the "watch me become we" alternative. Group-oriented concepts such as "leave no one behind" may emerge from the movies (2002 movies Lilo and Stich and Black Hawk Down both used this phrase) and go mainstream.

Millennials appear to be using rapid-fire communication via the Internet and other peer-to-peer media to build a newly inclusive "one" from their wildly diverse origins. This may, in the words of Howe, cause Millennials to rally around "a few big, bright and friendly" brands and trigger brand consolidation.

Programs ranging from affirmative action to gender-equity sports-program Title IX reduced cultural and gender gaps during the Millennial childhood -- but the gap between rich and poor steadily widened. Millennials are less hung up on race, gender, or ethnicity than their parents, but may increasingly be moving toward increased sensitivity to economic class.
What does the US experience imply for other countries? During the years of the US echo boom, birthrates in Europe and Japan fell. This implies that the global youth culture in westernized countries may be on the verge of fragmenting. Marketing that appeals to youth in the US may fail elsewhere, while youth campaigns in other countries may appeal to US 30-somethings.

Strauss and Howe predict that an international Millennial generation will emerge in Europe during the next few years, with similar trends appearing in Japan and other parts of Asia by the end of the decade. A Millennial-style breakout may be imminent in your location if the following trends are evident:


An echo boomlet partly reversing trends toward smaller families
A rising obsession with the safety and education of children
Warmer relations between adolescents and their parents
Recent reversals in long-standing, negative social trends among teens
Widespread use of cell phones and the Internet for peer-to-peer communication
Marketers and brand owners targeting youth outside the US have a unique advantage. Unlike their American counterparts, they have time to prepare for the end of Y edginess, and they will be able to pick and choose among successful US strategies speaking to the post-X generation.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of these trends, it is clear that youth marketing needs to be rethought. A Gen-Y archetype may capture the essence of today's 20-somethings -- but a new reality is taking hold among teens, and it doesn't look like 1993. [5-May-2003]