BEYOND THE STEREOTYPES
A checklist for analysing generations
BEYOND THE STEREOTYPES
A checklist for analysing generations
BEYOND THE STEREOTYPES
A checklist for analysing generations
1. Labels matter
Researchers of a certain age (40+, or Gen X/Boomers, if you prefer) were trained to present analysis of their surveys in formats like this:
The normal practice was to present age groups in a descriptive and factual way, usually in groupings spanning five, ten or 20 years. The precise choices would be a pragmatic affair, made on a case-by-case basis and often depending on the size of the survey. The more respondents you have, the more scope there is for detailed analysis.
The last couple of decades have seen much analyst attention placed first on the new generation of Millennials, who came of age during the early years of this century, and now on Gen Z following in their wake. These developments have changed how market researchers go about analysing their surveys.
Today’s analysis sees age categories joined (or even replaced) by generational definitions, with the categorisation scheme set out by Strauss and Howe having become common practice among survey research practitioners and users in many parts of the world.
Generation age in 2024
Generation Z
Generation X
to
to
Millennials
Baby Boomers
to
to
Generation Z: 12 to 28
Millennials: 29 to 44
Generation X: 45 to 58
Baby Boomers: 59 to 79
But labels matter. By giving age categories labels, they imply a meaning – some kind of shared sense of attitudes, behaviours and experiences.
Whether intentional it or not, when we declare (say) “Generation X believe this to be the case”, we are making a subliminal statement that we are describing a characteristic which is an enduring feature of the generation under question.
It may be that the characteristic we are describing is a lifecycle effect which will change as people get older, for example as a result of rising incomes. Or it may be a period effect, where attitudes/behaviours of all cohorts change in a similar way, for example as a result of the pandemic. The hardest to spot (and arguably the most interesting) is a cohort effect where a group displays different characteristics and these stay different over time. We go in search of cohort effects in 'Generation Z: The first global generation?' For more on lifecycle, period and cohort effects, see our 2023 Generations Report.
2. Shared understanding?
Many of us are using these terms in our day-to-day work, for example in preparing our results presentations or developing future strategies for various policies, brands or services.
But do the people out there actually know what we are talking about? The answer is: it depends on where you are sitting.
We asked people around the world for their perspective. Taking a 29-country average, just under half have heard of Generation Z, Millennials or Generation X!
And we immediately notice big differences by country.
The term "Millennials" is reasonably well known in a number of countries. But not everywhere. These words may be common parlance in a business context, but we should not assume they are well known to consumers/citizens/ customers in real life.
One place where these terms do have some resonance is America, our reference point for generational theories and the spiritual home of the Baby Boomers. Here, some 62% are able to correctly identify which generation they are part of.
But even in the US, we see variations in awareness of generations. While 86% of Boomers and 62% of Gen X are able to correctly identify which generation they are a member of, just 48% of Gen Z can do the same.
3. Context is key
What’s clear from our survey is that while 'Baby Boomers' may be a familiar(ish) term to refer to those born in post-war North America or the UK or Australia, it does not necessarily travel well.
In countries such as Brazil, India and China, the term is simply not part of day-to-day discourse. The term does not really describe a common experience of those born in the period 1945-65 particularly well.
In South Africa, the term 'Born Free' is used to describe the cohort born since 1994 and who have grown up in the post-Apartheid era.
In Germany, Die Generation 1989 (roughly equivalent to Millennials) entered the labour market after re-unification. The term is particularly relevant to those growing up in the East. For Germans, Boomers were also Generation 68, because of their shared experience of the student movement of that time.
Norway is another of the few countries in the world where pop sociology in the media coined its own local contextual labels independently from the US. Each of them described people who were c20 years old at the time when they were first used:
- Dessertgenerasjonen (The Dessert Generation), a term coined in the 1960s to refer to the youth of that time who had always experienced the comfort provided by the Welfare State and post-war prosperity.
- Ironigenerasjonen (The Irony Generation) who are the people born in the 1970s and whose mindset was judged as strongly different from those of previous generations.
- Snøfnuggenerasjonen (The Snowflake Generation) who are people who turned 20 in the 2010s and are supposed to have an extreme sense of their own individual uniqueness... In a society like Norway’s, this is a bit derogatory!
Dessertgenerasjonen (The Dessert Generation), a term coined in 1960s Norway to refer to the youth of that time who had always experienced the comfort provided by the Welfare State and post-war prosperity.”
4. Don’t lose sight of the bigger picture
But there is another, perhaps even better, reason not to take generational constructs for granted. What if they don’t tell the whole story behind customer behaviour?
A good case study is provided by Ipsos on socially conscious purchasers in the Anglosphere. A socially conscious purchaser is a consumer who made or changed a purchase decision based on environmental, social or ethical concerns.
Compared against other generations, Gen Z are the most likely to report socially conscious purchase behaviour. However, due to the population size differences between the generations, this higher penetration of behaviours among Gen Z does not mean they make up the majority of socially conscious purchasers. In actuality, they’re only one socially conscious purchaser in four. Fixating on one generation’s attitudinal differences risks missing out on the bigger picture.
5. Mind the gender gap
One of the most telling lessons we’ve learned when analysing generations is to make sure we keep an open mind and look for the broader dynamic at play.
We need to avoid being drawn into making simple generalisations, such as how one generation compares to another.
Take gender, for example. Our research for International Women’s Day shows vividly the different outlooks by gender across each age group. Generation Z is a particular focus, given the growing evidence of a divergence between the views of men and women.
Alongside gender, there may be other factors – such as income or education level – which may have more powerful analytical impact than a simple description of what’s happening by generation. One of the important reasons for this is the steady rise in the median age of heads of households in, e.g., the US and the falling share of households whose head is under 30.
And coming back to age and generations, we shouldn’t be constrained by generational constructs. It may be that 30-60 is the target audience for my product, a category which spans three of our four 'standard' generational categories. But if that’s the group we are targeting, that’s how we should structure our analysis framework!
6. Think about who is not covered
We have one final point for consideration when it comes to analysing generations. Which is that we need to think about who may not be covered in our research at all.
In the early days of the internet, access was heavily skewed towards younger people. And as online surveys grew, it became harder than before to include a full range of people, particularly those in older groups.
In markets like the UK and US, a 'nationally representative sample' of adults aged 16-64 will exclude more than one in five people.”
These days, with near-universal internet access in some (but by no means all) countries, so-called 'nationally representative' surveys often exclude those aged over 65 or 75 and many more specific studies, focused on the 'target audience' may have a cut-off of age 40 or 50.
In markets like the UK and US, a 'nationally representative sample' of adults aged 16-64 will exclude more than one in five people.
As we show later in this report, Generation X and Baby Boomers have access to considerable wealth and resources. Are we missing a trick by excluding them from our surveys?
