Is Generational Market Segmentation On Its Deathbed?

Picture two white men, both born in 1948. Both were raised in the UK and married twice. Surprisingly, they both live in a castle and, oh, they’re wealthy and famous too. On paper they seem to have a lot in common, right? Following this logic, we should be targeting them in the same way. Except one of these men is King Charles and the other is Ozzy Osbourne so it’s safe to say that they probably have quite different views of the world. This apt example started its life as a meme and resurfaced again on LinkedIn in the lead up to the Coronation, challenging our assumptions and asking us to think beyond what’s on paper. 

It was the sociologist Karl Manheim who, in 1927, first proposed the theoretical generational framework, positing that what defines a generation is people born in the same year who share “a common location in the historical dimension of the social process.” Then there’s the Strauss-Howe generational theory, developed by William Strauss and Neil Howe. It outlines a recurring generational cycle in American history and argues that historical events can be associated with recurring generational archetypes. This is all to say that there was plenty of theorising about generations before marketing ever got involved. 

Generational market segmentation is highly prevalent in our industry, and I’ve seen it used for the entirety of my 20-year career. In many ways, the framework is ingrained in how we think about audiences and targeting. It’s not hard to see why this way of marketing has been so prevalent for so long - it’s an easy shorthand for trying to understand the features and differences of each generation. The data is also readily available and, while it’s more than just someone’s date of birth, it’s easier to understand than something like attitudinal targeting. 

It’s a blunt instrument. It oversimplifies people, not considering the differences in attitude, behaviour and socioeconomic status that exist within generations. That becomes really obvious when we talk about gen z, defined as the generation born between 1997 and 2012. Just look at the difference in the ages there; surely, we’re not saying that a gen z-er born in the year 2010 has a life experience in common with one born in 1999? As marketers, we don’t learn anything from slapping a label on a generation with this much age diversity and attempting to target them. Let’s stop and think about the nuances present in that generation, the forces that shape and influence them. Acknowledging the differences that exist within that cohort and asking whether they might have more in common with other generations than previously thought. 

An assumption that everyone seems to hold about gen z is that they’re eco-warriors when compared to older generations and are practically radicals on green issues compared to Boomers. Except a 2021 study by King’s College London found that the “generational divide over climate action is a myth.” While 70% of gen z said they would change their lifestyle to reduce the impact of climate change, so did 68% of Boomers. That’s a 2% difference that hardly seems like one at all. What’s more, in the research we conducted with gen z-ers, only 5% said that they consider the impact of their environmental choices while every newspaper would have us believe that they’re a card-carrying member of Extinction Rebellion. 

In 2020, BBH Labs looked into the generational myths we believe by calculating a group cohesion score which determines the relative like-mindedness of a group of people - the findings were fascinating. Newspaper readership is the easiest way to demonstrate what they mean. For example, readers of the Financial Times have an average majority opinion of 57%, which is 8.3% higher than the UK average. The paper’s coverage is specific, and the readers are more likely to be socioeconomically similar. On the other hand, The Sun readers’ scores are quite surprising, with a negative group cohesion score of -2.7, meaning that if 100 Sun readers were polled on any one thing, they’d be statistically more likely to disagree more than a group of 100 random Brits. 

As for generational group cohesion, BBH Labs found that generations have a cohesion score of only +1.3 and for gen z the figure falls to +0.2, meaning that gen z-ers were found to have no stronger connection to each other than they do to the rest of the country. All those assumptions and generalisations are then baseless. ‘Gen z’ is a useless label that confers virtually no insight, no matter how much we’d like it to. 

To succeed in our task as marketers, we need to understand who our customers are, what products they want, and the best way to communicate with them. Generational segmentation is a good shorthand for all those things. But it’s time to admit that’s also a lazy one that doesn’t investigate the nuances and intricacies of what it means to be in the world today. 

A final point to consider: as marketers we could be accused of groupthink for our collective reliance on generational segmentation. BBH Labs found marketing has by far the most group cohesion scores out of any profession measured. We all too often all agree that what we know and how we do things is the right way, passing that down to new industry recruits. With this in mind, how can we possibly capture the nuanced individuality of any Gen Z-er (or anyone else for that matter) when we think of them all monolithically?

It seems like generational market segmentation is already on its deathbed. No need to waste effort in keeping it alive any longer.