Marketing to the (new) generations: summary and perspectives

1. Introduction

This special issue of the Journal of Strategic Marketing (JSM) is devoted to generations, and more particularly to how marketing researchers and managers may connect this concept to strategic and operational marketing. While it is difficult to trace the origins of the use of the word, the French lexicographer and philosopher Emile Littré gave one of the first definitions of a generation in 1863, as ‘all men living more or less at the same time’ (Wohl, 1979). The concept of generation gained popularity from the end of the nineteenth century due to two factors (Wohl, 1979). First, the industrialization and modernization of Western societies reduced the influence of the family, especially the paternal figure, in favor of the university or military service, thus creating a shared sense of youth. Second, the rise of nationalism, associated with the removal of local distinctiveness, generated a more general feeling of belonging to an entire society. In 1952, the social scientist Karl Mannheim largely contributed to conceptualization of the generation concept, and proposed a theory on the topic in his seminal essay, The Problem of Generations. Mannheim stressed the importance of generations to make sense of the structure of social and intellectual movements. More recently, Strauss and Howe developed their own Strauss-Howe generational theory (1991), suggesting that the history of the United States can be understood as a succession of generational biographies. Through this very popular publication, they greatly contributed to the development of an industry based on generational management.

Since then, the concept has been used widely in social sciences, mainly in management (e.g. Down & Reveley, 2004; Joshi, Dencker, Franz, & Martocchio, 2010), human resources (e.g. Arsenault, 2004; Parry & Urwin, 2011), information system (e.g. Davis, Pawlowski, & Houston, 2006; Simons, 2010), and more marginally in marketing (e.g. Cho & Hu, 2009; Fukuda, 2010; Schewe & Meredith, 2004). This diffusion of the term led to the proliferation of research studies on generation, each of them with its own perspectives and approach. The aim of this article and of the special issue is to revisit this old but still so promising concept, and to build connections with strategic marketing major concepts. The issue hosts several papers addressing various aspects of the relationship between generations and marketing practices. Beforehand, we present the general framework within which the concept of generational marketing falls, showing how it may affect marketing at both strategic and operational levels. Then, we introduce the selected papers, explaining which particular dimension of generational marketing they cover. Finally, we propose a research agenda for generational marketing.

2. Moving from an ‘age’ perspective to a ‘generation’ perspective

As a first step in our reflection, we distinguish between two close and sometimes confused concepts: age and generation. Traditionally, age comes to mind first as a basis for marketing decisions. Indeed, brand and product managers often consider age as a way to segment the market – often along with other demographic factors such as gender, marital status, occupation, and household size. This perspective is both obvious and inescapable. It is obvious because human morphology, tastes, attitudes, perceptions, and lifestyles change significantly over a lifetime, leading to substantial changes in buying behaviors. Marketing specialists may then note that specific behaviors match specific age groups, and use this match for segmentation, targeting, and positioning. Age is also inescapable in marketing strategy, as it influences consumers’ physical, psychological, sociological, and cultural features, thus making their relationships with products and brands wholly dependent on age. These considerations have led both professional and academic marketing specialists to consider age an expected segmentation criterion. Consequently, many companies focus on a single age group as their core target, while others, with more means or a more diverse strategy, will propose a specific marketing mix for each age group.

Despite its importance and obviousness, several authors in the marketing field questioned early on the relevance of chronological age as a segmentation criterion. After reviewing a complete set of empirical studies on the topic, Fitzgerald-Bone (1991) concludes that age is irrelevant to the segmentation of mature markets. Mueller-Heumann (1992) describes it as ‘obsolete’ and ‘rather simplistic,’ and goes as far as predicting its total disappearance. In the same vein, Fennell (1982) questions the misconception according to which those in the same age group would buy the same version of a product. For these authors, age and other demographic criteria may be ineffective in addressing consumer needs. Straughan and Roberts (1999) share the same view, and consider the criterion of age as less useful than it seems. They invite marketers to take a more nuanced view, and to consider psychographics when segmenting. Considering these limitations, there is a need to approach segmentation based on age with a new lens and to include new perspectives when using it in marketing strategies. This call for a change of perspective aligns with the current context of rapidly ageing populations and demographic transition that may be interpreted as a generational shock with significant political, social and economic impact.

One way of going beyond age-based segmentation, which is often criticized as one-dimensional, is to place it in a broader theoretical field: Generational Cohort Theory. Anchored in sociology, this theory considers that individuals who experience the same historical, social, cultural, political, and economic events during their coming-of-age years – more specifically between 17 and 23 – share common core values and behaviors over the course of their lives (Mannheim, 1952). Individuals have to experience these major social changes when they are young to produce a shared generational consciousness or a collective memory (Schuman & Scott, 1989). Drawing from Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (1977), Turner (1998) suggests a more cultural definition of generation as a:

cohort of persons passing through time who come to share a common habitus and lifestyle … [and] has a strategic temporal location to a set of resources as a consequence of historical accident and the exclusionary practices of social closure. (Turner, 1998, p. 302)

As a consequence, a generation has strategic access to collective resources and, by excluding others from these resources, maintains its cultural identity (Eyerman & Turner, 1998).

Such an approach invites marketing specialists to change their unit of analysis: the strategic reflection should be at generational rather than individual level. Research has already identified stronger generational than age effects in coffee consumption (Rentz & Reynolds, 1991) and in the formation of musical tastes (Holbrook & Schindler, 1989). Eastman and Liu (2012), who have found differences in the average level of status consumption between generations, argue that the relationship between generation and status consumption is due only to generational dimensions and is not influenced by other demographic variables such as gender, income, or education. Companies willing to take a generational approach to marketing strategy should identify distinctive generational cohorts and consider them as segments. From a methodological perspective, this identification generally follows two main steps. The first step involves spotting the major nation-wide historical and sociocultural events that generate the values of the different generational cohorts. The second step consists in deducing the time intervals during which the members of a generational cohort were born (Fernández-Durán, 2016). Segmentation using generational cohorts identified in this way is richer and more effective than chronological age (Parment, 2013; Schewe & Meredith, 2004). Generational cohorts’ experiences, beliefs, core values, attitudes, and preferences shape their behaviors, and are liable to provide more in-depth profiles of segments and understanding of their buying decisions.

This new approach to market segmentation requires a more complex reflection on what generations really involve and how their use differs from age-based segmentation. A rich vocabulary has been developed to ground it better. Many companies now follow this approach, adopting what may be called generational marketing. Generational marketing consists of adapting goods/services and other components of the marketing-mix to a specific generation. From this perspective, companies may adopt a one-generation-specialization. Senior marketing is a good illustration of a particular form of generational marketing. Other companies prefer to adopt a strategy of multi-generational marketing. The idea here is to go beyond the unique needs of individuals belonging to the same generational group and to propose an offering liable to satisfy those of more than one generation.

To understand their consumers’ generational cultures and subcultures in detail, companies may rely on different in-depth qualitative market research techniques (Williams, Page, Petrosky, & Hernandez, 2010). They may opt for traditional approaches such as ethnographic observation, or for emerging methodologies such as cognitive mapping, netnography, or videography. These new approaches seem more appropriate given that they focus on subjective age, materialized by interests and lifestyles, rather than on chronological age (Guiot, 1999).

3. Generation(s) and marketing strategy

As explained previously, to be more effective, companies should move beyond birth date and the chronological age perspective. When assigning consumers to a generation, marketing managers should be aware of the different possible levels of analysis. Limiting oneself to biological age may be risky. Marketing strategists may also approach consumers from other possible angles: social age, cognitive age, subjective age, personal age, and ‘other-perceived’ age (Barak & Schiffman, 1981). Social age is based on consumers’ status and roles in the society in which they evolve. Cognitive age corresponds to the age individuals attribute to themselves. Subjective age is the age group in which consumers place themselves (for instance, middle-aged, elderly, or old). Perceived age is four-dimensional: feel age (how old consumers feel), look age (how old consumers look), do age (linked to involvement into actions), and interest age (related to the similarity of consumers’ interests to other age groups). Barak (1987) also includes group referral, the identification with generational groups, to apprehend cognitive age better. This framework calls for nuance and precision in the development of marketing strategy and implementation of an appropriate marketing mix.

Let us take the example of a company targeting baby boomers, who are now considered as seniors. The term ‘baby boomers’ refers to the generation born following World War II, i.e. from 1946 to 1964 (Roberts & Manolis, 2000). Since these consumers were born at a time of increasing birth rates, they now comprise a significant proportion of the members of western societies, contributing to an ageing population. This generation is characterized by a very high average disposable income, thus attracting marketers (Paul, 2003). However, when targeting baby boomers, marketing deciders cannot limit their vision of this segment to their chronological age. Instead, they should adopt a multidimensional perspective, integrating the different dimensions defined above. At this level, gerontographics may reveal insights into this generation, as its approach is based on the grey generation’s psychographics and lifestyles, providing details of needs, attitudes, and behaviors (Moschis, 1996). Companies may associate their products with semiotic cues conveying denotations and/or connotations of the dynamism and youth sought by this generation. When designing advertising campaigns, they may also use relatively young characters and make sure that themes such as vitality, action and family are present in the scenario, but also consider some of the psychological, sociological, and behavioral features characterizing the generation that contribute to their intra-generational consistency (Bourcier-Béquaert & de Barnier, 2010).

Beyond baby boomers, other generational cohorts have retained the attention of marketing researchers. Generation Z is the generational cohort of consumers born between 1995 and the late 2000s (Posnick-Goodwin, 2010). In 2017, this group is 22 years old or younger. They are also known as ‘Gen Next,’ ‘Gen I,’ or ‘Echo Bust.’ This market segment includes the most educated, mobile, and connected consumers to date (Babin & Harris, 2016). Generation Z members are also socially conscious, tech-savy, particularly innovative and permanently looking for change. They are continuously connected through smartphones, tablets, and the Internet of Things. They are highly tolerant, have great self-esteem, and are perplexed by violence and adult content in the media. They prefer written communication forms to oral ones. Finally, they have access to more information than any other generational cohort (Kardes, Cronley, & Cline, 2014).

Generation Y, also called ‘N-gen,’ ‘Echo Boom,’ or ‘Millenials,’ includes consumers born between 1981 and 1995 (Brosdahl & Carpenter, 2011). Their early exposure to technology shaped their behavior and had significant psychological, social, and cognitive consequences (Bolton et al., 2013). Their communication mode is shaped by new technologies, the Internet and social networks (Smith, 2011). They are connected 24/7 on multiple devices. This feature also helped to forge their vision of the world, a vision where they feel comfortable about questioning established authority, and where traditional hierarchical structures are no longer the prevailing operational model. They are liable to share and spread their opinions about brands and companies and expect to have personal, equal-to-equal exchanges with them.

Finally, Generation X consumers were born between 1966 and the late 1980s. They are also termed Baby Blusters. These consumers are heavy spenders, notably on housing, clothing, entertainment, and food (particularly on outdoor dining). They have been labeled the ‘fear generation,’ as their coming-of-age period was marked by the threat of nuclear war, the economic crisis, and the specter of unemployment (Solomon, 2014). These characteristics may explain the particular relationship Xers have with marketing. They are indeed skeptical of marketing stimuli, and develop different forms of resistance to marketing (O’Donohoe & Tynan, 1998), especially when it gives them a passive role. This generation would prefer to engage with marketing, rather than endure it (Ritchie, 2002). This makes this segment harder to persuade and influence (Bashford, 2010).

Generational marketing strategies are based on the concept of generations developed above, each generation’s major features, and the differences between them. Generational branding provides a concrete example of how such strategies may be implemented. Companies may then develop products that best suit a given generation. For example, when targeting Generation Y, marketers may propose products reflecting values resonating with this generation. Buying decisions are often significantly conditioned by one’s generation; peers often guide product and brand choice, directly or indirectly. Thanks to tremendous technological advances and consumer connectedness, it is easy for companies to adapt their offering to the unique expectations of younger consumers (Williams & Page, 2011). Another branding strategy might be to develop transgenerational brands, devoid of generational markers (Wellner, 2003). Here, companies would try to increase the transgenerational power of their brand by favoring positive word-of-mouth communication (Moore & Bowman, 2006). The idea behind this perspective is to broaden the reach of the brand both horizontally – by involving several generations at the same time – and vertically – by allowing the brand to cross generations through time (Bourcier-Béquaert & de Barnier, 2010).

It may seem obvious that distinct generations will react differently to pricing strategies and marketing decisions, due to the significant differences in their revenues (Noble, Haytko, & Phillips, 2009). However, marketing strategies should not limit themselves to these prima facie observations. Younger generational cohorts more likely associate high prices with good quality and value. They are also more liable to question prices (Roberts & Manolis, 2000). Other generational differences may impact pricing decisions, namely price/value consciousness, price and brand sensitivity, and preference for discounted prices (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003). In fact, price sensitivity differs significantly between generations (Gauzente & Roy, 2012). This observation should lead companies to adapt the way their communication around prices to different generations.

Considerations related to generational cohorts also impact retail stores and managers (Jackson, Stoel, & Brantley, 2011). The immediate implication is that assortments must constantly be adapted to evolving needs and buying behaviors and habits. Purchasing conveys different meanings and forms for different generations. For instance, Generation Y is associated with experiential consumption, compelling store managers to reconsider the management of their atmospherics totally, integrating sensorial marketing and entertainment into their offering (Lehtonen & Mäenpää, 1997), and transforming both malls and smaller stores into real entertainment centers (Chaney, 1983). The role and impact of retailers as prescribers also change from one generation to another. While for Baby Boomers trust in the retailer is crucial, it is of minor importance for Generation Y (Parment, 2013). Consequently, managers should adapt their store to each generation, taking into account differences with regard to shopping style and orientation, time allocation, and preference for brick-and-mortar vs. online retail channels (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016; Shankar, Inman, Mantrala, Kelley, & Rizley, 2011). Recently, retailers have considered generational differences by digitizing consumers’ decision journeys and by offering more multi-channel and cross-channel possibilities (van Bommel, Edelman, & Ungerman, 2014).

The relationship between each generation and the media also influence promotional strategies and operations (Dou, Wang, & Zhou, 2006). While for generations Y and Z, the Internet is now a major feature of everyday practices and routines, this is not necessarily the case for other generations (Swanepoel, Lye, & Rugimbana, 2009). Of course, the Internet and mobile advertising have recently emerged as unavoidable promotional paths. However, recent studies show that its acceptance and integration differ between generations. Companies may vary their hedonic/utilitarian use of the Internet, the information sources they use, its purchase influence, payment possibilities, and the requirement for online consumer skills in targeted generations (Chu & Sung, 2015; Thomson & Laing, 2003). Even relationships to more traditional promotional media such as TV differ between generations. When targeting new generations through traditional promotional channels, companies should simultaneously engage the social networks associated with them and give preference to the promotional tools considered as social events by younger TV watchers (Lewis, Medvedev, & Seponski, 2011).

4. Presentation of the articles of the special issue

The purpose of this special issue is to improve understanding of the concept of generation in marketing and of how academics and managers can frame and address new generational issues. Each of the five papers selected for the special issue offers insights into generational marketing and helps to anchor the concept of generation in a theoretical marketing toolkit (Table 1). Three papers study one specific generation, while the other two contrast several generations and elaborate on their distinctiveness. In terms of topics, two articles study the link between generation and consumers’ decision-making processes, two deal with online and offline shopping, and one covers more broadly the concept of life satisfaction according to the generation.

Table 1. An overview of the articles in the special issue.

		Consumer decision-making	Shopping (online and offline)	Life satisfaction
Centered on one generation	Future generations (children)	Mzoughi, Brée and Cherif
	Generation Y		Dalla Pozza, Heitz-Spahn and Texier
	Baby boomers	Groeppel-Klein, Helfgen, Spilski and Schreiber
Comparison between generations	Generations Y & Z		Yarimoglu
	Generations Y & Z/baby boomers			König and Larsen

The first paper, by Mzoughi, Brée and Cherif is entitled ‘Toward the Characterization of “Toy-Packaging”: An Exploratory Research.’ This article focuses on today’s children as a future generation that marketers will have to deal with. The goal of the paper is to understand how companies seek to attract them through colorful, entertaining, playful packaging. Through two different studies, the authors try to characterize this new type of packaging and to demonstrate its impact on the decision-making process of this generation of young consumers.

The second article on the consumer decision-making process is written by Groeppel-Klein, Helfgen, Spilski and Schreiber, and is entitled ‘The Impact of Age Stereotypes on Elderly Consumers’ Self-efficacy and Cognitive Performance.’ This article discusses the stereotypes associated with the baby boomer generation and the impact this may have on their decision-making process. More specifically, an experiment with 122 elderly consumers shows that negative age stereotypes lead to a decrease in cognitive performance, and that this relationship is mediated by self-efficacy.

Dalla Pozza, Heitz-Spahn, and Texier propose an article entitled ‘Generation Y Multichannel Behaviour for Complex Services: The Need for Human Contact Embodied through a Distance Relationship.’ As the title suggests, this article focuses on Generation Y and channel choices throughout the purchasing process. While we might expect this hyper-connected generation to be interested only in virtual channels such as social media, the authors show that Generation Y members still need human contact in their purchasing process, particularly for complex products such as insurance. Following this first result, the authors identify three consumer profiles in the Y generation: human contact seekers, who want a personalized relationship, independence seekers, who are mainly looking for solutions that save time and effort, and parental advice seekers who rely heavily on their parents.

‘Demographic Differences on Service Quality and Perceived Value in Private Online Shopping Clubs’ is the title of the fourth paper of this special issue. This paper, by Yarimoglu, also discusses shopping. It investigates the impact of demographic differences on the perception of service quality and value in a private online environment. Among several findings related to gender, age or income, the author finds that both generations Y and Z clearly prefer shopping in stores rather than online, which is in line with the findings of Dalla Pozza, Heitz-Spahn, and Texier.

Finally, König and Larsen compare the life satisfaction of generation Z, generation Y, and baby boomers. In their paper, entitled ‘An Intergenerational Perspective on Life Satisfaction and its Drivers: A Comparison between 18-29 year-old and 50+ Consumers in Germany,’ they show that young and old generations exhibit a similar degree of life satisfaction but with interesting differences in terms of drivers. Indeed, elderly consumers are more sensitive to health improvements and increased sociability than young consumers, while the lack of money is more important for generations Y and Z. Interestingly, the authors also identify age 23 as the time when cognitive and chronological age converge.

5. Conclusion and directions for further research

Based on our theoretical introduction and the insights derived from the five articles of this special issue, we conclude by proposing a research agenda for generational marketing driven by two dimensions: studies dedicated to one specific generation vs. several generations, and static studies vs. longitudinal studies (Table 2).

Table 2. A research agenda for generational marketing.

	Focus on one generation	Comparison between generations
Static studies	Understand in more detail the behavior of each generation: nostalgia, satisfaction, loyalty, word-of-mouth	Identify generational gaps in terms of consumption: communication, shopping, product category
Longitudinal studies	Highlight evolutions for each generation: relationship between life events and consumption behavior	Chart trajectories of different generations: comparison of evolutions, comparison of transmission processes

First, since ‘each generation has unique expectations, experiences, generational history, lifestyles, values, and demographics’ (Williams & Page, 2011, p. 1), marketing research should aim to improve understanding of the consumption behavior of each generation, particularly in terms of the consequences of purchasing behavior. For example, generations Y and Z are often described as being very difficult to retain because they need constant change. In the same vein, baby boomers have now acquired a great deal of experience; this suggests that they may be more difficult to attract and satisfy. Word-of-mouth should be more effective with the hyper-connected generation Y, despite their complex loyalty behavior. A better understanding of each generation’ satisfaction and loyalty behavior is therefore paramount. Similarly, how can we generate nostalgia in each generation, and at what point does it become desirable to play on nostalgia? In addition, even if the members of the same generation have experienced the same events, Mannheim (1952) suggests that they may interpret them in different ways, so that generations are not homogenous. This means that future studies should focus on establishing typologies of consumers in each generation and highlight the main differences that characterize each cohort.

Second, from a longitudinal perspective, further research could study generations over time and their relationship with consumption. Indeed, it can be assumed that life events influence consumption over time in terms of product categories, product quality, and brands. Better understanding of these evolutions would provide useful insights for both researchers and managers. Furthermore, it may be thought that experiencing a major economic crisis or unemployment period, for example, will influence a generation’s values (Noble & Schewe, 2003), and thus its consumption behavior. Since the notion of generation describes groups of people who have experienced similar historical, social, cultural, political, and economic events (Mannheim, 1952), it would be interesting to link significant events witnessed by a given generation to its behavior.

Third, it seems important to compare and identify differences between generations (Ryder, 1965). For instance, Carpenter, Moore, Doherty, and Alexander (2012) reveal that the youngest generations are more open to other cultures than the older generations. Reisenwitz and Iyer (2009) show that Generation Y is more likely to use Internet than Generation X; equally interested in volunteerism and work; but less loyal to brands and less risk averse. Jackson et al. (2011) identify no differences in hedonic and utilitarian shopping values by generation but some generational differences in attitude toward locational convenience and entertainment features. To extend these analyses, several aspects should be studied in particular. In terms of communication, how do generations deal with digital marketing? Do they react to the same channels? In terms of shopping behavior, do generations react to store atmospherics in the same way? How do different generations manage the interplay between online and offline shopping? In terms of product categories, do all generations have the same attitude towards eco-friendly products? How do the generations perceive the sharing economy?

Fourth, research on marketing and generations should compare different generations over time. Since they have experienced different events during their youth, two generations are assumed to react to identical facts in different ways. For example, do generations Y and Z have the same perception of old age? Does this perception evolve in the same way over time? Moreover, whilst the notion of transmission between generations has already been studied in the literature (Curasi, Price, & Arnould, 2004), the transmission processes have not been compared. However, we can assume that the transmission between baby boomers and generation X is different from the transmission between generation X and generation Y. Further research could thus identify these differences. We believe that all these questions, together with the insights provided by the articles in this special issue, will not only help advance our knowledge of generational marketing but also generate new studies on the topic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.