Get Me Jamie Notter

Marketing to Millennials

I was in Germany this week (my first trip ever to that country) to do a presentation on Generations to a group of people who offer counseling services to U.S. military personnel and their families. Like nearly everyone who asks me to speak on generations, they were particularly focused on the younger generation, and in their case it is for obvious reasons, as most of the soldiers deploying these days are going to be Millennials. In addition to the broader generational picture that I present, they wanted my take on how they need to be marketing to Millennials. They were concerned that traditional methods would not work on this generation.

So when I did my presentation about Millennials, I added some material about marketing. It is fairly high level, as marketing is not my background, but for each of the trends that I talk about in terms of the development of the Millennial generation, I added a related trend for marketing.

When I talk about Millennials, I frequently make the point that while everyone and their brother is writing a book or a blog post about what this generation wants and why, they are all guesses (including mine). This generation is simply too young to have a very deep sense of what is driving them. Generational differences are really best viewed in hindsight. So you have to take this stuff with a grain of salt.

That being said, we shouldn't just ignore the issue and wait until they are all in their 40s and 50s. It's good to put these guesses out there. So for me, I'm guessing that these four trends are going to be major shapers of the Millennials

• The internet (specifically the social internet)
• Abundance
• Diversity
• Child-focused.

It's hard to summarize these trends in a few sentences, but here goes: Growing up with the internet and ubiquitous information, Millennials have embraced social technology so, in short, they can do more things themselves than previous generations, so they expect to be able to do more earlier in their lives and careers. If they don't like your rules, they'll do it themselves. They also grew up with incredible abundance (self-storage--and industry based on us having way more crap than we can fit in our huge houses--is $17 billion per year), and with abundance comes a focus on higher order needs. Diversity is also more "normal" to them and they expect varied backgrounds, information from varied sources, and strange mashups as normal. And they grew up with parents focusing on them. Everyone gets a trophy. Driven to play dates constantly.

So here are the marketing trends I came up with:

1. SHARE (from the internet trend). If you want your marketing to be successful, create things that are shareable. This generation has been mass-marketed AT since they were tiny. That's boring. But what their friend gives to them, now that's worth taking a look. This is about word of mouth and social objects, which don't by the way, always have to be internet or social-media related (inviting someone to an in person networking event is a social object).

2. DESIGN (from the abundance trend). This comes from Dan Pink, but when you've got abundance you move to "higher order" needs like design. Dan points to the Michael Graves toilet brush. Having a toilet brush that works is simply a given. But we get value from its design. Millennials also grew up online where rich and engaging design is the norm. Compare the user interface of Pong to World of Warcraft. Makes me wonder if that two-color tri-fold brochure is going to cut it with these folks? (Particularly when so many of them could design a better brochure themselves!)

3. NETWORK (from the diversity trend). Expecting diversity means expecting to get information from a variety of sources--even sources that may not make sense. So instead of the funnel (broadcast message to 10,000, hope 1,000 read it, then 100 call you, and 10 buy), think lattice. Find network of influencers. Find out where the conversations really happen and see how to become a part of it. Lateral information sharing just as important (or more important?) as vertical.

4. PERSONAL (from the child-focused trend). Whether we like it or not, they had their needs catered to as children. If you say "Yeah, but they need to wake up and not be so spoiled" I say, "Sorry. They got it instantly and customized and they will continue to expect it--and get it." Think about the google ads that are customized. Think about how I mentioned divorce in a tweet once and I now get DMs from relationship coaches. The data is out there and is being used to customize. Once they have that, they won't go back, so we'd all better figure out how to do it.

So what do you think?

Generations: Where's the Love?

Maggie McGary went off on a bit of a rant about Generation Y/Millennials on her (spectacular) blog the other day. She watched Penelope Trunk speak about the younger generation and then read a guest post on Trunk's blog by a 23-year-old who had quit a job after just two weeks, partially because she was able to continue living with her parents (something done much more frequently by this generation than generations before). The gist of Maggie's commentary: Gen Y needs to get over themselves and stop thinking that the world is going to constantly cater to them, and for God's sake don't you realize that living with Mom and Dad makes you a loser?!

I'd like to push back a bit. First, on the living at home thing. Here's my take. Living at home after college used to make you a loser. Now it doesn't. The people who need to get over that are the Gen Xers and Boomers who want the Millennials to experience the world the same way we do. What constitutes "loser" will change over time and the aging generations will choose to either roll with that or resist it. I prefer rolling with it. And I'd also add that the world is different now than when we were getting out of college. Student debt is bigger than it used to be and I think in most areas housing might be relatively more expensive than it used to be. I don't have the numbers on this, but it's worth considering before being too judgmental about where Millennials live.

Second, I have a different read on that guest blog post. I thought her points about realizing early on that it wasn't a good fit there and being smart enough to leave are points worth considering. We just don't have enough data in that blog post to know if she was being impetuous or insightful. Recognizing it wasn't the right "fit" might have been because they made her make copies, but it might have been because the culture was not as promised. She might have been giving up too quickly, but she might have been doing everyone a favor by not wasting time and energy trying to make it work.

Third, Maggie suggested that there are "droves" of Gen Xers waiting to take and do jobs if Millennials would rather stay at home with Mom and Dad, and from a demographic view, that's not true. There are millions and millions of Gen Xers--don't get me wrong. But relatively we are a much smaller generation than either the Boomers or Millennials. I agree that I don't think all the Boomers are going to retire en masse as many have been worrying, but there are senior positions opening for Gen X now, so I'm not sure we will be available in droves to fill lower level positions. I think the combination of generational attitudes plus the "hourglass" demographics is going to force some rather significant structural change in organizations.

Oh, and by the way, Strauss and Howe, my favorite theorists on generations, point out that typically every generation has "issues" with the generation immediately below them. Just look at the conversation Eric Lanke had with a Boomer colleague about Generation X's leadership (and the comments too).

Great Ideas Leadership Lessons 3: Learn About Generations

(Lessons 1 and 2 are posted here and here)

This was arguably the hardest one to pick 80s music for for me, but that doesn't make it any less important. Those who know me know that I think generations are important, but there were a few points that I particularly wanted to highlight around the topic of generations and leadership.

First, I think Generation X is going to lead differently. That was the impetus behind the Hourglass Blog that I write with Eric Lanke, and I posted more detailed thoughts about this part of the Great Ideas session over there.

Second, beyond all the generational differences in values, attitudes, and behavior, we frequently overlook the basic demographics of the generations that will have a serious impact on leadership. The Boomers and the Millennials are both huge populations--the two biggest generations in our nation's history. Generation X is MUCH smaller. This means that all the organizational structures we have in place now were created as a large generation was moving up through the ranks. At the big picture level, we won't be able to fill those slots with Generation X. So we either need to restructure things or put people in those slots who do NOT have the same level of experience as those who are vacating them.

Third, I think the Millennial generation also leads differently, and I don't think they are going to wait as patiently as Generation X has. Enabled by the social web, Millennials do a lot themselves, and it's going to change what leadership means. These days associations debate at the leadership level whether or not they should create a Facebook page for their association, and when they finally get approval to do so they discover that there are already 28 different groups on Facebook about them, most of which are using the association's logo! How will leadership in our organizations adapt to a group that won't necessarily wait for us?

New Blog on Generations and Leadership

Several weeks ago, Eric Lanke, who is the Executive Director of the National Fluid Power Association, reached out to me with an idea to start a dialogue. Like me, Eric is a Generation X leader who has noticed that most of the conversation about generations seems to be looking "down" the ladder: what do we do with these Millennials coming into the workforce?!

But what about up? What about the large number of Boomers who are slated to resign from the very top of the organizational chart (note I said "slated to retire"; I'm not yet convinced they actually WILL retire!)? How will generational tendencies of the X generation change the way leadership is executed at the top? How will the hourglass shape of the three main generations in the workforce today (large number of Boomers, small number of Xers, large number of Millennials) impact how organizations most effectively shape the future?

Eric and I like talking about topics like this, and we're looking for others who want to talk about it too. We're not exactly sure of the best way to promote and facilitate this dialogue, but at the very least we felt it was worthy of a blog! So we created the "Hourglass Blog." It's just getting started, but I hope you'll get the feed and follow along because I think the conversation will be interesting.

Generations and Learning Style

In my last post I told a story that talked about the younger generation and asking questions. I put out there the possibility that at least some members of the younger generation might think that asking questions in a group setting was "rude" and they preferred to ask questions directly. I thought the comments to that post were an interesting mix of agreement and push back.

Some of the push back basically said, "But group questions and discussion is a valuable way to learn and these young people need to adjust." I tried to make the point that any time you tell anyone they "need to adjust" you first need to question your side of the story. Just because they have a different point of view doesn't mean it's wrong or inferior. I encourage people to approach that situation with curiosity, playing with different possibilities rather than being sure that you're answer is the right one.

But Jeff De Cagna brought up an interesting point to me in a conversation we had. While we may all have different learning styles, that doesn't mean we should ignore principles of adult learning. We all benefit from pushing the edges of our comfort zone in that regard. Sue Pelletier blogged about my post and got the following comment:

I am a member of that “younger generation” and I found this quite interesting. I have always felt the same way. I much prefer to ask questions in private, over email, or in general not in front of the group. And as you point out, it is not because I’m shy (I consider myself to be quite outgoing and talkative), but because sometimes I feel like I could be wasting others’ time. More than that though, I simply prefer to learn that way. I am more likely to walk away fully understanding something if I ask or discuss it personally (electronically or not).

It's always a balancing act between people's preferences (where they are comfortable) and their learning edges (which are by definition uncomfortable). You need to have some time in both. I love pushing people out of their comfort zone because it's a part of growth and learning, and that should be a driver here: improving learning (rather than trying to figure out the absolute "right" way to do something).

Focus on Others (You'll Get More for You)

Thanks to generations guy Andrew Krzmarzick for pointing to a nice article in Tech News World about using social networks (like Facebook) in a business context. It's a nice article to have on hand to those of you out there who get the push back when you talk to executives about social media initiatives. Granted, the author is a CEO of a technology company, but I think he makes some compelling arguments about why it's a good idea for just about any organization. One of my favorite quotes was this:

Often companies...spend a fortune on programs to try and force their people into a contrived "corporate culture" that looks nothing like what the organization's employees want.

My experience has shown that social networks deliver in several ways. First, they keep the most clever and creative staff members happy in their work, because they can multi-task, manage their lives, consult their peers, and feel somewhat free while spending long hours at their desks. Secondly, social networks facilitate the "informal learning" that is so crucial in any business environment, particularly in the world of high tech. The added bonus is that the subject matter experts are not limited to the people immediately at hand; they can be anywhere in the world, and they often are.

Happier people. More learning. Access to more resources. These are good things.

The theme that I want to pull out, though, is creating an organization that your employees want. I know there are bosses out there who would bristle at that paragraph. "You mean I need to create an organization that allows for my 20-something employees to 'manage their lives!?' Um...Don't they work for ME? Manage your life on your own time!"

Look, it's your organization and you can run it however you want. You can demand that all your employees work the way you would want to work, and a bunch of them will be fine with that. You'll survive. I would argue that your turnover rates are going to increase steadily, but honestly there are plenty of organizations that can handle those increased costs.

But why wouldn't you create an organization that gives employees what they want? In conflict resolution, I have to make this point all the time. When you are negotiating with someone, it is in YOUR interests to make sure THEY get their interests met. People don't like this advice. They don't want to spend their energy helping their adversary get what they want. They want to focus on their own needs.

That is the lesson: you are more likely to get what you want when your opponent is getting what they want. This doesn't mean you give in to all their demands (no, you don't necessarily have to order a foosball table for your employees), but you do have to be aware of what they want and why they want it.

Do you know what your employees want and why? If you did, you'd probably be able to give them much of what they ask for while still protecting your interests in running a successful organization. Facebook and social networks is just one example.

I think we spend too much time designing things and doing things overly focused on what we want. We make web sites that work for us (not the user), we create organizations that work for the organizers (not the employees), we create evaluation forms that work for the meeting planners (not the attendees). Of course we need to be clear on what we want and need, but that shouldn't be our focus. I think if you focus on others, you'll end up getting more for you.

The Gamer Disposition

The February 2008 HBR also had their annual list of "breakthrough ideas." John Seely Brown and Douglas Thomas wrote about the "Gamer Disposition."

Although they don't mention it, this has been cited as a generational issue. Authors have suggested that since younger generations grow up playing video games, it has impacted their approach in the workplace. Seely Brown and Thomas are referring specifically to online massive multiplayer games, like World of Warcraft, and they find that people who are into these games end up with the "gamer disposition," which has five key attributes:

1. They are bottom-line oriented.
Gamers like to be evaluated, even compared with one another… Their goal is not to be rewarded, but to improve.

2. They understand the power of diversity.
The criterion for advancement is not "How good am I?"; it's "how much have I helped the group?"

3. They thrive on change.
Gamers do not simply manage change; they create it, thrive on it, seek it out.

4. They see learning as fun.
For most players, the fun of the game lies in learning how to overcome obstacles.

5. They marinate on the "edge"
Part of the gamer disposition, then, is a desire to seek and explore the edges in order to discover some new insight or useful information that deepens one's understanding of the game.

I've heard people (older people, frankly; okay that includes people my age, I'm afraid) who express concern at what all those hours playing games has done to the newest generation in the work force. That they are anti-social, that they have unrealistic expectations, that they want things instantly, like they can get in games. That they don't know how to work in teams.

Personally, I don't think those worries are too relevant, but they also reflect a profound misunderstanding of what gaming is really like, as evidenced by the gamer disposition that Seely Brown and Thomas describe. And they reflect a certain lack of flexibility that is at the heart of most generational issues. Generational criticisms come out in the following structure:

• Young people are not like me.
• The way I have done things has really worked well.
• The way young people are doing it is not working well.

I have heard a concern expressed that playing video games has contributed to a lack of respect for rules. In order to win many video games, you at one point or another need to break the rules, or at least doing things in ways that don't "make sense" (going through the obvious door rarely works out—you need to find a way around). Some may see this as a problem, but the Gamer Disposition describes it positively: as learning, as discovering new insight, as deepening your understanding.

Remember that your mental models are constantly shaping your thoughts and conclusions. The more flexibility you have—the more aware you are of the models that are operating, the more you will be able to see where there is value in how another generation is doing things (and, frankly, where they are screwing things up).

Generation X Saves the World?

Suzanne Kart of the Generation Xpert blog put up a GREAT video (nine minutes long) of Jeff Gordinier talking about Generation X. Gordinier has written a book with a super title: X Saves The World: How Generation X Got the Shaft But Can Still Keep Everything from Sucking.

He talks about being the "sandwich" generation between the Boomers and the Millennials and how we're used to not getting that much attention, focusing on the micro as opposed to the all macro boomers. Interestingly, by the way, the generation before the Boomers is called the Silent generation—they too were not in the limelight. Strauss and Howe talk about this pattern that apparently dates back hundreds of years.

Anyway, I encourage people to look at the video and think/talk about it. I liked most of what he had to say, and personally resonated with much of it as an Xer. My only disappointment was his negative characterization of Millennials being all about the money (I don't see that one myself).

My favorite quote:

The thing about generation x is, they have an impact—without needing to have a parade about it.

Love Your Customers and Members but Ignore Your Employees?

I listened to a virtual seminar last week that ASAE & The Center put on about engaging members and staff of younger generations. Since I have a book on the topic, I was interested to hear how this author, Michael Muetzel, tackled the subject. I am pleased to report that at least this guy is toning the hype down. He warned everyone about generalizations, he acknowledged that there are differing interpretations of start and end years, and that it should be based on generational attitudes/values rather than demographic statistics. And he never mocked any of the generations. If anything, he apologized too much when he thought he might be saying something negative. All that was refreshing.

After the overview, he focused mostly on how to engage younger people in the workforce, and he made a provocative point: if the younger generation feels entitled and doesn't want to "pay their dues," then...okay. Don't make them pay their dues. That's the way they are, so deal with it.

This is not a typical reaction! The typical reaction is to tell these kids to grow up, to explain that they don't understand the work world yet, and, if you're lucky, you might even hear the story about how I had to walk to school in the snow when I was a kid! I believe it was uphill both ways, too.

Here’s the root of his point, though. In doing his research, he came across companies that were very proud of the fact that they were always a step ahead of their customers in terms of identifying and satisfying customer needs. In other words, if you give the customers what they want, then you'll be more successful (duh). Obviously this applies to associations as well, in terms of members. You try to understand them, anticipate their needs, wow them, impress them, satisfy them.

But when it comes to your younger employees, you usually just scratch your head and tell them they need to grow up and change (and be more like you). I'm exaggerating a bit, but there is an element of truth here. In general, employees are not given the same "status" that customers or members are given. We just don"t have to care about them as much, satisfy them as much, or respect their needs, wishes, or desires as much.

Why is that? There are lots of studies about how disengaged the workforce is. During the seminar I tweeted some of the stats that he gave us: according to a Gallup survey, 71% of employees are not particularly engaged at work. A Careerbuilder survey suggested that something like 84% of people hate their jobs (although they have an interest in saying that, I think).

So everyone hates their job and isn't engaged. And we don't think that's a problem? Do you think your organization would perform at the exact same level if everyone there were engaged and excited about their work? I tend to think your performance would improve (and honestly I'm kind of surprised I have to spell this argument out). Muetzel showed a statistic at one organization where they saw a 3.44% increase in net margin as a result of increased employee engagement.

So if your younger employees are suggesting that they are not willing to wait ten years before seeing an increase in their job responsibilities, what will you tell them? To keep quiet and get back in line? That in your day everyone had to wait ten years? To stop bothering you because you have important emails to answer?

Or would you view that as important data? Would that be on your radar screen as something that this generation of employees is concerned about, and you’d start to look at your organization and your systems so that you could better serve this important constituency? If you manage people, how much of your time is deovted to figuring out how th make THEM happy in their jobs? I’m not saying you have to do everything your employees say. But the power of engagement is an untapped resource in an era when we've squeezed the efficiencies out of almost everything else. This is also what Lencioni's most recent book is about. More on that later this week.

Nice Essay about Generation X

Check out this well-written essay by Helen Mosher about Generation X and the value we bring as "translators" between Boomers and Millennials. It not only talks about some interesting dynamics that I have also noticed about Gen X being sandwiched between two larger generations, but she also sheds some light on the ongoing "debate" about social media. I hadn't made the generational connection to that conversation. Here is her conclusion:

Don’t skip Generation X. We’ve seen it more than once. We’ve heard you ask how to reach us, and seen you form committees hoping to find the magic pill that will get us back in to your idea of an organization. To be honest, you might not. At least, not through the means you’ve traditionally reached out to people. In the new world, you don’t just program and broadcast; you invite, share and participate. I understand that it’s difficult to turn a ship around, and for an organization of any size to embrace change quickly is a frightening prospect. But by the time you bust out your magnifying glass and whittle down to the details of the new media environment and position yourselves in the emerging economy and get all that together in a strategic plan for the new millennium that started when folks my age actually WERE still under 30…

It’s not enough to study us. Listen to us, yes, hire us, absolutely. But most importantly—

Join us.