Why generations should not be a basis for decisions

Which generations are there and why?

As early as 1928, the sociologist Karl Mannheim described a generation as a group of people whose youth, and thus their attitude in the rest of their lives, is shaped by drastic common experiences. This can be, for example, a war, the collapse of the GDR, a famine or the economic miracle. At the moment, the working population is divided into four "generations:

• The baby boomers, the oldest generation still active on the labor market, therefore value performance, diligence and "gritting their teeth" at work and like to buy status symbols or great experiences with their hard-earned money.
• The Generation X, the last generation to grow up analog, is supposedly individualistic and ambitious and strives for material security. Work is a means to an end.
• The Generation Y has a higher education compared to their parents and has seen a lot of the world at a young age. They saw the Internet grow up in their childhood and value meaning and self-fulfillment.
• And the GenZ, the generation that is just starting school or working life, no longer makes a distinction between the analog and digital worlds, would rather develop than work, and sees black for its own future, thanks to climate change and other crises.

So far, so the clichés. Unfortunately, the world is a little more complicated. Who doesn't remember his or her school class, filled with kids from the same year? And yet, in just about every class there was the class clown, the queen, the wallflower, the nerd, the animal lover, the sports crack, and many others. Always, across generations.

How does that fit together? And how are you supposed to address your target group when so many different interests are already represented in such a small group as a school class? Is the division into generations even (still) correct, or is the whole thing just a marketing ploy?

The answer is again not so simple: neither-nor. Of course, the division into generations is not just a marketing trick, but rather a "crutch" - often used because nothing better was available at the time. Especially in marketing and employer branding, generations are very popular because they offer an option to somehow divide people into categories and thus use the available budget with less waste. However, this creates a self-reinforcing effect: marketing and employer branding sits on clichés that are perceived to be so, but are not scientifically verifiable. These clichés then appear in advertising or in recruiting, are thus brought to the people and solidify stereotypes. And then one sees what one is looking for... and advertises what supposedly fits with seemingly fitting address. That works - up to a certain point. But a lot is also lost in scatter effects, because: worries, wishes, life circumstances and pain points fall largely under the table. And so it comes to this kind of advertising, which we have all seen and smiled at before: A very good-looking person who corresponds to my generation in terms of age appears on the screen, wears nice clothes with matching shoes, whirls through a living room the size of a ballroom, and then advertises in a spotless and perfectly tidy kitchen either dishwashing liquid, hand cream, scratch-resistant pots, or something else. Identification potential: close to zero.

The concept of generation in science

In fact, empirical social research has been working on the phenomenon of "generations" in recent years and has come up with some astonishing findings. Based on Karl Mannheim's teachings, a 15-year rhythm was established for a generation. Thus, a generation is not the direct parents of the following generation, but is supposedly shaped by other experiences in youth. But what if there was no formative experience at all? Recent studies show that a new generation is simply "proclaimed" after 15 years, and one looks for possible formative experiences in retrospect. Whereby also there again only that is found, which is also looked for. For example, it is obvious to interpret climate change as a formative experience of today's young generations Z and Alpha (from 2010). Anyone who has seen an FFF demonstration may well believe this. But does the whole "generation" really care? Who was really on the streets there? Who wasn't? And what moves the people who weren't there? Psychologist Rüdiger Maas, head of the private-sector Institute for Generation Research, is working with an interdisciplinary team to investigate whether "generations" exist at all and comes to the conclusion that the simple division into 15-year increments makes no sense and is not scientific.

"Generational research works in much the same way as horoscopes," says sociologist Martin Schröder in Podkast Wissen Weekly. In other words, "they say something about people that is somehow true, but formulated in such a way that it is always true. E.g. Generation Y doesn't have that much desire to work, but somehow they are still interested in a career." This is called "confirmation bias": people tend to interpret information in a way that confirms their own expectations. Those who know which characteristics supposedly belong to a generation then also assign these clichés to themselves and others.

It is often assumed that different attitudes to a topic are due to the generation. However, this neglects other important factors: First, the period effect: The zeitgeist changes. Something that was taboo for all generations 50 years ago may be OK for all today. Furthermore, there is the age effect: 20-year-olds have different interests and concerns than 60-year-olds because of their stage in life. The generation effect, on the other hand, means that someone has a certain attitude because he or she was born in a certain year. And that this person thinks differently throughout his or her life than someone who is 20 years older or younger. Martin Schröder has investigated this scientifically. Due to the large data base, age and period effects could be calculated out. The result: attitudes and ways of thinking cannot be explained by the date of birth, and "generations" as they are widely subdivided do not exist at all. Rüdiger Maas comes to similar conclusions and says: "It is empirically possible to identify a Generation Z that has grown up digitally. The Baby Boomers, who were very numerous and therefore in great competition with each other, are also "visible," but only slightly. The other generations are above all: marketing.

So what can be done to use the good company budget in a targeted way anyway? The answer is: get to know the target group. Not by horoscope, gut feeling or guessing, but with DATA. Data-based personas. This way you can be sure that your budget is used exactly where it brings a lot of ROI and the target group really feels addressed and understood.