Boomers

REI, Authenticity and Boomers

Several years ago, I wrote a blog posting about REI and Jilted Boomers. The thrust of my post was to harangue REI for consistently depicting its customers as exclusively under age 40. They do this throughout their catalogs and wall graphics hanging in their Denver "flagship store."

Here's a little back-story. As the Program Committee chair for Rocky Mountain Direct Marketing Association (RMDMA) in 2005, I planned a major event featuring noted marketing professionals. Our keynote speaker was Joe Pine, author of The Experience Economy and Authenticity. Atsuko Tamura, senior vice president of marketing for Recreational Equipment Incorporated, also graciously agreed to speak.

I was pumped up about this speaker line-up. You see, I'm the paradigmatic REI customer. My co-op membership number is 288,XXX, which means I've been buying stuff from REI since about 1970. I've purchased more backpacking and camping equipment through their catalogs than I can ever use. I've already shopped at REI three times this year (which is infrequent for me), dropping a few hundred more dollars on equipment I don't really need (but badly want). Their flagship store in Denver is an experience-seeker's dream-come-true with all kinds of cool and interactive ways to play with the toys before buying.

I was thrilled to be hosting a marketing thought-leader with two bestselling business books to his credit and a senior marketing executive representing my favorite outdoor equipment retailer.

Here's the problem. Several weeks before Atsuko and Joe arrived in Denver, Business Week interviewed me concerning the Boomer business opportunity. When asked to cite some companies that target Boomers but are not effectively reaching out to this market with marketing communications, I mentioned REI. That article appeared about ten days before the big event in Denver.

About a week before the event, I received an email note from REI's Public Relations Manager, with the following comments:

A story in the current issue of Business Week magazine has generated quite a bit of comment around my office, and when I took a closer look I noticed that you were quoted. The part of the article that has my colleagues talking is the implication that REI doesn't understand the importance of the aging population — and I've been encouraged to write a letter to the editor to set the record straight that not only do we recognize the importance of this segment, but that a significant portion of our customer base falls within this category. As such, I'm curious to know if it's your opinion (as a loyal REI member) that we don't place importance on this segment of our population, or if the reference to REI is an editorial comment from the reporter?

Oops.

Why did I skewer REI, one of my personal favorites? You see, I had studied REI catalogs for several years and noticed that they never used older models. Marketing management carefully balances ethnicity and gender throughout their catalogs, but they almost never show older customers — not just Boomers but even members of the Silent Generation and GI Generation. I took the initiative to write the former REI CEO to make him aware of this obvious oversight.

The subject of my comments to Business Week never came up during the visit. However, Atsuko did tell me one important factoid: Boomers represent around 27% of REI's business. I suspect it is even higher in Denver because this city has the highest Boomer percentage of any major city in the country. In fact, you could say that Denver is the "Boomer Capital of the United States."

If you wander through REI's hallowed Denver flagship you'll see lots of photos like this one:

If you look further, you'll also see a wide diversity of employees, including one graying rock climbing instructor:

Since I wrote the first blog posting about REI in 2005, I've continued to watch their catalogs closely to see if they have made any changes. Once in a great while I have seen a little gray on one or two catalog models (and I'm referring to younger looking male models who might even be prematurely gray. I haven't yet seen any PrimeTime Women.)

Today I sorted through my mail to discover one of my favorite direct mail gifts: REI's summer 2008 catalog. It's graphically inspired but does not have a single photo of a Boomer or someone older ... not one. REI's creative team might defend this because the summer catalog has a distinctly "young family" theme. With respect to this creative decision, I ask, "What about grandparents?" How many Boomer grandparents buy outdoor equipment and share the majesty of natural spaces with their children and grandchildren? Could this be a market worth targeting and developing?

About 28 million Boomers are now grandparents, representing 36% of the generation. Over three million more Boomers will become first-time grandparents this year. They spend lavishly on their grandchildren, not only because that's what grandparents tend to do, but because thoughtful gifts teach core values.

For example, two months ago I gave my neighbor's son, Ian, an REI backpack filled with the "ten essentials" for outdoor survival. Although he's not my grandson, chronologically he could be. In giving Ian this gift, I wanted to share my profound love of nature and the lessons I've learned from wilderness experiences. The backpack symbolizes values bestowed to me by my father.

Several weeks ago, I read blog postings by my colleague Marilynn Mobley, who writes Baby Boomer Insights. It's a good place to find interesting commentary about this dynamic (and challenging) market. She attended the JWT LiveWire Summit in San Francisco last month where Joe Pine discussed concepts from his newest book, Authenticity. As Marilynn reported, "Joe asked audience members to name brands they connected to because they believed the brands were authentic." One brand at the top of the list: REI. (This is an ironic nomination at a conference populated by those dedicated to advancing perceptions and practices of mature marketing. But sometimes these details can be elusive, even to professionals.)

I'm having a problem with REI's authenticity when the company steadfastly refuses to reflect the true diversity of its customer base through marketing communications. I might be the only customer in the world concerned that REI appears to be ageist, but revolutions in social thought and business practice need to start somewhere. (Thank you, Betty Friedan.)

Boomers' money and loyalty built REI into today's outdoor equipment retailing powerhouse. Failure to include these loyal customers in marketing communications is, well, disingenuous.

P.S. I thought you might appreciate this link to the photo of REI's Board of Directors. Clearly and ironically, the majority are Boomers.

P.P.S. You'll need 20-year-old eyes or serious magnifying eyeglasses to read the 8 or 9 pt. sans serif font used throughout REI's summer catalog.

Footnote: A sweeping article in Advertising Age, entitled "Changing Face of the Consumer" and written by my colleague Peter Francese (formerly founder of American Demographics magazine), included the following observation:

The average U.S. head of household is now nearly 50 years old (49.5, to be precise). But here's the bigger story: More than 80% of the growth in the number of households in the next five years will be among those headed by people 55 and older. That's pretty scary stuff for the youth-obsessed.

Update July 9: I visited REI.com today to purchase a birthday gift certificate for my niece Heidi, a tradition I've honored for many years. Out of curiosity, I visited every product category page on the website. (Those can be found in the column of hyperlinks on the left-hand side of the home page.) Each category section leads off with a photo and a block of copy in a yellow rectangle. Out of perhaps 50 pages, I found one page, for backpacks, with a photo depicting someone maybe over 40.

Boomers, Millennials and the Cycles of Generations

Recently, a number of opinion articles have appeared, written by members of the Millennial Generation, or those born roughly between 1980 and 1995 (the beginning and ending years of this generation have various interpretations). For example, read here and here.

One common theme in these articles is a proclamation that Millennials are entirely different from preceding generations and need to be treated differently — in the workplace and more broadly, in society. This generation is now uniquely positioned to change fundamental conceptions of our nation and its place in the world. They are large and clamoring to be in charge.

I appreciate Millennials’ fervor over the uniqueness of their generation. When I was in my twenties, I heartily agreed with media-inspired myths about Boomer uniqueness. Because of intense media scrutiny from birth onward, many of us believed our generation was unprecedented as a youth cohort, a dramatic departure from all preceding generations — a demographic and psychographic anomaly in the plodding march of American history.

While it’s true that every generation has distinctive characteristics, a byproduct of a generation’s unique place in history, generational personalities tend to appear in cycles, as has been provocatively posited by William Strauss and Neil Howe in their seminal books, Generations and The Fourth Turning.

To make my point, I’d like Millennial Generation readers to think about an older generation.

This generation was raised by parents who believed children should be given every opportunity to succeed, with much pampering and coddling… similar to when you were a Baby on Board.

Nevertheless, in young adulthood they became disaffected and radical. They were strident about redressing social inequalities, yearning for a more perfect union. They confronted human rights injustices, sometimes filling city streets with angry protest marches.

In their anomy, many became travelers, anointing Europe as the ultimate destination for reinvention. Tattoos gained popularity as “travel markers.”

They inspired a rebellion in office fashion by adopting flashy, form-fitting attire. Insisting that showing skin is more congruent with modern times, they ushered sexuality out of the bedroom and into media.

Because they were a mass-media generation, they fostered collective awareness of their stylistic differences in sharp juxtaposition to older, more conservative generations. They opposed zealous censorship, claiming that contemporary media should present the full range of human experience.

They were the first generation to create health & fitness fads, with thought leaders even advocating vegetarian diets to assure well-being and longevity. They created mass markets for fitness facilities, natural foods, self-directed healthcare and alternative medicine.

In a vein similar to Millennials’ preferred approach to written communications — text messaging — literary superstars of this generation adopted terse minimalism and understatement. They invented a transformational form of musical expression, similar in originality to hip-hop. Then personal electronic media became the preferred method for entertainment delivery.

They pressed mainstream society for individualism over conformity, equal rights for all workers, multiculturalism, racial fairness, gender equality and environmental awareness.

Analogous to Millennials today, they were challenged in youth by ecological degradation, unpopular foreign wars and looming economic hardships.

Do you believe I’m writing about your parents, the Baby Boomers? No, this is a brief historical account of the Lost Generation, your great-grandparents, born between 1883 and 1900.

They put the roar in the Roaring Twenties and included iconoclastic notables such as Ernest Hemingway, D. H. Lawrence, Georgia O’Keeffe, T. S. Elliot, Louis Armstrong, Mae West, F. Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulkner.

Do you see any generational parallels here?

Passing of a Boomer - Last Interview for Tim Russert

Two events happened today that impinge on what I'm about to write. First, I had an annual medical exam where I received preliminary news that I'm in good health — something we all hope to hear from our physicians. Second, I spent a few minutes reviewing today's Google Alert news for search word "Boomers" and read a typical derogatory blog opinion about this generation.

Then the third event of Friday the 13th put the other two events in harsh, ironic context. Tim Russert died at 58 from a heart attack.

NBC News' Washington Bureau Chief and moderator of "Meet the Press," Tim Russert was, as his colleague Tom Brokaw said, "one of the premier political analysts and journalists of his time."

Just this year TIME magazine recognized him as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. He wrote two New York Times bestselling books about fatherhood, including a loving tribute to his father, "Big Russ." He won an Emmy for his role in the coverage of the funeral of President Ronald Reagan. His interviews with George W. Bush and Al Gore won the Radio and Television Correspondents' highest award.

What won't be discussed elsewhere are two dots I'm about to connect: Tim Russert was a Leading-Edge Boomer. He represented the best qualities of a generation that came of age during the politically turbulent sixties and seventies.

Among the roughly half-million Boomers who actually attended the Woodstock Festival in 1969, Tim and his buddies endured the crowds, mud and sanitary inconveniences to finally hear Jimi Hendrix play his legendary rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner," an improvisation many regard as the single best musical metaphor for the sixties.

After graduating from the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, he went into politics in 1976 as a staff member for the Senate campaign of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., and in 1982 he helped Mario Cuomo get elected as governor of New York. He joined the NBC News team in 1984, where his talents as a news reporter and skilled interviewer grew with his reputation.

Tim Russert reflected the best values of a generation. He was inquisitive and persistent with his predictable questioning of authority. He entered politics at a young age, choosing to join the fray with all the zeal and idealism we associate with the time when Boomers came of age.

He was an intellectual and learned everything he could about the views of his guests on "Meet the Press" so that he could probe for and uncover the truth behind their political facades. He had a thirst for insights that gave him the competitive edge. Although a Democrat early in his career, he did not wear his personal politics on his sleeve and invited the ideas of those with opinions different from his own.

What appealed to me most about Tim was the love he expressed for his father through his books. "Big Russ & Me" provides a metaphor for all Boomers' fathers in many ways. The historical conflicts between The Greatest Generation and Boomers over Vietnam and other major social/political issues further concluded peacefully with this tribute from a son to his father.

Fatherhood was also central to who he was. As reported by NBC News, "In 1995, the National Father's Day Committee named him 'Father of the Year,' Parents magazine honored him as 'Dream Dad' in 1998, and in 2001 the National Fatherhood Initiative also recognized him as Father of the Year."

So Tim Russert has finished his inquisitive journey. He was one of the finest news reporters and television interviewers of a generation. He was strong and secure when challenging powerful people and their ideas. He was a thoughtful man who cared as much about his family as he did his craft. He was an idealist, an optimist and an independent thinker. 

Tim Russert was also my age. On the day I receive an "all-clear" from my doctor, he dies of an unexpected heart attack. On a day when I read yet another insulting blogger's opinion of Boomers — how self-absorbed we allegedly are — a man who has demonstrated our collective engagement, fervor and passion for truth, passes away in a blink.

Critics of this generation are often quick to point accusing fingers at Bill Clinton or George W. Bush as personification of our foibles. No generation can be reduced to a few high-profile representatives, but to those who must simplify the character of 78 million individuals, I suggest you stop a moment to consider a noble journalist's life, and then bid farewell to Tim Russert. He was also a Boomer.

Boomers, Generation X and The LA Times

Right up front, let me proclaim that I have many friends, family members and colleagues who are members of Generation X. We hug. We get along. We learn from each other.

I don’t have a problem with GenX, but emerging opinion leaders from that generation sure have a problem with Boomers.

Just in the last couple of years various op-ed columns have appeared in the nation’s newspapers, written by admitted members of Generation X. And they’re peeved at Boomers. This includes columns in the New York Times, The Rocky Mountain News and SF Weekly.

The most recent journalistic exercise in Boomer bashing comes from the LA Times under the authorship of Meghan Daum and entitled The Millstone of Boomer Milestones.

You can read the full version from the link above. But if you’re pressed for time, allow me to share a few pertinent quotes:

As a member of Generation X, I should know I've been strong armed into an appreciation of '60s and '70s pop culture my whole life.

... for every truly significant event of 1968, there are half a dozen not necessarily newsworthy happenings that we're goaded into remembering with just as much gusto.

Maybe that's because my generational cohorts and I have already endured five anniversaries of 1968 (one for each decade, plus the 25^th thrown in for good measure) as well as four Woodstock revivals and countless Summer of Love themed concerts.

In the 1990s, when GenXers weren't busy thinking up synonyms for “alienated,” we were carving out a collective identity largely concerned with our role as the victims of any number of Boomer imposed crimes (dwindling Social Security, fearsome divorce statistics, AIDS as the death rattle of the free love party).

... the Boomers' monopoly on society, namely that any cultural artifact predating the 1960s is no longer merely obscure but facing imminent extinction

Trying to confront this silliness with a thoughtful letter to the editor is nearly futile. I've rarely seen a rebuttal letter to any Boomer-bashing column, my own included. The gatekeepers at newspapers and magazines really don’t embrace challenging criticism of their coddled columnists. So here’s the letter that the LA Times might have printed if they had editorial cojones.

The Millstone of Boomer Milestone Criticism

Meghan Daum’s op-ed screed against the Boomer generation reflects four decades of obstinate antipathy toward Baby Boomers — another kind of millstone. Self-anointing herself as a vitriolic voice of Generation X, she rails against this springs’s many commemorations of 1968: a bellwether year that most historians agree constructively changed the world.

Ms. Daum apparently does not appreciate the distinctive force of generational identification. Generational identification is the degree to which members of a group born at a certain time in history see themselves as different from previous generations and then form a unique social class. Although generational identification becomes obvious through popular music and art, it is also a fundamental force of grassroots societal change. Some generations have a lot of it; some don’t. Boomers probably do; GenXers probably don’t.

When we see ourselves as part of a dissimilar generation, and powerfully identify with gathering collective mentalities of that historical time, we embrace and help force revolutionary ideas into mainstream value consensus. For Boomers, this drive toward perfectibility of the human condition most constructively spirited activism around civil rights, gender equality, institutional accountability, and environmental awareness. Everything else was just cultural window dressing.

High levels of generational identification persist, leading to communal actions and periodic commemorations across the lifespan. This columnist/critic obsesses about the obvious and neglects the most striking manifestations of 1968 in today’s news.

Boomer optimism, self-empowerment and activism have helped escort the nation to a time when an African American man, a middle-aged woman, and a 72-year-old man are simultaneously vying to become the American president while shattering the once intractable barriers of racism, sexism and ageism. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are members of the post-World War II baby boom cohort. John McCain is of the Silent Generation, a cohort Daum acknowledges as having substantive influence on the values that became important to Boomers as they reached adulthood. In all three candidacies, we see the walls crumbling down.

It’s one thing to grow weary of a generation’s cultural dominance and therefore predictable celebration of milestones; it’s quite another to miss the significance of that generation’s enduring contributions.

Ms. Daum’s jeremiad further fails to address one widely appreciated consequence of Boomer assertiveness — in the marketplace. Few businesses revile Boomer consumers, including a newspaper that undoubtedly counts on this self-absorbed generation to provide a disproportionate share of subscribers/readers and advertising-targeted dollars.

These truths continue to emerge about media coverage of the Baby Boomer Generation:

1) Economically, the Boomer market is white hot, with dozens of daily news reports covering how our collective wealth is changing marketing and invigorating an entrepreneurial surge of new products and services;

2) Sociologically, Boomers constitute one of the nation's most disparaged reference groups, with periodic journalistic diatribes berating the generation for narcissism, cultural hegemony, and other high crimes.

Pick one.

Boomer Men and Gray Hair

To be gray or not to be gray, that is one question being considered by millions of Boomer men.

And that is the question being answered by Combe Incorporated, manufacturers of Just for Men hair coloring and its new Boomer-focused product, Touch of Gray.

The newest advertising campaign develops the marketing theme of "For the Generation that Rewrote All the Rules."

I find this new campaign irresistible to address because it raises many fundamental questions about generational marketing and underlying consumer motivations most accessible for this product category.

First of all, why would Boomer men choose to engage in the traditionally feminine cosmetic act of hair coloring? Would it be for vanity? For fear of aging? How about because this generation of men has always been rebellious and defied traditional social expectations? (We became "Mr. Mom." We turned from barbers to hair stylists. We started cooking.)

The latter reason is the primary motivation that Combe's advertising team attempts to tackle. The newest TV spot begins with obligatory nostalgic news footage from the sixties with a background music bed from Cream's classic hit, "Sunshine of your Love." And then forceful narration:

"The generation that swore it would never get old ... didn't. Welcome to the summer of life. And now there's an official hair treatment of the summer of your life. New Touch of Gray from Just for Men. Lets you keep a little gray. Works gradually. Just comb in, rinse."

Then the energetic Boomer protagonist laughingly invokes the sixties with, "Never trust anybody over ninety."

The announcer finishes with a declarative, "Keep a little gray with new Touch of Gray."

Let's deconstruct this TV spot from a pro and con perspective.

On the pro side, the ad's creators use nostalgic black & white imagery from the sixties, ostensibly from a festival setting such as Woodstock and then surfing imagery, tapping into positive remembrances of The Beach Boys and sixties' surfing culture.

Cut to the present, and an aspirational Boomer male is running toward the camera with the surf behind him, surfboard tucked under one arm. Other aspirational actors, male and female, surround our hero. They play the hoops. They play in a garage band. This juxtaposition of the past with the present can become a powerful motivator. It demonstrates life continuity and the relevance of past to present. It reminds us of the good times.

Using aspirational models is a good strategy. The protagonist male could be in his late forties or early fifties. His love interest is a younger woman, which for many men in mid-life is reality, or at least fantasy-reality. (My female counterparts in Boomer marketing will likely not appreciate this traditional middle-aged male stereotype of the "younger woman" — and for good reasons.) His friends all look healthy and happy. It's a racially mixed tableau. So we have an idealized view of active aging.

According to research conducted by John Martin, Matt Thornhill and The Boomer Project, Boomers like to think of themselves as younger than reality. The older the Boomer, the wider the spread between reality and aspiration. So, for example, a 50-year-old male might think of himself as 45. A 60-year-old male might see himself as 50. Thus, using younger, aspirational models makes strategic sense, based on opinion research.

Now the cons.

This ad is a perfect example of generational pandering. The creators probably assume that their brazen appeals to nostalgic feelings will function more or less like the ringing bell that causes the operantly conditioned dog to salivate. Very Pavlovian.

Requisite peace gestures, the traditional victory V using the index and middle fingers, provide further caricature of the generation's culture. (How many Boomers have flashed you the "peace sign" recently?)

The ad also communicates an underlying message that Boomer men haven't grown up ... by choice. We're living an extended adolescence in the summer of our lives, even though most of us are actually in the autumn of our lives.

Then the real groaner: "Don't trust anyone over ninety." Ha. Ha. I can't think of a better way to demonstrate inane age denial and reinforce stereotypes of Boomer men as immature and self-centered.

The idea of not trusting anyone over thirty is a mythic generational caricature that has been encoded as if fact. In my book, I call this "mobilization of bias."

The taunt was uttered by Silent Generation member Jack Weinberg in 1965 during an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. Leader of the Free Speech Movement at The University of California, Berkeley, Weinberg uttered this sharp retort in reply to a reporter's insistence that older adults were manipulating his organization. He thought of his comment as purely cynical, and this snap at a reporter did not become the chosen mantra of a generation.

Frankly, most Boomers did not believe in the silliness of this idea. We all knew 30 was inevitable — and, in many ways, desirable. As we matured, we had admired and trusted many people past 30, including a president, John F. Kennedy; his brother, Bobby Kennedy; and a martyred activist, Martin Luther King. The aphorism became a popular media stereotype of Boomers to dramatize succinctly the generation's countercultural defiance around more serious issues such as racism, sexism, governmental cover-ups and environmental destruction.   

The bottom line on this ad's approach: The creators are unlikely to be Boomers themselves. Their "sociological filters" accept Boomer stereotypes as facts, and they built their advertising creative strategy with the same sensitivity to nuance that Caucasians have shown when trying to create truly insightful ads targeting African Americans. They don't get it, coming across as prepackaged and predictable. And even though some Boomers probably signed off on the ad's concept, these decision makers may not fully appreciate the subtleties of successful generational marketing.

This gray hair issue comes down to a fundamental decision most Boomer men will make, either overtly or subconsciously, and that is the decision, or not, to color hair.

The following photo from a few weeks ago shows me with much whiter hair than reality because of the sunbeam on my hair.

This gives me a good glimpse of my potential pate in a few years. Next to me is Deane Drury, a friend and colleague for many years.

Deane had silver hair 20 years ago when he was in his forties. Silver hair was part of his successful persona, and I doubt he ever seriously considered hair color. He looked distinguished then; he looks distinguished now.

Thus, we have the Boomer male market, typically bifurcated. Some will consider coloring their hair. Some won't. (The "freak flag" of this decade and beyond may be silver hair, proudly on display. And if you don't understand what I mean by this, you're not a Boomer.)

If not pandering with simplistic portrayals of this generation, what could be some powerful underlying motivators for hair coloring? Several ideas come to mind.

One of the greatest anxieties among middle-aged Boomer men today is the real fear of marginalization or irrelevance. Ageism is a threat in many industries, and older men may be prudent in choosing hair color to look slightly younger — a touch of gray. The field of advertising comes to mind. Career success sometimes depends on not appearing old or out of date.

Second, a large number of Boomer men are looking for new love and a fresh start. With divorce rates so substantial in this generation, it's not uncommon for men to be starting over with new significant-other pursuits in their fifties. This pursuit often invites a makeover.

Going back to the Eric Clapton-Jack Bruce-Ginger Baker song, one lyrical line stands apart: "I've been waiting so long to be where I'm going: in the sunshine of your love."

Boomer men have been waiting so long to be where they're going. They're entitled to make the choice to color gray, or not to color gray, without social condemnation, either way. Hmmmm. The creative wheels are turning. There might be a way to use the nostalgic power of Cream's signature song with the lifestyle aspirations of Boomer men today — to, in effect, achieve the objectives of the advertiser without being so silly and superficial about it.

What's the "big idea" that would channel the force of this commercial into a more productive and sophisticated direction? I'll let those making the big bucks from this advertiser figure it out without any further tutoring from me.

Advertising both reflects and shapes our beliefs. It sets our collective expectations for discrete groups of consumers. This interesting ad reflects outdated and largely irrelevant beliefs about Boomer men struggling with a cosmetic choice, a choice representing larger issues than mere vanity. The ad also shapes and reinforces a belief structure that diminishes a generation of men by not connecting with their true spirit.

But if it sells product, what the heck...

Clinton vs. Obama; Boomer vs. Joneser: the Split Personalities of 1946—1964 ... and 2008

The concept of generations has been a way of organizing and describing social and political phenomena for many decades, certainly for as long as the human race has had some semblance of mass media in which to foster collective awareness.

Contemporary sociological and marketing evidence is unequivocal: generations exist. They are self-defining; they have unique personalities; and they differentially assert their influences on social change and progress. Understand generational nuances; better predict the future.

But ill-defined labels and conceptualizations around generations can lead to heated debates among pundits.

For example, a new generational debate is underway with this election season. So it goes: the American demographic group born between 1946 and 1964 is not a single generation or generational cohort.

I began and ended my previous business book, Marketing to Leading-Edge Baby Boomers, by focusing on the first ten years of the post-World War II birth boom. This is my generational cohort, a group I’ve observed and marketed to since we purchased hula hoops en masse. This is the group that came of age during the height of the Vietnam War and engaged in social / political protests of every stripe and color.

There is another cultural generation within the traditional demographic birth boom, bracketed by ’46 and ‘64. This group has been lumped together with the older half, much to the detriment of businesses and political parties trying to target marketing messages. This group has been called “Late Boomers” and “Trailing-edge Boomers,” but I am sanguine about the clarity and distinctiveness articulated by Jonathan Pontell. He calls this cohort Generation Jones.

Karl Mannheim, the father of sociology, observed that a generation is a social location in history that has the potential to affect an individual's consciousness in much the same way as social class. He delineates an adolescent intersection between biology and society such that “individuals who belong to the same generation, who share the same year of birth, are endowed, to that extent, with a common location in the historical dimension of the social process.”

The force and influence of generational identification can lead to enduring changes during adolescence, a “quite visible and striking transformation of the consciousness of the individual in question … a change, not merely in the content of experience, but in the individual's mental and spiritual adjustment.” Profound personal adjustments can reflect and augment “collective mentalities” that shape the future.

So, how could two generations exist in the time span that many influential pundits reserve for just one? According to Mannheim, “Groups which work up the material of their common experiences in different specific ways constitute separate generation-units.” Generation unit members elicit a common consciousness causing “the members sharing them to form one group.” Each unique group develops collective slogans, styles, norms, ideals, and experiences that serve “as vehicles of formative tendencies and fundamental integrative attitudes, thus identifying with a set of collective strivings.”

Collective strivings are the basis of what Mannheim calls “continuing practice,” meaning influential formative tendencies rising up from a generation early in adulthood persist through life. Once formed, a unique generation tends to assert commonly held values across the generation’s lifespan.

As Jonathan Pontell and other influential observers see it, Generation Jones came of age in the 1970s, not the 1960s, and this generation's values differ from Boomers enough to merit new conceptualizations of generational identity.

Jonesers’ significant cultural influences were different from Boomers (Live Aid vs. Monterey Pop Festival). Their macro economic and political challenges were different (stagflation vs. a buoyant economy). And their aspirations today, political and otherwise, are different (pragmatic vs. idealistic). From a business and political perspective, this cohort needs a different set of strategic insights for marketing effectiveness.

This is also why we need to think of Barack Obama (born 1961) as belonging to a different generational unit than Hilary Clinton (born 1947), although they are technically part of the same birth boom. Many of their core values are in alignment, as members of neighboring generations tend to be, but they are dissimilar enough from a generational perspective to warrant a different mindset when it comes to understanding the cohorts they represent.

Pontell and I are amicable colleagues, but he points out that his generation is bigger than my generation (and therefore, by implication, GenJones just might be more economically viable or potentially influential). We don’t agree on a few years describing the beginning and ending of our respective generational cohorts. But trying to settle an issue that can’t be settled is fruitless. Fundamentally, we agree there are two distinct cultural generations bracketed by the years 1946 to 1964, plus or minus a few years on either side.

I am of the opinion that all generational cohorts are of equal value; one is not intrinsically better than another. What you do with the insights available about unique generational personalities is a different matter. Failure to understand and capitalize on the strategic differences between them is the wellspring of missed opportunities and ineffective market performance.

Barack Obama is a Joneser; Hilary Clinton is a Boomer. For political and business insiders who truly understand how to tap into generational nuances, this insight proposes a plethora of possibilities that might even win an election.

Ultimate Boomer self-empowerment: becoming brain trainers via Posit Science

As someone who has been on the receiving (and giving) end of Boomer-focused marketing for over 50 years, many will thank me. My mother will thank me. My banker will thank me. My heart will thank me. My art director will thank me. And now, as I'm nearing that longevity hallmark when I will slip-slide into the years past 60 (but not quite yet), my brain will thank me.

The marketing theme for Posit Science is "Your brain will thank you." The San Francisco-based company provides other encouraging reassurances. "Your friends will thank you." "Your dog will thank you." "Your students will thank you." "Your clients will thank you." "Your colleagues will thank you."

What is the inspiration for all this forthcoming gratitude? Well, in the words of the company, "Posit Science strives to help people flourish throughout their lives. We do this by providing effective, non-invasive tools that engage the brain's natural plasticity to improve brain health."

Train your brain and you will reap the rewards of gratitude from all those who cherish you.

Since company founding in 2003, this team has done a lot of striving, first by introducing one of the first and most sophisticated cognitive training programs that focuses on rewiring the brain through enhancing auditory processing and memory. As part of a review panel organized by Kelly Greene of the Wall Street Journal, fellow reviewers and I found the Posit Science product to be of greatest value and clearly a league above less-sophisticated options currently in the marketplace.

Under the scientific direction of Dr. Michael Merzernich, a professor of neuroscience at the University of California at San Francisco, the company has continued to create category-leading software programs to facilitate healthy brain aging, as well as to address and mitigate cognitive impairments.

The company calls its most recent product Cortex with InSight, which focuses on visual processing and memory. The new product promises a number of other features that brain trainers will accrue, including "speeding up visual processing, sharpening visual precision, enlarging useful field of view, expanding divided attention, and improving visual working memory."

Real-world benefits include helping you quickly perceive momentary visual events that may have bearing on your survival (a careening car out of control, aimed at you), enlarging the field of view and thus helping you anticipate environmental changes (seeing the t-bone collision before it happens), helping you successfully divide your attention among multiple visual stimuli (adjusting the radio dial and avoiding the kid running across the street while evading the careening car), and improving your visual working memory (the other car, the radio, the kid, in that order), which is essential to navigating our hectic lives full of so many competing demands and information overload.

Not bad for an optimal 45 minutes per day of training.

Cognitive trainers navigate the software on a self-guided basis, and the program provides ongoing goals and performance feedback.

Posit Science is revolutionizing a field that is just at the launch stage. They have been enormously successful in attracting interest from media, and now they are reaching a critical mass of partners, clients and customers.

We might reasonably conclude that this is the decade of the brain, a time of convergence when neuroscience research from the universities and laboratories has found applications that lay people, equipped with laptop computers, can employ for long-term brain fitness.

I would like you to meet Jeff Zimman, a co-founder of Posit Science and the firm's CEO, who presents an articulate and insightful view of the role brain training will play in a generation rewiring the rules about aging.

Over seventy percent of this generation claims that the retirement stage of life is just the beginning of a new chapter of creativity and productivity, so cognitive training may be the exact "ticket to ride." Productivity in later life demands brain effectiveness. A self-empowering generation is going to appreciate getting cognitively ripped and shredded. And maybe it's a good time to add one more thank-you note to the Posit Science list.

"Your generation will thank you."

April 4, The Peace Symbol, MLK and Boomers

If you would conduct a worldwide opinion survey to discover one wish for the future of humanity shared across societies and cultures, chances are that universal yearning would be for peace. A world without war and strife, without sectarian violence, without the omnipresent threat of terrorism, certainly is among our most cherished but unrequited dreams.

Boomers attached themselves to this idealistic quest early in their adult lives. Some demonstrated for peace. Some molded lifestyles eschewing violence, whether through nonviolent civil disobedience or conscientious objection to military service. Some sought to influence national war policies through political engagement. Some joined the miliary to fight for long-term peace. Some joined the military as clergy or nurses. The yearning for peace became the theme of many rock and folk songs, with these lyrics among the noteworthy:

Where have all the young men gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young men gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

— Pete Seeger, Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

For this generation, peace became preoccupation.

And one icon subsumed their hopes for a better future: the peace symbol. The graphic image tapped into a collective set of values emerging during a generation's youth, from antiauthoritarian attitudes to youthful thoughts of a more utopian society. To some it took on inspirational import about moral values similar to symbols of the world's great religions.

With its growing emotional and motivational subtext, the peace symbol eventually became a useful selling tool as businesses refined modern marketing techniques to create a Boomer revolution in product sales. Marketers quickly recognized the strategic value of co-opting the symbol for product positioning. So-called "head shops" filled initial consumer demand by offering peace symbols as stained glass sun catchers, silver necklaces, refrigerator magnets, t-shirts and myriad posters. Eventually so did K-Mart and Wal-Mart.

On April 4, 2008, the peace symbol turned 50. The story about how it has become one of the most recognizable symbols of the Boomer generation is significant.

In the spring of 1958, Gerald Holtom, a textile designer and graphic artist from Great Britain, set out to create a mark that could be used at protest events pressing for nuclear disarmament. In perhaps one of the most inspired days of identity design during the 20th century, the artist brought together semaphore symbols for N and D, surrounded by a circle representing the globe.  

On April 4, 5,000 people gathered at Trafalgar Square in London to support the Ban the Bomb movement and to protest testing and stockpiling of fissionable materials by the world's largest industrial powers. It was on this day that Holtom's memorable icon made its debut.

Protestors walked a few miles from the square to Aldermaston, location of an atomic weapons research facility. Their placards carried the succinct message of protest in this new and undefined symbol. Yet it needed no explanation, whether viewers understood the symbolic implications or not. Reactions were not always positive; some saw the devil in the logo.

The peace symbol quickly spread to other protest movements representing opposition to the Vietnam War, the quest for civil rights, a growing outcry against environmental degradation, and spirited marches for gender equality. The symbol persisted through Vietnam and onward into the debates about two wars in Iraq.

The peace symbol received overdue commemoration in a book published in April 2008 by the National Geographic Society, PEACE: The Biography of a Symbol. Author Ken Kolsbun observes that the symbol "continues to exert almost hypnotic appeal. It's become a rallying cry for almost any group working for social change."

Ironically, April 4, 2008 was the 40th anniversary of an event representing the severest liabilities of social progress: the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., who sought racial equality throughout his career. A pivotal figure in the American civil rights movement, Dr. King personified one facet of the grassroots peace movement with nonviolent protest marches, speeches and rallies. And the symbol marched with him through Selma and Montgomery, and Washington D.C. and New York, and finally to his destiny with a bullet in Memphis, allegedly fired by James Earl Ray.

April 4, 2008 was a good day for pause: to contemplate a symbol and how close or far Western society is from achieving the dream of peace. And it was a day to recall one of the most revered leaders in the history of the nation: how he knowingly sacrificed his life in pursuit of some of the noble ideals behind a symbol.

Intergenerational Equity and Boomers

Intergenerational Equity. My first challenge with this blog posting was to decide how to categorize the concept.

Is this topic about history, politics, sociology, marketing, health & fitness, media or science?

Yes.

These two words describe perhaps the most divisive and encompassing aging issue of the next 30 years. I settled on Social and Political Issues as the best categorical fit because that's the arena where this concept will take on emotional force similar to other words such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, entitlements, unfunded liabilities and so on.

The notion of "intergenerational equity" is a stimulating catch-phrase for some of the most important debates of our time involving the fundamental social contract between young and old, from now through mid-century. What is this concept?

Intergenerational equity is based on the belief that Boomers are about to bankrupt the nation as they enter the time of their lives when federal entitlement programs become accessible. David Walker, departing Comptroller General of the United States, has quantified "unfunded liabilities" in the neighborhood of $46 trillion by mid-century (also including monies owed for federal retirement, military retirement, military healthcare, and other related government obligations). 

This huge debt has to be paid by someone if we stay on the current path (and if pundits are correctly reading the crystal ball). Boomers will ostensibly hand this invoice to their children and grandchildren. Then this generation will die off having been good parents and grandparents but lousy ancestors. Our debt-ridden progeny will watch the nation's standard of living race in reverse.

Intergenerational equity is the mother of all guilt trips. It suggests that the Boomer generation has only one moral and ethical choice: to deconstruct the nation's entitlement programs so that younger generations will not be penalized by the size and cost of a rapidly aging society. It means that we accept what our parents would not: federal entitlement programs are a Ponzi scheme, perhaps history's greatest embezzlement, robbing from younger generations to pay for the hobbies and wasteful surgical procedures given freely to elders.

Intergenerational equity means cancelling the social contracts that help pay for some of the costs of growing old, becoming sick and eventually dying in America. And when we cancel these contracts, we ultimately "do the right thing" by lifting potentially crushing fiscal burdens from the backs of younger generations. We recognize that this nation does not owe, nor can it afford to fund the lifestyles of a geriatric leisure class.

The arguments in favor of intergenerational equity include:

1. Entitlement programs are unfunded liabilities backed up by IOU's in the form of government bonds. There are no trust funds in the sense of bank savings accounts. The ink is already red for Medicare / Medicaid, and Social Security starts costing more than it takes in through taxes around 2017.

2. Younger generations should not pay the healthcare and retirement costs of their parents and grandparents. The only equitable system is pay as you go, and that's not what Congress has done with Social Security and Medicare surpluses. They've spent the money already.

3. Medical breakthroughs are extending lives beyond the span originally granted us as biological organisms, and we are dying later in life of horrific and lingering diseases such as Alzheimer's due to society's growing technical mastery over other diseases such as heart disease and cancer.

4. It is the moral obligation of older generations to make the future better for their offspring, as did the GI Generation create a post-World War II economic boom that so enriched the lives of young Boomers. As this society careens toward bankruptcy, Boomers are creating the unprecedented circumstances where younger generations can expect a declining standard of living relative to their parents.

The arguments against intergenerational equity include:

1. Boomers have freely and without much complaining paid Social Security and Medicare taxes that are now benefiting older generations. The oldest Boomers have been paying these taxes with every paycheck for over 40 years; the youngest for over 20 years.

2. Boomers have enriched the overall economy with their wealth and free spending, creating booms in everything from housing to desktop computers. This generation's riches have greatly benefited older and smaller generations. For example, if you owned a house in 1970, you have enjoyed the benefits of a rapidly appreciating asset, thanks to Boomers flooding the market over the next 25 years. This generation's wealth has benefited their children, the 80-million Millennials, in the form of loving material indulgences from birth onward, college educations and now respite for some young adults returning to their parents' homes as "twixters."

3. So what if the primary economic engine of America becomes healthcare focused? The 20th century can be thought of as an automobile economy that created a national highway system, parking garages, suburbs, shopping malls, gasoline companies, car companies, and drive-through Starbuck's. This economy created millions of jobs in highway construction, real estate development, retailing, oil & gas exploration, and franchising. A healthcare economy can also create millions of jobs for physicians, nurses, biotech engineers, genetic researchers, and home healthcare aides. Technologies developed to prolong productive life (and engineer negligible senescence) have extraordinary market value and could be sold as exports to other countries, such as rapidly aging Europe, Japan and China. In other words, the money always comes from somewhere and goes somewhere.

4. Scare mongers leading this charge have personal economic interests in mind. If you study the composition of the Boards of Directors for some of the most outspoken advocates of privatizing entitlement programs, you'll discover mutual funds managers, investment advisors, and former government officials who would make fortunes as the U. S. government hands entitlements to the private sector.   

This blog posting is but a peek behind the curtain where the wizards of social engineering are pressing buttons that can easily frighten and confuse the public, just as the Wizard of Oz successfully intimidated Dorothy and her friends. But scare tactics and intimidation should not be the impetus for sweeping economic, social and political reengineering.

Intergenerational equity rolls off the tongue with a satisfying taste of moral rectitude, but this concept demands a full and articulate analysis by informed Boomers. Let's pull back the curtain hiding the wizards before we believe these naysayers and their strident stories of national financial collapse. Let's understand their motivations before we embrace their ideas.

Boomers, European Travel and Amsterdam

Amsterdam, The Netherlands—In Paradiso the lights were dim and the shadows blue. On a tall, modernistic alter a few solitary figures wriggled under a spotlight to the blast of rock recordings, while hundreds of young bodies covered the floors, silent, and motionless …

A September 5, 1969 article from The New York Times projected a dazzling spotlight on Amsterdam and the ancient city’s allure to a young generation of explorers from America. The article promised deliverance for the young and restless looking for adventure.

They came to Amsterdam because of its legendary permissive attitudes toward experimentation, whether social, pharmaceutical or reproductive. They came for cultural enrichment and to share revolutionary ideas about world peace and human equality. They came for compelling beauty and some of the kindest hosts in the world.

Amsterdam represented a new frontier for a youth cohort seeking peace in a time of war: a multitude growing disillusioned with the world spinning out of control. They filled Dam Plain with their sleeping bags. They talked about politics and unity in a time of dissolution and fragmentation; cultures from around the world mixed in harmony.

A succession of rock legends played music in Amsterdam that year: The Who, Janice Joplin, Stephen Stills, Pink Floyd, and Mick Jagger.

Ex-Beatle John Lennon came also to this city of promises to promote world peace through a seven-day bed-in with his new wife, Yoko Ono. Perched in suite 902 atop the Amsterdam Hilton in March of that year, John and Yoko spoke of peace as world media swarmed the room with curiosity and amusement.

From their parents these searching young people had learned to think independently. They had shared the historical problems of racial divisiveness and environmental destruction. They had arrived in young adulthood with deep emotional yearnings for a better world. Their common slogans, attitudes, and interests spread from individual to individual and country to country. Through diversity and creativity, they found a common consciousness influencing profound mental and spiritual adjustments within the hearts of individuals. Suddenly, this mish-mash of youthful travelers discovered their own salient reference group, and a generational identity formed. Members of the post-World War II baby boom became Baby Boomers.

What are the implications for business today?

Well, as they say, history can repeat itself. You will see a few graying flower children wandering the streets of Amsterdam today, but more likely you will see middle-aged Boomers, manicured and tailored and well off. They are the Sixties’ survivors who have built companies, have risen to senior executive ranks, and have become leaders of the free world.

They fill Four-Star and Five-Star hotels, take catered canal rides during sparkling sunsets and gaze upon unparalleled visual sensations left by Rembrandt and Van Gogh. They come to Amsterdam and The Netherlands to sample an international buffet of food, art and history. Some come to remember; others come to discover.

They are, nevertheless, still Baby Boomers, harboring many values that inspired them in youth — the nobler goals of world peace, environmental health, and leaving the legacy of a better world. Whatever their individual motives now, Amsterdam has welcomed an unprecedented number of them since 9/11—1.3 million American tourists in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

Dutch tourism officials probably know that Boomers can transform brands. Their monetary might helped build business giants such as McDonald’s, Nike, Apple, and Starbuck’s. They popularized places such as Aspen and Santa Fe. Now a graying generation with more time and money than ever is expressing a global wanderlust that could build another brand resonating from their youth, I amsterdam.

This Boomer, who never visited Amsterdam until he turned 50, feels fortunate to be a keynote speaker at Holland’s most important marketing conference, MWG Congres. On Valentine’s Day, I will tell conference attendees, many of them children of Baby Boomers, about their older siblings and parents — how this generation is transforming yet another lifestage and pouring money into brands that resonate brightly — why experiences reign and educational travel is booming.

We’ll explore possibilities for Boomer brands of tomorrow: how these future power brands will address the deepest yearnings of a generation determined to create meaningful and rich lives after the age of 50. Maybe one of those emerging Boomer brands will be their own country and a city where a generation once discovered some of itself.