Can we be real?
Don’t Call Them Millennials. They hate that.
Study after study cites ‘authenticity’ as the key to understanding all things millennial (for those of you not keeping up with marketing speak, that’s anyone between the ages of 11–33).
Authenticity explains the success of YouTube Vloggers. It rationalizes the decline of advertising’s effectiveness. It is the raison d’ etre of the Tinder hook up. Authenticity.
Whether it’s to laud or blame, Marketers and pundits alike can determine everything you need to know about Millennials with a single word.
Authenticity.
That’s a ton of pressure on 12 little letters (really 9 with 3 repeats). But is authenticity really real? Let’s ponder that for a moment.
Take two bands that people either love or hate. U2 v. Foo Fighters. Not that a millennial would be caught dead listening to anything other than Spotify (mux intended). Which one is more authentic?
At first swoon, it seems easy. Clearly, Foo Fighters. They rickrolled the Westboro Baptist Church for Christ’s sake. Dave Grohl is the hardest working man in Rock ‘n Roll. He produces great music documentaries. He was in f’ing Nirvana. Hell, he broke his leg onstage and still eeked out a chunk of the remaining set. That’s authentic!
Meanwhile, Bono broke his arm riding his $10k carbon fibre bicycle through Central Park. Further, he’s lived in the US so long that even he jokes about how he’s lost his Irish accent. The band produces experimental albums, instead of stadium rock, and then has the temerity to download the album onto a bazillion iPhones for free. Sell out bastards!
Clearly, there is no comparison.
But are the Foo really more authentic? Bono has raised and given untold amounts of money, time and awareness to major social issues. His humanitarian and artistic contributions led to both UK knighthood and France’s highest cultural award. When is the last time the Brits and the French EVER agreed on something?!? Sure, Bono never takes off his cooler than cool sunglasses. But he actually has Glaucoma. Now you’re the dick for making fun of someone with Glaucoma. He even has a freakin’ spider named after him. Now that’s authentic!
Hmmm. Apparently, authenticity is like porn. You know it when you see it.
Speaking of porn…Presidential candidates, regardless of your political bent, are perhaps the most manufactured public personas this side of the Kardashians.
Every aspect of the candidate is run past a focus group. Each opinion is vetted with constituents. Field polls and survey results are the currency by which success is projected. Yet, at least in the US, most folks vote for the candidate they find most authentic.
Really. The most authentic.
What’s fascinating is that, despite their unbelievably well researched campaign strategies, politicians keep making missteps when they select musical accompaniment for their stump speeches.
Most recently, short fingered vulgarian, Donald Trump riled REM. However, this in nothing new. Every campaign cycle you hear yet another story of some musical artist getting upset with a politician.
Politicians play these songs in order to elicit an emotional response within the audience. To metaphorically imply this candidate has the Eye of the Tiger. Quite figuratively, playing to the crowd. However, perhaps in a bit of foreshadowing, this political strategy backfires.
It’s hard to determine why this keeps happening but here’s a more than likely take on the subject:
“Nine times out of 10, it’s a young advance person who thinks it’s a cool song to play when the guy’s walking in and the candidate hasn’t a clue what was playing,”
— Joe Trippi, Campaign Manager (Howard Dean 2004) via Rolling Stone.
There you go. Some whipper snapper Millenial, who probably doesn’t even vote, picks a song, doesn’t even know what it’s about and neither does the candidate. Authenticity in action.
And now, in human centipede fashion, we have come full circle! Millennials to rock stars to porn stars to politicians, back to rock stars and now back to millennials.
Isn’t it ironic that the millennial definition of authenticity has nothing to do with the actual definition (which in part reads “having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence”) but is rather based on how it feels? Whether or not something passes the cultural geiger counter test comes down to how each individual chooses to interpret an impression?
In some sense, Millennial understanding of authenticity may be the most authentic of all. It’s not hard to understand or practice. It’s just that us geezers used to summarize it in a phrase, rather than navel gaze.
Opinions are like a-holes.
And so are marketers that try to define you based on your birthdate…like an Astrologer.
We’re all individuals. We all have things we like and dislike. I dislike lots of stuff. That’s my birthright according to my favorite astrologer.
So, in summation, marketers are like astrologers only less accurate. And politicians are assholes. And rock stars are almost always cool.
And most importantly, define yourself. Don’t let other people tell you who you are. That’s what is truly authentic. Really. For realz.
P.S. Selfies and sticks. Tattoos and piercings. Yoga and pants. These three things (and 100 others) are all favored by millennials. Clearly authentic!
