Inclusive Customer Insights: Digging past Demographics

We’ve all heard them. The generation-based labels that attempt to understand customer priorities. They are often packaged in statements like, “Millennials like text messaging” or “Boomers like a face-to-face conversation.” I’ve even heard negative statements like “the Silent Generation does not understand technology” and “Generation Z has a little attention span.”

Though attempting to be useful, these provisional insights lack the depth to bring clarity to complex business problems.

As companies grow, business strategists and product innovators spend a lot of energy trying to understand customers within new markets and determine how to create meaningful customer interactions. This is not an easy task. One way to quickly segment new markets is by birth year. Then based on birth year, retroactively apply qualitative characteristics. We call these Generations. Just recently, it was formally decided that 1996 was the last birth year of Millennials.

Generational labels are fine as occasional customer shorthand, but we must remind ourselves that labels are not absolute facts. Nor are labels, real people. The implication from a statement claiming that Millennials like text messages will often cause a company to send more text messages in the hopes that Millennials will buy more.

However, this generational mindset is actually making it harder to connect with new markets because it encourages biases that hold business back from truly solving customer problems. And, in the end, different generations may be more alike than we like to imagine.

Birth year generations are outdated

I would argue, there no Millennials. There are no Gen X’ers, Gen Z’ers, or Boomers either. Are we to believe a person born in 1996 (Millennial) is qualitatively different than a person born in 1997 (Gen Z)? If we “know” that Millennials are tech-savvy, collaborative and want work-life balance, do we have enough insight to solve a complex business problem? The construct of birth year generations is an outdated formula for customer understanding in this complex, post-modern world.

Right after WWII, American society was forced to understand the impact of the surge of new births. To facilitate this discussion, sociologist created the label of Baby Boomers. Over time, the name was constant, the value system it represented evolved. We all know that Boomers in the 1960s were labeled as flower children and hippies who tune in, drop out and advocate for universal belonging. Then in the 1970s, the flower children became the narcissistic Me Generation. Then in the 1980s, Boomers were labeled as Yuppies, “Young urban professionals who have well-paid jobs and fashionable lifestyle.” Then later in the 2000s, Boomers were labeled as “Independent hard-workers that prefer face-to-face communication.” Ok. So, how do we define the qualities of Boomers? Why does a formal generational label evolve over time?

What factors make a generation?

Let’s start by unpacking the concept of generations. Generations are not static but a combination of macro-internal cycles (Where I’m at in my personal development?) and macro-external cycles (What environmental factors are dominant?). The location people are within these cycles explains their current value system and implies what might be next. Understanding these cycles will help us get closer to answering, “What is wrong in their world?” and “How should we respond?”

How should we explore macro attitudes?

Macro internal cycles

One thing that is constant is change. This goes for people, value systems and needs, too. We tend to think values and needs don’t change over a lifetime, but they do. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs attempts to explain this with a pyramid visualization. The basic needs on the bottom and inspirational needs at the top. However, the pyramid visualization doesn’t illustrate the factor of time. Instead, if we viewed values through the lens of time it reveals how waves of values and needs ebb and flow in intensity. This time component is an often overlooked factor within Maslow’s Hierarchy.

Early in development, personal needs are focused on individualism: How can I define my voice and view of the world? What culture should I join? Did I find a safe group to be a part of? (This group may be a formally defined team or an informal tribe of like-minded people.)

Second, as one develops, the priority is success in the context of my group: Do I belong within my group? Do I have artifacts of success within my group? (It should be noted that success has many definitions. It commonly means career. But it could mean family. It could mean education. Among other dimensions of life.)

Third, as one has matured, the priority is purpose: What truth do I pass on to the group? What am I doing that will carry on beyond myself? How am I tapping into something larger than myself? Who am I mentoring and what is my legacy? (Truth not in the sense of absolute truth but what have I discovered that I want others to believe.)

Macro external cycles

As people move through their own macro-internal cycles, they live in the context of the world. Meanwhile, the world is also going through changes.

Trying to wrap your arms around the world is not easy. A generally accepted framework to understand external macro cycles is PEST: political, economic, social and tools (or technology). Each of these four areas are starting points to understanding the drivers of culture. The world is constantly being pulled between the four tensions within PEST. And over time, the world starts to change, and looks different than it did 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 40 years ago.

To dive deeper into this model, ask yourself the following questions:

• What is the overarching political environment or attitude: policies, programs and philosophies?

• What is the underlying economic conditions: growth rates, labor force, incentives and market context?

• What is the prevalent social trend: demographics, education, living conditions and lifestyle?

• What is the dominate tool (or technological) advancements: digital tools, processes, artifacts and data?

Millennials and Boomers redux

If we were to apply this lens of internal and external macro-cycles to the generational labels, it might shift the how we frame the conversation:

Instead of saying, “Millennials like text messages,” business might find more value in asking, “How might we better connect with people seeking individuality in an era of communication driven by technology with a high expectation for lifestyle flexibility?”

Instead of saying, “Boomers like a face-to-face conversation,” businesses might find more value in asking, “How might we better connect with people seeking to develop meaningful relationships in an era defined by rapidly evolving communication tools?”

Reframing generational labels into more nuanced questions helps to remove bias that is baked into a generational label. Additionally, a Millennial could act like a Boomer or a Boomer could act like a Millennial, depending on where they are in their internal and external cycles.

Empathy not labels

Thinking big picture is part of innovation, but culture has become carried away with framing problems through a birth-year generational lens. This approach to reframing the problem is a misguided idea for a few reasons. First, generational cohort groups are organized by arbitrary date ranges that work backwards into qualitative attitudes. Second, these labels are often communicated with an implied solution that is taken out of real world context. Third, empathy should drive human-centered innovation and labeling people is the opposite of empathy. In the context of creating a useful design target for innovation, there are no Millennials. Just people like everyone else.