Get Your Millennial Audience Off My Lawn, Part 2
Back in January, I argued that generations were a flawed construct and demographics a poor way to segment. In particular, the Millennial mythos seemed a mix of wishful thinking and harrumphing from previous generations.
But since I posted that, there have enough “Millennials are doing X” think pieces (using the term “think” loosely) that it’s time to play Millennial Myth Whack-a-Mole once again.
Before we start, here’s the statement that I made in January:
“For something to be a generational trait, it would have to be something that doesn’t occur in every generation when they the same age and something that does not continue over time (that’s a trend, not a generational commonality). I have found none of these.”
So here are some of the ones that have been alleged of late:
Millennials are less satisfied in their jobs. Some have pointed to this study in the Journal of Business and Psychology as evidence. It finds Millennials are less satisfied in their jobs. Case closed, no?
Well, let me ask you which of these you prefer:
- Making more money or less money
- Being in a job and a sector for a long period of job when you’ve built up experience or experimenting to see what you might like and might hate
- Fetching coffee or having coffee fetched for you
You probably like money, experience and expertise, and more control over your work environment.
Guess what: on average, that happens as you age and build experience.
My guess – and it’s a good guess – is that every generation is less satisfied in their job when they are just starting out, when they are working for the Devil Who Wears Prada and not wearing Prada themselves.
So, did this study look at whether previous generations had this at the same age? From the abstract: “This is the first known quantitative review of research on generational differences in the workplace.”
OK, so no. We can throw this one out.
Millennials are more narcissistic. The current president should make this self-refuting. But let’s go to the data, as people have written actual books arguing this.
To quote one researcher:
“The science does not back this up either. Our research shows that while narcissism among young people did increase slightly through the mid-2000s (about 1.8 points on a 40-point scale), it is now back to where it was in the 1980s. That’s right, on average, millennials are no more narcissistic now than Xers or boomers were when they were in their 20s, and one study has even found they might be less so than generations past. While millennials today may be more narcissistic than Xers or boomers are today, that is because young people are pretty narcissistic regardless of when they are young. This too is an age effect.”
Millennials are less philanthropic. True, Millennials give less to nonprofits. That’s because they have less disposable income. Before them, Gen X gave the least to charities because they were the youngest. And so on.
As far as trends, giving among young people is down from previous years. This should meet my definition, right? Millennials are giving less than Gen X and before was giving at the same age?
Sadly, every 10-year age group (30 and under, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, and 60+) gives less now than they did in 2000. Most dramatically, 58% of households led by 51- to 60-year-olds gave in 2014, down from 78% in 2000. Across every age group, fewer people are giving. In fact, people are giving less in every demographic group. See here and here for more info.
Millennials are more philanthropic. Yes, people take both sides of this argument. It should be refuted by the above as well. But the real truth is that Generation AA will be the real battery of social change. (Note: this piece is satire; please don’t actually make PowerPoint slides from it).
So hopefully all the moles are whacked and you no longer have to hear about how Millennials need to be the focus of your marketing strategy.
Or, more likely, I’ll post again on this November-ish.
Nick
P.S. I’m indebted to this Atlantic article for the images that illustrate this point as well as I could in words.
P.P.S. Since I penned this, there was a great article that reiterates that generation is the least predictive of the already not-very-predictive demographic variables. Well worth a read.
5 responses to “Get Your Millennial Audience Off My Lawn, Part 2”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Thank you for this, Nick.
Nick, as you well know, this is a popular drumbeat for the company since we are in the business of explaining why folks do what they do and demographics have virtually no explanatory power. We feel obliged to point out to clients and non-clients alike they will spend a lot of good money on worthless data appends to chase shadows. Though when you dress those shadows up in gross generalizations and call them “personas” with pretty PowerPoint slides it seems more credible.
To put a fine point on it, these gross generalizations are crap.
And yet the believers on this generational nonsense in particular are probably undeterred. Confirmation bias, the bias that causes us to see counter, factual information and become even more entrenched in our, (wrong and) opposite view is powerful.
Maybe a more profane utterance will at least promote some debate on this as I never see any retorts to defend this nonsense; any generational marketing claim by a consultant is a noxious combination of old rope drizzled in snake oil and slow baked in bullshit.
This is a really interesting article based on research by Blackbaud.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/14445741/1/why-millennials-are-more-charitable.html
Though actual monetary donations from Millennials are lower than Boomers or Xers, when volunteerism and in kind donations are taken into account, they are actually far more charitable than any of the rest of us.
I find that to be true anecdotally in my work. Millennials are wonderful volunteers and advocates. And boy, can they crowdsource!
I would agree that young people are more likely to donate in-kind and time (because of lack of cash). However, I think that’s specific to young people of every generation (because of lack of cash), not just Millennials.
The Street article is interesting, but skips over some important points. It cites, for example, that Americans are giving less than ever before from the IU data, but it doesn’t mention that Millennials, like every generation are part of this – every generation is giving less than its previous cohort or age group.
Or it mentions that Millennials want to work where employers give back. But it fails to mention that they are equal or less likely to Gen X and Boomers to change jobs to give back per https://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/millennialworkplace/ and only 20% say giving back is important to their job satisfaction per http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/thought-leadership/blog/enough-about-millennials.
And as for the trope that Millennials want to make sure to see their gift at work and want to be connected to the impact, check out this piece from the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/09/giving/churches-find-new-ways-and-old-to-pass-the-plate-around.html. It’s from 1997. They said the same thing about Gen Xers. Probably about Boomers too, but I can’t Google that as easily.
My point is that all of this is better if we look at this based on the identity than on the generation. You get me a person willing to give of their time or treasure, I don’t care if they are 19 or 90. ANd, according to the data, neither do they, as age is the least predictive of the demographic variables and demographic variables are among the least predictive of giving.
Nick, thanks for bringing this topic up again. Speaking as a member of that much analyzed millennial generation, I think you are spot on when you frame this as a question of personal identity rather than one of generational identity.
I do think there are some relevant takeaways for fundraisers, and I’d be curious to hear others reactions to them.
First, the idea of millennials as “digital natives” is broadly true, but not helpful for fundraising. In fact, I think it’s a red herring. Millennials, like all Americans, get excited when we meet them where they already are. Some people like digital communications, others prefer more traditional methods like direct mail. Again, this is an area of personal preference and is not tied to age or generation. It’s just a personal preference. It’s possible millennials are more comfortable with digital communications and web-based donations, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t love getting a physical newsletter from my university library. I read it cover to cover, and it often compels me to make a contribution.
Second, philanthropy was an integral, almost inescapable, part of youth culture. There are the American staples like selling Girl Scout Cookies, or chocolate bars for sports teams, or a graduating class gift (those aren’t new). I remember there being a fundraising-focused activity at every level of my education. These activities were tied to the school day in some way from 1st grade through high school graduation. Jump Rope for Heart started in 1989 – when the oldest millenials were reaching school age (https://news.heart.org/jump-rope-for-heart-35-years-old-and-still-going-strong/). This was part of my district’s P.E. curriculum (and probably still is). Some other anecdotal examples are events like Relay for Life, which my high school participated in with other area schools, or Susan G. Komen’s Race for the Cure event. Some of these activities were compulsory (Jump Rope), and others were optional. Optional events were really just excuses for social events – and those social events were a crash course introduction to peer-to-peer fundraising. In either case, there were formal giving programs and professional fundraising staffs supporting these events.
In my view, the popularity of these events has increased over time and as millenials have aged. I don’t think this means we are a more philanthropic group. However it is important to consider this when we plan fundraising events, stewardship events, and other fundraising-agent activities. Millennials love a rubric and clearly defined goal. I think we all love those things, but millennials were learning about this right alongside our ABC’s, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and college application season. I don’t remember a lot about the intricate details of Huck Finn, but I know how to get my neighbors on the hook for a $10 donation to my walkathon page. That’s noteworthy.