Final Blog

The first idea that comes to mind when I think about what I learned from the group project is the fact that customers do not know what they want. Even when customers specifically and explicitly ask for something- they may not actually want whatever they are asking for. I saw this in a couple lessons throughout the semester, but the idea really sank in during my project. For example, in the airline industry customers constantly ask for more leg room. The benefit of more leg room is often ranked as high as price in customer surveys and customers will comment that offering more room on a plane will affect their purchase decision. However, when American Airlines overhauled their planes to offer more leg room for every seat they saw that very few customers made the switch or even noticed the difference. Even though customers’ responses insisted that legroom was very important, customer actions proved that price is much more important that legroom during the purchase decision. In my class notes, I have the concept written down as “**Stop asking customers what they want: Do NOT ask about features; ask about results, benefits, or needs.” The importance of this concept became clear during my project. When our customers (High School Males age 15-17) were surveyed, every single responder insisted that they would want a Television in their bathroom. However, they also noted that they did not care what the bathroom looked like, they had little involvement in the bathrooms use and design, they used the bathroom in a purely functional style, and they usually did not spend more thirty minutes in the bathroom at a time (not even enough for the average television show). Lastly they had no desire to increase their time, use, or involvement with the bathroom- they wished to continue the in and out use, and because of this attitude it was clear to our team that a television would not fit our customers’ needs even though they are all asking for a television. A television would provide the attractive features, but not the right results, benefits, or needs for our customer.

Next, the group project was a great benefit to me when it came to learning and understanding innovation, specifically the six ways to innovate. Creating our own product was a challenge for our group that we met and achieved. Our group would not have been as successful without the semester’s learning about innovation. My notes define innovation as, “Innovation= Applied creativity to business or customer,” and lists the six ways to innovate as, “Substitution, Combination, Inversion, Elimination, Exaggeration, and Reordering.” Our group had a good idea for the product we would create, but the lesson on innovation helped me to really cement our idea into a solid product. Our product, TheSponge, used a combination of several different existing technologies: internet, radio, wireless capabilities, waterproof speakers, and customizable web-accounts as well as the elimination of connector chords and the need to personally manage and update content in order to create a brand new and unique product. The six ways to innovate provide an interesting and structured approach to innovation.

Along the way, the project was a very positive experience. Overall, my group worked very well together. We were able to communicate effectively and accomplish every task easily. Out of the group of four, three of the members made significant contributions towards the completion of the project, and the project could not have been done without input from those three. However, the fourth member showed a distinct lack of interest, initiative, and dedication to the team that became obvious through their quality of work and absence at team meetings. Regardless, our group of three was still able to work efficiently and effectively, and we managed to create a quality final product as well as quality products throughout the semester. The feedback we received from Professor Walls helped us to advance our ideas as well as provide our team with support when we were already moving in the right direction. The process of the project was a valuable learning experience that I will be able to transfer to other classes, and the experience with my team was positive and enjoyable overall.

Candace Lee & Nike

I read Candace Lee’s blog, and I have found many of her ideas to be interesting. Specifically, Candace’s blog entitled “Nike Takes on March Madness” is especially fascinating.

“Nike Takes on March Madness” closely examines Air Jordan’s and Nike’s advertising campaign during the NCAA March Madness Basketball Tournament. The advertisements ran throughout the tournament and mainly featured high-profile and memorable games from past tournaments, while focusing on the heartbroken fans from the LOSING side of each memorable match-up.

Candace brings up an interesting point: that the purpose of the commercial campaign is not to show a specific product or sell anything in particular, but its main purpose to simply invoke emotion in the consumer and connect. Candace also notes that while the Nike advertising campaign and the Song Airlines advertising campaign had the exact same goal (use commercials to generate emotion and connect with the customer on a deep level), both companies went about accomplishing this goal in opposite ways. Nike’s campaign raised several negative emotions, while Song attempted to raise positive emotions; ultimately Nike’s commercials were much more successful.

I would like to add more about Nike’s strategy of appealing to negative emotions for their commercials. It is important to note that the March Madness tournament involves 65 teams, but only one champion. Throughout the tournament, 64 teams feel the agony of defeat after a loss and go home without a championship, while each year only one team ends their season and their tournament on a win. The fact that 64 out of every 65 teams is guaranteed to lose every year means that negative emotions are much more common (and therefore relatable) during tournament time. Also, the fact that no one team wins the championship every season means that EVERY fan has felt the heartache of a loss at some point, and appealing to that negative emotion reaches every basketball fan. In contrast, if Nike were to only focus on the winning teams and their epic championship runs then Nike would end up alienating entire groups of fans whose team has never won a National Championship, and might even create resentment of rival fans .

Candace is right- Nike made an absolutely brilliant move by focusing on the negative emotions associated with the tournament rather than the positive emotions.

However, Candace takes an issue with the “Ray Allen” commercial and states that it does not “fit” with the rest of the campaign. I disagree with Candace on this issue. I think the “Ray Allen” commercial is a nice addition to the series, and even though it does not follow exactly the same format as the others in the campaign (highlighting a single memorable performance) I believe that it still follows the spirit of the campaign. The “Ray Allen” commercial features a factory owner who doesn’t hire any workers named “Ray”- presumably due to the fact that Ray Allen ended his team’s tournament run. Although the commercial does not resonate specifically with fans of a certain team (the issue Candace appears to have taken issue with- the fact that the highlighted game and teams are not memorable), it does focus on a relatable idea in college basketball that many fans can associate with. Also, it is important to note that even the most avid fans may not remember specifics from games past of teams that they do not care about or follow (no fan can possibly watch every game, every year), but Nike is selling the idea of the games and heartbreak of loss. Every fan can connect with that- regardless of their knowledge of basketball history or which team they follow.

IN-sights & OUT-lines

I. Introduction: Hook. Discuss and explain the game of handball and preview specific customer NEEDS:
A. Connect Emotionally
B. Social Acceptance
C. Understanding
D. Entertainment
E. Novelty
F. Appreciation
II. Body: In depth on specific needs including customer experiences that achieve need
A. Connect Emotionally- give the fan someone to root for
1. Superstars
a. Good- Kobe (NBA), Tiger Woods (PGA)
b. Bad- Kimbo Slice (MMA/UFC)
2. Rivalries
a. Good- College Sports
b. Bad- Pro Sports
B. Social Acceptance / Community
1. Appeal to different fan levels- Good: Basketball, Baseball
2. Attract and embrace fan diversity
a. Good: NFL, MLB, NBA
b. Bad: UFC, NASCAR
C. Understanding
1. Explain the game’s rules and intricacies
a. Good- NFL, Olympics!
b. Bad- Hockey
2. Information readily available, rules frequently explained
D. Entertainment-
1. Action and progression of the game as well as competitiveness.
a. Good- Hockey, NFL, NBA
b. Bad- Soccer, MLB
2. Create a spectacle and atmosphere
3. Make games or events meaningful
a. Good- College Football
b. Bad- MLB, NBA
4. Possibly Majors or Championship
a. Good- Horse Racing, NFL
b. Bad- Boxing, Bowling
E. Novelty- desire to experience something new
1. Achieve through promotions and invitations
2. Encourage and facilitate trial and new adoption
a. Good- Bowling
b. Bad- Boxing
F. Appreciation / Experience
1. Start young- youth programs to encourage play
a. Good- Basketball, Golf
b. Bad- NASCAR
2. Fans gain appreciation for high-level professional play because of experience
III. Conclusion- connects each broad customer need to a specific insight that the game of handball and its league can adopt.
A. List and explain areas where handball can excel and why
1. Novelty
2. Community/ Social Acceptance
3. Appreciation / Experience
B. List areas that handball will struggle with and why
1. Entertainment
2. Understanding
3. Connect Emotionally


**Please check for length (do you think I will have enough or too much) and check actual "customer insights" that i list as main points. I organized by "customer NEED." **

Gamers: Hidden Marketing Potential?

With the introduction of the ultra user-friendly Nintendo Wii system, the amazing technological developments of “next generation” playstation and xbox consoles, and the popularity of online computer games, gamers are becoming more mainstream and one of the fastest growing markets. Gamers not only represent a more diverse population than one might think at first, but they are also perfect for exploring new marketing opportunities and developing new marketing campaigns for several reasons:

1. Gamers have money- for the most part. If people have enough money to spend on consoles, controllers, online subscriptions, and games then they probably have enough disposable income for other purposes. Even though gaming is not overly expensive (see point #2), gaming is still considered a luxury and so is one of the last considerations for the budget. If they don’t have their own money they may have ready access to someone else’s (like a parent or spouse).

2. In an economic downturn, gaming becomes more popular and common. Gaming is a relatively cheap form of entertainment and once the initial costs are covered there is very little to no additional expense for more or even unlimited gaming (i.e. once the game is purchased you can play as long as you want or once you own a computer you have access to 1000s of free online games). People can stay in their house and be entertained, rather than having to go out and spend money. Gaming may be one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.

3. Gamers represent a captive audience. If someone is playing a video or computer game, they are usually not doing anything else. Why not play a short commercial while they wait in between games? Why not embed banner ads along the borders of online games?

4. Most gamers would actually support advertisements because they would IMPROVE the gaming experience. Added revenue to online gaming structures will only improve the game support structure and grow game popularity. Some online gaming structures (xbox live for example) require a monthly subscription fee to “support” the online game play. Advertisements could supplement this support fee to either improve the structure even more, or pass on savings to the gamers. “Unsupported” online structures could be improved by gaining advertising revenue- improving the structure improves performance, which improves quality, which improves satisfaction, which grows popularity, which supports the advertising.

5. Information on gamers can be gathered easily, and incentives for participation in research would be easy to provide through the game. Market research could be done very easily through matching a gamer’s online profile with their survey answers. And incentives for participation could be promoted through the actual game they are intending to play (ex: “participate in our short survey for 1000 in game points!”) and at little to no cost to the company researching. And again, cooperation with the game provider could be used to improve game quality and share savings with the gamers.

6. So far, in game advertisements or corporate game tie-ins have been relatively unsuccessful and poorly executed. Companies like McDonalds or Burger King have released their own games for consoles, but these have typically been nothing more than shameless promotions with little gaming value or replay-ability. Other companies have developed small online games that are plastered with their logo on their own company website, but again these games add little value to the gamer that has no incentive to start playing their game in the first place. Companies should look towards becoming involved in the most popular games that gamers are already playing. In the past, companies have attempted to develop or outsource their own designed games to meet their own advertising needs- which is a mistake. Companies should instead work towards developing their advertising to meet the desires of gamers and fit their advertising into already popular games to ensure maximum and repeat exposure.

Inisght, Foresight, and Hindsight

Dr. Rapaille

Dr. Rapaille’s research is centered on finding the “buying code” that triggers people to buy certain types of product over another type of product. The specific “code” for a type of product is found by digging deep into the consumer’s most basic and core driving instincts- or what Dr. Rapaille calls the reptile.

Dr. Rapaille’s method for discovering the reptile is a three stage process. Stage one involves questioning for reason. This first stage involves exploring the cortex and acts on a simple level to stimulate brain activity and thinking about the product. Despite the fact that most marketing research heavily involves stage one and no other stage (in other words- most marketing research only asks people to tell their reason for things rather than explore deeper for true untold answers) Dr. Rapaille does not care at all about the answers given in stage one. Stage two involves searching for the emotion behind the answers in stage one. The subjects in stage two are asked to think more abstractly and explain their answers more indirectly than in stage one. Finally, stage three reaches the core of the consumer thought process and the driving force behind purchases. For stage three, Dr. Rappaille attempts to remove distractions from the room and create a relaxing environment for the subjects to create free flowing ideas.

An example of Dr. Rapaille’s findings would be the code involved with buying SUVs. Dr. Rapaille found that the buying code for SUVs is “domination” so he instructed SUV manufacturer’s to make their models taller and tint the windows. A simple change in the product design can help lead to improved sales if the change triggers the buying code in consumers.

Song Airlines

Song Airlines took an absolutely amazing idea and crashed it into the ground (plane imagery) with poor execution. The idea of changing the whole idea of flying is almost revolutionary, but Song fell short with its implementation and promotion of its ideas.

Song’s good ideas mostly came right up front. Change the way that air travel is viewed- sell air travel less as transportation and more as an experience. That whole idea is simply brilliant, and honestly not very hard to sell. Think about air travel for a minute and how cool it is. You start in one place sitting down, you and the other passengers are accelerated and lifted into the air through forces of physics that most people don’t understand, you travel at speeds over 500 miles per hour at an altitude miles over the surface of the earth, you are physically flying through the air, and you eventually end up very far away from your starting point in a relatively short amount of time all while sitting comfortably (well semi-comfortably) and sipping a drink. Flying is a cool experience.

For some reason no airline has ever sold the entire flying experience though. For most people flying is a stressful chore. It seems that most people do not enjoy airports or even flying. Flying has become more about simply being transportation than an experience by itself. The fact that air travel is viewed by many to be a somewhat negative experience when it is naturally an extremely unique and positive experience tells me that people are unhappy with the way that normal airlines do business, which shows me why Song’s idea of changing the whole experience was so good.

But Song’s execution could not have been worse. After watching their initial ad campaign I was left confused and dumbfounded. How could their first set of ads only show clips from old movies and not mention anything about the company, their idea, or even air travel? No planes? No travelers? No airlines? More importantly, how could a whole group of business people watch their ads and approve the spending? Their ad belonged in an independent film festival, not in a business. They tried to introduce a new product idea without telling anyone what their idea was. Song got so caught up in being “artsy” and generating emotion that they failed to tie any of the art or emotion to their actual product. The emotion that Song so desperately generated was wasted.

Song’s idea was great, but their execution was absolutely abysmal. Of course, I am proven right by the fact that Song airlines no longer exist. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I am surprised no one at Song had the foresight to see their mistakes coming.

You Can't Trust Anyone These Days

In the chapter titled, “Kenna’s Dilemma” Malcom Gladwell brings up several interesting insights, but I believe the most helpful are facts that you can’t always trust taste tests and you can’t always trust experts.

Experts
When it comes to experts, it is important to note that an expert on a certain subject, service, or product is not an expert on how people will receive a certain subject, service, or product. Just because someone knows everything there is to know about an industry, does not mean that they understand the growing and changing desires of the consumer and trends in the market.

The shortcomings of experts when it comes to understanding their own customers are painfully clear in Malcolm Galdwell’s examples about Kenna, and the “Chair of Death.” In both cases experts in their respective fields agreed that they had an incredible product that was better than what was currently available. Expert opinion of their own product was extremely high and all indications pointed to success. However, the experts did not correctly predict the reaction of the consumer. Even though the experts believed their product to be superior, their message was lost on the consumer.

The average consumer is not an expert. It takes time, skill, or training in many cases to recognize how one product is superior to another, and the average consumer does not provide that. Most customers can only evaluate products on what they already know, which causes new, innovative, or revolutionary products to sometimes fail, even if the experts all agree that the new product is superior to the old one. Expert approval does not equal guaranteed success.

Taste-Tests
Taste-tests are some of the most misleading marketing strategies ever. Consumers are not only led to believe that “tasting” a small amount of a product for a brief period of time is the same as normal consumption of the product, but also that products that win the taste test are superior. Of course we know that both of these assumptions are false. Malcolm Gladwell points out that Coke learned this lesson after the Pepsi taste tests and the invention of “New Coke.”

Coke was misled by taste-tests from Pepsi. Coke did not consider that a sip of Pepsi (as in a taste test) might be better than a sip of Coke, while at the same time the Pepsi product was not as good as, or at least comparable to, the Coke product. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but Gladwell points out that the difference of sweetness in the two brands causes the initial affinity toward Pepsi. Pepsi was smart to use the taste-test to its advantage, but consumers should know by now that the tests are unreliable.

The only accurate test of how a product’s quality or performance is a full trial. A used car may drive well in a test-drive around the block and on the highway, but what happens at the end of a long road-trip, or in harsh weather conditions. In this “test-drive” example, it is easy to see the shortcomings of a small test versus a full trial. In many cases, a small test is the only practical way to try a product (such as a car test-drive or walk through an open house), but it should not be an acceptable way to test the quality of everything.


The taste-test brings up an interesting dilemma. We already know that consumers can not trust expert opinions. Consumers can not trust the results of “tests” or sample studies. And now, even if we find ourselves in a taste-testing situation we know that our own initial reactions may not be an accurate indication of our appreciation of the product as a whole, in which case we can not even trust ourselves.

Paper Topics

Currently, I have several ideas for my report, and each of my ideas revolves around sports. In addition to being a fun and entertaining, sports are a multi-billion dollar per year industry. I plan on using marketing knowledge and customer insights in order to explore various opportunities and possibilities for future growth and expansion in sports.

Handball is one sport I am interested in exploring. Those who play handball refer to it as “the perfect game.” It is perhaps one of the easiest sports to get equipment for- all you really need is a ball and a wall. The rules of handball are simple, and the game itself is fun, exciting, and challenging. So why isn’t handball more popular across the United States? What can the United States Handball Association (USHA) do to spread handball to more people? How can other sports leagues be a positive example for handball? Thinking about all of the sports programs across the nation that are overcrowded or turning people away from participation in a sports program makes me think that there is room in the American sports market for another great sport. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to play sports, but sometimes overcrowding or under-funding prevents that from happening. Handball is probably one of the cheapest sports to fund (no expensive equipment unlike football, or baseball), and the nature of the game allows for an open roster that can accommodate multiple players at all skill levels (unlike basketball or volleyball which requires a set roster of only 5-15 players). So how can handball and USHA use these insights and other sports examples to grow the game of handball and generate new loyal customers?

Sports are not only popular in the United States, but they are popular worldwide. Nearly every nation seems to have a fascination or obsession with sports. Yet despite the popularity of sports, there are very few global sports events or leagues. Some domestic leagues enjoy tremendous popularity outside of the U.S., but still have trouble expanding and growing, while some leagues have trouble appealing to foreign markets and gaining fans outside of their own countries. How can sports leagues use positive examples of globalization for their own benefit? How should leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB approach the idea of international expansion? What insights can sports leagues gain from the history of sports globalization? How can less mainstream international sports gain global popularity? How should “foreign sports” such as cricket, rugby, and even soccer approach the idea of expanding into the U.S. markets?

Sports have always been my passion. As a dual major in marketing and sport management, I am constantly seeing connections between the sports world and the business world. While studying sport management, I have been exposed to interesting issues in the sports world that could be explored using marketing and customer insight techniques.

Sports “customers” are unique from other customers. The customers of a sport are the fans. Fans have distinct characteristics of high-loyalty toward and high-enjoyment of the product. Also, as in the case of exploring the growth of handball, the customer could actually be the participant in the sport itself. Either way, the “customers” of sports are not always buying our product directly, and they do not switch products or try new products very easily. Because of these distinctions of the sports customer from normal customers, sports have several advantages and disadvantages over typical products when marketing to the general public.

There are several articles on the topics of sports, marketing, and globalization, but here are just a few:

“Sport Sponsorship in a Global Age” by Amis and Cornwell
“Global Sport and Global Mass Media” by George Sage
“What is the Sports Product and Who Buys it? The Marketing of Professional Sports Leagues” by Daniel Mason

Each of these explores sports and marketing while the first two specifically explore new issues in sports related to globalization.

I Really Want a Segway

I Really Want A Segway. But I really do not want to buy a Segway.

Technological innovations are really amazing. Whenever I see a completely new, technologically innovative product, I can not help thinking, “I want that.” It seems like I may be the only though. After reviewing a list of recent technologically innovative “failures” I couldn’t help but wonder how in the world these new products aren’t in every home- including my own!

Endowment Effect
The idea that “something I own is more valuable (to me) than something I do not own” seems simple, straightforward, and logical to me even though I know that it does not follow a path of logic. A mug that I own is not worth more money than a mug that I do not own. A pen that I have used for a year is not worth more than a brand new pen I have never seen. But for some reason I feel like my stuff is better than other stuff.

The endowment effect is powerful. Its power is likely underestimated by marketers and salesman, but I am sure that it is quite strong. I can see it in myself. Logically, I know that what I am thinking does not make any sense, but even I can’t help it. I like my stuff.

Fear of Change
I remember when the Segway was introduced to the American public on the Today Show. Katie Couric and Matt Lauer talked for fifteen minutes about how “this new product will CHANGE the world” and “this was the biggest revolution in transportation technology since the steam engine” and how “the new product will be revealed right after this break.” There was so much build-up and hype. So much emphasis on what an amazing revolution it would be and what a drastic change it would be from our current lives.

There is only one problem: people fear change. At least most people do. It can be argued that change is an unknown- that is no one really knows what the change will be like. And it has long been agreed that people fear what they do not know.

It is a wonder that more marketers don’t realize this fact. It seems so much marketing is geared towards the “newest revolution” or the “next big thing,” but what marketers really need to be focusing on is giving people more of the same. That is what we really want. “This product is exactly like the product you already own and will not change your life in any way. Buy it.” It seems like a good product pitch for just about everything. It will appeal to everyone’s desire to be comforted by the well-known.

In retrospect, that is probably where the Segway went wrong. The makers of the Segway spent too much time telling everyone how much their product will “change their lives” and not even close to enough time telling anyone how their product will “allow you to keep your life pretty much the same except maybe make it a little better.” They spent too much time being the next big thing that they never became anything. If only they would have spent more time being “a slight improvement on the same old thing you know and love” then maybe they would have actually done something.

An interesting thought- as appealing as technological innovation is to the normal consumer; perhaps marketers should consider downplaying a product’s innovation. In typical human fashion: people claim that they want something but their actions prove otherwise. It seems like everyone loves technological innovations and their new benefits, but when it comes time to actually buy a revolutionary new product people seem to forget how much they like it.

My only possible conclusion is that I am not the only one thinking, “I want that.” Every one else is thinking the same thing as I am, and just like me they aren’t buying any of it.

Homer Simpson- Genius

“Trying is the first step towards failure.”
-Homer J. Simpson

I try to be like Homer Simpson. Of course Homer has a few negative, unattractive characteristics, but I attempt to emulate his more lovable and endearing qualities. Homer is a simple man, who enjoys simple pleasures: beer, bowling, donuts, and pork products. Above all things, Homer is generally a happy man. It appears that Homer is the epitome of “ignorance is bliss.” However, valuable nuggets of wisdom are cleverly hidden behind many of Homer’s simple ignorant ramblings.

While listening to Dr. Schwartz discuss the paradox of choice I heard a deceptively simple philosophy that sounded like it came straight out of an episode of The Simpsons: “The secret to happiness is low expectations.” I wouldn’t have been surprised if Homer came up with that one himself. It seems like such a simple philosophy that it is hard to question.

However, it seems that “low expectations” are almost nowhere to be found in the American consuming universe today. Everyone seems to expect (rather highly) great service, quality products, custom orders, free shipping, personalized colors, and a perfect fit for everything they buy. And of course it would seem to be true that high expectations are also the secret to unhappiness.

“American donuts. Glazed, powdered and raspberry-filled. Now how's that for freedom of choice?”
-Homer J. Simpson

The paradox of choice is an interesting concept. At first, it seems counter-intuitive; Like Dr. Schwartz said, this “more choice, more freedom, more happiness” philosophy is deeply ingrained into most of our beliefs. But I agree with him that in most cases there are simply too many choices to be of any benefit.

Personally, when I think about the “paradox of choice” Barnes and Nobles Book Stores come to mind. Typically, I walk into a Barnes and Nobles with the intention of killing some time or with a specific book in mind to search for. I almost always end up with a small stack of books in my hands by the time I have made my way through the store. All of the books I pick out look interesting and entertaining, but when I add up their prices in my head it usually totals an absolutely unreasonably high amount. And so, because all of the books look so good and I can’t make a choice of just one book to buy over the rest I end up putting them all back and then looking for them on Amazon or at Half Price Books. There are so many good choices that are highly visible there (and I can’t afford them all) that I end up not buying any of them.

“If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing!”
-Homer J. Simpson

Theoretically, it costs money for producers to provide so many different choices, customizations, and variations for their products, but they do it anyways. As Dr. Schwartz has shown, consumers resent having so much to choose from and in fact don’t appreciate the wide range of choices. It’s hard for producers to provide so many choices, and it’s hard for consumers to choose between so many options. As Homer J. always said, “If something is hard to do, then it’s not worth doing.”

Y Would You Call Me That?

I do not fit into any categories. In fact, I take great pride in the fact that I am unique. I enjoy leading a life that is well-rounded and having an open mind toward all new experiences whether they are familiar or foreign. My life, my viewpoints, my ideas, and my attitudes are all uniquely shaped and do not follow any sort of “marketable” pattern. I do not fit into any group, so WHY would anyone try to tell me that I do. Whatever this “Generation-Y” group is, I don’t want any part of it. I can’t possibly fit into that group, because that group can not possibly describe me.

At least that is what I thought before I realized that some defining characteristics of “Generation-Y” include: acceptance of diversity, embracing uniqueness, curiosity for new learning, and self reliance. Well, I guess that is pretty much Me.

So it turns out that I may in fact be a “typical member” of the Generation-Y, but how can a group that embraces uniqueness have a “typical member?” How can anyone attempt to predict what the masses of Generation-Y will want based on the opinions of the few? I don’t think that they can.

Looking back at the (now so obviously dated) Business Week article Generation Y I see two lists of allegedly “cool stuff” from both Baby Boomers and Generation-Y.

When I look at the “cool stuff according to Generation-Y” list, I see a list of fads, products that practically don’t exist anymore, things I never liked, and people who I never thought were cool. Motorola Flex Pagers? Hard Candy? I’ve never even heard of those, but I know the only people who still wear pagers are doctors and drug dealers. The Spice Girls? Leonardo Dicaprio? I’m sorry, but I never thought they were cool (although I did like The Departed). Dawson’s Creek? I never saw a single episode. The WB Network? Gone (I’m assuming now that it was only supported by Dawson’s Creek). Aside from Mountain Dew, I can safely say that I have never bought, wanted, watched, or cared about anything on the entire Generation-Y list.

The “cool stuff according to Baby-Boomers” list on the other hand, now that is a cool list. Timeless classics like Coke and The Beatles will be around forever (incidentally my iPod has twenty Beatles songs and zero Spice Girls). Harrison Ford movies are usually pretty good (at least there will be action and explosions unlike the average Leo film), and my roommates and I still watch Nick at Nite. I own Nike shoes and apparel (not a single item from the Vans line) and I would greatly prefer the Lexus to the Jeep Wrangler. Lastly, I don’t even want to live in a world without Major League Baseball, but I could care less if the “Skateboard Triple Crown” gets cancelled (whatever that is, it probably already is cancelled).

So I have asked myself: Does this mean that I am over-the-hill, middle-aged man at heart? Do I just have tastes that are so old that I fit into the “baby boomer” generation more than my own?

I have decided that the answer is No. I don’t fit into those lists that the article provided, but is that my fault? Of course not! The problem isn’t with me, the problem is with those lists!

Looking at the lists now, the Gen-Y list is obviously outdated and filled with currently irrelevant material, while the baby-boomer list is filled with time tested classics. Obviously, at the time this list was made Gen-Y had not yet found its true values or tested any of its ideals. Gen-Y was only a fickle teenager at that point and insisted on changing its mind (about almost everything) often. An updated Generation-Y list would definitely look completely different (while the baby-boomer list would most likely be very similar to the way it is now), and may be more in tune with my own opinions.

Something else that sticks out to me is the fact that this “Generation Y” list was obviously written by someone who was not a member of Generation-Y. It seems to me like a market researcher walked up to a group of pre-teens at the mall and said “Yo, what is up? What rad things are goin’ on these days?” and then preceded to write down the answers.

It also seems like there is a growing fear of Generation-Y, at least in the marketing world. Baby-Boomers seem to be saying to themselves “Who are these young people and why are there so many? What do they want? And why is that music so loud?” Marketers seem to have this idea in their heads that Generation-Y will be completely different than every previous generation and that our access to technology will revolutionize the way we think and the way our society develops. Maybe.

But I think its more likely that Generation-Y will grow up and get real just like every other generation before. We will need jobs that pay well, products that get the job done, and entertainment to keep us from getting too bored. Just like every other generation ever. The technology and media will be different, but the basic ideals and principles will be the same as before.

Every new generation has new technology to deal with, but ideals stay remarkably similar. Looking back, is there huge social difference between the “Printing Press Generation” and the “Pre-Printing Press Generation” (if anyone ever cared to label such a thing)? That was a huge technological development, and yes there were vast changes to every day life, but social ideals stayed nearly the same. Each new generation is young, they grow up, they continue where the old generation left off, and then a new generation comes along. It has been that way since the beginning of time. Y would I be any different?

Just a test

Please do not be alarmed. The following is only a test.