Sending Generational Stereotypes Back to School
“A brain, a beauty, a jock, a rebel and a recluse.” Quick, what legendary piece of pop culture multimedia am I referencing?
A - Beverly Hills 90210
B - Goonies
C - Glee
D - The Breakfast Club
E - All of the Above
If you answered E, I hate to tell you that you are wrong (technically correct, but wrong nevertheless).
The tag line is actually straight from the poster for the landmark 1985 coming of age film, The Breakfast Club. This cult classic recently celebrated its 25th anniversary, which provided for a moment of reflection of its cultural impact on today’s young adults.
In retrospect, The Breakfast Club and more broadly John Hughes—writer and director of the film—helped to define the 1980’s through a dynamic story line that resonated with a generation. The film gave rise to a cast of characters and created a set of identities for young adults that would live on to influence the media and overall culture.
Awards, accolades and nostalgia aside… Was this legacy of young adult stereotypes—the nerd, punk, jock and so on—necessarily a good thing for the generations that followed? What effect did it have on today’s Millennials?
Based on my own healthy consumption of pop culture and media, I am most surprised at the longevity of these stereotypes. I believe that while times and generational titles may have changed over the last 25 years, the way in which young adults are portrayed in media and viewed by society has not. Since the movie’s release, much of mainstream media continues to reinforce the same fundamental stereotypes—for better or for worse. In fact, many of these caricatures are to this day portrayed in popular, modern-day television shows such as Glee, Real World, Beavis and Butthead, Freaks and Geeks and My So-called Life just to name a few.
Do Millennials actually self-identify with the characters and roles portrayed in these movies or shows? Is that why these characterizations persist?
ABC recently also debuted a show called My Generation—a documentary style television series that followed the lives of nine high school students from the class of 2000. The show followed up with each of them 10 years later to find out where they are now. During the opening of the pilot you see the following labels next to each character, “the over-achiever, the rock star, the jock, the nerd, the beauty queen, the punk...” and so on. Sounds a little familiar, doesn’t it? ABC recently cancelled the show due to low ratings. I guess that it just didn’t resonate with viewers, including those who are supposed to identify with the characters—the Millennials.
How has the media impacted how Millennials view themselves and are viewed by others?
By the end of The Breakfast Club, stereotypes are crushed and both the characters and viewers are transformed by the experience—each character realizes that they are more alike than any of them ever suspected and not defined by their respective “labels.” In the famous last line of the movie, the characters declare that, “You see us as you want to see us. In the simplest terms and the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain, and an athlete, and a basket case, a princess, and a criminal.” In many ways this sentiment is still very relevant to today’s young adults, but only when viewed through a very different lens.
While the examples above highlight how media “roles” for young adults haven’t changed much over the last 25 years, I do believe that the context with which we view them has changed quite dramatically.
Unlike The Breakfast Club, which was based on the story of “five total strangers, with nothing in common,” we now live in a world where connections take on a whole new meaning. Social media and online networks allow many of us to identify and connect with others who have something in common and reinforce those distinct bonds. I realize that this is somewhat of a sweeping generality, but in comparison to 1985, most young adults are no longer limited to a single community like the one portrayed in the movie. In many ways we’ve embraced the stereotypes with the help of social media and they have empowered today’s young adults to develop an identity of their own through Facebook profiles, Twitter handles and YouTube videos. This modern day composite identity is one that can include, “a brain, a beauty, a jock, a rebel and a recluse” and then some.
This post merely scratches the surface with thoughts and references from my own personal experiences about generational stereotypes. By writing this piece, I’m not trying to make any judgments as to whether or not stereotypes such as those featuring young adult characters have a positive or negative role. What I do know is that these roles make for good television, music videos and movies, and will live on longer than anyone who ever “played” them on film.
Why do you think stereotypes like the ones highlighted in The Breakfast Club for example have lasted so long? Will technology continue to change the way we identify ourselves and others?
- 3 comments
- share it
Do Consumers Want More Cause Marketing or More Cause Conscious Corporations?
For the last 17 years, Cone's Cause Evolution Study has monitored what consumers expect companies to do in support of social and environmental causes. This year's study shows that consumers continue to see corporations step out in favor of a cause, and their purchasing and employment decisions are increasingly influenced by how corporations align themselves with a cause.
A few data points that speak to this:
- 88 percent of Americans think it's acceptable for companies to involve a cause or issue in their marketing.
- 83 percent wish more products, services and retailers would support causes.
- Twice as many people since Cone's first study 17 years ago say they have bought a product because it was associated with a cause (now at 40%).
As you might have guessed, Millennials (along with moms) are leading the cause marketing charge. While not quite the purchasing power of moms, our cause-conscious generation is growing deeper pockets and garnering greater influence over corporations. Millennials now have about $40 billion in discretionary income, and this number will continue to grow. A company’s social efforts has a greater influence on where Millennials work, what stocks they invest in and what products they buy than it does for the general population.
And it's good for causes too. Eighty-six percent of Americans say purchasing a cause-related product does not replace a donation they would normally make. People said they also want corporations to give them the opportunity to advocate for an issue or volunteer, up 8% and 11% respectively over the last two years. So it’s possible that cause marketing will not only result in a one-time purchase-related donation to a nonprofit, it might also be a channel by which new long term supporters are introduced to a cause – a perk that, in time, might be more valuable than the cash.
The Cone study stats might seem to have made a marketing executive’s decision easy, but supporting a cause is not a fool-proof plan. Just ask KFC. Some cause-brand alliances have generated more controversy than goodwill because they seemed inauthentic or inappropriate. Susan G. Komen and KFC might regret ever having formed a partnership after their campaign to raise $8 million for breast cancer (by selling 16 million buckets of fried chicken) was met with criticism from women, health advocates and nearly anyone who could connect the dots between increasing fast food consumption to increasing obesity to increasing the risk of breast cancer (an oversimplification, but you get the idea).
While it’s nice to see 88 percent of people think cause marketing is acceptable, I’ve definitely heard from the 12 percent. Some, especially in the nonprofit sector, feel a little queasy about cause marketing. They want to keep their causes pure and see corporate influence as selling out. They don't want corporations to use needy causes to try to buy the love of cause-conscious consumers, especially when the amount they are donating is a little drop in the bucket of the increased profits they expect to gain from a white-washed image.
Even if the survey indicates that consumers will respond well to more cause marketing, in reality, it may really be telling us that what people want is organizations that create value for others and are good corporate citizens, not organizations that might be generally harmful to society but then put a special package on their product and market it toward people's heartstrings a month or so out of the year. Millennials might love cause marketing, but they also love authenticity, so they might be the first to smell a brand-cause mismatch and walk away with their $40 billion of discretionary income.
Are corporations sometimes just doing the right thing? I think yes. It's easy to vilify large corporations and assume impure motives, but we have to remember they are run by people too - people who care about profits and serving their shareholders' interests, yes, but also who legitimately care about causes and making the world a better place. Can we blame corporations for wanting to give back and improve their image at the same time, and does one negate the other? The critical point that distinguishes a PR win from a Kentucky Fried flop seems to be the thoughtful matching and framing of the cause support.
One group that wants to encourage corporations to raise both the level and quality of corporate philanthropy is the Committee for Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy. CECP CEOs believe that when corporations design social benefit programs, they should mirror business initiatives in striving to have programmatic effectiveness, fiscal accountability, and good stewardship. Taking this a step further, B Corporations are trying to provide consumers with a holistic good corporate citizen to purchase from, invest in and work for. Recognizing the occasional conflict traditional businesses face between what’s best for shareholders and what’s best for society, B Corporations would be a new sector in our economy with distinct standards and tax status.
What do you think about cause marketing? Is it fair for us to expect corporations to give back – and to give back in a way that we think is appropriate? And should nonprofits be expected to decline corporate donations when they see a mismatch with a potential brand partner?
- 2 comments
- share it
This Year at CGI: the power of the individual
Every year the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting convenes some of the world’s most influential leaders and change makers to share ideas and commitments to change the world. While it can be a tough seat to get (it’s by invitation only), many of their sessions are available via webcast, so anyone can benefit from the diverse and dynamic conversations at the meeting. There were many interesting sessions at this year’s event, held last week in New York, but a couple of them stood out as discussions of particular interest (to me and probably to many social citizens) as innovators from all sectors discussed the direction of social action and change.
One of these conversations is about technology for citizen empowerment. The panel, which featured media superstars like Arianna Huffington and Ashton Kutcher, focused, perhaps ironically, on the power of average people to make a difference with technology. As Wired Magazine put it recently, “in a world where everyone is his/her own Ashton Kutcher, who needs Ashton Kutcher?” This might have been a bit of a joke on the panel, but the truth remains that social media has crowned new leaders in various circles – people who might not walk the red carpet, but who have real influence in their growing networks. His philanthropic race to 1 million followers was highly publicized, but now nearly 300 people have hit that 1 million follower mark, but even many users who are far below that count can have a significant impact. As Ashton points out, this creates a climate in which issues that haven’t been attractive for major media companies, like human trafficking, have a chance to reach millions of people.
As we’ve discussed the criticism of slacktivism and how to move people beyond it, another panelist, journalist Omid Memarian, maintains that just having this number of people using tools like Twitter to explore what’s going on in the world is making a difference. Having that many eyes on the actions of the Iranian government actually influenced the way they responded to the riots. “If it was not for the internet,” he says, “many more people would have been killed on the streets.” Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay and the Omidyar Network, added that the personal connections Americans made with Iranians via Twitter throughout the crisis formed a new sense of empathy and understanding for the average Iranian that will continue to impact our country’s political and military response to Iran.
As further evidence that these internet observers and journalists are a threat to those who might want to control, mistreat or oppress, Arianna Huffington recalled China’s strategic decision to shut down access to new media within the country and instead invited selected journalists to visit the country and report. Having seen the power and persistence of millions of average people with cell phones or laptops, the Chinese government opted to take their chances with a group of professional journalists instead.
Another topic of interest both here and on the Case Foundation blog has been models where individuals can make a huge difference when their collective action is focused on investing in the lives of other individuals. This was reflected in the discussions around the potential for microfinance in development and empowerment both here and abroad. Having read a post on the Kiva blog about how microfinance alone is not enough to significantly move the needle on national economic development, I was intrigued by a CGI panel entitled “Beyond Microfinance: The Next Stage of Economic Development.” Microfinance is not part of the formal economy, so it cannot provide sustainability to governments and the rest of the population. Fifty percent of jobs worldwide, however, are held in small and medium-sized businesses, so entrepreneurs on this scale need to be supported, retrained and given a chance as well.
For example, Rangina Hamidi started a business called Kandahar Treasure, which she converted to the private sector from a nonprofit organization to create sustainability and autonomy to help women of Afghanistan’s Kandahar region use traditional hand embroidery to support themselves. She found that NGOs were spending funds on short-term projects teaching women to sew or create other crafts, but they were not actually creating business women. She wanted to save resources by capitalizing on what they already knew how to do, while improving quality, and investing in marketing. The panel also features Jacqueline Novogratz, Chief Executive Officer of Acumen Fund, Van Jones from the Center for American Progress, and others.
Check out the videos above and other CGI session videos over the weekend, and share your favorite.
- 4 comments
- share it
The Future of Online Citizenship
Online Civics - coming soon to a school near you! Think about it, a class to mentor young people and help them use social media for social good? Well, perhaps not for another decade or so… the course isn’t offered yet in schools as far as I know, but I’m willing to bet that we just might see it integrated into the nation’s education curriculum before the end of this decade. A take on the traditional civics class that has long been a staple of many school programs, the online civics class would be designed to address ethical issues specific to online citizenship and the welfare of the online community.
What grade do Millennials get on their report cards when it comes to online citizenship?
At the recent Social Good Summit hosted by Mashable and 92Y, GoodPlay released a two-part study that highlighted the untapped potential young people (ages 15-25 and 10-14 respectively) represent when it comes to using social media for social good (watch the presentation). The study details qualitative interviews with young people regarding their social responsibilities and impact online. Carrie James, a researcher for the study, noted that most young people thought primarily about themselves while online and reported relatively little concern for how their use of social media or online actions might affect others. One respondent summarized that, “I do online what I want to do online. I don’t feel like it’s really anybody’s business to tell me what I shouldn’t do… I don’t really feel responsible to people online. I definitely feel it’s more for me, not for anyone else.”
Does such a thing as online ethics even matter in the real world?
Put yourself in the participants’ shoes… James asked the respondents what they thought about when downloading pirated MP3s. Did they think about their wallets, the impact on the artists, consequences for the music label? I’m guessing the ethical lines may have just become a bit more blurred for you now.
The discussion about the GoodPlay study did not go so far as to compare behavior online and offline, but it’s hard not to draw a correlation between the two sets of thoughts and actions. The major divide here according to James is that online we possess the ability to act anonymously and there is potential for one’s actions to reach a much broader audience—thereby changing the way in which we relate to others online. In the group interviewed by GoodPlay, the Internet was seen as mostly for fun and not something with which youth could create change. Moreover, respondents felt that a lack of adult presence in their online experience contributed to the absence of moral and ethical support online.
With this unique generation of young Americans, we are seeing for the first time the rise of an interesting and potentially troubling paradigm—as the number of young online users grows, so too does the belief among this group that one’s actions do not impact or affect others in this community.
Class is in session.
From the GoodPlay study, James’ team identified several opportunities to engage youth in online civics. The study concluded that while “ethical thinking” online may be infrequent among this group, a more positive online civic experience can be created when youth see their online lives as those which are filled with meaning and responsibility. James proposes the following action steps to help motivate the younger generation to become more engaged online.
- Challenge young people to see themselves as citizens of the online community.
- Encourage youth to use social media for something greater than themselves.
- Move beyond “clicks” to deeper, sustained and more meaningful engagement related to issues beyond their personal network.
Extra credit.
This summation of James’ presentation only looks at one small piece of the GoodPlay study through the lens of youth participation online so I encourage you to watch the presentation and visit the resources yourself. Like any good study, the results inevitably lead to more questions… I am curious to know how the study participants saw themselves—as online citizens, apathetic residents of an online community or perhaps vanguards of the new online frontier? Do youth today see themselves as lacking the ethical thinking that is implied by the GoodPlay study suggested? What do you think of the study?
- 3 comments
- share it
