Blackbeard Blog

The belief a ‘generational cohort’ eg “millennials” are somehow qualitatively different from previous generations at a similar stage in their lives.

If you believe this, I reckon you are more likely to look for psychological explanations of their behaviour - i.e. more of them are staying at home because they are lazy or dependent, more of them are taking short-term jobs because they are uniquely adaptive, etc.

On the other hand, if you believe that young people are NOT inherently different from any previous group of young people - i.e. that apparent attitudinal differences are basically a function of age, not ‘generation’, then you’re left looking for material reasons for behaviour change, and have to start thinking uncomfortable thoughts about eg. the economy, job prospects, the choices made by people now in their 40s and above, the structural differences and power relations WITHIN a generational cohort.

I reckon this is one hidden effect of the widespread acceptance of generational segments and stereotypes, eg the easy belief that the word “millennials” is useful - it pushes people towards psychological, not material thinking.

Inspired by this gross advertising campaign: http://bbwgetsyouahead.com/

I posted - and then deleted - some intemperate Tweets earlier this evening, after failing to get through the screener of a community I was quite keen to join.

The sequence of events ran as follows:

1. Receive invitation to community, via work email. Community sounds really interesting - and specifically targeted to people in the insight biz, something to help each other solve common problems.

2. Click through - read another screen about how exciting this community is going to be. Click through to sign up - do I still want to? You betcha!

3. Honestly report my industry - research - and my firm’s role - agency.

4. Get a message that I wasn’t a good fit with our “vision of the community”.

5. Throw toys from pram, repent at leisure.

There are a lot of things that annoyed me about this. One of them was wounded pride, I admit. But another was the sense my time and goodwill had been wasted - dudes, YOU invited ME to this! At my work address! So you knew what I did before I took the screener!

The awful copywriting on the “no thanks” page didn’t help - if I don’t fit with your vision, then I’ll tell you where you can stick your vision, matey. (And this is a vision I generally share, incidentally).

After a bit, I calmed down, and realised a couple of important things.

Read More

afarrell asked: The new ad for Carling British Cider (now visible in enormoposter by London Bridge Station) is the first one I've noticed which proudly trumpets a sample size. Do you think this is this a sign that ad agencies think people understand that 600 sample size is impressive? Alternatively, do you reckon that it's a sufficiently bold claim (more 'refreshing' than Bulmers / Strongbow / er, Stella Cidre) that they just chucked on anything that makes it more sciency?

My gut feeling is that quoting research in your ad is the last refuge of the barren creative. OH GOD IT’S A CIDER WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO. They don’t want to go the “British Cider” angle because only 10% of the apples are British, hence this squib of an alternative.

You’d still think showing, not telling, would be a better bet. If I were to improvise an analysis I would say that bottled cider is well enough established that everyone’s seen millions of obvious ads for it and its ‘refreshing’ properties, but not quite well established enough for people to risk something more imaginative, so we’re in a limbo of really tedious ads. But it is Carling so maybe they’d do this anyway.

I think - I really should know for sure - that you have to quote the sample size if you’re using survey data in public. Ive seen survey data quoted on TV cosmetics ads - used when “clinically proven” isn’t answering your calls - and they’ve quoted the kind of sample sizes you really don’t shout about.

600 is comparably decent and the survey will be “robust” in that sense - it was also probably done using an attribute grid (How refreshing do you find each of the following brands on a scale of…) so it’s kind of junky data too in terms of what it assumes about people’s recall, ability to differentiate etc.

If it works on any level it’s a “social proof” thing - other people are doing this, so it’s a good choice. But there are better ways to get at that (most advertising has some kind of social proof component). So we’re back at desperation.

If you like the stuff I write in Blackbeard Blog you will also like a piece I’ve just had published in http://mauramagazine.com/ on the topic of “business speak” and its discontents - it’s in Issue 20. (And subscribing to the magazine will mean you get to read thoughtful cultural criticism, new fiction, and pinball reviews on a weekly basis: GOOD THING)

I’ve been fascinated with the language and culture of business for a while and writing this was an opportunity to work out what I think about biz-talk more precisely. Some of it I still think is pretty grim, but some of it has a vigour and optimism I find guiltily seductive.