The language of advertising has changed dramatically over time. Not the written/spoken language, but rather the visual, conceptual language used to communicate ideas and convey appeals to audiences. I believe this study has shown that there are numerous techniques and angles with which to attempt to appeal to a generational target demo, and that these constitute a nonverbal, visual language. The use of this language is implicitly understood by art directors, but not literally as being such. ADs are using them as tools to tailor messages to their audiences, however taking a macro perspective of advertising at large, I believe that the various appeals used to target Gen Y, Gen X and Boomers have essentially changed the way ads deliver their messages, and these ways can be very unique to a given target audience. Art directors knowingly apply these techniques very deliberately, but I don't believe they are conscious of the cumulative effect that develops as they are used consistently on a given audience.

Advertising consumers of any age, in this case magazine readers, do not experience each ad they come across as a disconnected, standalone piece, as though casually surveying sculptures or works of fine art in a museum. They see ads as part of the "noise" of a given medium (as contrasted with "signal") which blends together into steady stream of propagandistic static, competing with the editorial content of the given medium. When the appeal tactics of most of the advertising blend, they form a fairly unique communication style, especially if the magazine is targeted to a less generalized, more specific audience in terms of age or interest.

That's not to say that art directors don't understand visual language--they are masters of it, this is their raison d'être. However in speaking to the art directors at length, both in general and about specific print ads, what became evident was that many of them don't differentiate between a generational cohort that ages together through time, and people comprising a fixed age bracket whose members transition in and out of the group. In other words, one will age out of the 18-35 age bracket eventually, but that person will always be a Gen Xer if s/he was born between 1966 and 1985. I believe this study shows that members of generational cohorts respond to appropriate visual language, and that its correct use can determine whether an ad is effective or ineffective to its target audience. It also shows that inappropriate use can not only be ineffective, it can provoke a very negative response.

This ultimately means that if the generations are not recognized by ADs and understood to be an audience sharing preferences and attitudes as they age over time, the ADs will more than likely misapply techniques which could have worked on the generation previous, but once the next generation has aged into that same age bracket, the old rules of advertising to them will no longer apply, and will only alienate the audience.

Research Question 1: Do Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y have substantially different attitudes toward advertising?

This study supports the theory that they do in some respects. The generations are all highly suspicious of advertising, which is consistent with current research on the subject. However there is variance of the attitude of acceptance across the three generations. These attitudes, should they be measured quantitatively, would likely be represented along a continuum axis of acceptance, with Gen Y being more accepting and Boomers being the least accepting, Gen X being somewhere in between. The Boomers were clearly the most condemning of the ads shown, and the most pejorative of advertising in general. While this may have partially been a function of their frustration with the technology, I believe it is consistent with the research showing them to be more inherently critical of advertising than Gen Xers or Gen Ys. In the case of these six ads in particular, I believe they were responding more critically to the visual language of the ads, as well as the apparent fact that they were not the intended target for some of them. The Mercedes Benz ad had the most straightforward visual language of all the ads shown, and it was this ad they responded to most. It was also arguably the oldest-looking ad, done in classic Ogilvy-template style, with no frills or gimmicks. The primary appeals were a strong value statement, a minimalist photograph of the vehicle, and a testimonial not of a celebrity, but of someone whose professional credentials lent his opinion validity and authenticity. While these appeals elicited much approval from the Boomers, they were all but meaningless to Gen Y, who considered it stodgy, uncreative and verbose. The Edge ad was much more to Gen Y's tastes, being praised for its modern layout style, strong and unusual visual concept and sparing use of text. Gen Xers appreciated the Edge ad as well but were also drawn to the Mercedes Benz ad for its simplicity and straightforward, credible value proposition.

These responses were similarly arrayed when comparing the L'Oreal shampoo ad to the Stridex acne pad ad. Gen Ys responded positively to the Stridex ad's youthful illustration and text-messaging iconography, while Boomers appreciated more the L'Oreal ad's no-frills presentation of the product in a handsome, masculine layout. (Gen Xers were more appreciative of the Stridex ad than the L'Oreal ad, but this is likely the result of the Gen X participants being predominantly female.)

The spectrum of responses then supports the notion that Gen Y uses advertising for product awareness and emotional, subjective determinations of their personal interest in the product/service, whereas Boomers are more interested in rational, straightforward appeals by which they can make up their own minds. Another way of putting this might be that Gen Ys like ads to have more personality, so they can choose their products (or more likely, their brands) by deciding which best fits with their own personality: a much more emotional decision-making process. Boomers, on the other hand, consider ad "personality" to get in the way of the simple reasons why they should or shouldn't choose to purchase a given product. Gen Xers, being the middle generation, don't fall in either camp, but form the bridge between the two, seeing merit in both.

Research Question 2: Are there manifest differences in how Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y perceive advertising as a useful vehicle for purchasing information? If so, what are they?

The focus groups indicate that Boomers and Gen Xers are accepting of advertising as sources of purchasing information, while Gen Y participants distanced themselves from that idea. Boomers as a group seemed to appreciate more straightforward advertising with useful information, such as the L'Oreal, Mercedes Benz and Smith Barney ads. They responded very negatively to the legibility (size) of the copy, expressing frustration with the small size and poor contrast of the body copy, but they did prefer the Mercedes Benz ad to the Edge ad for its sophisticated design and lack of gimmicky tricks to try to tell them how to feel about it:

These Boomer responses would indicate that they respond more strongly to straightforward information delivered in an uncondescending, respectful and dignified tone of voice. Of all the ads shown, Boomers responded most positively to the Mercedes Benz ad, even knowing they could likely not afford the vehicle. This gives credence to the notion that they want their advertising delivered as honestly and clearly as possible, giving them information they can use to inform their purchase decisions.

Gen Xers and Ys seem to enjoy their advertising more, and use the Web to share ads with others more than Boomers. They take magazine ads more seriously than television ads, and are ready to take information gleaned from advertisements with them to research on the Web or elsewhere (such as Consumer Reports) because of their inherent skepticism of advertising. However one Gen Xer dropped a particularly interesting comment:

This could be taken to indicate that some Gen Xers use environmental product photography--as in the Ford Edge ad--to base their general preferences on and form impressions, before committing their money to a purchase. This same Gen Xer responded immediately to the Mercedes Benz ad like so:

In light of the previous statement, her strongly-worded aversion to the copy-heavy layout supports the notion that she, as well as other Gen Xers who agreed with her on this observation, prefers to be given contextual, environmental impressions by advertising, much like fashion advertisements ("How would this look on me?") would, which would then lead to further research before a purchase decision is made.

However this could merely be specific to high-dollar purchases such as automobiles. Smaller purchases, such as personal hygiene products and things like Pop-tarts, are made with much less internal processing, and Gen Xers are ready to admit that if they see an ad that strikes them the right way, they will be influenced by it when it comes time to make a purchase. Boomers on the other hand seemed least likely to make an impulse buy on account of an ad; even with the Pop-tarts ad, they were more carefully conscious of the nutritional value and dismissive of the ad's more jovial, child-friendly language.

Gen Y seemed to deny any influence of advertising on their purchase decisions, except for product awareness and financial incentives such as store sales, or coupons. The youngest generation of the three, Gen Ys are also by definition the least experienced in dealing with advertising. As research has shown, this generation has learned to identify, understand and be cognizant of advertising in their media at a very young age, and it's possible that Gen Ys have learned to be highly skeptical and dismissive of the possible informational benefits of advertising. This may be a factor of maturity, but it could also be the result of their increased media literacy and fluency. As the technologies for producing advertising become more easily understood, it becomes easier for them to separate the message from the medium itself, and allows them to see the message with more critical eyes. These same tools are in the hands of Gen Xers as well, but Xers have the benefit of greater experience, especially with being able to decide whether an advertiser's claim is credible or fails the "sniff test" of authenticity. If Gen Y's skepticism is a factor of youth, than research suggests that in time, their heightened skepticism will abate in favor of emotionally indifferent analysis as their spending power grows with age (Moore & Moschis, 1975; Boush et al., 1994; Sherry, Greenberg, & Tokinoya, 1999).

Research Question 3: How do social relationships of Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y contribute to their attitudes toward advertising? Are there differences between them?

The online focus groups, being limited in duration, were unable to realistically incorporate this research question into its design without sacrificing more substantive information gathered on the other questions. In light of this, a followup survey was emailed to all participants, with an 82% (37 out of 45 participants) response rate. The survey consisted of a series of statements, which the respondent was asked to agree with or not. (See Appendix III for survey questions and matrix of results.)

The survey indicates that all three generations do share information with their peers about advertising and promotional offers, and although the sample size was small, there were some trends that appeared. The statement "I almost never talk to friends, family and/or associates about advertising" was reported as being true for 33% of (responding) Boomers, 21% of Xers and 0% Ys, indicating that younger generations do share opinions and information about advertising more freely. However the statement " My friends, family and/or associates talk to me about ads they've seen, because they thought they were funny, entertaining, interesting, or even really bad." was true for virtually all who responded (91% of Gen Y responded "true" to this statement, 100% of both Boomers and Ys did). Interestingly, the companion statement " My friends, family and/or associates talk to me about ads they've seen, mainly just to pass on special offers or promotional information." was reported as true for 42% of Boomers, 29% of Xers and 36% of Ys, indicating that while interesting and/or funny ads are universally discussed with peers, ads with special offers or promotional information are discussed to a much lesser extent. Everyone who agreed with the latter statement also agrees with the former, as well as the statement, " I talk to my friends, family and/or associates about ads I've seen, because I thought they were funny, entertaining, interesting, or even really bad."

Another interesting trend appeared regarding the statement, "If someone I know tells me about an ad that they like, I usually like it too." 67% of Boomers agreed with this statement, 50% Xers agreed and 56% Ys agreed. This suggests that Gen Xers and Ys are more independent when it comes to forming their own opinions, but it should be noted that while some Boomers and Gen Xers agreed with one or both of the "don't care" statements, none of the Gen Ys agreed with either. Taken at face value, this indicates that when a Gen Y individual discusses a particular advertisement in either a positive or negative light with a Gen Y peer, the peer will not often disregard the other's opinions altogether, whereas some Xers and Boomers aren't influenced one way or the other by their peers' opinions.

A distinction was drawn between advertising which provides special offers or promotional information, and that information itself. While Boomers were more likely to tell others about special offers in terms of the advertising they saw, fewer of them were as likely to exchange the information itself than Xers or, to a greater extent, Ys. In other words, Gen Ys were more likely to agree with the statement "I sometimes learn about good deals from others" than they were with "My friends, family and/or associates talk to me about ads they've seen, mainly to pass on special offers or promotional information." This could be an entire study in its own right, but in this small sample, this could indicate that Gen Ys are more likely than Xers or Boomers to pass on information about special offers as removed from the advertising which carried it to them. The Gen Y individual then becomes the vehicle for the information, allowing it to propagate virally. The propensity of Gen Ys to become their own channel for marketing information is an extremely powerful potential weapon in the arsenal of advertisers intent on reaching this market segment.

In this vein, 64% of Gen Xers and 63% of Gen Ys reported that they exchange ads via Web links with each other, compared with 50% of Boomers. That would seem to indicate either a stronger willingness to spread ads virally among peers, an increased fluency of the technology (and awareness of where to find and thereby link to ads on the Web), or both, but either way, Gen X and Gen Y are more capable and willing to share advertising that interests or otherwise entertain them with their friends and family members.

Research Question 4a: How do advertisers identify different age groups for the purposes of distinguishing them as market segments?

Research Question 4b: Are advertisers aware of Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y as market segments?

Research Question 4a is perhaps best answered as, "They don't." The age groups themselves are meaningless without contextual information, such as gender or socioeconomic status, and ultimately these are defined by the product given in the creative brief:

Tristen George echoes these comments in her own words:

Marcus Moore's insistence that age bracket/generation be supported with socioeconomic data was unexpected at first, but it puts focus group responses into a more understandable context, such as their response to the Mercedes Benz and Smith Barney ads.

As for Research Question 4b, the art directors interviewed were only peripherally aware of the generations as distinct market segments, as removed from the age brackets they currently reside in. As established, other factors were included as well, primarily the income level of the target audience, which seemed to be more important than the generation of a given audience. While age was an important demographic detail, it was only one criterion among many used to identify a target audience:

Some were not even aware of the generations by name at all (except Boomers), were unaware of their own generation and made it clear that they didn't use or seem to need any generational information about their audience in order to produce creative for them.

How the art directors define the generations is less important than the understanding that each generation carries certain unique aspects with them as they age. As Boomers age into their retirement years, all sorts of marketing opportunities are waiting to greet them, but if art directors do not understand this audience as the same people they were marketing to 10 years ago as 50-somethings, their messages could misfire entirely. Likewise, Generation X will eventually follow suit, and this study demonstrates that Gen X has different attitudes toward advertising and the technologies that deliver it than Boomers do today. If art directors assume that all 60-somethings are the same, their advertising will likely elicit strongly negative response from their audiences, whatever they may be. While it cannot be denied that many major life events are confronted at roughly the same ages and that these events can be a shared experience across a given age group, those comprising that group have all had a unique media experience up to that point, and how they relate to media--the utility they derive from it, and how accepting they are of its presence in their lives--strongly influences how they respond to media messages. If these differences aren't taken into account, these audiences are very hasty in dismissing, or even condemning, advertisements that fail to connect with them at a level they appreciate.

Research Question 5: How do advertisers tailor messages and methods to reach these market segments?

Advertisers use numerous elements of visual language as well as channel selection to reach their intended market segments. Many art directors rely on the research arm of their agency to investigate the trends and preferences of their target audience, and build creative from these findings. Others personally immerse themselves in the product in the company of the target audience, paying attention to their experience and reactions.

Ultimately there was no uniform, "magic-bullet" answer to Research Question 5. The art directors all come from unique and very diverse backgrounds, and their agencies have different methodologies for researching audiences and informing their creative processes. Over the course of this study, numerous techniques and tools were identified designed to appeal to different target audiences, ranging from use of illustration, to heavy use of copy, to sparse use of copy, to choice of type and colors. A partial list of such elements identified in the study includes:

Many of these elements can be used to target audiences of all three generations, and can be used to broaden the appeal of an advertisement across multiple audiences. Some art directors indicate they would prefer that every ad they produce appeals to everyone, not just a select audience:

In Marcus' example, he would create an ad that would appeal to any demographic it was presented to, but the targeting of the ad would be a factor of which magazine the ad was placed in. Tristen George refers to the choice of media vehicle as the "channel" the message is delivered though. As Tristen puts it:

While art directors like Marcus would prefer that their advertising appeals to as broad an audience as possible, the choice of which channels are used to deliver it is crucial to making the message available to those audiences it is intended for. The more target-specific the channel is, the more target-specific the advertisement can be in terms of zeroing in on a more specific audience without running the risk of alienating peripheral audiences.

For instance, take the Smith Barney ad. Taken from Forbes magazine, this ad was clearly targeted at Boomers of some financial comfort. While some focus group participants approved of its layout and overall message, many Boomers took umbrage with the condescending tone of the headline, the treatment of the Gen Y character, the advertorial style of the layout mimicking an article page, and the size and volume of the copy. These Boomer participants were the correct age/generation target for the ad, but because they were not readers of Forbes magazine (as their pre-login surveys indicated), and likely because they did not consider themselves wealthy, the ad evoked many more negative responses than positive ones. Tristen George even commented that she was already predisposed against the ad because of exposure to the campaign on billboards around Chicago:

This suggests that the Smith Barney ad, while potentially very effective at delivering its message to the right audience, elicits consistently negative response when delivered to the wrong one. This makes the choice of channels crucially important, as the wrong choice of channel can alienate an audience and make it more difficult to reach them in the future, or with other variants of the same campaign in the present.

Channels cannot be the only means of targeting a given generation however. While skepticism and pessimism are still the dominant attitude across all three generations, Boomers, Xers and Ys are all still very willing to interact in respectful discourse with advertisers who have the patience and diligence to speak their language, and offer them marketing messages in an authentic, sympathetic and unpretentious way. Art directors today believe that the visual language is set by the age of the audience rather than the generation, but I feel this study suggests they could be wrong.

Each generation is sui generis, having emerged in a different media landscape and with ever increasing ability to mold their media with ever more powerful technologies. To assume that Boomers know what it means to feel :-))))))))) or that Gen Ys will be impressed with a digital photographic trickery is to underestimate and thus disrespect them. The vast differences between the art directors' opinions of the six ads shown is a key indicator just how variable the creative process is; surely there are just as many ADs who can appreciate the strengths of a given ad campaign as can dismiss it for its weaknesses, but the ad's value is only truly meaningful to its target audience. Generational differences in attitudes toward advertising can mean the difference between an evangelical enthusiast and a technologically vengeful internet poster.

Theoretical Implications

This study was not intended to provide quantitative support on any specific previous research, but the responses elicited from the focus groups and the interviewed art directors were very much harmonic with the literature that laid the groundwork for it.

One of the most obvious findings is that while Baby Boomers as a generation are fairly well understood and defined, the following two generations are not. There was a great deal of variance on what constituted a Gen Xer or a Gen Y, and many people who participated did not even have a clear perception of which generation they themselves belonged to. As John Markert put it, "The problem is not with the generational label (or even the variety of labels used for a specific group) but the disparity in dates assigned to the various age groups. There simply is no agreement on the dates assigned various age groups in society." (Markert, 2004). This confusion, identified by Markert and numerous other researchers, was clearly evident in statements given by participants involved.

As for the generations' differing attitudes toward advertising, the existing research was very accurate in predicting the how the generations would respond, as a whole, to advertising. While Gen Xers and Ys were often aloof and dismissive of advertising they did not find useful or entertaining, consistent with Roberts & Manolis, 2000, Boomers were much more judgmental, which is consistent with Haller, 1974 and Roberts & Manolis, 2000. The transcripts were replete with sharply critical remarks from Boomers:

Boomer chat participant "Shadow" made the latter comment, which was particularly relevant as that attitude--that advertising and marketing leads to increased product prices--was much more common in Boomers than in Xers in the Roberts/Manolis study. Interestingly, the opposite opinion--that advertising and marketing actually lowers the cost of goods--surfaced in the Pollay & Mittal (1993) study as being a major factor in influencing attitudes on advertising among Boomers and Xers. To be fair, Shadow was probably the most consistently cynical participant in the focus groups, but the unsolicited comment was interesting in light of previously cited literature she had no knowledge of.

Although research suggested that Boomers would be more heavily reliant on their social networks to inform their opinions about advertising (as according to Moore & Moschis, 1978), this was only partially reflected in the followup survey which was employed to investigate RQ3. 67% of Boomers agreed with the statement " If someone I know tells me about an ad that they like, I usually like it too," compared with 50% of Xers and 56% of Ys. In the same vein, only 33% of Boomers responded favorably to the statement, " If someone I know tells me about an ad that they DON'T like, I usually don't like it either,", as compared to 36% of Xers and 45% of Ys. These figures, while certainly not statistically valid, suggest that Boomers tend to be positively influenced by comments from their peers regarding advertisements. However I don't believe they support Moore & Moschis' contention that Boomers' opinions on advertising are reliant on peers; it merely shows that opinions are shared, and usually they allow themselves to be influenced.

Limitations & Suggestions for Further Research

A number of issues surfaced over the course of this study which could be improved on if a similar study was undertaken in the future. The focus group participant pool could be a bit larger, perhaps incorporating 3-4 groups for each generation, preferably of 8-10 participants each. This would allow for a much broader representation of generational opinion, and would hopefully improve the male/female ratio as well, bringing them more into a balanced dispersion. It would also benefit the study to enlist the participation of an equal (or at least equivalent) number of Gen Y, Gen Xer and Boomer volunteers, as the fewer number of Gen Y participants (coupled with their consistently low turnout on session dates) was problematic.

The choice of ads could also be more consistent in having a shared socioeconomic target. When selecting ads of similar products for direct comparison, the impulse to "dislike" an ad marketing a more expensive (read: unattainable) product could be controlled for. Ads targeting a high socioeconomic target audience should only be used if the focus group participants are being sampled from that audience, otherwise, they may unintentionally "disqualify" themselves from relating to the ad, which would color their perception of it (negatively). Care should also be taken to exclude ads intended for a specific gender, as participants not of that gender relate to the ad differently, and likely more negatively. This is something that can also be controlled for by choosing ads that appeal to both sexes. (However this could be deliberately done to test male reactions to female-intended advertisements, and reactions from those not of the intended income-level-specific target. There is enough anecdotal material gleaned from this study to justify an investigation into these topics as well.)

The choice to use an internet-based focus group format rather than a real-time/real-world could also be seen as a limitation in some ways. Problems that surfaced with the technology, particularly as used by less technically savvy participants, may have influenced their emotional state of mind and biased them negatively when making emotional value judgments. While every effort was taken to ensure smooth operation of the Web site and the chat room embedded therein, and it did function smoothly for the majority of participants, it is unrealistic to assume that it will work 100% of the time for 100% of the volunteers.

Time was also a factor in both the focus groups and the interviews. Due to the constraints of time, the ability to delve more meaningfully into certain issues (such as the effects of socialization on attitudes) was stunted.

continue »