# data[].attributes.body
To begin my research on Generation X and its demographic attributes, rather than diving straight into their purchasing behaviours, I wanted to gain insight into their common characteristics. The article below helped me to grow deeper understanding of Generation X's attitudes to work, life, technology and the potential economic state which may have influenced their attitudes to the above.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Browse through any marketing magazine or website these days, and you'll quickly notice the obsession with Millennials, and the up-and-coming Generation Z. But what many marketers often forget is that Generation X, the cohort born between 1965 to 1980, holds a lot of power.

Now at their best-earning years, Generation X are on their way to reaching the top of their profession. Ignoring them means ignoring a demographic that has impressive influence over both household and company decisions.

Here are some important statistics about the so called "sandwich generation".

Generation X, work and the economy

They may be overlooked, but Gen X's impact on workplace and the economy is hard to ignore.

3. They outspend all other generations when it comes to housing, clothing, eating out and entertainment, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. ( TWEET THIS STAT)

Generation X, education and culture

They are a discerning, well-educated generation that values quality and respect for their knowledge.

6. , compared to 19 percent of Millennials. This means that they tend to hold more powerful positions in organizations. They also make good mentors for the younger generation. ( Thirty-five percent of Xers in the U.S. have college degrees TWEET THIS STAT)

7. Known as the self-deprecating generation, . ( only fourty-one percent of them actually identify with the label "Generation X". Compared to sixty-one percent of Millennials who think they're a special generation, members of Generation X don't tend to believe in their own uniqueness TWEET THIS STAT)

9. Members of this cohort spend about seven hours a week on social media, according to a 2017 Nielsen study. In comparison, Millennials spend just over six hours per week on social. ( TWEET THIS STAT)

10. Gen Xers spend about 32 hours a week consuming all media.

Generation X, marketing and branding

Members of Generation X also have an interesting relationship with brands. They know themselves as the forgotten generation, between the more populous Boomers and Millennials.

11. constantly ignore them. ( Fifty-four percent of Gen Xers are frustrated that brands TWEET THIS STAT)

12. don't feel like advertising aimed at them actually reflects their experience. This means that they don't feel like they can connect to brands or products easily. ( Twenty-seven percent of Canadian Gen Xers TWEET THIS STAT)

Ignore them at your peril

Despite being the smallest in numbers, Generation X currently has the biggest disposable income to spend on your products. Now in positions of power in their organizations, they also have a strong influence on corporate purchases. Using customer intelligence to get to know them, their needs, and their expectations is critical for your business' survival.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Stunning Stats on Gen X: The Forgotten yet Powerful Generation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Browse through any marketing magazine or website these days, and you'll quickly notice the obsession with Millennials, and the up-and-coming Generation Z. But what many marketers often forget is that Generation X, the cohort born between 1965 to 1980, holds a lot of power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Millennials have relentlessly been at the center of branding and marketing conversations over the last few years. Marketers will not stop talking about them -- often with misguided and unfounded generalizations.

This level of hyper-focus, and what some might call a bit of panic, is no surprise: This generation of over 70 million individuals is projected to overtake baby boomers in size and are wildly different in their attitudes and behaviors. They're so different from their predecessors that we continue to be fascinated by them, constantly dissecting and re-dissecting their actions to find the best ways to connect. So, what's getting lost in the shuffle? Or rather, whom?

Generation X ( ) has essentially fallen off the radar among marketers. They are often referred to as the "slacker generation" or the "forgotten middle child." For our youth and young adulthood, baby boomers sucked up all the oxygen in the room, dominating our political, educational, business and social arenas. We were always under the shadow of boomers.

Many of us grew up as latchkey kids with both parents working or as part of a divorced household. We witnessed the beginning of ATMs, started our careers around the dot-com boom (and some busts as well), lugged around large cell phone suitcases and reached adulthood just when the internet became a daily part of life. We saw the Berlin Wall fall, the Cold War end, Communism disintegrate and saw the end of Apartheid in South Africa, all to a backdrop of grunge and disillusionment.

This cultural backdrop has defined a "work hard, play hard" generation that is now at the pinnacle of their careers. Many of us are homeowners and have families of our own. So, here we sit in this powerful time with money, resources and influence, and we still aren't in the mainstream conversation. We've watched the culture interest shift from boomers to millennials like we're a flyover state.

Yes, our size is smaller than the boomer and millennial generations, but we are not insignificant. At strong, why have we faded into near obscurity in the marketing conversation? Gen Xers are spending more than their counterparts, spending one-third more annually than the celebrated millennials.

Despite recent studies showing that Gen Xers continue to , some of these studies also show that they aren't too worried about this debt. Even though they are struggle with debt struggling to save for retirement, they are well positioned to become the wealthiest generation -- above boomers -- within the next few years.

Gen Xers also have a lot of influence on other generations, which makes them powerful. Roughly half of Gen Xers are financially supporting both a parent and a child at the same time, making financial decisions that can affect all three generations. And as reported by Business Insider, Gen Xers make significantly more money each year than their younger counterparts. In my home state of California, Gen X workers take in a whopping $18,000 more annually on average. Not surprisingly, they spend more too, averaging 11% more than baby boomers and 33% more than millennials.

Additionally, our generation is poised to become the dominant group running businesses and politics. So, why do we still feel like Ducky at the prom from the 80s cult classic Pretty In Pink? Savvy marketers would do well to remember Gen Xers, not only as a spending powerhouse but also as a strong influence on the other generations.

Here are some tips for reaching out to this forgotten generation:
Don't delete Facebook.
There is no doubt that Gen Xers are technologically savvy, but traditional online marketing methods still work effectively with this group. They are more likely to react to social media advertising on online platforms such as Facebook and, to some extent, Instagram.Facebook is especially an appealing source given they make up the highest concentration of users, around 45 million.
Communicate through email.
Email marketing communications is also a more effective channel for this group as they are constantly checking email both at work and home and across all of their devices (smartphone, iPad, Apple watch, etc.). We were there when email as a form of communication was created and it continues to play a big part in our lives.
Offer coupons.
Gen Xers still like to get a good deal and, yes, this means coupons. While it may not look like your grandma's coupon clipping file box with scraps cut from flyers or newspapers, it's not too far off. This group is willing to search the internet to look for cost savings from coupon codes offered online or digital coupons .
Reward their loyalty.
Gen Xers like loyalty programs and the primary drivers are to save money and receive awards for purchases they make. In a recent study about loyalty , more than 88% of Gen Xers join loyalty programs to save money, with the rewards coming in as a close second at 71%. Brands should consider this behavior and appeal to this generation with rewards programs that resonate on these levels.
Straddle brick-and-mortar and online.
This generation grew up loving to shop at malls and, of any generation, they are still very likely to enjoy shopping in-person. However, they have seamlessly embraced online shopping, making them a hybrid generation. They are also more likely to make unplanned purchases at in-store than any other generation while they are shopping.

Gen Xers are a force to be reckoned with. They have huge buying power and influence over other generations and are expected to live longer than boomers. Brands and marketers should not gloss over this generation and need to understand how this group is maturing. They want to be heard, not forgotten, and marketers would do well to pay attention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Council Post: The Forgotten Generation: Let's Talk About Generation X

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millennials have relentlessly been at the center of branding and marketing conversations over the last few years. Marketers will not stop talking about them -- often with misguided and unfounded generalizations.

# data[].attributes.body
This article helped me gain a great amount of knowledge when it comes to Generation X's relationship with media and technology. Having the facts contextualised and backed up with a story-telling narrative assisted me in exploring why Generation X are the middle children when it comes to technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Tom Kamber

I grew up in Asbury Park, New Jersey, which happens to be the epicenter of American boardwalk life. It's home to Bruce Springsteen, street racer muscle cars, second-tier mobsters, and saltwater taffy. It is also the place where, during my high school years in the early 1980s, video games got their start. Asteroids came first, a giant boxy console wedged among the pinball machines where one drove a little pinwheeling spaceship through an asteroid field and shot the rocks to bits with tiny blips of laser fire. The spaceship controls were tricky-a little too much throttle would send the player careening into a boulder-and the graphics were primitive, but there was something magical about standing there working a joystick and a few buttons to control a television screen.

Asbury back then had a lot of compelling distractions to occupy a 15-year-old kid: tanned lovelies roller-skating down the boardwalk, the Pagans brawling with rival bikers at Mrs. Jay's, and Chief Jay Strongbow and Andre the Giant wrestling at the Convention Hall. But the lure of the arcade was strong enough to hold my friends and me inside for hours looking for that new high score on the video games, which got better with each advance made in processing speed and graphics. We played Galaxian and Zaxxon and Pac-Man with relentless focus, slowly migrating away from the pinball machines and Skee Ball chutes toward this irresistible new digital world.

We were ready when computers came out at the end of our high school years, and especially during college when Apple released the first mouse-controlled graphic user interface. By this time, my friends and I had already spent hundreds of hours with joysticks in our hands and were primed to learn the new world of the mouse and icons and drag-and-drop. Everyone got computers in high school or college and we were pretty much off and running in the new Digital Age.

You might want to call us "digital natives"-but you would be wrong. A digital native is someone who grew up with digital culture and never knew a time before phones had screens. Digital immigrants, in contrast, had to learn technology as adults and adjust to a world changing beneath their feet. The Gen Xers (born roughly between 1965 and 1981), however, experienced seismic technology shifts as teenagers. We are a strange hybrid of digital users who are extremely comfortable with technology but still remember a time when things were a bit more primitive. We are the Cro-Magnons of the digital age, and this is our story.

Gen Xers-Using Tech for the Greater Good

Digital dual citizenship has infused Gen Xers with distinctive ideas about the role technology plays in our world, what it makes possible, and what it destroys. From a personal standpoint, these issues became a major theme in my professional life. In 2004, I started a nonprofit organization, Older Adults Technology Services (OATS), which has helped tens of thousands
of older adults get online. Over the years, our strategic thinking at OATS has evolved through several stages that in many ways mirror the development of Gen X thinking about technology. These progressions have marked a changing view of what makes for good or useful technology, reflecting an increasing sophistication in how we use technology, and especially how we use it for socially beneficial purposes.

If Gen X and the Digital Revolution had a honeymoon period, it was in the 1990s, and was as fervent and doe-eyed as any Hollywood ro-
mantic pairing. Moore's law (i.e., the processing power of a microchip would double approximately every eighteen months) was in full swing, hardware was shrinking, and "mobile" was be-
coming more than a dream. I remember a late night in 1993 in the Times Square office of a political campaign when my boss, the campaign manager (another Gen Xer), was unpacking some newly delivered Gateway 486 desktops from their cowhide-themed boxes and, awe-struck, kept repeating, "I can't believe they can fit all that power into such a little box."

Alta Vista launched the first real search engine in 1994, and soon the World Wide Web was instantly accessible. Digital content, mobile phones, viral video-it all seemed so powerful and the pace of advancement was breathtaking. The editors of Wired magazine were treated like rock stars, and the bestselling "new economy" strategist Kevin Kelly was telling corporate leaders to rethink their balance sheets in light of a new physics of business development, where giving away services to millions of customers for free could be the linchpin of market domination.

For a few years it seemed that Gen X was the group that best understood what was happening. The Baby Boomer elders were still playing tech catch-up, and the Millennials were kids who thought technology was just part of the natural world. We understood the power of these new technologies and how they might be put to work solving long-standing problems like inequality, poor education, and joblessness. In the world of social change, this soon took the form of a movement on behalf of Community Technology Centers (CTC), which were stand-alone centers providing technology access and programs for underserved communities. The CTC movement looked quite a bit like its predecessor, Community Development Corporations, which aimed to bring affordable housing and programs to underserved communities. Funded primarily by Microsoft's "Power Up!" corporate philanthropy initiative, CTCs sprang up in hundreds of locations around the country but eventually lost momentum as schools and libraries began offering similar resources and programs in the same neighborhoods, and dedicated funding streams never developed at scale.

For much of the 1990s and early 2000s, Gen Xers combined a starry-eyed optimism about technology with a comparatively stodgy approach to program and institution-building. I was a pretty good example of this when I started OATS in 2004: a technology evangelist who was building bridges with traditional institutions like housing projects, senior centers, and nursing homes. But the two sides to this equation were never an easy fit. Leaders of traditional institutions were unenthusiastic about incorporating technology into their systems and approaches, and eventually some of that starry-eyed optimism began wearing off-even for enthusiasts like myself.

The Open-Source Movement Changes Minds

For many of my peers, intellectual property was the pivot point for a change in our thinking about technology. The open-source software movement accelerated in the late 1990s with the launch of the Open Source Initiative, and the advent in 2001 of Wikipedia heralded a new awareness of the potential for crowdsourcing and free resources online. These developments shaped our strategy at OATS when in 2006 we abandoned plans for creating a highly structured digital resource guide for older adults (think Dewey Decimal System) in favor of a new program to teach them to build a wiki-based, open-source guide to which anyone could contribute. Dissatisfied with the increasingly confusing interfaces of Microsoft Office, we began experimenting with Open Office, a free alternative that promised word-processing and spreadsheet capabilities without the expense and corporate bloat of previous platforms.

We wanted to do our part to support the egalitarian strain of the digital revolution, but soon learned that open source and wikis were not the solutions we had been expecting. The wiki format, which had worked so well for a global project of encyclopedia writing, was a flop for our 70-year-old participants in Brooklyn and the Bronx, and only a handful stuck with the training and workshops long enough to post and share substantive articles. Open Office turned out to be full of file-sharing problems and software bugs and we soon returned to Microsoft for our word-processing classes.

At the same time, as Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig brilliantly argued in The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (2002), traditional content companies
like Disney were busily leveraging ownership rights and legislative clout to lock down a wide swath of cultural reference sources-books, movies, music, art-that fueled many of these developments in the first place. The wiki "revolution" fizzled. Personally, I was becoming increasingly critical of the shortcomings of some of these new technologies, and my favorite viral video at the time was a hilarious Onion newscast about Sony allegedly releasing "its new stupid piece of &%@ that doesn't do the #$!& thing it's &^#$% supposed to do."

From 2005 to 2010, the staff at OATS was becoming increasingly aware that many of the community technology environments where we worked-in senior centers, housing developments, nursing homes, etc.-were struggling to integrate these new technologies. Computer labs were locked up and participants were required to ask the security desk for a key to use the equip-
ment. New "senior-friendly" programs and devices were installed that, while putting a simplified face on technology, often further isolated older users from the mainstream by giving them reduced functionality on non-standard devices and interfaces. Public policymakers, approached to support this emerging need on behalf of older adults looking for computer training, cited decades-old regulations restricting funding availability, and asked if we could serve lunch in the computer classes.

Tech Takes a Back Seat to Mission

For Gen Xers like me, the mid 2000s were a realignment period when we progressively developed a critical perspective on technology, while rediscovering the importance of mission. As Rob Salkowitz, author of Generation Blend: Managing Across the Technology Gap (2008), explained to me, "We were discovering that there's a big difference between some kid who can use AutoCAD like a wizard, and a person who, whatever their technology skills, understands design, spatial volume, and proportion."

At OATS, these issues came to a head during a strategic plan that we completed in 2010, which de-emphasized the technology aspects of our mission and reframed our program activities into five impact areas affecting older adults: social isolation, health, finances, advocacy, and lifelong learning. These shifts reflected a new awareness of the limitations of technology itself, and a desire to re-focus our thinking and energy on developing a deep understanding of the perspective and life processes of older adults, and on creating solutions that integrate technology with smartly designed program activities and environments to achieve transformational outcomes. As it turned out, this had a lot less to do with technology than it did with considerations like staffing, training methodology, and design thinking.

As "digital Cro-Magnons," we were uniquely positioned to understand these trends and build new initiatives based on long-held values, while still incorporating technology as needed. I found myself dusting off Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2001), which celebrates the "social capital" that comes from face-to-face contact in voluntary organizations like bowling leagues and civic organizations, and looking for ways to incorporate its messages into our work at OATS.

One successful initiative involved giving iPads to older adult volunteers in Washington, D.C., and training them to deliver social engagement courses to isolated, low-income older adults (who also received free iPads from AARP and reduced-cost Internet at home from Comcast). This new, "realigned" approach placed an increased emphasis on social processes and outcomes, while relegating technology to a more tactical level. The program even took an entire week off from using the iPads to simply role-play communications scenarios that helped the older adults practice using language that would build stronger social bonds, skills that would come in handy as they began using email in the following class sessions.

Other organizations (also run, not coincidentally, by Gen Xers) were pursuing parallel strategies. Power My Learning, a national education nonprofit, was training parents to be more active partners in their children's learning, and giving them free computers to use as tools in this process. Byte Back, in Washington D.C., developed an impressive series of workforce development trainings to help unemployed young adults use technology to train and find jobs. In San Francisco, Self-Help for the Elderly created groundbreaking programs to use technology to help integrate new immigrants into American society. In all of these cases, technology took a back seat to mission and impact, playing a supporting role for social change organizations that had powerful strategies for helping people.

A Realignment Toward Real-World Outcomes

I believe a lot of us underwent a "Gen X Realignment" from 2000 to 2010, training a newly critical eye on technology while re-awakening our commitments to real-world, practical outcomes. Our generational frame of reference originates in the memory of a highly functioning analog world-eclectic used bookstores, neighborhood video shops (always staffed by a hypnotically knowledgeable movie nerd), live shows where musicians played actual instruments, and social relationships where physical proximity was the rule. So when we try to find a movie on Netflix and realize the lineup is inferior to every Kim's Video we ever visited, or think it's sad that our Millennial friends don't own bookshelves, or can't figure out why the DJ Zedd is a star because all he does is mix signals on a console, we're questioning the comparative advantage of the Digital Age.

I run a technology nonprofit and have been to the Consumer Electronics Show so many times that they gave me a special ribbon for my conference badge, but I am continually annoyed by badly designed technology tools and interfaces that interfere with my life and work. I notice my younger friends just shrug these things off, but my generation carries a vestigial memory of an age when things were different and we could simply "pop the hood" and mess with something until we got it working.

This questioning process accelerated at the same time that many of us Gen Xers reached an age where we were increasingly drawn into positions of authority within our companies and organizations. We found ourselves in charge of mission stewardship at the same time that we saw technology as an increasingly poor substitute for a clear theory of change, a talented and motivated staff, and an effective operational model. For many activists who saw technology as a piece of the puzzle, the Recovery Act of 2009, which dedicated $7 billion to technology solutions related to broadband and community facilities, was a watershed.

At OATS, we were able to secure a $3 million allocation to create Senior Planet, the country's first technology-themed community center, and launch a content website that has reached more than a million visitors and is helping to change the dialogue about aging in America. The result? We have 15,000 visitors per year coming in to reinvent what it means to be aging in America. There are people starting businesses, writing plays, managing immigration applications, planning trips, making art, getting healthy, and sharing their passion for life-and the average age is 74. All of this activity reflects a healthy new focus on creating high-functioning institutions and systems that can shape our lives in profound ways, at scale and over time.

The new emphasis on outcomes has accompanied a shift in thinking about technology itself. We have evolved from the days of community technology centers, which were typically rows of computers facing a whiteboard, to a state of affairs today where a multitude of devices and interfaces are being deployed in more contextual formats. At OATS, the Senior Planet Center represented the first chance to make that change, and we added telepresence robots, gaming consoles, iPads, e-readers, and video-conferencing to the site's capabilities. More recently, we have been experimenting with digital media "pods" in rural areas of upstate New York, installing a large wall unit at a senior center; the unit includes all of these devices but adds health input devices, a charging station for a mobile classroom, a drone, Sonos, Amazon Echo, and a Mac laptop. The idea is for the community access environment to integrate a wide range of devices and platforms so users can experiment, explore, and see how something fits their own needs and objectives.

As Gen Xers are employing more caution and skepticism about new technologies, these multi-use technology environments enable a more robust exploration of the ways in which digital tools can advance particular outcomes, such as in groups of older adults using on-loan Fitbits to track their exercise activities.

Broadband data guru and Pew Research Center senior researcher John Horrigan, a Gen Xer, has urged policy makers to begin making a shift in emphasis from broadband adoption to broadband utilization, making the case that we should be just as concerned with what people are doing once they go online as we are about inequities in the overall patterns of technology adoption. This approach underscores the impact pivot, the renewed focus on outcomes and measurable results, that has taken place for Gen X, and for the agencies and organizations they lead that have a stake in public interest technology. A transformation has taken place, from a way of thinking that assumes technology is an irreducible good, to one that incorporates technology as an often flawed tool for harnessing strategic interventions implemented by high-capacity organizations.

Technology: A Generational, Often Ambivalent, Love Affair

What makes Gen X different from a technology standpoint? To begin with, we're young enough to appreciate the power of technology and we have an intuitive understanding of how it can potentially improve the world, but also we have seen its limitations and destructive potential. Pew Research Center statistics show double-digit gaps in technology adoption between Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, while adoption rates by Millennials are nearly universal from the pre-teen years.

Gen Xers stand somewhere in the middle-adept users of information and communications technology, characterized by a persistent awareness of the contradictions of the Digital Age. For the most part, we use technology like our younger counterparts in the Millennial generation. We communicate using email, text, and Facebook. We share photos on Instagram. We use Yelp to figure out where to take the dates we met on Tinder. We manage information across multiple platforms-searching, scanning, sharing, and storing. But to the extent that there is a tension between technology skill and subject matter expertise, we are on the side of the latter.

The tech bubble of the 1990s was a searing and formative experience for many Gen Xers; we bought fully into the idea that a new physics was at hand, that technology and networks and instant universal access to all information had changed the playing field. For a few years, it seemed like it was more important to know where to search for expertise than it was to actually possess it. Then things fell apart, badly, in the dot-com crash of 2000. I was working in a New York advertising agency at the time and Enron was one of our clients, so I observed the crash happening in real time.

As our generation matured into positions of leadership in commerce and the public and nonprofit sectors, our "dual citizenship" approach to technology has framed a larger pattern of thinking about organizations and impact. At OATS and other social-impact technology organizations run by Gen Xers, this experience of "being burned" by technology fostered a renewed appreciation for the importance of mission, customer-centric design, metrics, and institution-building.

Finally, what does this mean for older adults, many of whom are still digitally disengaged? To begin with, it may mean they have to deal with two younger generations with different ideas about technology. Millennials will likely be baffled by elders' reluctance to adopt new technologies, and will see a technology gap as an opportunity to get people learning and using digital tools. In this way, they share similarities with the early champions of community technology-focused on digital literacy and access as irreducible goals.

Gen Xers, on the other hand, are likely to think about aging as a distinct set of challenges and opportunities, and be looking for ways that technology can support strategies for successful outcomes. Low-tech solutions that solve important problems (such as the iPod lending model championed by the nonprofit Music & Memory) are more exciting than a technology-intensive "solution" that may reinforce ageist stereotypes or be simply irrelevant to older adults.

Technology, for people whose life spans straddle the invention of the computer, is a generational affair where cultural identity gets wrapped up in our relationship with the emerging digital tools of information-processing. For Gen Xers, that has meant a subordination of the technology agenda to one that privileges themes like human-centered design and mission-related outcomes. In the coming years, this may form the basis for a new model of aging to be collaboratively developed between Gen Xers and Baby Boomers, as we innovate ways to integrate technology into homes and community centers and senior living residences, combining an appreciation of the power of technology with an awareness of its limitations.

Policy makers seeking new, cost-effective ways to improve models of aging might well look to these technology collaborations for promising ideas. Recent initiatives have found new applications for technology in improving health, intergenerational learning, cultural development, social engagement, rural services, and entrepreneurship by older adults. Funding limitations should add a note of caution, as new dollars for social programs are now extremely scarce, but technology partnerships have also demonstrated an impressive track record of attracting resources from non-traditional corporate and philanthropic entities, in effect expanding the total pool of funding available for older adults.

As these collaborations mature, and partner organizations increase their capacity to work together and achieve outcomes, momentum may start building toward a new paradigm of older adult programs and environments, one that benefits from the "always on" social and economic patterns of the modern age, but also retains a clear commitment to the values of choice and dignity that make this work so vitally important.
Tom Kamber, Ph.D., is founder and executive director of OATS (Older Adults Technology Services) and has taught courses on social philanthropy and entrepreneurship at Columbia University, in New York.
This article is taken from the Fall 2017 issue of ASA's quarterly journal, Generations, which takes a look at older adults who provide caregiving, not receive it. ASA members receive Generations as a membership benefit; non-members may purchase subscriptions or single copies of issues at our online store.

References
Lessig, L. 2002. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Con-
nected World. New York: Vintage.
Putnam, R. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of Amer-
ican Community. New York: Touchstone.
Salkowitz, R. 2008. Generation Blend: Managing Across the Technology Age Gap. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gen X: The Cro-Magnon of Digital Natives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I grew up in Asbury Park, New Jersey, which happens to be the epicenter of American boardwalk life. It's home to Bruce Springsteen, street racer muscle cars, second-tier mobsters, and saltwater taffy. It is also the place where, during my high school years in the early 1980s, video games got their start.

# data[].attributes.body
When carrying out research for Generation X, I was intrigued to find out what their relationship is like with social media and how active they are on each of the platforms.

According to this article Gen X "are the heaviest social media users (even more so than Millennials), spending seven hours per week on social media platforms." I would definitley say that this article excludes Generation Z because I believe that we are the generation with the heaviest social media usage. But when reading this, it surprised me, because when I read (from the other articles) that Gen X "work hard-play hard" I wouldn't have thought that they would have much time to spend on Social Media.

If you look at my Survey Monkey results, when asked 'what marketing strategies influence your purchasing behaviour' only 5 out of 28 (18%) opted for social media. So moving forward I believe that Social Media may not be the best way to communicate with Generation X, when targeting this generation brands should focus on email marketing, vouchers and offers and loyalty programmes.

# data[].attributes.body
This article caught my eye when I saw the first sentence "The majority of Gen Xers are
busy professionals...they’re online
activities are more driven
by purpose and intent than
casual browsing."  I found this interesting because this could shape the way a company communicates with a Generation X consumer. If they are only going onto the M&S website, or the H&M website to find that specific dress that they are after, then the website would need to entice that consumer to browse for related items such as shoe suggestions or jewelery suggestions. Which may then cause Generation X to browse a little longer and in turn increase the brand's profit.

I then went to read further and found some great graphs and statistics (the graphs are below this post) that looked at Generation X's relationship to technology in relation to their  purchasing journey. Apparently, even though new media continues to get stronger, traditional media such as TV ads, Magazine ads, billboards etc have a positive effect in getting Gen X's attention. Although, with Facebook being Generation X's ''social hub" they are starting to adapt and incorporate social media platforms into their purchasing journey.

# data[].attributes.body
•En.wikipedia.org. 2020. Joules (Clothing). [online] Available at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joules_(clothing)> [Accessed 15 April 2020].

•LEVINE, J., n.d. Over 40? Whatever You Do, Avoid These 9 Dating Mistakes. [online] Reader's Digest. Available at: <https://www.rd.com/true-stories/inspiring/dating-after-40/> [Accessed 15 April 2020].

•H&M. 2020. H&M Offers Fashion And Quality At The Best Price. [online] Available at: <https://www.hm.com/entrance.ahtml?orguri=%2F> [Accessed 15 April 2020].

•Publicasity. 2020. Creating A Stand Out Press Day | F & F PR | F&F PR Agency | Publicasity. [online] Available at: <https://publicasity.co.uk/case-studies/creating-stand-press-day/> [Accessed 15 April 2020].

•Hitti, N., 2019. Zara Logo Gets Controversial Revamp By Baron & Baron. [online] Dezeen. Available at: <https://www.dezeen.com/2019/02/04/zara-logo-controversial-rebrand-baron-baron/> [Accessed 28 April 2020].

•John Lewis & Partners. 2020. John Lewis & Partners | Homeware, Fashion, Electricals & More. [online] Available at: <https://www.johnlewis.com/> [Accessed 15 April 2020].

•Rochdaleonline.co.uk. 2018. Jobs At Risk At Tesco. [online] Available at: <http://rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/1/business-news/115559/jobs-at-risk-at-tesco> [Accessed 15 April 2020].

•Ocean Retail Park, Portsmouth. 2020. Lidl | Ocean Retail Park, Portsmouth. [online] Available at: <https://www.oceanretailpark.co.uk/stores/lidl/> [Accessed 15 April 2020].

•Glassdoor.co.uk. 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Overview/Working-at-Dunelm-EI_IE42604.11,17.htm> [Accessed 15 April 2020].

# data[].attributes.body
As you can see below, the results for the first question 'what year were you born?' Were quite even. A higher number though, were born between the years 1976-1980 and 1960-1963. So the results that will follow, could be quite varied based on the fact that we are looking at consumers aged as young as 40 up to the age of 60.

# data[].attributes.body
Most of my survey was answered by females (93%). This makes me think either males don't like answering surveys about shopping, or maybe Generation X males aren't on social media as much as females are (which is where I advertised my survey).

# data[].attributes.body
I asked this question so that it would help me to decide what brand I would incorporate into my report. Out of the top 3, which were M&S, F&F and H&M (does it have something to do with the & sign?) I chose M&S. This is because I was interested in discovering how they correspond and communicate with Generation X.

# data[].attributes.body
The results for 'What do you do for a living' were very varied. With the most being part of the service or healthcare industry.

# data[].attributes.body
I was quite surprised with the results from this question. From my statistical research, I found out that Generation X mostly have a "a middle-class income, with an average of $50,400."  but this does not correlate with my survey results. It was very averagely spread across £10,000 to £50,000 a year. When I look back at their professions, I assume that those earning £10,000 and below are those that are carers for family members or maybe retired with a very low pension. Then those that earn £50,000 and over are teachers or business owners.

# data[].attributes.body
The results from this question did not surprise me. It is quite clear that Generation X do not like to shop every day, and only a very low percentage will shop once a week. From these results, we can see that those in Generation X like to shop for clothes once a month or once every other month.

# data[].attributes.body
So, from the below results I can see that those in Generation X are not persuaded by how easy a garment is to care for, or what brand it is from. They do however care about the price, the design, the quality and most importantly the fit. This confirms to me why the brands above were so popular because they are all affordable, most produce good quality clothing and M&S specifically has collections to flatter different shapes and sizes.

# data[].attributes.body
Email marketing was by far the most popular in relation to strategies that influence Generation X's purchasing behaviour. This correlates with my research with 'email marketing' being the way forward with this particular age group. The least popular was advertising on billboards, which is a very old and traditional way of advertising. Maybe billboard advertising is on its way out if it doesn't even influence those that were born in 1960.

# data[].attributes.body
Unsurprisingly, Generation X prefer to shop in store rather than online. This, I assume is due to them being mostly influenced by fit and quality. In store you are able to touch fabric, and try on garments before you hand your money over, so online shopping is not practical when it comes to purchasing clothing.

# data[].attributes.body
For the last question, I wanted to give the Gen Xers a few statements and ask them to pick the ones they agree with. It turns out Gen X consumers are mostly spontaneous shoppers, if they like the look and fit they will buy it there and then without consideration. They also care very much about customer service, if it's not good then they will not stick around (now I know why Zara wasn't picked as their favourite brand). Most are also brand loyal, so once they have 2 or 3 favourite shops to buy clothes from, they won't make too much effort to find alternatives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What's happening

Despite underlying progress this year,our transformation in Clothing & Home is yet to be reflected in like-for-like sales. While we saw a rise in customer numbers and growth in our online Clothing & Home sales ahead of the market, we remain at the early stages of our programme. Our aspiration is to be famous for contemporary, wearable style at great value. Our efforts in restoring our style credentials and value perceptions made progress and saw some wins this year. Sales of our £15 women's jeggings were up 30% over the campaign period. And when we got the product fit and price right for the contemporary, family-age customer we aim to appeal to - such as our denim campaign case study above - we saw product fly off the shelves. But all too often our initial tentative steps to buying in depth meant many of the most popular lines sold out prematurely and our sales were constrained by poor availability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite underlying progress this year,our transformation in Clothing & Home is yet to be reflected in like-for-like sales. While we saw a rise in customer numbers and growth in our online Clothing & Home sales ahead of the market, we remain at the early stages of our programme.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the M&S website. Shop clothing, home, furniture, beauty, food, wine, flowers & gifts. Buy now for free delivery, store collections and returns.

# data[].attributes.body
M&S use Holly Willoughby for collaborations as a method of influencer marketing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Holly Willoughby popularity & fame | YouGov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Holly Willoughby is the 4th most popular contemporary TV personality and the 27th most famous. Holly Willoughby is described by fans as: Beautiful, Sexy, Likeable, Charming and Entertaining. Explore fans of Holly Willoughby and the popularity of other contemporary TV personalities with YouGov Ratings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Good marketing is inspired by good insights. Good insights about customers come from more than just product or service category or brand behavior-and from more than just demographics.

Every nation includes people who are more or less impulsive or more or less deliberate, preferring the familiar to the novel; the same is true for other characteristics such as adherence to traditional values, me-first, and reliance on self. These attitudes connect to a broad range of behaviors such as brand preferences, the adoption of new products, and leadership qualities.

VALS is a proprietary psychometric method that measures these and other predictive attitudes-in conjunction with behaviors and demographics-for developing countrywide typologies such as US VALS. The types within a country persist through decades, as work since the 1970s has verified.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Good marketing is inspired by good insights. Good insights about customers come from more than just product or service category or brand behavior-and from more than just demographics. Every nation includes people who are more or less impulsive or more or less deliberate, preferring the familiar to the novel; the same is true for other characteristics such as adherence to traditional values, me-first, and reliance on self.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vals which is also known as values attitude and lifestyle is one of the primary ways to perform psychographic segmentation. All three terms are intangible in nature and therefore give an idea of the inert nature of the consumer. If you know what your consumer is thinking, you would know what kind of promotions or communications will attract him most. And how do you know what the consumer is thinking? By determining his vals - Values, attitudes and lifestyle.

VALS is different for different people. Lets take income as an example. If you are a person with high income your lifestyle would probably include habits of the SEC A class such as dining out of home frequently and that too in top class restaurants, wearing only branded clothes and buying the best cars out there. Whereas if you are a middle class income group consumer, you would be more wary of spending money and would rather concentrate on savings.

So now how does VALS affect a marketer? Lets say you were a banker. What would you sell someone who had a high income lifestyle? You would sell them investment options and would also dedicate a relationship manager to take care of their needs. In fact, the bankers also have a term for high income individuals known as HNI - high networth individuals. But, if your lifestyle was that of a low income customer, you are more likely to be targeted for savings

History of the term VALS

VALS is actually a proprietary term of SRI international. The term was developed by Social scientist and futurist Arnold mitchell. Arnold mitchell actually developed the vals framework to determine different classes of people who had varying values, attitudes and lifestyle. These people were determined by the resources they had at their disposal as well as the amount of primary innovation they could accept or create. Thus the people with low resources were low on innovation and the ones with higher resources were higher in innovation. This formed the basis of the VALS framework.

The VALS framework

As mentioned in the history of VALS, The VALS framework was developed keeping a consumers resources as well as his capacity to accept innovation in mind. The X axis consisted of primary motivation (explained below) and the Y axis consisted of resources such as income, education, confidence etc. Thus these two factors were determined to be critical to define the values attitude and lifestyle of any consumer.

Resources - Included resources available to an individual such as income, education, intelligence, emotional support, etc.

Primary motivation - Which determined what actually drives the individual. Is it knowledge, the desire to achieve something or is it to be social.

After researching above 1500 consumers, Arnold mitchell actually divided consumers into 9 different types based on the amount of resources they had as well as their capacity for primary motivation. These classes of consumers based on their VALS were.

9 types of Consumers as per VALS framework

1. Innovators - The class of consumer at the top of the vals framework. They are characterized by High income and high resource individuals for whom independence is very important. They have their own individual taste in things and are motivated in achieving the finer things in life.

2. Thinkers - A well educated professional is an excellent example of Thinkers in the vals framework. These are the people who have high resources and are motivated by their knowledge. These are the rational decision making consumers and are well informed about their surroundings. These consumers are likely to accept any social change because of their knowledge level.

3. Believers - The subtle difference between thinkers and believers is that thinkers make their own decisions whereas believers are more social in nature and hence also believe other consumers. They are characterized by lower resources and are less likely to accept innovation on their own. They are the best class of word of mouth consumers.

4. Achievers - The achievers are mainly motivated by - guess what - Achievements. These individuals want to excel at their job as well in their family. Thus they are more likely to purchase a brand which has shown its success over time. The achievers are said to be high resource consumers but at the same time, if any brand is rising, they are more likely to adopt that brand faster.

5. Strivers - Low resource consumer group which wants to reach some achievement are known as strivers. These customers do not have the resources to be an achiever. But as they have values similar to an achiever, they fall under the striver category. If a striver can gain the necessary resources such as a high income or social status then he can move on to becoming an achiever.

6. Experiencers - The group of consumers who have high resources but also need a mode of self expression are known as Experiencers. Mostly characterized by young adults, it consists of people who want to experience being different. This class of consumers is filled up with early adopters who spend heavily on food, clothing and other youthful products and services.

7. Makers - These are consumers who also want self expression but they are limited by the number of resources they have. Thus they would be more focused towards building a better family rather than going out and actually spending higher amount of money. Making themselves into better individuals and families becomes a form of self expression for the Makers.

8. Survivors - The class of consumers in the Vals framework with the least resources and therefore the least likely to adopt any innovation. As they are not likely to change their course of action regularly, they form into brand loyal customers. An example can include old age pension earners living alone for whom the basic necessities are important and they are least likely to concentrate on anything else.

Thus the vals framework can be used primarily to classify consumers based on their values, attitudes and lifestyle. Once the classification has been done, you know which types of customers you want to target. Depending on your target customers vals, you can make up your marketing strategy and your promotional message such that it hits your audience at the right spot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The vals framework or the vals model discusses the values attitude lifestyle of people and how this effects the purchase of a product. The article has the 9 different types of consumers based on their values attitudes and lifestyles. Each consumer can differ in their purchase behavior as per the VALS model.