Jump 7: The pseudo (social)science of boomers and millennials & the background briefings backlash
Scott Davidson's newsletter on PR, public affairs & lobbying
Welcome to Jump 7. Because practitioners often miss great academic studies. Because I do a lot of reading. In this edition:
Highlights
Generationalism – why boomers, millennials etc is pseudo social science
Journalists push back on Big Tech PR practices
Brand activism vs lobbying
OVER THE WALL
Generationalism – millennial this, boomers that, generation x,y,z and so on. It’s impossible to avoid, but rarely questioned. It is rife in journalism, marketing and yes, in PR as well.
I will tell anyone who listens to me that generations are, to use a technical term, bullshit. A nonsense that many consider to be a bit of fun, happily ignoring how it opens up a riot of stereotyping that leads to real world discrimination. I have always considered generations to be for social science what astrology is to astronomy. None the less, it is important for public affairs, because it is how profound demographic and social changes are discussed and policy implications understood. It was a big theme in my own PhD back in the day.
So I am keen to share some new writing on this topic. I would happily rain down polemical scorn on generations, but happy to share studies such as Cort Rudolph’s (Saint Louis) that concludes there is little evidence to support generations as being a valid concept for understanding social change. Once you dig deeper, little evidence to suggest generations exist at all.
Rudolph explains that studies that purport to offer evidence for generational differences could just as easily be showing the effects of being a particular age – a 25-year-old is likely to think and act differently than a 45-year-old does, regardless of the ‘generation’ they belong to.
For starters reviewing studies that have attempted to apply the concept of generations have had starting dates for a generation differing by up to nine years. I think this may warrant calling generations a pseudo social science. There are no socially scientific reasons for the birth dates when one generation is supposed to end, and another begins. What huge social earthquake happened in the year 1965? Why is someone born in 1964 a “boomer” and someone in 1965 in “generation x”? It’s a rhetorical question, because there is no answer. There is no justification for placing ALL people born December 64 in a different social category to ALL those born in Jan 65. In turn, it removes from public and media talking points the importance of life stages - being at school, entering the work force, starting a family, no longer having a family, leaving the work force – which are far more important, and useful focal points for what is going out there in the real world.
The Rudolph et.al paper usefully lists ten myths about generational differences. Here is Myth #10 - Talking about generations is largely benign:
- Talking about generations is far from benign: it promotes the spread of generationalism, which can be considered “modern ageism.”
- Generationalism is defined by sanctioned ambivalence and socially acceptable prejudice toward people of particular ages.
- Use of generations to inform differential practices and policies in organizations poses great risk to the age inclusivity, and the legal standing, of workplaces.
I am under no illusions, generationalism is going to be with us for quite some time yet. I just hope growing awareness of how generationalism enables real world age discrimination, will prompt campaigners and communicators to stop using the language of generations.
Links:
Rudolph. Generationalism is bad science
Rudolph et.al. Debunking the myths about generations
NOTABLE
* Technology and culture magazine The Verge announces new policy on background/off the record from PRs.
Off the record, or background briefing between PR practitioners and journalists - Where a PR can ask a journalist to not print some of the information they are about to share, or not attribute that information to them as the source, or to use some euphemism to hide their identity (“friends of” politician x is a popular one in the UK press) - is as old as the hills.
It’s always been open to debate about exactly when and where this is fine, and where it raises ethical issues. No great surprise to learn that Big Tech have abused this tradition.
Some the examples of attempts to abuse the arrangement listed by The Verge are gobsmacking and well worth reproducing here:
A big tech company PR person emailed us a link to the company’s own website “on background.”
A food delivery company insisted on discussing the popularity of chicken wings on background.
Multiple big tech companies insist on having PR staffers quoted as “sources familiar with the situation” even though they are paid spokespeople for the most powerful companies in the world.
A big tech company refused to detail a controversial new privacy policy on the record, allowing it to amend details about it in repeated background follow-up briefings for over a week.
A big tech company insisted on describing the upgrade requirements for its new operating system on background. Details which it then repeatedly changed… on background.
A major car company’s head of communications told us an April Fools’ joke was actually real on background. The joke was not real.
A major platform’s head of communications would only explain a content moderation decision attributed to “a source familiar,” tried to refute our characterization of that decision after we published, and then threatened to cut our reporter off from further communication.
A major delivery company spokesperson, asked when the company would be profitable, insisted that the following statement only be paraphrased on background: “We’re investing in the enormous opportunity to enable omnichannel commerce for local businesses.”
The new policy on background briefing at the Verge is now:
“From now on, the default for communications professionals and people speaking to The Verge in an official capacity will be “on the record.”
We will still honor some requests to be on background, but at our discretion and only for specific reasons that we can articulate to readers.”
Dimitrov (Uni of New South Wales) published last year this deep dive into the ethics and uses of off the record versus on the record briefings in PR practice
* The online shadow economy in the Asia-Pacific region. This is the problem:
It’s not just nation-states that interfere in elections and manipulate political discourse. A range of commercial services increasingly engage in such activities, operating in a shadow online influence-for-hire economy that spans from content farms through to high-end PR agencies. There’s growing evidence of states using commercial influence-for-hire networks... There’s a distinction between legitimate, disclosed political campaigning and government advertising campaigns, on the one hand, and efforts by state actors to covertly manipulate the public opinion of domestic populations or citizens of other countries using inauthentic social media activity, on the other. The use of covert, inauthentic, outsourced online influence is also problematic as it degrades the quality of the public sphere in which citizens must make informed political choices and decisions."
And the report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the International Cyber Policy Centre, makes some suggestions on reform and improving the situation
* Illinois is the first state in the USA to introduce compulsory media literacy classes.
* Interesting paper from Daniel Korschun (Drexel) attempting to explain what is new and unique about brand activism. Setting the scene as “ In years past, brand managers almost always avoided political controversy. Today, many are steering their brands directly into the partisan winds, in the hopes of reaching the figurative eye of the storm, where financial performance and societal objectives align.”
I am not sure I accept the paper’s characterisation of brand activism as being separate from traditional lobbying, but still a recommended read.
CULTURAL HINTERLAND
Quirky and distinctive bus stops built during the times of the former Soviet Union
Full article here