The other night, while sitting across the table from a handful of 30- (and 40-) something friends (one sporting an Atari T-shirt, one with iPod earbuds haphazardly slung over one shoulder, and another with a tattoo peeking out from under his sleeve), I couldn’t help being struck by the changing face of “grown-ups.”

By the time my folks were in their mid-30s, they had two kids, lived in the suburbs, wore suits, and went to dinner parties. They definitely weren’t boring and still held onto their flower-child values, but on the exterior they were undeniably “grown up.”

In contrast, while at this point in their lives most once-maligned “slacker” Gen Xers have all of the grown-up fixins’ (steady paychecks, mortgages, wedding bands, kids), a growing number of them rebel against stereotypical behavior that traditionally comes with such trappings.

In efforts to gain brand loyalty among this notoriously hard-to-pin-down, media-suspicious, and marketing-savvy generation, some marketers have started focusing less on Gen X’s universal charactaristics and more on characteristics of its higher-spending subgroups, such as the “Grups,” as defined by New York magazine:

This is an obituary for the generation gap. It is a story about 40-year-old men and women who look, talk, act, and dress like people who are 22 years old. It’s not about a fad but about a phenomenon that looks to be permanent. It’s about the hedge-fund guy in Park Slope with the chunky square glasses, brown rock T-shirt, slight paunch, expensive jeans, Puma sneakers, and shoulder-slung messenger bag, with two kids squirming over his lap like itchy chimps at the Tea Lounge on Sunday morning. It’s about the mom in the low-slung Sevens and ankle boots and vaguely Berlin-art-scene blouse with the $800 stroller and the TV-screen-size Olsen-twins sunglasses perched on her head walking through Bryant Park listening to Death Cab for Cutie on her Nano.

Have you noticed any other Gen X subgroups?
What do you think marketers should be doing to try to gain their loyalty?

When you’re young, communicate with a lot of people from around the world, take pictures to document your travels, and need information now, what do you do? You team up with like-minded individuals, make a prototype, buzz the blogosphere, and watch the world light up to your idea.

Meet the fresh-faced founders of Zoomr, Yelp, StumbleUpon and Meebo.

Things common to all of them:

1. They are all under 30.
2. They shared ideas on blogs and, thanks to word of mouth, became well known.
3. They created products that filled a need in their own lives.

• Zoomr creator Kris Tate wanted a way to share pictures that wasn’t Anglocentric.
• Meebo co-founder Seth Sternberg wanted a way to consolidate many IM accounts into one.
• Garrett Camp of StumbleUpon says, “The general idea was how to discover really interesting information without searching for it.”
• Jeremy Stoppleman of Yelp wanted to share local information online.

If you make things work like these four, Forbes will talk about you and investor-angel Ron Conway will hold your hand. If you fail, big deal. You can always apply for a job at Yahoo or Google. Trying is what is key.

Help me out. I’m trying to think of any promotion where a renowned brand actually allowed its identity to be changed into something just as well known, but (prior to that point) purely fictional.

Such is a tentative plan involving 7-Eleven and The Simpsons. Select convenience stores would be completely rebranded as Kwik-E-Marts—once found only in animated Springfield—as part of an upcoming feature film promo effort.

In addition to signage, the stores would also stock real-world versions of Kwik-E-Mart staples. The Slurpee, in short, would become the Squishee.

Wes and I hit the 7-Eleven on Mt. Vernon two or three times a day. If the deal goes through, I hope our store gets the Apu makeover. Hmmm…Krusty Burger.

Throw the instantaneous, informative hyperactivity of Twitter in a blender with Google Maps and you get…Twittervision!

Sara mentioned this a week ago. Watching a bit early this morning, it does possess a mundane hypnotism that (for a few minutes at least) is hard to resist. Weather Channel junkies know the feeling; here’s your chance to follow a thousand human cold fronts.

Sara, your boy Ze smacks a homerun with his assessment: “We are united in boredom.”

But hey, at least now we can all agree about something.

I have a problem. I stumble. And it has nothing to do with my legs. I am addicted to StumbleUpon. I take childish delight in finding new and unexpected Internet treasures every time I hit that tantalizing button, beckoning with its flowing blue and green “SU.”

(more…)

This one’s been around for a while, enjoying renewed airtime during the tourney.

Perfectly resurrects the hard-working “Miller Time” vibe, standing the snob appeal pitch so loved by microbrews right on its ear.

Notice, “it’s a good honest beer at a tasty price,” not the other way ’round. Of course, that’s all many of us want from a cold one.

Nice work. I actually have a taste for a High Life.

It makes sense to see Robert Reinhardt, the lead author of the Flash Bible series, write an article called “Flash Video: Why the Other Players Don’t Get It.” In it, he sings the praises of Flash video, the streaming format taking over the Web (it’s used by YouTube, Google, and MTV, to name a few).

Now here’s the shocker: Yesterday he penned “Flash Video: Move Over?” in which he offers numerous reasons to NOT use Flash video. What prompted this piece? ABC just ditched Flash video on their heavily promoted full-episode streaming site in favor of Move Networks.

The reason? Quality is one argument, but I don’t buy it. The other, which I totally buy, is that Flash player has no digital rights management; ABC can’t control content.

The format wars continue to rage between Windows Media, Real Networks, Flash, Quicktime, and even proprietary systems like Move Networks. Rage they may, but it’s impossible to say across the board one beats the other. Reinhardt, who makes his living off Flash, now says Flash video isn’t king—but no format is.

(more…)

Tackling a ribeye at a DC steakhouse the other evening, I couldn’t help catching a bit of conversation from the adjacent booth. A quick glance verified that it was a table of well-dressed business bigshots, expense-account daredevils who know how to sling a Gold Card, and probably have enough frequent flyer miles to make it to the moon and back.

Bigshot 1: Where’d they put you?

Bigshot 2: At the Hilton, but I moved to the Marriott.

Bigshot 1: You moved?

Bigshot 2: I’m tired of seeing that [disreputable female]. Everywhere I turn. Magazines. TV. Enough. That place won’t get another dime from me.

Bigshot 3: Got that right. I hear “Hilton” and now I think sleaze.

Bigshot 1: So how’s the Marriott?

Bigshot 2: Whatever. I’m not paying for it.

[Chorus of laughter and clinking cocktail glasses.]

Conrad’s spinning in his grave.

• Saving production expense because consumers submit their own videos = Priceless

• Reaching consumers using the Web’s most popular free streaming video service = Priceless

• Creating brand buzz among a critical demographic using “authentic” community-driven content = Priceless

Sensing a theme? MasterCard is embracing Web 2.0 marketing like it’s everybody’s business.

(Plus, props to Reckless Records—one of my hometown favorites!)

Marketing companies used to avoid ultra-specific niche marketing because throwing big-budget resources at small audiences wasn’t that cost effective. Cable television changed that game. With a channel for every interest, it was smart to tailor messages accordingly. And of course the Web is one giant niche machine.

Now, it looks like traditional media is ready to play. Chris Ammon and I were discussing this ad the other day, and he made a great point:

If this showed up on “webcoder.com,” it would be ignored. Even if it only resonates with a small percentage of viewers in the subway station, though, those few will be more likely to respond. It’s sort of like that MINI ad campaign Sara wrote about. Out here in the big world, we’re talking just to you, Code Person, and only you get this message. You’re special.

Companies can go after very specialized audiences using tactics once reserved for big-league consumer goods and services. These “inside info” messages are on the main stage for all to see. Some get it, but most of us scratch our heads in confusion. Either way, however, we’re involved.

I’m not sure if big-time marketing of small messages will pay off in traditional media, but I’m certainly paying attention to the experiment.