Do Millennials Distinguish Between Media as Consumers?
The article “Has Advertising Lost its Meaning? Views of UK and US Millennials” by Laurie, Mortimer and Beard (2018) examines whether the term “advertising” continues to capture marketing communications in the digital world adequately. It explores the meaning of advertising for Millennial consumers in the UK and US. The study finds that Millennials see advertising as any promotion that encourages people to buy products and services, with no distinction between different types of marketing communications.
Millennials’ Media Usage
I agree with Laurie, Mortimer, and Beard’s (2019) finding that millennials need to distinguish clearly between different forms of media as consumers. As a millennial and marketing student, my generation tends to consume media content fluidly across platforms without much conscious differentiation. For example, I regularly view brand videos and advertisements on YouTube and social media that would traditionally be considered “TV commercials”. I absorb brand messaging on their social media pages resembling “print ads”. I listen to branded podcasts that might traditionally fall under “radio”. For millennials, the lines between media formats have blurred significantly.
Laurie et al. (2019) note that Millennials have grown up with the internet and are frequent digital media users. Research shows that 81% of Millennials use social media daily, while only 44% watch traditional TV daily (Belch & Belch, 2013). Millennials spend significant time on their smartphones, using them for social media and consuming content. According to Laurie et al., the average American Millennial spends over 2 hours daily on their phone, with 54 minutes dedicated to social media. Given their immersion in digital media, it is unsurprising that Millennials must draw strong distinctions between different marketing communications channels.
As Laurie, Mortimer and Beard (2019) discuss, millennials are “digital natives” who have grown up surrounded by technology and Internet-enabled media convergence. My generation is comfortable flowing between media platforms and devices to consume content. We do not classify “TV ads”, “magazine ads”, and so on in our minds as previous generations might have. All marketing content is mixed into playlists, feeds, and digital streams. Laurie, Mortimer and Beard (2019) argue that millennials’ indifference to media distinctions is worrisome for advertisers wishing to delineate paid marketing from editorial content. However, as a millennial, I am generally aware when messaging is paid or organic, but the medium itself does not determine my perception.
Evolution as a Marketing Student
As a marketing student, however, my viewpoint on media distinctions has evolved. I have learned to strategically differentiate between media formats, platforms, and vehicles in planning integrated campaigns. I now understand each channel’s unique capabilities and constraints and how they may be orchestrated together to achieve marketing objectives. My classroom knowledge provides me with intellectual frameworks to dissect media I subconsciously mashed together as a consumer. Education offers systematic ways to think about media that provide context, which still needs to be improved in many millennials’ organic media consumption. So, while I agree millennials do not innately differentiate between media forms, structured learning can provide media discernment skills. In summary, as Laurie, Mortimer and Beard (2019) contend, millennials need a more innate tendency to distinguish between traditional media categories as consumers. However, marketing education cultivates an evolved perspective, with media discernment frameworks that can complement millennials’ convergent media consumption habits. It will be interesting to see if Generation Z, true “digital natives”, develop even more fluid media consumption repertoires compared to millennials.
The Future Role of Creativity in Advertising
In light of the rapid changes occurring in the marketing landscape, there has been debate about whether creativity remains an essential element in advertising strategies. In their article “The Future of (creativity in Advertising”, Belch & Belch (2013) argued that the definition of advertising needed to be updated for three key reasons: the rise of digital media, new ways for consumers to respond, and the extended effects advertising can have. This essay examines these arguments and provides perspectives on the continued importance of creativity.
The Increase in Digital Media
The Increase in Digital Media Dahlen and Rosengren contended that the growth of digital channels necessitates rethinking how advertising is defined and approached. The proliferation of websites, social media, and other digital platforms provides new conduits for advertising that do not neatly fit traditional conceptions focused on mass media. Marketers today have manifold ways to reach audiences, often in more targeted and interactive ways. Digital media has dramatically expanded the canvases and mechanisms to deliver advertising messaging. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok reach vast swaths of consumers, especially younger demographics. These channels enable more personalized, measurable, and real-time advertising strategies.
However, while the digital landscape expands the possibilities for advertising, I disagree that this dilutes the need for creativity. Creativity becomes vital to stand out amidst the clutter of digital content competing for attention. Creative ads capture interest and prompt sharing and engagement. Clever, emotional, or entertaining ads get noticed and shared. Creativity enables consistency and integration across paid, owned, and earned channels. Digital media does not lessen the need for impactful creativity; it provides new spaces for innovative advertising executions.
New Consumer Response Mechanisms
A second argument made by Dahlen and Rosengren is that the growing ability of consumers to respond to and interact with advertising necessitates a reconfiguration of how it is approached. Undoubtedly, digital platforms provide expanded opportunities for two-way communication between brands and audiences. Social media, in particular, enables conversations and participation surrounding ad content.
However, interactivity does not preclude creativity. Creativity helps drive participation by making content more intriguing and shareworthy. Just consider viral ads that capture attention through humour, emotion, or surprise. These prompted millions of views, comments, parodies and conversations. Creativity gives people a reason to respond. It sparks buzz and dialogue. While interactivity changes the dynamics between advertisers and audiences, enabling real-time exchanges, creativity remains key to prompting engagement. Creative ads invite audiences into the experience rather than passive consumption.
Extended Effects
The third premise is that the effects of creativity today go beyond immediate sales to shape brand perceptions over time. This reflects evolving views on advertising, shifting from direct stimulus-response models to more iterative, longitudinal impacts. Advertising helps construct brands psychologically through repeated exposure over the years. The cumulative effect of messaging and associations builds affinity and relationships between consumers and brands.
I concur with the argument that creativity shapes brands cumulatively over time by connecting them with emotions, personalities, identities, and ideals in the audience’s minds. Impact unfolds gradually through cultural diffusion. Creative ads provide cultural symbols and shared experiences that accrue meaning. But again, this speaks to the sustained potency creativity has in the advertising ecosystem rather than diminishing its import. It is all the more vital to get creativity right from the start since effects compound. Creativity sets the foundations for enduring brand identities. In summary, while Dahlen and Rosengren make reasonable arguments regarding changes in the advertising landscape that warrant updates in how it is defined, creativity remains integral. The rise of digital channels, interactive responses, and longitudinal impacts speak to creativity’s amplified role in engaging audiences and building brands. Creativity connects, creativity resonates, and creativity endures when done well. The fundamentals hold even as the media vehicles evolve. With information abundance and audience agency elevated in today’s digital environments, compelling creativity counts more than ever.
Reference
Belch, M. A., & Belch, G. E. (2013). The future of creativity in advertising. Journal of Promotion Management, 19(4), 395-399. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10496491.2013.817219?casa_token=o0LQUpGFrOUAAAAA:fOF9HcYaDf3RA1U5ZS9QnCvaJsr962RP2TjqFOR3r9112Xm34yyeZPnjyi3gaqxG8Nfb4lI8wdhpRnKM
Laurie, S., Mortimer, K., & Beard, F. (2019). Has advertising lost its meaning? Views of UK and US millennials. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(6), 765-782. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10496491.2018.1536623
write