The Power of Generation Y as Consumers.
(The new spending power of the youth, how they are targeted by
consumer markets & the implications for the family, the general society
& we as FCS professionals)
By Gelina Fontaine
Issues in Family & Consumer Science
With Dr Lauren Leach
Northwest Missouri State University
Nov 3rd, 2003
Purpose
This paper seeks to shed awareness on the evolved fact that parents no longer
have the sole say on whether the youth gets to spend money or what they spend it on. The
youth are now the major target of market researchers who realize that generation Y (those
born between 1980-till now) is the present society’s main trendsetter, especially as it
presently has greater purchasing power due to several financial, media, and technological
changes in societies across the globe. Our youth are more materialistic, more
consumerist, and more able to spend. Hence, this paper includes facts and concerns that
families and Family and Consumer Sciences professionals should know, and how, as a
team we should adjust to such a major addition to the never-ending evolution of family
matters.
Eight years ago a high school senior from Chicago boasted that she would never
spend less than $75 on athletic shoes, and she owned nine – four of those were Nike Air
Jordans (Tully, 1994). Tully, in his article “Teens: the most global market of all,”
thankfully left out the remaining number and variety of the senior’s footwear. Nine years
later, studies show that many of the present youth expect their parents and relatives to
spend no less than a hundred dollars on their Christmas or birthday presents (Goldberg et
al, 2003). Is there a connection here between these two scenarios or is the dollar value
simply taking a nosedive? Unfortunately, a real connection here exists and furthermore,
has survived and expanded up to this decade. First, the youth have their own spending
power, and a magnanimous one at that. Two, they are ever more consumerist than before,
and three, their demands and expectations are increasing in terms of how much they want
to spend, and what they want the money to be spent on. In the United Sates alone, at the
end of the 20th century, reports show that children impacted the total economic
expenditure by $290 billion (Goldberg et al, 2003). This figure triples just the adolescent
demographic spending of a “staggering $96 billion in 1994, a 34% increase since 1986”
(Shim et al 1996). The wide range of products and services purchased span from food to
clothing (especially the latest brand), footwear, cosmetics, birth control, movies,
technological soft wear and hard wear, music, computer games, other technological
gadgets, and numerous leisure activities like dating and going to the movies. The rest of
this paper focuses on most of the factors contributing to why the current youth,
Generation Y, is more consumerist, how the market sector targets this generation
(directly influencing its decision making independence and spending capabilities), and
lastly, what are the implications for society, the family, and Family and Consumer
Sciences professionals.
Why are the youth more consumerist? Research supports materialism as a major
cause. A new study reported in the Journal of Consumer Psychology this year (2003)
under the heading “Understanding Materialism Among Youth” claims that Materialism is
“an emerging value centering on acquisitiveness…It includes the desire to buy and own
things, the enjoyment of these objects, the desire for money to enable these purchases,
and even the desire for jobs that can secure the money necessary for purchases”
(Goldberg et al, 2003). In their study, Goldberg et al refer to Kohlberg’ Preconventional
stage of development of children nine years and younger. According to Kohlberg in his
1987 writings, children at that stage are struck by a self-centered view of life where they
have a “Single-minded drive for acquisition….I want this-buy me that sort of attitude,”
which he claims is purely reflexive. Consequently, that stage evolves into Kohlberg’s
“Conventional Level” where the youth acculturates this materialism, more reflectively, as
a “valued life goal” (Goldberg et al, 2003).
Is Generation Y more materialistic than previous generations? That same study by
Goldberg et al relates the heightening or weakening of that value to historical time
periods. It alludes to the important fact that during the Great Depression of the 1930s,
because of the economic crisis, spending was very thrifty, so the motivation to be
materialistic was not supported by financial or market means (Goldberg et al, 2003).
Obviously, this is almost the opposite today where new knowledge and technology are
creating an influx of products and services that is accompanied by a more thriving
capitalist economy. In other words, there are more products and services to spend money
on, more money to spend it on and more youth to spend money.
In Goldberg’s “Understanding materialism among youth,” a “tweens” (9-14 yearolds) study conducted discovered that materialism, like obesity is considered a familybased problem (Goldberg et al, 2003). The study indicated a high correlation between
materialism in parents and that same value/behavior in their children. In fact, it goes on
further to emphasize that those whom their parents view as experts when comes to buying
wield more purchasing power on their parents. Table one here, extracted from Goldberg
et al’s study defines the spectrum that indicates materialism in today’s youth.
Table 1
(Taken from Goldberg’s “Understanding materialism among youth,” 2003)
The scale shown here in table 1, which Goldberg used to measure materialism in
1500 subjects (parents and their tweens) can be used by individuals, families and
professionals to estimate the level of materialism in themselves or others.
Table 2 below reports Goldberg’s findings and relates some interesting facts
concerning certain upfront characteristics of both tweens who are more materialistic than
their peers and their parents who are just as materialistic as they are. Among these
characteristics include; more materialistic youth shop more often than those who are not,
they are also more interested in new products and advertising campaigns, and they exert
more “influence on their parents to purchase products and services for them” (Goldberg
et al, 2003).
Some of the findings are quite surprising. For example, who would have thought
that the boys would emerge “more highly materialistic than the girls?” or that “youths
from lower income households are significantly more materialistic?” (Goldberg et al,
2003). Although, the last point on table two, which states that “highly materialistic
youths are more likely to expect to do better than their parents in the future,” could
account for why those in low income homes would want to get out of that status. A fourth
surprise is that highly materialistic youths express less liking for school and have poorer
grade reports than their peers (Goldberg et al, 2003). One would imagine that to attain
more things such tweens would be eager to conform to any avenue that would take them
closer to their goal, even if that included getting an education. This just goes to show how
research is paramount to directing the service fields away from assumptions.
Two relieving reports in Table 2 though, are, we now know that materialistic
parents are more likely to breed materialistic kids –so family oriented habits can be
ameliorated, and secondly, that materialism does not necessarily bring about happiness
(Goldberg et al, 2003). So referring to that latest fact, parents ought to practice other
means of making their children happy besides bribing them or succumbing to buying
them stuff. Here is a look at Goldberg’s results on Table 2.
Table 2
(Taken from Goldberg’s “Understanding materialism among youth,” 2003)
Now that materialism is defined and findings are reported, the following question
one is left to ponder is; what factors are contributing to today’s youth being more
materialistic? The list seems never ending, but here it is.
Apparently, kids now have a more “on-the-go-lifestyle,” which is influencing an
influx of new products on the market such as “back-seat DVD players” and more
(Foroohar, 2003). In her article, “Don’t be lame: tech companies track teens to figure out
what’s cool, what’s hot—and what’s next,” Foroohar claims that companies like
Microsoft label teens under “fieldwork” (Foroohar, 2003). This entails monitoring and
researching teens be it formally or informally to get on to producing the latest gadget or
service that they may seem to be interested in, or that they may be demanding. According
to Foroohar, “already kids have driven trends like text messaging, instant messaging,
blogging and gaming,… peer-to-peer technology [like MP3 file sharing], and new ways
of working, shopping and socializing online” (Foroohar, 2003). Some other products/
services inspired by kids include “cell-phone antennas that light up…Philip’s key rings
with digital cameras” music sharing on online sites such as Napster, and longer lasting
batteries for more frequently played gadgets (Foroohar, 2003). Foroohar predicts that
soon, kids, because of their fascination of virtual reality, will bring about the movement
of actual shopping on virtual sites. How does this make kids more materialistic? Well,
they are almost literally the pioneers of new materials and services on the market due to
their interests and demands for products/services. Obviously, the fact that the working
capacity of the family has changed to where more and more mothers are employed and
single-parent families are on the rise, means that the youth is left more than ever by
themselves. This implies new means of keeping them occupied. Hence the cell phones,
computer games, chat rooms etc.
Another factor contributing to kids’ heightened sense of materialism is their
capacity for more disposable income from “part-time jobs or allowance, and no mortgage
to crimp their spending” (Maclean, 1999). Maclean in his article “A time for tyranny,”
notes how the market researchers noticed how the “2.8 million Canadian tweens” in 1999
began to bypass wooing the parents and started gearing advertising tactics directly at the
tweens (Maclean, 1999). These researchers realized that these tweens, along with those in
the U.S were affecting fashion trends in New York and the West Coast. They were also
“affecting the choice of restaurants, entertainment, and even car purchase” in their
respective families (Maclean, 1999). On a scarier note, the researchers discovered that it
is not working adults who now have the power to do most damage in the entertainment
industry, but teenagers According to Maclean, “they [now] have the power to make or
break a production (Maclean, 1999). This is why around 1999 movies like “Scream,
Scream 2, and I know what you did last summer” were such major box office hits
(Maclean, 1999). Maclean points out that one of the main reasons the Titanic “earned
over $1.8 billion dollars worldwide is because “love-struck teenage girls” went to view it
over and over (Maclean, 1999). So in summary, teens are more materialistic since they
earn more disposable income and products are aimed directly at them. It is by their
spending that their disposable income is made more visible.
Speaking of the entertainment industry, the media, whether in the form of
magazines, television or the Internet, has a major influence on kids being more
materialistic and consumerist today. In fact, this is a worldwide issue. Shawn Tully in his
article “Teens: the most global market of all,” emphasizes that “teenagers, of all people
are the new unifying force” in a world “divided” by wars and political disagreements
(Tully, 1994). He said this in 1994, but this goes on even more so today. He goes on
further to say that BSB Worldwide, a New York City agency at that time, “videotaped
teenagers’ rooms in 25 countries (Tully, 1994). The reports indicated that it was difficult
to tell whether the bedrooms were “in Los Angeles, Mexico City, or Tokyo” (Tully,
1994). The rooms were a diverse assemble of unisex clothing like Levi jeans, NBA
jackets, posters and sports mementoes from every and any other country including theirs.
Tully adds that these youth are “the world’s first computer-literate generation, and they
are better-traveled than many of their parents” (Tully, 1994). The youth around the world
travel internationally on foreign exchange visits or simply for vacation breaks and as they
learn each other’s languages, customs, and art, they extract from these their favorites
(Tully, 1994). The youth in Europe know of Michael Jordan and Dr Dre as much as the
youth in the United States do, and this is exactly why the media has made it its duty to
expand its venues worldwide and supply whatever is necessary to the globally unified
youth today. Consequently, the youth are more aware of their power, and their demands
are more confident in attaining their desired supply from the world markets.
Tully identifies television as “the most powerful unifying and advertising force
among teenagers” and MTV (owned by Viacom) as the most popular network on
television in a global sense (Tully, 1994). In countries where media networks could not
be accessible before, there is now satellite TV, which is helping to “unify patchworks of
domestic markets (Tully, 1994). So ad campaigns can now target domestic markets in
many more countries than before (Tully, 1994). In addition to all this, Tully reports that
the youth all over are aware that MTV can make popular music groups from almost any
country. He mentions pop groups like Ace of Base recording and selling in the U.S and
worldwide, originating all the way from Sweden. Hence, if MTV says something is
popular, the global youth will go after it.
This leads onto the next point concerning the media. According to Tully, “nothing
is molding common tastes around the world more than music and sports” (Tully, 1994).
What does this imply? In terms of music, it means that hip-hop music reigns right now
and because hip-hop fashion is “best described as loose-fitting urban street wear, close to
relax and sweat in” a new worldwide culture emerges where girls and boys are dressing
alike (Tully, 1994). Sports is sharing a similar influence especially when “Americans,
Europeans, and Latin Americans are exporting their games around the world” and
satellite TV is broadcasting sports like the NBA all over (Tully, 1994). Not surprisingly,
as Tully adds, “kids in playgrounds the world over copy [athletes’] moves and buy the
products they endorse” (Tully, 1994).
On a different tangent, yet still related to the media, there a re several advertising
techniques geared directly towards the youth that parents should begin to recognize. In
Andy Fry’s “Same kids more money” article, he notes that the bedroom is now becoming
increasingly, the center of activity for the youth (Fry, 1995). A survey conducted by
“SMRC Childwise” in 1995 reported that two-thirds of the youth had televisions in their
bedrooms (the implications of that are commented on later). The most watched channels
by the children especially were Cartoon Network, MTV, Nickelodeon, and the Disney
Channel (Fry, 1995). So because the advertising market knows that, they use such
channels to bombard the youth with products and services that they want them to desire
and then either purchase themselves or persuade their parents to buy for them. When
advertisers realized that TV was not mobile enough they began to produce youth
captivating reading mediums like comic books and teen magazines. Fry’s article adds that
though kids spend millions of dollars on the latest kid movie, for teens, magazines are
more of “a social thing” and magazine purchases are on the rise by thousands every year
(Fry, 1995). Advertisers who believe that magazines are the way to capture the youth
justify that “magazines are still the most transportable and throw-away format” since the
youth make more decisions about fashion and products while on the school grounds or on
the school bus (Fry, 1995).
But besides the media, there are other advertising tactics used to latch on to the
youth’s spending power. The cosmetics industry, for example, is smart enough to attract
the mothers’ tastes along with their daughters. Hendarwan, in her article, “The Junior
League: The youth personal care market is set to pass the overall industry in terms of
growth,” reports that cosmetic markets as well as their advertising are based around a
very thoughtful strategy that is sure to bring in tremendous cash flow. That strategy is
tied to a theory termed “bipartite purchasing decision” (Hendarwan, 2001). It figures that
if the merchandise is as attractive to the parent as to the child, hopefully, they both will
make a purchase. This strategy seems to be widely used in the cosmetic industry since
there does not seem to be a difference in make-up that teens buy and their parents buy.
Hendarwan adds that though the teen and tweens demographic is decreasing, because of
their increasing spending power due to “rising allowances and better-paid part-time jobs
they spend an estimated “$5.6 billion” every year on cosmetics (Hendarwan, 2001). This
amount accounts for 20 percent of the entire cosmetic industry. This latest statistic is
quite similar for countries in Europe like France and Germany (Hendarwan, 2001).
Consequently, parents, especially mothers when it comes to such products, need to know
that not only their children’s tastes are targeted, but theirs as well. So they might as well
expect that they could be spending twice as much money on a single product.
Food packaging and the idea of toys with meals are other forms of tricking the
youth as well as their parents, of their money. The difference is that it is geared more
directly towards the children themselves. Advertisers who use such strategies recognize
two main factors. The first being that they recognize today’s kids as being “the most
financially independent and brand-savvy young generation in history” (Rayes, 2002).
And secondly, mothers and kids have more of a partnership than an authority-child
relationship therefore, parents are eager to keep their kids happy and one of the main
ways to do that is to give in to their requests (Rayes, 2002). Sonia Rayes in her article
“Into the mouths of babes-food marketing,” points out that compared to the 17 million 514 year olds in the U.S in 1990, there are now 41 million of these individuals (Rayes,
2002). She adds that these 41 million kids spend an estimated $10 billion just on food
and beverages. Now, advertisers are also aware of these statistics, and here are nine
tactics mastered in getting kids to buy food products.
The use of color is the first strategy. According to Rayes, “there is now an
‘extreme’ element to food,” and by that she means “a cookie is hardly a cookie anymore
unless it turns mouths blue” (Rayes, 2002). Marketers understand that kids love color
and that they like to stand out against the adult demographic. Hence they give the kids an
opportunity at their own unique identity by coloring their food. The second strategy,
which is also tied to that line of thought is to “’age down’ traditionally adult products” by
marketing yogurt in a bottle that a kid would more likely drink from as compared to an
adult (Rayes, 2002). Of course, that bottle would have to have child related pictures on
the outside labels along with a lot of color. The third strategy, also linked, is to allow kids
to “express themselves artistically” with food through the use of EZ Squirt ketchup for
example, that again changes color (Rayes, 2002). The fourth tactic is not directly tied to
color, but it is tied to kids’ programs like Disney, so who knows if this is not also a color
issue. The idea here is to allow kids to share in the imaginative stories of Disney by
shaping cereals, for example, in the form of Disney characters (Rayes, 2002). The fifth
strategy allows kids to feel empowered by what they are eating. So for example, an ad
campaign would run, “Pop-Tarts empower kids” (Rayes, 2002). Another strategy is for a
product company to advertise its product through kids’ most watched television shows
like Sesame Street to bring in more sales (Rayes, 2002). The seventh tactic is to offer
toys along with food items purchased, and that is quite a widely used in the fast-food
industry today (Rayes, 2002). Strategy eight is also linked to “fast” in the sense that food
items have to be packaged in a manner conducive to fitting in a bag pack or being toted
by a highly mobile young generation (Rayes, 2002). Lastly, because of that highly
mobile lifestyle, food marketers are creating snacks that can be fixed in the nick of time,
but are adding logos like “Real Pasta, Real food, Real fast” to these snacks (Rayes,
2002). Seriously, with advertisers making it easier for kids to want food items, parents
are almost helpless to such ambush.
One more advertising technique geared directly towards the youth is the method
of using other youths (especially celebrity youths) to advertise products like athletic
footwear. This method is sure to foster bonding between those who are advertising it and
those who want it. For example, Little Bow Wow is quite famous in the hip hop world
that the youth is already a part of, and if he is in a commercial advertising NIKE shoes is
the way to go, all the youths interested in or influenced by him are going to take him up
on his peer-to-peer advice. The same would apply to any age bracket.
Lastly, there is no ignoring the Internet as alluded to earlier. Last year, research
conducted on tweens alone reported that “nearly 49 percent of tweens live in households
that have internet access” and that percentage is expected to increase up to 75 percent by
2005 (Rayes, 2002). When kids visit the cartoon network game sites, besides the games
that they play for free, there are surely other games advertised on there, which may link
to related books, movies etc, that they simply must have. Plus, pop-up ads are not gender
or age biased, so kids are bombarded by those too when on the net.
Moving on, to summarize all these facts previously stated—the consumer power
of today’s youth is almost limitless across a very wide span of products and services.
That power is strongly based on the increasing value of materialism. Materialism is
considered a family oriented problem/value that can be monitored. The youth are more
materialistic and more consumerist since they are in fact, the trend setters of most
consumer markets, especially technology. The youth also have more disposable income
that allows them to spend on the trend products that they inspire. The media exerts most
of the pressure on the youth to be avid consumers, with television being the most
unifying of them all. Tied to that influence is the ever flamboyant entertainment industry,
which is most effective in marketing what is cool and what is not. Lastly, there are very
strategic techniques used by market advertisers geared towards getting the youth, and
their parents to spend. The next step is to ask, what are the implications of all these facts
for society, the family, and FCS professionals?
The implications for society are few, but are rooted more in concerns expressed
by certain institutions such as the schools. Though, before getting into that, the positives
for global society is one, a more mobile and thriving economy since more consumer
spending is related to a better economy. The second is that the youth are being shown a
new respect when there are hundreds of companies following their every move to predict
new markets and sales reports. A third is that their needs and wants are being met, and
the fourth, they are contributing to mass technological and other advancements in their
future.
The concerns are a bit louder, if not more important than the positives. In Nancy
Needham’s article “Material Kids: are on the march,” she states some of these concerns
expressed by school staff (Needham,1994). One of their main concerns is that kids are
adopting “phony values” or “[operating] under a false value system” (Needham,1994).
The staff points out that fashion, the latest brands in gadgets and other products shape and
organize cliques and other grouped identities at school. So if some students are wearing
the outdated stuff, they are teased, harassed and treated as outcasts (Needham,1994). A
teacher points out that “some kids will steal from someone they perceive as weaker to get
the right item” (Needham,1994). She adds that one of her students was even held at
gunpoint before he had to give up his bomber jacket (Needham,1994). The list of
concerns goes on. A counselor adds that “honest kids work for what they have, but they
are working longer and later, which causes absenteeism and tardiness”
(Needham,1994).This counselor also points out that those who work, but are average and
below average, never seem to organize their time well and hence are less able to focus on
their school work (Needham,1994). That could be why in Goldberg’s report in Table 2
shown earlier, highly materialistic youth do not like school (Goldberg, 2003). With
having to joggle work to attain material needs and school which seems a tiring route to
getting them what they want, one can understand why school is not their favorite. Plus,
the high correlation that they are not going to perform well at school if they do not know
how to organize their time, is not going to help any. The school staff in Needham’s article
adds that the whole youth consumerism movement is just simply taking away money that
the youth do not really have, and that it is just a portrayal of “disadvantage kids and their
parents [trying] to buy status” (Needham,1994).
One way schools say they are dealing with these new and powerful consumers is
by incorporating lessons on how to spend and save money wisely, and how to think longterm as well as short-term. They do this based on the assumption that these kids are
ignorant of the intelligent way to be healthy consumers. Thus one method they use is the
‘jar method” which teaches kids how to save. Each kid gets four jars and labels them,
charity money, fun money (short-term), money for things and places (short-term), and
money for big goals (long-term) (Needham,1994). Hopefully, after doing this for a while
they learn to appreciate the value of money.
Considering how vulnerable these youth are to consumerism, even more so than
adults are, it is incumbent upon our policy makers to create laws that protect them, and in
some countries several laws are put in place. Because of Goldberg’s studies, for example,
the age limit for purchasing cigarettes in Canada has gone up (Goldberg, 2003). In Britain
the Market Research Society (MRS) has guidelines on researching teens. It is called the
MRS code of conduct, and one of the guidelines is to interview kids in full view of a
parent/guardian after having obtained permission from the parent etc to carry out the
interview (Cowlett, 2001). Hopefully in the future, some guidelines can be put in place to
dictate a certain limit on products that can be geared towards the youth, or certain
methods of advertising to the youth. Maybe, governments could also come up with
national programs geared towards making the youth more money savvy rather than brand
savvy. This is also where FCS professionals in office could contribute through parent
programs.
This leads to the next question. What are the implications for the family? The
main point here affecting the family is that the youth’s consumerist power is taking away
from the parents’ power/authority. As said in one of the articles mentioned earlier, the
traditional belief that kids are only to be seen and not heard is not a modern reality. The
youth now have a say because they now earn money working part-time or full time. Even
if some of them are not earning money, they have a major impact on persuading their
parents to purchase household or private items. So they have a say one way or the other!
What can parents do about that? First of all parents have to accept the fact that the
youth now have a say, and the money to back it up, and then most importantly, they have
to respect that new facet of society and work towards acquiring and maintaining healthy
consumerist habits. In other words, the family should act as a unit to control materialism
and money expenditure.
One way to go about that is to have off-and-on family meetings or discussions
about their sources of income and how it should be spent. According to Diane Harris in
her article “Youth Matters: A resource for parents to connect with children,” kids need to
be “told about family finances” or else they imagine what the finances are like, which is
not a good thing (Harris, 2003). She emphasizes though, that with all this family finance
talk, the children should not be overburdened, but parents can ask kids to help them come
up with ways in which to reduce expenses (Harris, 2003).
At various age levels, Harris notes, the youth have a certain level of knowledge
about money, and there are several things parents can do to develop an appreciation for
the value of money in their children (Harris, 2003). Harris states that from ages 3-5 kids
already understand that “nickels, dimes, and quarters are valuable and can be traded for
stuff at the store” (Harris, 2003). They have a literal view of money which is “the bigger
it is, the more expensive it must be” (Harris, 2003). Harris suggests at this stage to play
“let’s pretend” games using make-believe money to begin teaching the kids how to use
money (both to spend and to save) (Harris, 2003). She adds that parents should model a
careful style of shopping to their kids and converse with them about certain choice items
while shopping.
The other age group Harris mentions is those 6-8 years old. According to her, by
that time they can estimate the costs of certain purchases and can also estimate the correct
change that they should receive (Harris, 2003). She says that at that age it is o.k. to
introduce the kids to an allowance since it is “the primary way kids learn to manage
money” (Harris, 2003). Harris later points out that gradually, as the kids get older parents
can increase the allowance based on what the kids might need, and that they should try to
keep this allowance at the set amount. She continues to advise that if the kids blow the
full allowance on one item, parents should refrain from dishing out more cash until the
time for the next allowance (Harris, 2003).
More advice from Harris to parents is that they can create extra chores around the
house to allow their kids to earn more money if they need it, but that some chores should
already be mandatory even before doing that (Harris, 2003). So cleaning one’s bedroom
should not be a part of that “extra” work. Her last two suggestions in the article are to
avoid saying “we can’t afford them” to kids, but instead, showing them how to earn extra
money, and two, instead on spending so much on paid leisure, families should take
advantage of “the many no-cost recreation programs in their communities” (Harris,
2003).
Another concern for the family is the scary fact of more than two thirds of the
youth having a television set in their bedrooms – a fact presented earlier. Maybe parents
could limit television sets/viewing to the living room area where they can more closely
monitor what their kids are being bombarded with. Reports show that even after a ban is
placed on TV viewing in their bedrooms, the youth will revert to watching adult
programs (Fry, 1995). If not that, parents can place and enforce a limit on the number of
hours of television viewing since the more they sit before the TV, the more acculturated
they become to what is on there. Thirdly, parents can make more time for their kids and
reverse the incline to revert to the bedroom as the center of activity as Fry mentioned
earlier (Fry, 1995).
One more step of action on shaping consumerist behavior in their kids also along
the line of setting limits would be to monitor and set limits to what their kids can and
cannot purchase or own.
So in summary, parents have to teach money values, be good consumer models to
their kids and set reasonable limits on consumerist behavior. That way, they still maintain
some of that traditional power, but in a more democratic way.
Moving on, the last question asked is, what are the implications of all this for
Family and Consumer Sciences professionals? Well, the main one is knowledge. FCS
professionals have to educate themselves and keep updated about information such as
that which is presented in this research essay to be well equipped (informed) to help
families help themselves. After all, in the end, no matter what the twist in our ever
changing society, capacity building is the way to remain on top of it all.
A knowledge base which is crucial here in regards to this paper is types of family
structure and parent-child communication patterns in relation to consumerism, and two,
ethnic family attitudes towards consumerism.
Addressing the first part of the knowledge base, Lachance et al in their journal
article “Family structure, parent-child communication & adolescent participation in
family consumer tasks and decisions,” focus on the single-parent family (Lachance et al,
2000). Their purpose for looking at the single-parent family is due to the fact that it is the
fastest growing non-traditional family structure in the U.S right now (Lachance et al,
2000). Lachance et al came up with a hypothesis that states “there is a relationship
between family structure and parent-child communication as relates to consumer issues”
(Lachance et al, 2000). Their findings report that to compensate for a missing parent,
teens especially are consequently more involved in the family decision making with
regards to household purchases as well as leisure activities. In the Family and Consumer
Sciences Field, this decision making is referred to as “family consumer decisions”, and
Lachance et al define it as “those decisions that concern the choice of goods or services
that are to be bought for and used by more than one member of the household” (Lachance
et al, 2000).
In their reports Lachance et al also found that 70 percent of their study sample of
single mothers were employed, and this fact forces single parents to purchase “more
ready-made meals and household services” (Lachance et al, 2000). Hence the effect of
more youth making store/supermarket purchases while their parents are at work or
otherwise occupied. This role of consumer management that the teens take on in the
single-parent household certainly gives them a chance to “acquire relevant experience”
according to Lachance et al, but they stess, it has to go hand in hand with a conceptual
style of parent-child communication as opposed to a social style. The former is more
effective in that it is does not only promote “task sharing… but participation in household
decision making” as well (Lachance et al, 2000).
Addressing the second part of the knowledge base, it is essential that FCS
professionals know that different ethnicities may have varying attitudes towards shopping
or consumerism (Shim et al 1996). Shim et al in their essay “Hispanic and Native
American adolescents; an explanatory study of their approach to shopping,” report some
interesting findings based off a study conducted at a high school in a southwestern state
in the U.S. The study was mostly concerned with the “consumer socialization” of youth
from Hispanic, Native American, and White Americans. The term refers to “the process
by which young people develop consumer-related skills, knowledge, and attitudes” (Shim
et al, 1996).
The findings describe that Hispanic Americans expressed more enjoyment of
shopping than the two other ethnic groups and approached shopping more like a
“recreational/social pastime” (Shim et al 1996). They also tried not to use coupons to
avoid the impression that they cannot afford to pay the full price of something (Shim et al
1996). Lastly, they were much more brand loyal than the other two ethnic groups (Shim
et al 1996).
The Native American teens who were researched on the other hand, leaned more
towards an “overpowered approach to shopping,” (Shim et al 1996). This means that they
were more “impulsive and confused” when shopping because they were not used to
having so many choices presented before them, especially as so many of them came from
rural communities (Shim et al 1996). Shim et al relate these findings to the ongoing
attempt of most Native Americans to “reconcile their sub cultural goals with mainstream
cultural goals” (Shim et al 1996).
White Americans, as was expected, leaned toward a more “utilitarian approach to
shopping,” meaning that they were both “quality and price-conscious” than the two aforementioned ethnic groups (Shim et al 1996). Other general findings indicate that White
Americans are more likely to retrieve consumer information/influence through reading
material, and are less likely to be influenced by the media on such issues than Hispanics.
Though, as Shim et al point out, Hispanics do use print material for consumer
information more so than the other remaining ethnic groups.
With such information on ethnicities and their approaches to consumerism, FCS
professionals can gear consumer planning programs more appropriately towards the
needs of particular ethnic communities. Then too, they can better help individual families
improve their consumerist behavior.
In conclusion, Due to all the research data alerting families of a new power , and
due to the fact that our families, institutions, and certain sectors of society as a whole
have concerns, Family and Consumer Sciences professionals have to take this matter
quite seriously. We have to come up with a plan to evaporate some of society’s concerns
that the youth’s consumer power and materialistic tendencies are going to result in a
decline in other values like caring, sensitivity, empathy and generosity. Most importantly,
we have to also, educate entire families to be more frugal rather than thoughtless with
their money. This will ensure that we have more informed parents in the future, and will,
in addition, empower us to advocate for change/help where, and when needed in the
consumer markets. For us to keep up with the times research definitely has to be
expanded to keep our knowledge base concurrent to such issues. And in the end, this
matter forces us to do even more towards helping families increase their capacity
building in the face of such vulnerable power as youth consumerism.
Citations
Bodnar, J. (2002) Discipline begins with Dad. Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, 56
p85 (2).
Cowlet, M. (2001) Research can be child’s play: (marketing to children).
Marketing, p35.
Foroohar, R. (2003) Don’t be lame: Tech companies track teens to figure out what’s.
cool, what’s hot and what’s next. Newsweek, p32
Fry, A. (1995) Same kids more money: (children & adolescents as consumers).
Marketing, p37 (2).
Goldberg, M.E, Corn, G.J, Peracchio, L.A, Ramossy, G. (2003) Understanding
materialism among youth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3) p278(11).
Harris, D. (2003) Youth matters. Parenting, 17 p215 (2).
Hendarwan, E. (2001) The junior league: The youth personal care market is set to
pass the overall industry in terms of growth (stats included) Global Cosmetic
Industry, 168 (5) p64
Lachance, M.J, Legault, F, Bujold, N. (2000) Family structure, parent child
communication and adolescent participation in family consumer tasks and
decisions (statistical data included). Family & Consumer Sciences Research
Journal, 29 (2) p125 (28).
Maclean. (1999) A Time of teen tyranny: (teenagers wield economic
power and affect industries). Maclean Hunter Canadian Publishing
Ltd, p43(1).
Needham, N.R. (1994) Material kids are on the march (students and spending). NEA
Today, 12 (8) p10 (2).
Reyes, S. (2002) Into the mouths of babes. Brandweek, 43 p26.
Shim, S, Gehrt, K.C. (1996) Hispanic and Native American adolescents; An explanatory
study of their approach to shopping. Journal of Retailing, 72 (3) p307(18).
Tully, S. (1994) Teens: the most global market of all. Fortune, 129 (10) p90 (1).
.