Monday, September 13, 2004

Simplistic, enticingly wrong conclusions

I thought this was a great example of an article that is festooned with conclusions that when first encountered have a ring of truth but them but after a couple more second’s thought are obviously rubbish. The article is about the tastes in restaurants of different generations.

OK, let’s start with a false conclusion: “Once upon a time, way back in the 20th century, dinner out generally meant a leisurely three-course meal and a glass of wine, in quiet surroundings with unobtrusive service. Not in the new millennium. That's because youth must be served.”

Quickly followed by an equally daft statement but this time bolstered by a bit of academic credibility: “And what today's younger folks want out of a restaurant is not at all what baby boomers want.” What they want is 'Something Different' - with a capital S and a capital D," says Nancy Stephens, associate professor of marketing at Arizona State University.”

Then we have lots of good one-liners, like: What they (Gen Xers and Gen Yers) want can be summed up in one word: entertainment.

Finally some hard ‘facts’ about why they are different.


"It's all about socializing"
"They want to see and be seen - parading"
"Servers are a key part of the new socializing scene”
"Drinking has replaced dining for the younger demographic."

So what points am I making? Number 1 – the quality of the media’s reporting of anything to do with age or generational differences is pathetic. Number 2 - Every generation has to believe it is that much different from the one before. Perhaps they are, but proving it by using a distorted view of the past and selective examples of the present is not the way to do it. Dick Stroud www.20plus30.com

No comments: