Agree, doesn’t really make sense to engage with them since the original post and discussions are somewhere else. I think the point of these bots is to create more content to attract new people here on lemmy
Marketing Exec here. I specialise in generation segmentation. I wrote this recently for my employer:
Gen-Z
Are recession learned, young, with low disposable income and low income. They are in education, are career starters and living at home.
They are lonely, single, and spend 10 hours p/day online (hyper online consumption / always logged in) with the least attention to ads. They are engaged in people-discussing-products-and-services, prefer information over ads, and use ad blockers.
Otherwise known as ‘digital natives’, Gen-Z are highly socially consciousness (body image, cyberbullying, mental health) and highly environmentally conscious. They have a strong focus on saving and responsible spending and are quite frugal. They are study and career minded and prefer money over perks and benefits in employment. They dislike having their time wasted. They have a low attention span.
Millennials
Have long-term debt (mortgage/car/student loan) and have young children. They are not at full purchasing power, are the most adaptable generation ever to pre-and post-technology, are delayed in marriage, delayed in independence, and came of age through globalisation and economic rollercoasters.
They prefer texting/messaging, are high use smartphone users, and sleep with their phone. They are the most active and health conscious generation, environmentally conscious, and the highest consumers of web content. Learning is more compelling than buying to Millennials as they spend an average of 4 hours p/day online or with phone/apps. They prefer advisors, advice, and opinions over a corporate story. They prefer sharing economy (access not ownership). Prefer e-commerce as entertainment.
Millennials are impatient, have reduced brand loyalty, and are extremely tech savvy. They are researchers of ideas, thoughtful and seeking expertise, and love to collaborate and help companies or causes achieve. Online they use acronyms, slang, and respond to authentic but complex language. They prefer honesty and being empowered. They are price aware.
I’ve done them all. It’s my job. Here are the big ones but I could go all day on demographic, psychographic, and technographic segments.
Gen-X
Are nostalgic, middle-aged, family oriented, individual, busy/stressed, and time poor. They are consumers of media and marketing in the evenings and enjoy peace of mind. They apply high value to security and protection, are customer-service centred and insist on value. They are brand loyal.
Entering peak career/positions of power, Gen-X are financially stable. They are newly empty nesters with adult children. They are homeowners with high purchase power.
Gen-X thoroughly research products, rely on businesses as providers of information, and are the highest online information seekers with moderate use of smartphones (3 hours p/day). They prefer text and email and are high social media consumers.
Boomers
Are informed shoppers and prefer reliability of products. Boomers are independent, goal/solution oriented, are value and ROl orientated, careful buyers, and confident. They are less tech savvy (slow adopters of change), and don’t like or understand online trends and language. They prefer helpful and valuable content, no slang, and have a high focus on luxury. They have an attitude of 'the customer is always right’, and have a high use in their children as tech advisors. They are very brand loyal.
Boomers have a high disposable income, work hard and have an excellent work ethic. Now retired or entering retirement, they have grandchildren, are homeowners/investors with very high purchase power. Boomers are the wealthiest generation, set to bequeath $224B in the next two decades.
With a strong focus on health, Boomers spend to be comfortable, are big spenders, and prefer traditional relationships with business and necessary contact. They are high Facebook users, prefer clear and concise language, and spend 5 hours p/day on smartphones. Boomers are print and broadcast media consumers. They are traditional.
Silent Gen
Silent Gen are extremely loyal and expect loyalty in return. They are disciplined, family/community centred, prefer conformity, give and expect respect, are traditional, resilient, determined, very health conscious, and time rich.
Now Grandparents / Great Grandparents, they are retired, downsizing, and social. Silent Gen have an easy-life preference, seek value, are very frugal, and are budgeters. They are almost exclusively analogue and highly self-sacrificial.
[Gen Z] have a strong focus on saving and responsible spending and are quite frugal.
I feel like the general stereotype is the opposite, that they’re big spenders without much regard for saving (or at least they’re spending what they can given their broke-youngster financial situation). I’m curious why you say the opposite is true?
I don’t personally know many people who are Gen Z (I’m a Millennial, and most people I know are Millennials, Xers, or Boomers). So most of what I “know” of Zoomers comes from things I’ve read, either social media conversations like this one or news articles/thought pieces. The impression I’ve gleaned from those is that Zoomers are not frugal: they’re Apple customers, chronic online shoppers (often for products like fast fashion that are individually cheap but quickly add up), and are spending big on experiences like travel and concerts. For example, another comment in the thread asserts that “[Zoomers] needlessly spend more money than their older generation counterparts [on technology because they replace rather than repair].”
Now I take these types of demographic assumptions with a grain of salt, especially having witnessed all the nonsense articles and conclusions made about my generation. However there is some logic behind the explanations I’ve heard for why Zoomers are spenders rather than savers. Such as, perhaps Zoomers are more focused on living (and spending) in the moment given their experience being deprived during their formative years that happened to fall during covid lockdowns. Perhaps Zoomers spend more frivolously because why bother save for a bleak future (“go ahead and splurge a little: it’s not like you’ll ever afford a house either way!” or “In the 21st century you can do everything ‘right’ and still easily end up failing, so why bother following the ‘right’ path?”) Perhaps it’s because we’ve created a world (at least in the US) where people are lonelier than ever and everything costs money: you can’t even hang out at the mall for free anymore because the mall was torn down last year, so you either spend money at another “3rd space” like a coffee shop, or you try to fill an emotional hole by purchasing things to make being stuck at home all the time more bearable (especially if you’re still living with your parents because you can’t afford to move out). Perhaps it’s because there’s more addictive stuff to spend money on that’s targeted at youth, like online streamers and pay-to-play games. Again I don’t know if any of this is true, but IMO it at least passes the sniff test.
However your comment asserts the opposite of what I’ve heard, so I was curious where you got your info from, especially since it’s presumably based in some kind of research if it was part of a work report. Did you survey Zoomers asking about their spending habits? Did you analyze credit card data? Etc.
This is a tear-off summary of a much bigger report created from multiple peer reviewed sources over months. I think from memory, the Gen-Z content had the fewest peer reviewed sources attached to it as a) there hasn’t been as much study done on Gen-Z because if they’re age (half aren’t even adults yet), and b) most of the studies done are based on change culture and online habits.
Gen-Z as wasteful spenders is an age biased assumption. Research suggests that their learned experiences through GFC, COVID, geo-political inability, environment, and a post-COVID economy has hardened their resolve, much like WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2 did for their grandparents.
I mean shit could change. They’re only 26 at the oldest so their data is evolving.
It’s funny to me that there’s a “Reddit” section on the fediverse where people just post complaints about Reddit. Just get over it already and move on.
It’s still helpful to talk about what’s going on elsewhere
see what we can do better
see what good features are worth adopting here
Calling out bad actions by other platforms. We don’t HAVE to help people that aren’t on the Fediverse, but there are a lot of experienced and knowledgeable people on here that can discuss issues and how we can address them
My 1981 Toyota pickup. It never ran 100% but it always ran. That thing lived in a perpetual state of almost broken. Oh and it was the ugliest mustard yellow color it was always so easy to find in a parking lot.
After the engine shat all its oil I sold the thing the guy rebuilt it then road tripped on a 6000 mile road trip.
The best part is it had a steel flat bed and no exhaust. I could merge instantly in the heaviest traffic. People would dive out of my way because they had no idea if I cared one bit about hitting them.
Yeah. It’s been discussed a fair bit. There are/were a few different projects doing this, with the intent of “jumpstarting” or “kickstarting” communities on Lemmy. Some of the larger instances defederated from them. I don’t feel like it’s a solid theory either.
Shrek 2 is mid as fuck and the cover of I Need a Hero was its only saving grace. I really don’t get why people ham it up as one of the best films of all time.
I love the first Dune book, and I love the goofy 80’s Dune movie, which was pretty close to the book in terms of getting a lot of the internal dialog in place. But I hated the new Dune movie. I didn’t like how sterile and empty they made the palace, or the weird anus mouth design of the sand worms. Or the silly use of balloons to help lift harvesters. I very much didn’t like how they made Lady Jessica an emotional mess, instead of being in control of her outward emotions, as she was trained to do.
They also screwed up the personal defense shields REAL BAD. The idea that the shields react to kinetic energy, so a fast moving project from a firearm would get stopped, but a slow moving blade would pass through. The fight near the end had people being killed by fast sword strikes by hitting the shields, it was just so jarring and lazy. They also completely misrepresented who and what the Sardukar are. Based on how many people loved the movie, I have an unpopular opinion. Though I found that most people who absolutely loved the movie hadn’t seen the original movie, or read the first book, so they didn’t know anything to color their impression.
Though I found that most people who absolutely loved the movie hadn’t seen the original movie, or read the first book, so they didn’t know anything to color their impression.
Can confirm. I haven’t read the book or watched the old movie and I absolutely loved the new one.
Heck, did I write this in my sleep? 100% my impressions as well. The ‘pretty but soul-less’ feel, the Lady Jessica constantly looking about to burst into tears, the glossing over things… A personal peeve was the conversation Leto had with Paul back on Caladan; don’t even remember what it was about, but remember grumbling out loud in the cinema because it was just so… one-dimensional. Something like ‘I know how you feel because I felt exactly the same way back in the day!’ Oooohhh buggerrrr ooffffffff! Where are the deep complicated powerful characters, the complex politics, the strong relationships and love? Nah, we’ll just blah blah…
It bothered me that the scale was barely conveyed. For example, I don’t think it becomes clear how massive the troop movement is when the Atreides take control of Arrakis. I think that would have been fairly easy to illustrate visually by doing a better wide angle shot of Arrakis in space with thousands and thousands of ships heading towards it. I mean, the scene with the ships emerging from the sea as the Atreides leave Caladan is nice, but it seems like it’s just the ruling family and their court moving - not a gigantic force that can permanently occupy an entire planet. But maybe I just don’t remember it correctly.
That bothered me a ton too. The movie gave the impression that JUST the Atreides and their entourage moved to Arrakis, the palace was so empty, it definitely lacked the grandiose scale the original story had.
I also feel like because the movie didn’t explain as much as the book or original movie did, people just assumed the new movie was profound and deep, and loved it because of it. I asked a friend who loved it but hadn’t read the book or watched the 80’s movie, who the Sardukar are. He answered that they were a religious order who were good fighters. Again, the new movie just doesn’t give enough context or answers to stuff.
I also can’t express how much I didn’t care for the new Worm design.
Agreed. The whole movie felt sterile, without any emotional involvement. I’ve read the books, saw the OG movie, the TV series, and all of them did the revolt against atriedes right. This movie plodded along so slowly, that I forgot they were fleeing for their lives. Also, Zendaya. I don’t understand her popularity. She’s got this weird squashed face so having her portray the love interest, Chani, is weird. I don’t get her as MJ in Spiderman for the same reason.
If you didn’t love the first one, I doubt you’ll like the others. I haven’t read all of them yet, but everyone I know who has read them all always started by enjoying the world of the first one first.
On Reddit, joke (usually bad joke, low effort meme or pop culture reference) comments were the absolute worst kind of spam that destroyed the readability of comment threads.
That sort of content belongs in its own space, not polluting places that are still worth reading.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.