Talking 'Bout My G-G-Generation

This will come as no surprise to anyone who read any of the comments on any of the previous posts about the Gap and clothing markets, but did you know that Gen Xers are not buying clothing? According to the lead of this WWD story:

It's the terra firma of the thirtysomething crowd, Generation X, the only American generation to spend less on apparel in the 12 months ended in October than it did a year earlier — a 4 percent drop, or $16.4 billion versus $17.1 billion, according to The NPD Group research firm. Apparel marketers are simply failing to retain the Xers' attention, let alone boost their dollar take from a group that's placing a rising priority on homes and families.

-- "Gen X Pinches Apparel Purchasing," WWD, Dec 14, 05

Sadly, I am not a subscriber, so I don't have the full article. Therefore, I can't begin to tell you what -- if any -- retailers weighed in on this phenomena. Going solely by the lede of the article, I do have to say, I am absolutely not surprised.

Decorating is the new clothing -- just take a look at Apartment Therapy. Or titles like Ready Made, Budget Living* and Cottage Living, all of which blend decorating how-tos with shopping and entertaining features. Or look at Dwell. Or Domino, which is a big, fat shopping enabler for any would be decorator.

Or you can look at the rising visibility of Crate & Barrel's spinoff, CB2. Or the fact that Williams-Sonoma's sales growth this year has been propelled by strong growth at its newer West Elm and Williams Sonoma home brands and steady business at its Pottery Barn brands. (See Q3 sales figures here,  Q2 figures here and Q1 results here)

The question that springs from this is why this group of people has shifted toward more domestically-inclined pursuits when compared to our forebears (Baby Boomers) and replacements (Gen Y).

Some would argue that we're historically disengaged from the swirls and eddies of commoditized, mass marketed pop culture, and we are at a moment when fashion is very much a pop culture artifact. I'm not sure I buy that: we are, after all, a pop cult-literate group. Pop Culture Junk Mail has always struck me as paradigmatic of Gen X. (And I mean that in the very best way, Gael!)

We could just be reacting to the Boomers, who were the original designer jeans generation. From "Young Adults Admire Boomers -- Sometimes" (AP, Dec 15, 05):

"No one is happy. Everyone is overworked, over-stressed. No one's spending the kind of time that they want with their kids or their spouses or partners. And I think part of that can be attributed to the boomers," says [Abby] Lovett, who's 27. "I wish they would've paid more attention to our lifestyles.

(Found via "Boomer Backlash" on Anastasia Goodstein's YPulse, which I love getting via e-mail daily)

An emphasis on lifestyle -- which is private and domestic, compared to the externally-focused world that fashion represents -- could be driving the generational nesting. This fits in with an earlier article from American Demographics (April 1, 04), "Gen X Wants No-Debt Home Ec," which reported:

As nearly 49 million members of Generation X, currently 27 to 38 years of age, funnel through their own great nesting stage, arbiters of aesthetics face a period of post-Boomer adjustment. Once, the media and Madison Avenue handed down the rules of style, and Boomers represented the last generation that tried to follow those rules as a matter of status. Now, as a generation once characterized as slackers and cynics settles into its own homes, Xers are trading off extravagant, homogenous, marketing-synthesized notions of "aspirational" personal and domestic styles, opting instead for more financially manageable, more personally flavored style statements.

In other words: a little Boomer backlash -- both in terms of consumer behavior and the lifestyle choices it reflects. See also "Gen X Dad," (Boston Globe, Jan 16, 05), which reported:

One 2000 study, by the Radcliffe Public Policy Center, found that the job characteristic most often ranked as very important by men between the ages of 21 and 39 was "having a work schedule which allows me to spend time with my family." At a time when people are being asked to work increasingly long hours, that same study found that some 70 percent of these men wanted to spend more time with their families and were willing to sacrifice pay to do so.

[...]  In [James Chung's] national survey of 3,000 parents between their mid-20s and late 50s, he finds Generation X couples are far more willing to sacrifice money for family time.

I refute you and your Brioni suits, bossman!

Now as to why we're not buying as many clothes as Gen Y ... I am only speculating here, but I think it comes down to two things: first off, once you're done buying for the house, you don't have the cash for the $200 jeans. And second ... if you're not built like a teenager, you're not going to be buying clothes designed and marketed for the people who are.

In any event, I'm spitballing based SOLELY on the article lede. If anyone can get me a copy of the WWD piece, that would be great.

* Which is so very much NOT budget anymore! I leafed through the December 2005 issue and was like, "Excuse me, since when is a $50 tagine from Sur La Table considered a budget gift? Or an $86 remote control? Or a $110 serving plate?" There is nothing fresh or remotely budget-minded about their gift guide. And don't even get me started on their "budget" fashion and decorating finds in "Let the Party Begin" (regrettably, those are not available online) -- which should have been subtitled "Look at what you can get at the mall!"

I realize that in some rarefied NY media circles, mall shopping does count as trawling for discounts, but explain to peasants like me why a $325 tuxedo jacket from Banana Republic is such a bargain, you know?

By the way, if you're looking for a decent gift guide and you don't have a few hundred to drop on each of your recipients, I recommend the recent work by one-woman shopping juggernaut Margaret Mason. She wrote "Fifteen Prudent Gifts for the Budget-Minded" for The Morning News, and her Mightygoods weblog's featured a number of delightful items this month.

Wow, this post has just gone all over the place.

Comments

[Anne]

I just checked Wikipedia, and there's not much agreement on the years the define Generation X, is there? The oldest Gen Xers are either 41 or 44 right now, according to the Wikipedia entry.

Which is so very much NOT budget anymore!

Or a $65 Gucci ice cube tray. Yes, really. I threw that issue on the bathroom floor and stomped on it.

I am very sorry I subscribed to Budget Living right before it became crap. It's more like Wannabe Fashionista Living now.

As I've whined here many times in the past year, I'm Generation X, and I'm not buying clothes because no one is marketing clothes to me. I don't want the same clothes as the college students I advise, nor do I want the same clothes as my mom. Anthropologie is the only chain I've heard of that targets its ideal customer anywhere near my age, but they assume that you have a income of $250,000 per yr. Ha!

I love clothes. I would spend myself silly on them, given the chance. But I'm not 19 and I'm not 55, so where's my retail experience?

[Lisa]

I just checked Wikipedia, and there's not much agreement on the years the define Generation X, is there? The oldest Gen Xers are either 41 or 44 right now, according to the Wikipedia entry.

Yeah. I should have noted that -- some people tag Gen X as starting in 1961, others in 1964. I guess it depends on whether or not the Kennedy administration can be said to have affected you personally in any way.

[Roger]

Shoot, personally I would have pegged Gen X as a 1970 start or so. I never really thought of myself as part of it. Post-boomers, yes. Gen X, no. But then, a feeling of disenfranchisement is part of the generation's definition, isn't it?