Teens are going to take over the world…aaaggghhh!!!

No kidding, I’m sitting here writing a paper for a marketing class when I read in my research that there will be 35 MILLION teenagers by 2010.

Holy crap!  That’s a LOT of acne medication!

(I have no one to blame but myself; I’m going to add 2 kids to that figure.  In 2010 I’ll have a 17-year-old and a 13-year-old.  Good gravy…)

The implications on marketing strategies is enormous; pair them with the graying of Boomers and Gen-X doesn’t stand a chance of getting anything in the way of products or services it wants since Gen-X will only comprise 16% of the consuming population here in the U.S.

Here’s where it gets interesting: imagine the average age of teenagers today is 13 to 14.  They’ve grown up in a nicely expanding economy, never disturbed until 9/11 with the threat of war or other major disaster.  They’ve had no reason to form a rebellion of any kind.  What happens when the hormones REALLY set in, when these teens begin to formulate real opinions of their own?  What happens in their heads over the next several years in the way of fallout from 9/11, if we end up in Iraq or wherever?

Will they create a new counter culture, mount a new rebellion?  Will many of them vote in 2008 and 2012, forming their political opinions now and through the presidential election of 2004?

Wow.

And these are the early adopters, the ones who think blogging and publishing open, dissenting commentary on the internet is like breathing, a constant and expected behavior.

Wow again.

Plant the seeds now and tend them carefully.  Let’s hope they grow up strong, in the moral and ethical sense.  These teens of ours could very well bring us the real changes we need – more women in public office, a real shift toward the left and Green Party.

Too bad us Gen-X types can’t do this ourselves, being stuck without critical mass between Boomers and these teenagers!

5:34:18 PM    comment []

RantsCounterRants:  Kookoo for Krugman…

Fabulous article by my favorite economist, Paul Krugman, in NYT.  He lays out all the questions I’ve been asking, makes such perfect sense that I can’t help but wonder about the sanity of the Bush Administration.

Why Iraq before North Korea?  Why no more deliberate response to North Korea, not even a single troop ship deployed in the general direction of the Pacific, no diplomats or negotiators moving that way?  Particularly since we may have caused as much of the current problem with the slowdown or abandonment of power projects by the U.S.-led KEDO group?

I’m watching McCain argue on Face the Nation this morning the only apparent rational reason so far for the emphasis on Iraq: the U.S. should nip Iraq in the bud before it becomes a North Korea, with nuclear power and arsenal.  He still can’t explain directly (I’m sensing some hedging), can’t defend why the U.S. is doing nothing more concrete and obvious in the world’s view.  McCain is trying to explain that both Iraq and North Korea are equal threats, though…

Which brings me back to the original question: Why Iraq before North Korea?

11:19:41 AM    comment []