For years, marketers have leaned into generational labels as if they were strategic shortcuts: Baby Boomers, millennials, Gen Z and Gen Alpha. These labels have been used to tidy up decks, sharpen headlines, enhance search engine optimisation (SEO) scores and make audiences look neatly sortable. They are often used to justify marketing spend when strategies land, and used as an excuse when they do not.
However, a conversation with senior marketers and agency leaders paints a different picture. Leaders suggest that those labels are convenient cover-ups for attributes that need far more attention: behaviour, context, trust, pressure, aspiration and culture.
Their point is not that age has become irrelevant; it is that age, on its own, explains too little.
People may move through different platforms, rely on different proof points and discover products in different ways, but the underlying drivers remain strikingly familiar. Human connection, a sense of relatability and relevance, ethics and values, convenience and co-creation, and reassurance and belonging still do the heavy lifting.
Over time, and across generations, what seems to change is only the cultural texture and the context connecting consumers and communities to brands.
That shift matters, especially in the Middle East, where markets are fast, populations are diverse and identities can rarely be arranged on a PowerPoint presentation.
Campaign Middle East speaks to marketers and agency leaders who say that the time has come to stop treating generational cues as answers and start treating them as clues to raise better questions. The real job is to understand people in motion: what they are trying to solve, who they listen to, what kind of proof they need and how brands can fit naturally into the flow of their lives.
Beyond age as a shortcut
The clearest consensus is that getting rid of generational markers would not weaken marketing strategy; it would simply force better thinking. A good litmus test would be to imagine a world without any labels such as ‘Gen Z’ and ‘millennial’.
Instead of building campaigns on weak foundations of generational prejudices or assumptions, marketers would have to begin with a real situation, a real tension or a real need. That shift, leaders suggest, would make planning harder, but also sharper.
Jennifer Fischer, Chief Innovation and Growth Officer at Publicis Groupe Middle East, says, “If we banned ‘Gen Z’ and ‘millennial’ from decks we’d lose a convenient proxy and that would force everyone to work harder at deeper insights. Those labels rarely carry real behavioural value; they’re usually shorthand for something else: a tension, a cultural current, a moment of pressure, and a shift in status, trust or identity. Strip the labels out and marketers are forced to name the actual context they’re trying to tap into.”
Fischer argues that this kind of simplification often hides the more interesting truth.
The issue, she explains, is not whether a younger cohort exists, but whether the category tells marketers anything useful about the circumstances shaping their choices.
Fischer adds, “The truth is that a good strategy would survive the ban. Because when strategy is strong, even if it uses generational language, it will go beyond stereotypes to read the signals and earn relevance through depth.”
Sharath Premkumar, Chief Creative Officer at Trivium, agrees with the notion that once generational labels disappear, briefs become less about easy assumptions and more about the detail of everyday life.
In a market such as the UAE, where age alone tells you very little about background or outlook, that matters even more.
Premkumar says, “We’d have to think a bit harder, in a good way. Those labels are convenient, but they let us get a bit lazy. Take them away and you’re forced to think about real people instead of broad categories. You start asking better questions such as ‘What’s going on in their life right now?’, ‘What are they trying to figure out?’, and ‘What actually matters to them?’. It makes briefs feel more real and less like stereotypes.”
Other leaders explain that removing generational buzzwords would also strip out fashionable, empty language. Their point is practical: people of very different ages often come to the same service for the same reason. So, planning should start with the problem that the product solves, not the image wrapped around it.
Anna Migal, Marketing Director – EMEA and APAC at inDrive, says, “The first thing that needs to go would be our obsession with the ‘aesthetic’ and the ‘vibe’. We’d focus on what the product actually does. Take ride-hailing as an example: the truth is that a 20-year-old in Cairo and a 40-year-old in Casablanca aren’t that different. They both just want a safe, reliable car and an affordable ride. Once you strip away the generational buzzwords, you realise they both use inDrive for the same core reason: they want the freedom to negotiate a fair deal themselves.”
She takes the argument further, saying that segmentation becomes more useful when it reflects the lived experiences of people rather than their date of birth. Her point of view encourages marketers to group people based on the pressures they face or the outcomes they want – whether that is affordability, safety or convenience – rather than their age.
Building on this argument, Rory McEntee, Chief Marketing Officer at GymNation, explains the benefits of classifying and understanding consumers based on their behaviours, motivations and cultural signals rather than their age.
He says, “Banning generational labels would push marketers to focus on moments of intent – why people train, how they discover fitness content and what motivates consistency. You’d see planning around mindsets such as ‘performance-driven’, ‘community-seeking’ or ‘lifestyle-enhancing’ consumers instead of generational stereotypes.”
Same needs, different proof
Marketers and agency leaders agree that younger consumers do not behave like their older counterparts in many respects – but this truth does not justify generational tropes.
The more precise marketing insight is that while the problems faced are familiar, the journeys required to solve those problems have shifted. Trust still matters and so does value. But the path to achieving them both is now more social, more immediate and more visible than it once was.
Fischer says, “Younger decision-makers show different signals and purchase paths, but they’re not a different species. They grew up in a different context with algorithmic feeds, lower tolerance for friction and faster truth-validation through peers, creator credibility, demos and always-on information. That shifts what they expect from brands: they want less ‘tell me’ and more ‘prove it’ – with clarity and utility baked in.”
Industry leaders say that while younger buyers may be quicker to cross-check their worldviews and validate their feelings with friends, creators or communities before choosing a brand or a product, that does not
mean they have invented an entirely new logic of choice. It means that the traditional foundations of decision-making are now being expressed through different signals.
Migal says, “While fundamental needs remain the same across generations, the mechanisms of trust have shifted. Older generations often lean on established brand legacy, but for younger buyers, a polished brand image holds little weight compared with peer-to-peer validation.
She adds, “They prioritise real user reviews, recommendations from friends and raw, non-commercial influencer content over traditional advertising. This demographic is notably less loyal to a brand; they will switch providers instantly if a newcomer offers better transparency and genuine value. Ultimately, the purchase intent is the same, but the signals they require are rooted in social proof and radical honesty rather than corporate reputation.”
McEntee draws a similar conclusion about the path younger generations tread from motivation and discovery to brand choice. He explains that the desire for self-improvement or value does not disappear across age groups; what changes is where people encounter the brand and which proof points help them feel comfortable enough to make a decision.
McEntee says, “There are genuine differences across generations, but they’re often overstated. Younger decision-makers tend to rely more on social proof, peer validation and creator-led discovery before committing themselves to a purchase. However, the underlying drivers of trust, value, convenience and results are the same across age groups. For GymNation, a younger member might discover a class through TikTok, Snapchat or a creator review, while an older member might rely on referrals or proximity. The motivation is still self-improvement and value; the path to discovery is what evolves.”
Premkumar takes the conversation further, explaining that marketing jargon around youth can exaggerate even subtle differences that exist across generations. He explains that marketers now see more signals in real time and across more touchpoints – and that visibility can make even small changes look much larger than they actually are.
Premkumar says, “Yes, younger audiences move faster, they check with peers more, and they care about what brands stand for. But at the core, the signals are all still the same – people want to trust you, feel like you are relevant to them and get something out of you. We’ve just given the same behaviours new names. The real shift is that we can now see those signals coming to life in real time, across a lot more touchpoints.”
Attention is not the same as persuasion
Leaders also share a word of caution. They reveal one of the biggest mistakes marketers make in their media planning: confusing where people spend time with how they decide.
A channel may deliver reach, and a format may fit the rhythm of a platform, but neither automatically reveals whether reassurance, credibility or validation is required before the consumer commits.
McEntee says, “It’s far more about attention states than channels. Different audiences move through the same platforms but with different mindsets – scrolling for entertainment, searching for solutions or validating decisions. Marketers often confuse format preference with decision preference. For example, short-form video might capture attention, but the decision to join a gym still relies on credibility, pricing, accessibility and community proof.”
Fischer makes the same distinction from a different angle. She argues that a marketing metric about time spent on social media may help explain distribution, but it says very little about what persuades someone. That is why her team has been advising clients to look more closely at the quality of attention across formats, not just volume across channels.
She says, “Knowing that 66 per cent of UAE Gen Z scrolls social media every free minute tells you something about reach mechanics, not persuasion architecture. And format preference isn’t the same thing as decision preference. That’s why we’re increasingly operationalising attention as a metric. In the region, we already have some major clients using it, and we run cross-channel attention studies across social, TV and online video to guide the reach versus attention trade-offs and validate the business impact of attention-led optimisation.”
Premkumar injects the human element back into the equation. He reminds marketers that people do not stay in the same state of mind throughout the day. They drift between passive browsing, active consideration and a search for external reassurance. Good planning, in his view, recognises those shifts instead of assuming that a single content habit tells you everything about intent.
Premkumar says, “It’s really about attention; channels are just the backdrop. We sometimes assume that because people watch short content, they also make quick decisions, which isn’t true. If it’s an important purchase, people still slow down, do their research, and look for reassurance. The key is understanding what mindset someone is in: are they just scrolling, actively searching, or looking for validation from others? The reality is that people move between those modes constantly throughout the day and marketers must recognise that and plan accordingly.”
The algorithm is not the enemy
Growing up inside algorithmic systems has not made younger consumers unreachable. It has simply made them harder to impress with generic targeting, inflated claims or technological jargon that fails to improve the experience in any meaningful way.
Migal says, “Algorithmic literacy makes younger buyers far less responsive to traditional top-of-the-funnel fluff. They understand how the machine works, which creates a natural scepticism towards polished marketing promises. They don’t want to be targeted; they want to be empowered. At inDrive, our model is built on a transparent bid-and-accept mechanism rather than a hidden algorithm that decides the price, which helps us bypass that scepticism. We don’t hide behind a black box. In an era of algorithmic fatigue, that transparency is our most effective marketing strategy.”
Fischer and Premkumar both notice a similar pattern. Consumers who understand how feeds, hooks and promotional mechanics operate are quicker to spot anything that feels forced. Yet, they are not rejecting brand-led communication; they are simply stating the need for communication to be useful, credible and culturally natural.
Fischer says, “Algorithmic awareness doesn’t make younger buyers immune; it makes them more intentional. They grew up understanding the feed, hooks, partnerships and performance mechanics. So, yes, they’re faster at spotting manipulation and quicker to disengage when something feels engineered – especially if it’s irrelevant to them. What earns trust is receipts: transparent pricing, credible creators, real reviews and products that survive the screenshot.”
Premkumar adds, “People aren’t anti-marketing; they’re just quick to spot anything that feels too obvious or repetitive. They know how the system works, so the bar is set higher. But when something feels relevant or culturally on point, they engage with it – sometimes, even more. So, it’s not about beating the algorithm; it’s about not feeling like one.”
The time has come for marketers to build strategies centred on shared rituals, communities and decision loops, not age buckets.
Negotiation will remain a behavioural pattern that travels across generations. Agency advice must account for peer influence, identity tension, validation and the push and pull between tradition and modern life.
The overarching message is clear: age may describe an audience, but it is culture, behaviour and attention that explain how brands can earn a place in people’s lives. Ultimately, the brands that win are those that will show up in moments already charged with meaning – and then find a way to connect with consumers in a manner that is empathetic rather than engineered.
