Historically, the wood products business has struggled to successfully sell its products to the general public. With the rise of globalization and wood replacements, the sector needs new techniques to attract clients. Targeting younger clients who have entered the buyer’s market may be a strategy for increasing the industry’s market share and customer base. There was an investigation to understand the millennial generation (those born between 1980 and 2000). The final goal was to understand and know the perception of wood goods. In 2018, an online survey was issued to approximately 1,500 millennials, and 1,479 viable survey responses were received. The findings show that respondents had a positive impression of wood goods. Also, there is a possibility to improve ambiguous or unfavorable perceptions by presenting helpful data about wood products.
Millennials and Wood Products: A Generational Insight
Approximately 71 percent of millennials indicated paper and pulp to be the most popular wood product, followed by lumber (51%). Responses also showed that 84% of respondents perceived wood as beautiful, and 54% indicated it appealed to their sense of style. In terms of strength and durability, 46% of the respondents did not perceive wood to be as strong as steel. They were unaware of cross-laminated timber (74%) and its structural benefits. So they didn’t feel it was a safe product to use in tall buildings (54%).
Millennial females and all millennials ages 18–20 held particularly stronger attitudes about wood products. The information gained from this research can be valuable when developing strategies to promote products and attract new customers. In 2019, the millennial generation overtook the baby boomers to become the biggest generation in the US workforce and consumer market. The millennial generation is typically comprised of individuals born from the early 1980s to late 1990s/early 2000s. However, there is no current unified age range agreed upon by scholars that defines the millennial generation. Age range estimates date from 1979 to 1994, 1982 to 2004, or 1980 to 2000.
Millennials are frequently characterized quite differently from previous generations and are often labeled Generation Me (Twenge 2006). Adjectives used to describe them have ranged from open-minded, social, innovative, energetic, and ambitious to hedonistic, extravagant, fickle, lazy, shallow, and selfish. Millennials are also considered to be brand-loyal, socially conscious, and advocates for the environment. These unique characteristics also affect lifestyle and purchasing decisions. Generations have different experiences, which influence their values, preferences, and shopping behavior. Research shows that three different effects produce differences in attitudes and behaviors between various age groups: life cycle effects, period effects, and cohort effects.
Generational Influences on Attitudes and Behaviors
Life cycle effects are those generational differences that are due to a person’s position along the life cycle and are likely to change as the person progresses through the life cycle. For example, a person’s attitude toward voting is likely to change as they get older. A period effect is a generational difference that is the result of an event, circumstance, or social force that shapes attitudes and behaviors of the entire population, regardless of age. Period effects are believed to have lasting effects and do not change as individuals get older. For example, the feminist movement influenced how people of all ages viewed women’s roles in the workplace. Ten years from now, these views are likely to be the same.
Cohort effects are differences between generations. They are a result of historical circumstances that members of an age group may experience. Due to the current issue of climate change, younger generations may hold different views on sustainability and environmental protection. Previously, the baby boomer generation had been the driving force of the economy. However, as the boomers got older and more millennials entered the workforce, they became the force in the economy.
Marketing of sustainability
Many flooring businesses mislead consumers into believing that their products are sustainable through dishonest marketing techniques. This is a reference to the practice of “greenwashing”, in which businesses fabricate or exaggerate their eco-credentials to appeal to environmentally sensitive customers.
They use vaguely defined terms in deceptive marketing strategies. Businesses may refer to themselves as “green,” “sustainable,” or “eco-friendly” without offering any supporting documentation or certifications. Although consumers may find these terms enticing, they frequently lack a precise, verified definition.
They make use of irrelevant or false certificates. Certain businesses could exhibit certifications or seals that appear authentic but are not genuine. Additionally, they could make use of certificates that have nothing to do with the particular goods they are marketing.
Also, they frequently employ strategies meant to distract and perplex customers. Within the marketing domain, this can encompass:
- Hidden Information: Crucial information regarding the environmental impact of the product that is either omitted or concealed in the fine print.
- Visuals and Design: Despite the product’s noncompliance with sustainability and nature standards, it is still possible to use colors, imagery, and designs that recall these concepts.
- Deceptive Advertising: Commercials that use incomplete or misrepresented data to make a product seem more environmentally friendly than it actually is.
It might be challenging for customers to determine the veracity of these marketing initiatives. Evaluating a product’s genuine sustainability can be difficult due to the opaque and complex nature of environmental information. This is made worse by the absence of stringent laws requiring businesses to be totally transparent about their operations.
Greenwashing not only deceives customers, but it also erodes faith in businesses and genuine sustainable endeavors. Additionally, it might impede the advancement of true sustainability by taking resources and attention away from truly environmentally friendly alternatives.