To v or not to v, that is the generation

Forbes.com has an interesting article by Gartner principle analyst Adam Sarner, in which he explores a concept that he has dubbed "Generation V."   The V stands for Virtual, but has little to do with Second Life (although Second Life isn't excluded by any means.)  Instead, Sarner is writing about a segment of the population that is empowered by the democratization of technology and new means of communication.  And by "generation," Sarner isn't writing about a range of birth years either.

Here's how Sarner defines Generation V:

"Unlike previous generations, Generation V is not defined by age, gender, social demographic or geography, but is based on demonstrated achievement, accomplishments (merit) and an increasing preference toward the use of digital media channels to discover information, build knowledge and share insights."

The article covers plenty of ground, so give it a read, but in summary Sarner argues that anyone -- whether a so-called digital native or a so-called digital immigrant -- that creates and maintains digital personae (online profiles, virtual world avatars, etc.) in order to leverage new technologies to communicate across the boundaries of time and geography, create and distribute original content, and/or collaborate with one another is a de facto member of Generation V.  In turn, this new ageless "generation," is driving sweeping change in everything from popular culture to business and the economy.

What makes this notion compelling to me is that it separates technology-readiness from date of birth, rendering obsolete the still-too-prevalent marketer assumptions that all Millenials are made the same or "social media or gaming or mobile aren't for me because my consumers are middle-aged Americans."

You can't argue against the fact that the people born into a digital world exhibit different attitudes toward and behaviors with respect to many current technologies (social networking platforms, mobile, the web in general.)  But, conversely, you can't argue that the accident of birthdate necessarily defines technology and communications behaviors.  Does being born in 1988 automatically make you a new media super-user?  Does being born in 1958 exclude you from the digital revolution?

In a word, no.

Case in point -- I've had the opportunity to work with several different sets of college students over the course of the past year.  With only a few exceptions, these digital natives were almost entirely unfamiliar with much of what has been happening in social media.  Sure, they were on Facebook or MySpace or YouTube.   But many weren't even aware of blogging and podcasting; even fewer were actually doing one or the other themselves.  Twitter was a total mystery.  And when it came to virtual worlds, I was teaching them about what they are, how and why people use them, and where they may be going over the coming decade or two.  Were these students typical of their (age-based) generation?  I have no idea.  But given that we're talking about several different groups of students at several different well known universities, I suspect they are not exceptions to the rule.  Despite what commonly held wisdom would have us believe.

While I'm not looking to debunk the concept of digital natives, I do think that Gartner's Generation V hinges upon a more fundamental truth -- that attitudes and behaviors are far more relevant than birth year in determining future-readiness.  It accounts for twenty-something bloggers and teenage Twitterati, but also for forty-somethings with podcasts, Boomers with Second Life avatars and grandmothers and grandkids connecting with one another on video chat or inside Club Penguin.  And, importantly, it also distinguishes these new media actives from their inactive counterparts.

Lots of people talk about how Web 2.0 and other new technologies are blurring the traditional boundaries defined by time, place, gender and socio-economic status.  Finally, with Generation V, we consider the possibility that age might not be a defining (even divisive) factor but a relative non-issue as well.

Or maybe Gartner is way off-base and I'm misreading the signs too. I'd love to hear from you -- what do you think?