'Gen Z’ is lazy targeting?

'Gen Z’ is lazy targeting? Why FMCG should think in behaviours, not birthdays

Ask a marketer which audience is top of mind and, nine times out of ten, it's Gen Z. It's easy to see why. Nearly 2 billion people born between 1997 and 2012, with spending power projected to hit $12.6 trillion by 2030 (GWI, "Does Gen Z Really Exist?"). The instinct to win them young and keep them for a lifetime is a sound one, and no one should apologise for chasing that prize.

But there's a subtle shift worth noticing. Somewhere between the headline and the brief, "Gen Z" can quietly move from being the start of the thinking to being the whole answer. It's an easy trap, and an understandable one, because the label is a useful shorthand. The trouble is that shorthand has a habit of hardening into assumptions that don't get revisited. And in FMCG, where so much rides on rate of sale and shelf-level decisions, those unexamined assumptions can gently steer good budgets in the wrong direction.

So it's worth pressure-testing a few, not to dismiss generational thinking, but to put it in its proper place. GWI's data gives us a useful starting point.

Myth 1: Gen Z don't watch TV

They still watch content on a TV set more than on any other device. It's true that over 60% stream on their phones, which is where the "Gen Z have abandoned the telly" story comes from, but the TV set remains their single most-used screen. What changes their viewing isn't really age. It's their living situation. As Gen Z move out of their parents' homes, TV comes back, just inside a broader mix of linear, Netflix, on-demand and YouTube on the big screen (GWI).

For FMCG, that's a useful reminder. It's tempting to read the headline and quietly remove broadcast from the plan. But TV still does a lot of the work of building the broad awareness that makes a brand easier to distribute and easier to choose. Worth keeping in the mix rather than ruling out.

Myth 2: Gen Z are the bargain generation

Cost-of-living pressure, resale and deal-hunting make it easy to frame Gen Z as relentlessly price-driven, so strategies often tilt towards discounts and value messaging. The data complicates that: just 36% of Gen Z describe themselves as price-conscious, compared with 45% of Gen X and 55% of Boomers. They're also less likely to hunt for the best deals or use comparison sites (GWI).

Price always matters, by category and by life stage, so this isn't an argument against value messaging. It's a nudge to be deliberate about it. Leaning on discount by default can train shoppers to wait for the next promotion and chip away at margin, and the value message may well be landing hardest on audiences you weren't even briefing for.

Myth 3: Gen Z are a completely distinct audience

Gen Z can look like a different species, but often only because of who they're being compared with. Set against Boomers, the gaps look dramatic; add Millennials and Gen X back in, and a lot of "uniquely Gen Z" behaviour turns out to be widely shared. 86% of Gen Z say their phone is their most important device, but so do 86% of Millennials and 82% of Gen X. Interest in healthy food sits around 40% across all three. Gen Z lead on skincare, but the gap to the oldest generation is only 11 points; even cruises separate the keenest and least keen generations by just five (GWI).

The point isn't that Gen Z are identical to everyone else, because they aren't. It's that the sharpest-looking comparison doesn't always reveal the sharpest opportunity. Sometimes the insight you've pinned to one generation is a behaviour you could be speaking to across several, which is no bad thing when you're trying to move volume.

Myth 4: "Gen Z" is one audience

This is perhaps the most important one. Inside that single label sit groups that barely resemble each other. Full-time working Gen Z are 269% more likely to drink alcohol regularly than Gen Z students. Those living with a partner buy far more household and early-parenthood products than those still at home. Higher-income Gen Z are 82% more likely to pay for a music subscription than lower-income Gen Z (GWI).

Most of that comes down to income, work status and household rather than birth year, and, to be fair, the same is true of every generation. For FMCG, it's a helpful prompt: the difference between briefing for "Gen Z" and briefing for the working, earning sub-group who actually buy your category regularly can be the difference between a campaign that resonates and one that's aimed at an average nobody quite matches.

Myth 5: Age is what defines people

Generational targeting assumes age is a meaningful part of identity. Ask people, and it barely registers. When GWI asked what defines them, age ranked 13th out of 15 factors, behind values and beliefs, personality, hobbies, life experiences, education and occupation. Values and beliefs sat top at 59%; only around 30% said age shapes who they are (GWI).

None of this means age is irrelevant, because it's a useful filter. But it's a reminder that people don't tend to see themselves through the lens of their birth-year bracket. If the messaging needs to feel personal, age alone is a thin foundation to build it on.

Myth 6: AI can just tell you who Gen Z are

Ask an AI tool for a Gen Z persona and you'll get a polished, confident answer in seconds. The catch is where it comes from. AI isn't interviewing anyone. It's drawing on what's already been written and repeated, and the open web tends to over-represent the loudest, most Western, most English-speaking slice of a global generation. Ask for "Gen Z investors" and you'll reliably get: male, crypto-aware, mobile-first, risk-tolerant. GWI's first-party data shows something richer: 41% are female, 61% describe themselves as creative, half are arts-and-culture enthusiasts, and they're more reachable through gaming and podcasts than finance influencers (GWI).

I'll be candid here, because we use AI at Finn every day and rate it highly. It's genuinely brilliant for speed. But the output to watch isn't the bit that's obviously wrong; it's the bit that feels right, reads beautifully and happens to confirm the assumption you started with. AI is a wonderful accelerator. It's a less reliable source of truth, and the difference is worth holding onto.

Where this leaves us

So, does Gen Z exist? As a population and a cultural reference point, absolutely, and it's a perfectly good place to begin a conversation. As a single audience you can build one strategy, one message and one channel plan around, on its own? Not so much. The label is useful; it's simply being asked to carry more precision than it can really support.

The fix isn't to abandon generational thinking. It's to let behaviour do more of the work. Demographics tell you who's in the room. Behaviour tells you who's actually reaching for your product, and what might make them reach for it again. And in FMCG, where distribution and rate of sale are won shopper by shopper, that distinction tends to be where the real opportunity sits.

It's the lens we lean on at Finn, and it's deliberately practical:

Start with the behaviour, then bring the generation in. What job is the product doing, and who's hiring it for that job right now?
Treat life stage and context as a real audience layer. "Working, earning, just moved in together" often tells you more about a basket than a birth year ever will.
Look into the contradictions rather than smoothing them out. The 269% gap inside "Gen Z" is usually where the interesting brief is hiding.
Use AI to go faster, and let first-party data and human judgement decide.
Make "generation" earn its place in the brief.

If it genuinely sharpens the work, keep it. If it doesn't, it's just shorthand.

For the £10 to 100m brands we tend to work with, scaling fast with lean teams, this is less a philosophical point than a practical one. There isn't the budget to spare on targeting that's a little off, so it pays to anchor the work in what actually drives demand.

None of which means we should stop talking about Gen Z. It's simply worth asking what we want the label to do for us, and being honest about where understanding the shopper has to take over.

Data drawn from GWI's report

"Does Gen Z Really Exist?"

< Older Post

Yellow basket filled with assorted products on a bright yellow background FINN FMCG

Where FMCG brands get growth wrong (and what to do instead)

By Richard Rawlins • May 11, 2026

There’s no shortage of good products in FMCG. Walk any aisle or scroll any DTC site and most brands are more than ‘good enough’ ingredients are cleaner, packaging is on point, positioning is sharper than ever. And yet, most of them won’t scale. Not because the product isn’t right, but because the fundamentals of how they approach growth are. At a recent session with Barry Dawber, Sales & Marketing Director at Jason’s Sourdough, we unpacked some of the patterns behind the brands that do break through. What stood out wasn’t complexity, it was clarity, the same principles, applied properly, still win. Here are three that most brands either miss or execute too late. 1. They try to win in someone else’s category This is the most common mistake we see. Brands enter a category and immediately start playing by its rules, same language, same cues, same claims. It feels logical, but it’s also exactly why they get lost. The brands that break through don’t just compete, they create a new category to win. Barry talked about how Jason’s created a new ‘premium everyday’ sub-category. That’s not just positioning, it reframes the entire decision, removing the trade-off and creating a new expectation. That’s what most brands avoid because it feels riskier, but in reality competing head-on with established players is the risk. At Finn, we push brands hard on this. If you can’t clearly articulate the space you’re creating, not just the category you’re in, you’re going to struggle to scale. 2. They try to scale before they’ve earned attention Everyone wants scale, bigger campaigns, broader audiences, more reach. But scale without traction is just expensive noise. The brands that build properly start much narrower. They understand a specific audience deeply, show up where those people already are, and build credibility from the ground up. Barry shared how Jason’s tapped into the clean eating movement early, not with overproduced campaigns, but through relevant, credible content and the right voices. It worked because it felt authentic to the people it needed to land with. That’s the bit most brands rush past. They either miss the moment or try to appeal to everyone with everything all at once. From our side, this is where a lot of the work sits, identifying where attention already exists and how a brand can show up in a way that actually earns it. Win a niche properly and scale becomes far more efficient. Skip that step and you’re constantly fighting for attention and relevance. 3. They ignore the basics (and overcomplicate everything else) For all the noise around new channels and tactics, the fundamentals haven’t changed. Growth still comes down to two things - are you easy to think of, and are you easy to buy? Too many brands over-index on one. You see brands with distribution but no demand, sat on shelf not moving and others with strong engagement but nowhere to actually buy. The opportunity is in doing both, consistently. As distribution grows, communications need to grow with it, not sporadically or reactively, but in a way that builds familiarity over time. It’s basic, but it’s also where most brands fall down. So, what does this mean in practice? None of this is revolutionary, but it does require discipline. Where to play and how to win? Define the space you can credibly own Earn attention in a niche with a distinctive and disruptive clarity before trying to scale it Build distribution and awareness in tandem, scaling A&P investment as distribution is earned At Finn, this is where we see the biggest difference between brands that scale and brands that stall, not in how much they do but in how clearly they prioritise. What’s next We’ll be continuing the conversation at our next event in June, if you’d like to be notified when registration opens you can sign up here.

Channel 4 Skills Content Creatives programme creative talent recruitment

2,000 Reasons talent can come from anywhere

By Chris Weston • October 21, 2025

Discover how Finn Agency partnered with Channel 4's Content Creatives programme to open doors for creative talent. Learn why diverse hiring builds better agencies.