This study explores how LGBTQ identities and expressions evolve across generations, emphasizing the impact of sociocultural dynamics. It introduces the concept of “Genderation” to capture the fluidity and plurality of LGBTQ identities among younger cohorts, challenging traditional binary frameworks. The paper delves into the complexities marketers face in authentically representing this demographic, urging for inclusive and sensitive communication strategies. It highlights the pivotal role of digital platforms in identity formation and advocates for marketing practices that recognize and celebrate the diversity within the LGBTQ community. The research calls for a broader, global understanding of these generational shifts and a deeper investigation into the intersections of gender and sexuality, offering insightful directions for future inquiry and practice.
CohlerB. J.HammackP. L. (2007). The psychological world of the gay teenager: Social change, narrative, and “normality”. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(1), 47–59.
DacumosN. (2006). All mixed up with no place to go: Inhabiting mixed consciousness on the margins. In SycamoreM. B. (Ed.), Nobody passes: Rejecting the rules of gender and conformity (pp. 20–37). Seal Press.
9.
DavilaJ.JabbourJ.DyarC.FeinsteinB. A. (2019). Bi+ visibility: Characteristics of those who attempt to make their bisexual+ identity visible and the strategies they use. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(1), 199–211.
10.
DiamondL. M.ButterworthM. (2008). Questioning gender and sexual identity: Dynamic links over time. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 365–376.
EdmundsJ.TurnerB. S. (2002). Generational consciousness, narrative, and politics. Rowman & Littlefield.
13.
FoucaultM. (1978). The history of sexuality (1st American ed.). Pantheon Books.
14.
GalupoM. P. (2018). 4 plurisexual identity labels and the marking of bisexual desire. Bisexuality, 2018, 61–75.
15.
GalupoM. P.MitchellC.DavisK. S. (2015). Sexual minority self-identification: Multiple identities and complexity. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 355–364.
GonzalezK. A.RamirezJ. L.GalupoM. P. (2017). “I was and still am”: Narratives of bisexual marking in the #Stillbisexual campaign. Sexuality and Culture, 21, 493–515.
19.
GosineA. (2015). Rescue and real love same-sex desire in international development. Institute of Development Studies, York University.
20.
GrigoriouJ. A. (2014). Minority stress factors for same-sex attracted mormon adults. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 471–479.
KieferB. (2018). Maltesers shines spotlight on misrepresented women in latest effort to diversify advertising. Campaign.
25.
LewisC.MehmetM.ReynoldsN. (2024). A narrative review of LGBTQ+ marketing scholarship. Australasian Marketing Journal, 32(3).
26.
LindA. (2009). Governing intimacy, struggling for sexual rights: Challenging heteronormativity in the global development industry. Development, 52, 34–42.
27.
MannheimK. (1952). The problem of generations. In MannheimK. (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
OakenfullG. (2024). The LGBTQ consumer market. In The SAGE encyclopedia of LGBTQ studies (2nd ed.). Sage.
30.
OakenfullG. (2005). The effect of gay identity, gender, and gay imagery on gay consumers’ attitude towards advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 641–642.
31.
OakenfullG. W. (2018). Lesbian consumers and the myth of an LGBT market. In GolombiskyK. (Ed.), Feminists, feminisms, and advertising: What’s the big idea? (pp. 103–123). Lexington Books.
32.
OakenfullG. W. (2019, June26–29) Identity, technology, and the respatialization of the LGBTQ+ marketplace [Conference session]. 2019 Macromarketing Conference, Cleveland, OH.
33.
OakenfullG. W. (2020). If you like then you better put a name on it: Gender fluidity, artificial intelligence, and the parsing of LGBTQ+ identities [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Conference of the Macromarketing Society (pp. 7–10), Bogotá, Colombia, 7–10 July 2020.
34.
ParkerK.IgielnikR. (2020). On the cusp of adulthood and facing an uncertain future: What we know about Gen Z so far. Pew Research Center.
35.
PeñalozaL. (1996). We’re here, we’re Queer, and we’re going shopping!Journal of Homosexuality, 31(1–2), 9–41.
36.
PetcheskyR. (2009). The language of “sexual minorities” and the politics of identity: A position paper. Reproductive Health Matters, 17(33), 105–110.
RoyD. (2014). Social media and gender identity. IRC’s International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Social & Management Sciences, 2(3), 11–13.
41.
RyderN. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843–861.
42.
SenderK. (2017). The gay market is dead: Long live the gay market. Advertising and Society Quarterly, 18, 4.
43.
SmithJ.KennedyA-M.VeerE. (2024). Queering rainbow social marketing: Ensuring equitable outcomes for rainbow communities. Australasian Marketing Journal, 32(3).
44.
StraussW.HoweN. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584-2069. William Morrow and Company.
45.
TwengeJ. M. (2014). Generation me - revised and updated: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled–and more miserable than ever before. Simon and Schuster.
46.
UpadhyahS.TuliN. (2024). From margins to mainstream: Identifying successful LGBTQ+ inclusive marketing campaigns in India. Australasian Marketing Journal, 32(3).
47.
WarnerM. (1999). The trouble with normal. Harvard University Press.
