Subscribe to this blog 
What’s in it for me?
November 13th, 2009 by Mike Knutson
Yesterday, we presented readers with a basic economic question: Do our rural communities have enough resources to invest in being attractive to both Boomers and Millennials? I raised it after reading an article from Northern Great Plains, Inc.’s newsletter, which provides great tips for creating communities that are more attractive to young people (who we call Millennials).
Personally, I don’t think we have the luxury of creating communities that are attractive to everyone. Communities need to figure who is the best target market (boomers or millennials) and develop a plan that creates a product these individuals want.
That said, I think it’s a mistake to ignore the community’s current residents. How would you like it if you were a senior living in a rural community that only did things for young people?
Can we have our cake and eat it too?
Sounds like I want to have it both ways, and in a way I do. What I’m saying is if your community development strategy is going to focus on attracting new young residents, just don’t forget about the people who are already living there.
To clarify, I’ve created the following list of ways that I think this can occur.
4 ways to include everyone
1. Develop community events that appeal to people of all ages. For example, if you want to appeal to a younger demographic by hosting a festival, consider how it will be attractive to all generations.
2. Help older generations learn how to use social media tools. Many communities are building marketing strategies around Facebook because the tool has appeal with younger generation. You can help bridge this gap by holding some classes that help people create their own Facebook profiles.
3. Create places where people of all generations can gather for informal conversation. It’s that third place concept that we’ve talked about so much. If you are working to attract young people, you may want to develop a coffee shop; but make sure that it still has appeal to older generations as well.
4. Encourage leadership of all ages. If all ages are represented on the city council, county commission, and the commercial/community club boards, then the decisions made are more likely to benefit all age groups
So keep in mind it’s perfectly acceptable for communities to develop projects and activities that focus on a specific group, like millennials. But at the end of the day, these projects and activities will be more successful if the existing residents can answer “What’s in it for me?”
Tags: baby boomers, millennials
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (
2 )
November 15th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Something I believe I am fundamentally not seeing here…
Why exactly is there the emphasis of trying to preserve these communities to begin with?
Let me present an analogy…
By asking “How do we preserve rural communities and attract young talent and so on?”, I sort of see it like this:
“How do we make the horse and carriage faster so it can compete with automobiles?” back when Henry Ford was introducing his model T and so on. Or the RIAA asking “how are we supposed to sell albums in the age of selective music downloading?”
Our economy here in the US is no longer based on assembly-line manufacturing which employed hundreds of thousands of physically able, but unintelligent Americans. And between outsourcing, automation, and general innovation, the reason for people to even exist in rural areas is further and further decreasing.
Why exactly is this an urgent trend that needs to be *fought*? So long as there’s a demand for something from the rural community, they will have some reason to exist. But if that demand goes, then why should we try and go out of the way to put rural communities on life support?
November 17th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Unwittingly, you raise a good point in your comments above: To succeed rural communities must identify their competitive advantage and then base their strategies for growth upon that advantage. Harvard professor, Michael Porter provides that insight in The Competitive Advantage of Nations.
While rural communities are responsible for figuring out their competitive advantage and subsequent strategies, our political leaders are responsible for developing the infrastructure that communities (both urban and rural) need to succeed. (Here I use a broad definition of “infrastructure” that goes beyond the traditional “built” infrastructure used by most people outside the community development field.)
Unfortunately, most of the infrastructure improvements in recent history have benefited urban areas. These investments have left rural places at a disadvantage. While most of the writing on ReImagine Rural focuses on what rural residents can do for themselves, we do occasionally divert our attention towards macro issues that diminish what we can accomplish ourselves.
While I appreciate the creative class writings of Richard Florida, your analysis of it ignores the economic and social histories of cities. Reach back to the Middle Ages and we see a depopulated Rome in far worse conditions than present-day Detroit. Rome made a comeback, and I suspect Detroit will as well — if they transform themselves with a new competitive advantage. I highlight this example to emphasize that the demise of a place (urban or rural) is not inevitable. Economic, political, and social conditions change. And at no time in history do conditions appear to be changing faster than today.
More recently (1970s & 80s), Americans (included the “talented” you identify yourself with) abandoned cities like NYC, Minneapolis, and Chicago, leaving behind huge tracts of dilapidated, dirty and dangerous neighborhoods. Luckily, some people had passion for those places when everyone else took the easy route to the suburbs. Luckily they stayed and fought to transform these blighted urban places. Their passion, combined with changing urban policies helped bring about the urban atmosphere and economy that you enjoy today.
And perhaps that’s all we are asking for here. We believe rural communities are a part of the mosaic that has made our country great. We believe that they offer great advantages (ie – great places to raise families, to experience community, to learn how to participate in a democracy, etc…) that are too often overlooked. We desire to stay, and work for a better tomorrow. And we believe it is unfair for others – like yourself — to write us off and call us names.
Competitive advantage, innovate, change with the times? Absolutely! We have much to work on, just as our urban counterparts.
So why save rural? I’ve been thinking a great deal about that since reading Hollowing out the Middle. Just last week, I had a great conversation with Karl Stauber on that very subject. He recommended that I read an article he wrote several years ago for the Kansas City Federal Reserve titled “Why invest in Rural America – And How?” In it Stauber lays the groundwork for intellectual discussion about the future of rural places. It is worthy of conversation and debate.