I read this article about advertising to the Hispanic market over on mediapost and I just don’t get it.
Sure, the author is looking beyond 2010 to 2011, and is making what I feel are safe predictions for the hispanic market come 2011, but I don’t get the point of the article.
Actually, there was 1 piece of information that I thought was interesting, and that is that “in 10 years, 62% of all teens will be Hispanic,” a claim that someone in the comments qualified by saying:
While I always find these top lines helpful, you need to be careful with the details. In the “Polarization” paragraph, the author states “in 10 years, 62% of all teens will be Hispanic”. I believe that the correct statement is that in 10 years, the Hispanic teen population will increase by 62% (compared to a total teen pop. increase of 10%). The devil is in the details.
Which one is it?
Either 62% of teens will be Hispanic or the number of Hispanic teens will increase by 62%.
I feel the original author should’ve cited where he got his stats from. That way, we could at least go and verify the stats for ourselves, or at least see if there is some other way to interpret the data.
There was another part of that article that struck a chord with me.
It was the part where the author says most marketing to Hispanics is done with the “three-part Hispanic acculturation model (unacculturated, partially acculturated and acculturated)” in mind. While I agree that those three groups of people exist, and I understand that acculturation means to “adopt or assimilate an alien culture” I do not like the word “acculturation.”
To me, that word implies that some Hispanics are somehow uncultured, meaning savages or something like that. I think a better word might be assimilation or perhaps enculturation they mean essentially the same thing as acculturation, but I like that they don’t sound like some of us are savages or something like that.
Regardless, I left that article confused and not really sure about what I just read.