Gen Z Slang in Marketing: Why Brands Get It Wrong

The "Millennial Marketing vs Gen Z Marketing" trend went viral because it offers something enjoyable: a clear comparison, a sharp contrast, and humor everyone can share. Anyone who has ever sat in a marketing meeting and heard the words "curated" or "thoughtfully crafted" can laugh at the parody of its millennial version.

But that is exactly where the problem begins. The trend does not only entertain; it teaches a thinking framework to the thousands of marketers watching it: that the difference between generations is a difference in language format. Millennials need many words. Gen Z needs few words and many emojis.

That framework sounds reasonable because we have all observed the difference on the surface. But the pattern actually fails to explain why the difference exists, and that is exactly what makes a framework like this dangerous when used as an execution guide.

Jon-Stephen Stansel, a social media consultant who calls himself an "elder millennial social media marketer," responded to the trend directly on LinkedIn. He questioned whether the trend merely perpetuates inaccurate generational stereotypes, whether Gen Z really wants to be seen as people who speak in slang clichés, and whether a brand's target audience actually cares about the difference between its PR team and its social team.

To understand why this approach does not work, we need to understand how slang actually functions.

Slang is not born from a desire to speak more briefly. Slang is born because a group of people wants to communicate in a way only they can understand. You could say slang is a marker of belonging, a signal that someone is part of a particular community and understands its unwritten rules.

When teenagers on X (Twitter) in Indonesia use a certain word before it appears in mainstream media articles, that word functions as an internal code. These expressions mark who is inside and who is outside. Once the word starts being used by everyone, including brands, the code loses its function, and the community that originated it has usually already moved on to a new code.

This is a long-running cycle, and sociolinguistics researchers have documented it well. What has changed in the social media era is the speed. A slang term once took years to seep from one community to another. Now it takes a matter of weeks.

This means that by the time a brand is confident enough to use a slang term in its marketing materials because it feels "common enough," the word is most likely already being abandoned by the community that created it.

Brands are not late because they are not up to date. Brands are late because the way slang works does not allow them to be part of it in the first place.

Before judging the brands that follow this trend, it is important to understand the context in which the decision is made.

Ali Ghosh, Vice President of Brand Marketing at Zaxby's, explained to USA Today that the reason they joined the wave was that the trend was "timely and still early in adoption among brand accounts," giving Zaxby's a chance to stand out in the feed. They also happened to have a promotional message to deliver and saw this format as a way that was "native to Instagram and Facebook, trend-driven and highly shareable."

This explanation is honest and reasonable from an operational perspective. But notice what becomes the priority in that decision: not "is this the best way to speak to our audience," but "is this the format that will perform well in the feed right now."

Two different questions produce different answers, and different decisions.

Industry incentives do push in this direction. Trend-following content earns organic engagement more easily. Organic engagement is easier to report as a success to clients or management. Easily measured success is easier to approve in internal processes. And so it happens: a decision that feels right procedurally, but builds a habit that slowly erodes audience trust.

Alysse Schneider of Keurig Dr Pepper offers a more interesting diagnosis. She says the trend works because "people don't engage with 'perfectly-curated' brand language, they engage with what feels real."

That diagnosis is correct. But unfortunately, replacing curated language with Gen Z slang does not answer the problem she identifies herself. Because deliberate slang from a brand is also not something that "feels real." Slang used intentionally by a brand is still constructed language, just in a different package. And young audiences are in fact highly trained to sense the difference between a brand that genuinely speaks naturally and a brand that is pretending to be natural.

Let us ask something rarely asked in this discussion: is it true that Gen Z does not need explanation, and that millennials cannot enjoy a brief message?

Look at the behavior that actually happens, not what we assume happens.

A 2025 Revieve report noted that 81% of Gen Z say ingredient transparency influences their purchase decisions. They read ingredient lists, watch review videos, and compare other users' experiences before deciding. A Sprout Social Q2 2025 survey even found that 41% of Gen Z now search for information through social media first, not search engines. They do not avoid information. They avoid information that feels like one-way promotion.

Conversely, a millennial scrolling social media during a 30-second work break has no need for a long paragraph about product benefits. They need one sentence that goes straight to the point.

The relevant variable here is not generation. The relevant variable is context: where the audience sits in their decision journey, what platform they are using at that moment, and how deeply they already know the brand.

Someone seeing a local skincare brand for the first time on Reels needs different information than someone who has followed that brand for two years. Both could be 22 years old. Both could be 32 years old.

When we reduce this difference to a matter of generation, we lose all the nuance that actually determines whether a message lands or not.

While generation is not the main variable in choosing language format, there are real differences in how these two groups build and maintain trust in a brand. These differences are important to understand, not as a copy template, but to shape long-term strategy.

Gen Z grew up in a far more saturated information environment. They never lived in an era when the brand was the only source of information about a product. From the start, they were exposed to reviews, comparison videos, and criticism from fellow consumers. As a result, their tolerance for inauthenticity is lower, not because they are more intellectually critical, but because they have seen more examples of how brands can be dishonest.

Gen Z also verifies claims laterally. When a brand makes a claim, this group does not accept it immediately. They ask their community, look for reviews on other platforms, and compare user experiences before deciding. This is not behavior that can be worked around with more casual copy.

What they value is a brand that does not pretend. A brand that acknowledges its product's limitations. A brand that speaks with specificity, not superlatives. A brand that is consistent between what it says in its ads and what consumers feel after buying.

None of those things can be achieved by replacing the word "trusted" with "this one is unbeatable, no cap."

The "Millennial vs Gen Z Marketing" trend was born in America and shaped by the dynamics of the English language. When Indonesian brands adopt it, they also inherit assumptions that do not always apply here.

Indonesian slang does not work the same way as English slang. It is more fragmented. A word popular in the Jakarta Twitter community may be completely unknown on Surabaya TikTok. A word used by a 17-year-old user on one platform can sound strange from the same audience on a different platform.

In addition, the Indonesian language already has a rich set of registers. There is a significant difference between formal language, casual language, regional language that enters everyday conversation, and fast-evolving internet language. A brand that tries to pick one of these registers to "sound Gen Z" often ends up producing something that sounds like no one at all.

More importantly, young Indonesian audiences value clarity. They are willing to read a long explanation about gadget specifications, product ingredients, or how a service works, as long as that explanation is relevant to the decision they are weighing. Format is not the main barrier. Relevance is the main barrier.

The brands that speak most successfully to young audiences do not succeed because they are the most up to date with the latest slang. They succeed because they speak in a way consistent with who they are, specific about what they offer, and honest about what they cannot deliver.

Warby Parker never sounded like a Gen Z hangout buddy. But they built trust with young audiences because their business model is transparent, their social media responses feel human, and they never promised something they could not keep.

In Indonesia, several local brands in the skincare and food and beverage categories are starting to find the same formula. They speak casually but not forced. They explain their products in detail, but in a language that feels like a friend who knows the field. They do not follow language trends, but they have a consistent voice, so the audience knows what to expect each time they interact.

Somethinc, a local skincare brand founded in 2019, never built its reputation on slang. It built trust with young audiences a different way: explaining active ingredients transparently, speaking in a warm tone without feeling forced, and consistently making education the core of its content rather than mere product promotion. The result: the best-selling skincare brand on Shopee for nine consecutive months in 2021, in a category packed with competitors.

That is what people really mean when they talk about brand voice. Not a choice of diction that follows trends, but a consistent, recognizable personality even when the format and platform change.

In truth, you could say that what works abroad does not necessarily work at home. Now, take one of the latest pieces of communication you made and remove every element that feels "Gen Z": the brevity, the emojis, the slang you inserted. What remains, is it still strong enough to make someone care?

If the answer is no, the problem is not in your language choice. The problem lies deeper than that, and no amount of slang can fix it.

But if the answer is yes, then you already have the foundation. From there, you can start speaking in a way that feels natural for your brand, not in a way that feels natural for this week's trend.

Sources

USA Today. "Millennial or Gen Z? Brands lean into differences in marketing trend" (2026).

Revieve. Gen Z Skincare Habits and Brand Preferences Report (2025). Cited via Theindustry.beauty

Sprout Social. Q2 2025 Pulse Survey: Gen Z Social Media Trends & Usage

Influencer Marketing Hub. "What Makes Gen Z Consumers Tick in 2025?" Cited via penfriend.ai

Jon-Stephen Stansel. LinkedIn post responding to the Millennial vs Gen Z Marketing trend (2026)