Melanie Gerlis’s article about Gen Z being where the art market should focus its attention is getting a lot of giddy airplay in industry press and social media channels. But according to KAREN ZADRA, it’s a load of rubbish.

Gerlis prefaces her argument with a claim that “People under the age of 22 account for 40% of consumers“. That statistic, while certainly impressive and lucrative-sounding, is irrelevant to the art market, and here’s why.

Firstly, any marketer will tell you that age matters. Every age has its product and every product has its age. Gen Z is currently between 4-24 years old. The majority of the oldest of them won’t seriously consider buying art for at least another 10 years. Their priorities will be paying down student debt, mortgages (if they can afford one) and young families. That doesn’t leave much spare thought or cash for buying art.

The youngest are a good 25+ years away. Who knows what the world will look like then, let alone what art will appeal to a grown up Gen Z.

As an art dealer who sells contemporary fine art, I can count on two hands – with fingers to spare – the number of under 40s who have bought from my gallery over the past decade. This demographic has never been a big market for art, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.

Secondly, Gerlis shows an appalling lack of business knowledge if she thinks that any gallery (even the megas) can a) plan this far ahead for a market that does not yet exist; and b) commit financial and staff resources now to cultivating a demographic with an ROI lead time of at least 10 years. A responsible business with short to medium term sales cycles (e.g. a gallery) does not spend marketing money where there is little to zero chance of generating revenue. Further, most businesses work on quarterly cycles. Forty cycles is a hell of long time to wait for conversions on a marketing campaign!

Finally, by her own admission, Gerlis says

“by the time the seven-year-olds, or even the 22-year-olds, become meaningful buyers of art, a new set of likes, dislikes and technological advances will be in vogue.”

So what, then, is the point of writing an article urging galleries to start looking at this demographic when nobody knows what they’ll want to spend their money on in 10+ years? It’s beyond ludicrous.

Don’t be fooled by Gerlis’s seemingly innocuous use of “to look at”; to look at (i.e. research) a market requires expenditure. Even getting the trainee to run a few searches through Google costs time, and therefore money.

It is a great shame that so much writing on the art market is this vacuous. It’s a fascinating industry which is facing some serious challenges. Art market professionals are looking for workable answers to real problems; we need articles that are useful and relevant.

Pieces of fluff like Gerlis’s are an insult to the intelligence of committed art industry professionals and only serve to make us all look like a bunch of tittering halfwits. And if you’re foolish enough to follow the hype, your business will soon be bankrupt. Remember: cash is King.

Melanie Gerlis, Forget millennials —the art market should be looking at Gen Z in The Art Newspaper.