We've maintained for quite a while that the fundamental difference between school and corporations is the nature of the dialogue between the creators and the end users. If you're between the ages of 13 and 24, and you tell a teacher or a professor or a dean that their product - either their teaching or the school itself - is terrible, or that you're not getting anything out of it, or that it's boring, well, then you're trouble. You're detention-bound, or it's going on your permanent record, or your professors are going to tell you that you need to focus more on your work.

If you get that message into a company, however, you're something else altogether - you're valuable. Young people are used to being in focus groups, or on "Speaker's Corner" or in the audience of CounterSpin, or accosted for a man-on-the-street type of interview. They write essays in the sixth grade on "The Brand Called Me" and study marketing before they are teenagers. By the time they've reached their early twenties, they've seen millions of commercials and have discussed them thousands of times in all sorts of different contexts.

There's a ubiquity to this knowledge of marketing, and the language of branding is in many ways native to young people. It's no wonder that AdCritic.com, the leading repository for commercials on the Web, was started by a twenty-something, and it's no wonder that we got such impassioned, vehement responses from our NRGen community when we asked people to tell us about corporations that suck.

Corporate social responsibility is an increasingly important issue, and it is moving in from the fringes of youth culture into the mainstream. Ten years ago, there were movements, driven by Green awareness and Amnesty International-type groups, which had an impact with young people who were outside the mainstream.

Since then, the movements have become both more radical and more mainstream, with hard-core anti-corporatists trashing franchise stores or "culture-jamming" advertisements, and mainstream young people speaking with their wallets, as they simply refuse to buy from corporations that don't clean up their acts. It's not universal, of course - Nike, The Gap and Microsoft (The Big Three, when it comes to high-profile companies who have gotten into some sort of trouble in the past little while) are all still popular, but less so, and significantly, less so with young people. Not every 20-year-old is going to want to shatter the storefront of a Gap franchise, but many more are deciding that they might not want to shop there because it might not stand for the same things that they do. These feelings used to rest only with a small, fringe-group of young people, but now, they are becoming more and more mainstream. Brands that have managed to make their social platform a part of their image, however, are thriving and growing - like The Body Shop did in the past, or as Linux and Jones Soda are doing right now.

More interesting, though, is a newer trend that we are watching, which is a rejection of the monopoly. This might be hurting The Big Three even more - as young people become adults - or at least, adopt some of the characteristics of adults - at earlier ages, they are less and less likely to respond to something that limits their individuality. They are raging against the Microsoft monopoly for dominating 'the technological world"as other ideas go unnoticed.' They are pushing back against the Gap for a limited selection of clothing, and even getting angry with Bell for being a 'monopolistic powerhouse'.

It's not just that these companies limit their choices, but it's often that they practice the exact opposite of what they preach. Their messages are normally about individuality and diversity, even as their product offerings and corporate goals are centered on universal acceptance. As one respondent put it, these companies are contradictorily giving the "impression that everyone should be unique and dress the same".

Ultimately, our respondents are noticing a lot more about the companies they buy from and the products that they peddle. For some brands, this is bad news, as their corporate image is either suspect to begin with or diametrically opposed to their actual corporate goals. For other brands though, this can be a blessing, as they learn to stand for something meaningful to youth culture. More and more... they'll find young consumers standing right there beside them.

For more information on companies and brands that suck, here are some uncensored quotes from our NRGen respondents themselves (and not necessarily anyone else's opinions): the NRGen Pulse

This article was written by Max Valiquette, Executive Director of NRG Solutions. Contact Max at max.valiquette@thenrggroup.com