see below

David Eduardo wrote:

"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On 14 Aug 2003 17:07:14 GMT, (Sven Franklyn Weil)
wrote:

In article , Walter Luffman wrote:
few years from now; the music I listen to has been around for fifty
years, more or less, and it still appeals to the largest and most
affluent generation in history.

And it's a generation that is aging out of the range advertisers want.
It's also a generation whose upper tiers are dying off.

Most Top 40 Oldies fans (including rockabilly, blues and other genres
popular in the early portion of that era) are Baby Boomers, the leader
edge of which group is only now in its late fifties. Even extending
the beginning of the "Top 40 generation" upward a few years, they're
in their early 60s at most, which means relatively few already dying
of age-related causes.

And we Baby Boomers generally have more disposable income today than
we ever had in our past. The kids are out on their own. We're either
at or just past our peak earning years. Our homes are already paid
off. We can treat ourselves to luxuries we could never afford when we
were younger. Believe me, I buy a lot more than Metamucil and
blood-pressure pills!

Stop there. Adevertisers determine where ad money will be spent. When
station reps or sellers call, if they do not offer the target deemo, they
are wasting their time.

thus the problem being identified. Just because the sales folks or ad folks
ignore this demo today only seems that they will be replaced in not too distant
future. Guess my point is follow the money.

Very, very few advertisers use radio to reach 55+ consumers, whatever their
income level. The main reason is a belief, backed by tons of research, that
older consumers are more set in buying patterns and thus require much more
advertising (repetiton) to be convinced to change.

can not argue with this on general principal - again - follow the money - the %
of disposable $ very soon is not going to be teens but all of us old farts as
the snake continues to swallow the elephant - just my opinion and your test
obviously show I am dead wrong - but lets talk again in another 10 years and see
what the deal is then :-)

In most cases, the
increase in frequency is not worth the eventual sale. So 90+ percent of ad
campaigns are not targeted at 55+.

Since these decisions are made by marketers at P&G and Ford and Budweiser,
there is no way individeual stasitons or groups can possibly get through at
that level... in fact, demographics were probably considered in procut
design.

Those who do target 55+ ususally use specialized magazines (AARP, for
example) and special interest publications (like travel magazines, finance
magazines, etc.) since they are efficient in reaching 55+ persons.

So decide which side you are arguing - think these publications are doing OK and
are increasing distribution and revenue (though I may just be old)


Who cares? Most of my contemporaries would rather pay off their
credit card debt, or just pay cash and stay out of debt in the first
place. You might have a point when it comes to "the trendiest
clothes", though -- I wear a business suit when I must, jeans or
khakis when I can, but I stopped worrying about being trendy a long
time ago.

You are an exceptional person in this group. A significant portion of
Americans reaching retirement age have savings under $100,000 (think it is
90% plus) and will live on $1200 in monthly SS payments. Most retired
persons have extensive credit card debt, since they use the card to finance
emergencies, and then gto for years paying it down.

OK - even if all us old farts are broke and deep in debt, the card companies and
banks keep letting us buy, though I doubt these statistics as they apply to the
present 50 to 60 age group, maybe for present 70+ folks your numbers work - what
you got for the current 50 to 60 group?


You have something against Wal-Mart, Sears and Best Buy? Yeah, I shop
at those places. I also spend lot of money at Home Depot, PetsMart,
Office Max, Kroger, various upscale department stores, Starbucks, and
even Burger King (although I prefer Sonic Drive-Ins ... I tip the
carhops, something I doubt many teenagers ever do). All those places
are part of "middle America". I have no idea where people in parts of
America outside the "middle" shop. And I don't especially care where
people outside the United States shop, although I would presume they
shop primarily in their home countries because of convenience.

Where you shop or how much you spend is not the issue. It is how much in
dollars per person an advertiser would spend to get you to quit buying
Metamucil at Wal-Mart and start getting it at Target. The conclusion by most
is that changing life-long brand preference is more expensive to change than
the profit on several years consumption of Metamucil, even if you use really
heaping tablespoons full.

Again - this may be true today, but the elephant is getting to be toward the
back of that snake and that elephant has lots of disposable $ compared to a
current 15 year old population. I would think that at some point ad and
marketing folks would at least look at this reality. Or maybe I am just old an
senile and unrealistic