On 18 Aug 2003 14:22:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:

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.

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

Maybe you're right, maybe not. I wouldn't know, since I'm only 54.
But I watch the all-news cable channels instead of MTV, and most of
the commercials I see are for things that are marketed to my
generation. Same goes for the radio stations I listen to and the
magazines I read -- I choose the ones that meet my tastes, and they
are the ones advertisers use to reach me.

I may be an Old Fart (and proud of it!), but that doesn't mean I don't
still choose between McDonald's and Wendy's, or between Ford and GM,
or between Coke and Pepsi. AAMOF, I recently switched from Coke
Classic to Pepsi One. Needed a sugar-free alternative to the Coke
I've preferred all my life, and never cared that much for Diet Coke's
aftertaste. So I ignored brand loyalty and went with the product I
liked better. I suppose that means I can still be swayed by
advertising if I find the product itself suitable.

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.

I never said otherwise. But the radio stations I listen to generally
carry advertising that's aimed at adults, often at middle-aged and
older adults rather than young ones. Advertise anything you want on a
CHR station, I'll never hear it. Advertise Clearasil or The Gap on an
oldies or news-talk station, you're wasting money.

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.

Tell me, what ISN'T a special-interest magazine? I suppose Parade and
USA Weekend qualify, but I don't know anyone who specifically
subscribe to them ... they're just part of the Sunday newspaper, which
the grownups subscribe to and the whole family reads. (The newspaper
industry admits that newsstands account for only a small portion of
total sales.) Life and Look magazines are long gone. Reader's Digest
doesn't appeal to kids nearly as much as it does to Old Farts. TV
Guide might qualify as a mass-appeal magazine, I suppose. People
magazine may have started as a mass-appeal magazine, but these day's
it's just a classier version of the gossip magazines and it appeals to
much the same audience.

I subscribe to a couple dozen different magazines, and I suppose every
one of them qualifies as special-interest. That includes AARP
Magazine, of course. But it also includes three motorcycle magazines
I get, six computer magazines, two veterans' organization magazines
and two financial magazines. Sorry, I quit reading Rolling Stone
years ago and I never cared for Spin. (But I do pick up several
guitar- and bass-oriented magazines on newsstands, since I'm thinking
about buying a new instrument or two.)

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.

Incorrect. reread your own statement. Hardly anyone reaching
retirement age is receiving Social Security payments; it's those who
have actually reached the minimum age and who have also chosen to
retire (or those who are old enough to continue working while
simultaneously receiving SS) who receive Social Security benefits.
(And a few people like me receive Social Security Disability Income
benefits, but that's not the same as the retirement benefit.)

Most retired
persons have extensive credit card debt, since they use the card to finance
emergencies, and then gto for years paying it down.

Not the retirees I know. They pay off their cards every month, and
have ever since they figured out how much of their debt was due to
interest and other charges.

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.

And Metamucil itself is only a tiny part of the issue, since as I have
pointed out I buy a lot of the same things that younger adults do.
(Actually, in my case it's Fibercon these days; I switched from
Metamucil a few years ago. I also switched from Kmart to Wal-Mart for
most of my "mart" shopping, and most recently began shopping at Target
also. Why Target? Because it's near several other stores where I
shop -- Radio Shack, Office Max, CD Warehouse, Goody's (the clothing
chain, not Sam Goody), Kroger supermarkets, and several restaurants of
both the fast-foot and "regular" variety. (But now there's a new
Starbucks across the street from the Wal-Mart Supercenter, so I still
go in that direction quite a bit.)

Perhaps when you're older you'll understand that a lot of advertisers
do recognize the economic clout of the Baby Boom generation and target
us through our "specialized" media.

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer