"Mark Howell" wrote in message
As the author of what you term the Bakersfield argument, I contend
your argument fails because you (a) assume the station is priced
correctly and the buyer did not over-pay -- which is a common
phenomenon in broadcasting -- and (b) fail to take market size into
account. Los Angeles is so big that a station with a tiny percentage
of the audience is still reaching so many people that it can be
profitable.

On a) I suppose my phrasing was a bit ambiguous. I didn't mean to imply
that this particular station was correctly priced, only that markets are wise to
price a scarce asset like a radio station according to its reach, not according
to its billing in some passing, suboptimal implementation.

Whether in large communities or small, a free market in scarce licenses
virtually guarantees that stations end up in the hands of the brave or foolhardy
or optimistic entities that are willing to pay the most. At least where there's
no sentimental legacy attachment, as there clearly is in Bakersfield.

Can the govt. really know how many stations a market is able to support, if
entrepreneurs are willing to bet their own funds that that market can support
one more? Isn't the advertising market dynamic with the evolution of
traditional employees into contractors who must flog their services continually?
Most importantly, doesn't the rate of return generated by that advertising
market depend fundamentally on what the high bidders freely dared to pay for
their licenses? And wouldn't a Bakersfield-inspired, govt.-imposed scarcity
work its way right back into the license price...to where the buyer's ROI from
operations got knocked down all over again?

Jerome

On 28 Jul 2003 19:54:08 GMT, "Cooperstown.Net"
wrote:

Can the govt. really know how many stations a market is able to support, if
entrepreneurs are willing to bet their own funds that that market can support
one more? Isn't the advertising market dynamic with the evolution of
traditional employees into contractors who must flog their services continually?
Most importantly, doesn't the rate of return generated by that advertising
market depend fundamentally on what the high bidders freely dared to pay for
their licenses? And wouldn't a Bakersfield-inspired, govt.-imposed scarcity
work its way right back into the license price...to where the buyer's ROI from
operations got knocked down all over again?


What we have now is government-imposed oversupply. When we had free
competition, we had two-thirds of stations losing money, so the
government stepped in to keep them on the air by allowing
consolidation of ownership. Without that intervention, the less
capable operators would have gone bust and we would have far fewer
stations on the air than we do today, (just as when we have too many
grocery stores, those that can't maintain market share go out of
business). Had that happened, we might not be having all these
debates about how local service has gone to hell in a handbasket.
Instead, the government created a mechanism that allowed the bad
operators and marginal signals to cash out at inflated prices to
roll-ups -- and some of these stations were even put on the air with
the specific purpose of so doing.

Mark Howell

Exactly what is the point of broadcasting these zero-ratings,
zero-advertiser, zero-listener formats in IBOC digital??

You miss the point. The point is that, once the stations goes
digital, they can convert to music formats and be competative with FM
in terms of sound quality -- and (with good programming and promotion)
ultimately market share.

There might be an improvement in quality but it could never match FM due to the
data compression artifacts.



Since it will take several years for there to be a substantial
installed base of IBOC radio receivers, which stations would you
propose converting first? The ones that already have a large
listenership, or the secondary players? Remember, digital is an
equalizer -- you don't need to have the most powerful transmitter in
the market in order to act like you do.

Coverage area would be substantially reduced due to all the adjacent channel
interferance. And besides, it would be unusable at night.



What's pointless is converting the major stations that current have
talk formats, with Dr. Laura, Rush, etc. The digital artifacts are
most noticable with talk, anyway. What digital broadcasting does is
provide a scenario whereby the smaller AM stations that have fallen
into disuse can find new life (and from their owners' perspective,
gain value).

- Jonathan


I wouldn't start counting the added revenue yet.


Bob Radil
A ?subject=NewsgroupRes ponse" E-Mail /A

WBRW wrote:

Country, does not exist on the air
within 50 miles of NYC. Yes, yes, yes, people say that there simply
aren't that many country music fans within the City itself, and
they're correct -- but any decent NYC-area signal will cover plenty of
the surrounding suburban areas were there are many country fans.
"Y-107" proved this, with its lousy-ass signal getting better ratings
-- even within the NYC market itself


I think you're ignoring the other part of the curve for a broadcaster
and that's the issue of what a broadcaster can earn with a particular
format. The likely reason that country doesn't work in NYC is that
advertisers in NYC don't want to target country music listeners, or
alternatively even though large in number, they're too spread out to
support many small advertisers away from where they regularly travel.

On 8 Aug 2003 22:40:23 GMT, Art Clemons
wrote:

I think you're ignoring the other part of the curve for a broadcaster
and that's the issue of what a broadcaster can earn with a particular
format. The likely reason that country doesn't work in NYC is that
advertisers in NYC don't want to target country music listeners, or
alternatively even though large in number, they're too spread out to
support many small advertisers away from where they regularly travel.

One, I think it's snobbery. Two, much of today's Country doesn't sound
much different than AC. Three, media buyers are younger than most
Boybands and the owners are chicken.

They'd all rather the the 11th
techno-alternative-trance-AC-Urban-Polka station in the market before
taking the Country plunge.

I would bet that if Roseland ( a local concert venue in Manhattan) had
a country night every week we'd have to rope off the streets to
control the crowds. Even better, the guns wouldn't be automatic
weapons, they'd be six shooters like the good ol days.

Rich

On 10 Aug 2003 16:09:38 GMT, Rich Wood
wrote:

One, I think it's snobbery. Two, much of today's Country doesn't sound
much different than AC. Three, media buyers are younger than most
Boybands and the owners are chicken.

Can't comment on point three, but your first two are bulls-eyes!

Point two in particular is right on target. when talking about today's
"mainstream" country. The currents, recurrents and even most of the
oldies sound closer to the hits of the Top 40 Era than the music being
played on CHR and some AC stations. In fact, some of the song and
artists played as oldies on mainstream country stations *are* straight
out of the Top 40 Era -- Johnny Cash, Statler Brothers, Oak Ridge
Boys, Dolly Parton, quite a long list of country acts that are fondly
remembered by Baby Boomers who grew up on Top 40.

And let's not forget the number of country performers, especially
female artists, who are actually getting a lot of play on AC radio and
VH-1. Sometimes I turn on VH-1 while I'm at the computer just because
I enjoy looking at Faith Hill, Shania Twain, Martina McBride, etc.

Country has always been an important part of what started as Top 40
and has evolved into Adult Contemporary. I grew up listening to
rockabilly, along with the blues, R&B, and Brill Building pop that
also contributed to the big hits of the '50s, '60s and early '70s. At
the time I didn't care for much "hardcore" country -- George Jones,
Tammy Wynette, Loretta Lynn, Conway Twitty (himself a Top 40 one-hit
wonder with "Make Believe"), Porter Wagoner and the like -- probably
because it was the "old folks" music my parents and grandparents
listened to. But when Ray Charles did an entire album of country
songs, I listened and liked what I heard. When Roger Miller and Ray
Stevens turned out very clever novelty songs, I didn't care how they
were categorized. When Patsy Cline sang "Crazy", it didn't matter one
bit that both the song and the singer were considered country. And to
be honest, I didn't consider Johnny Cash's "Ring Of Fire" country at
all, since I JUST KNEW that country music never used mariachi
trumpets!

All these artists were able to co-exist on the Hot 100 with Chuck
Berry, Brook Benton, the Beach Boys, the Four Seasons, and all of the
Memphis, Motown and British Invasion acts. If the music was good and
spoke to the teenaged heart-and-soul, that's all that mattered to us
back then.

Today's music industry, including music radio formats, is actually
hurting itself with its emphasis on format fragmentation. An artist,
label or station that tries to reach only a specific audience is in
trouble when the day comes that the audience stops listening and
buying. OTOH, an artist, label or station with broad appeal can
continue to sell to a maturing/aging audience even as a new generation
discovers it -- even if that sort of appeal skips a generation now and
then before being rediscovered, as happened with Dolly Parton and more
recently with Tony Bennett.

They'd all rather the the 11th
techno-alternative-trance-AC-Urban-Polka station in the market before
taking the Country plunge.

And when the Flavor Of The Month changes, they'll change format in
search of another short-term success. Their problem, not the
listeners'.

Now that I'm a fulltime listener, the music-station presets on my
radios are filled with various flavors of oldies stations. If I'm
listening to a Classic Rock station and a song comes on that I don't
especially care for, I punch over to a Classic Hits station ... or an
AC with an extensive oldies library. If all else fails, I grab a CD
from the Time-Life or Rhino catalogs. Rap, trance, boy-bands and the
other genres that appeal to today's youth may or may not be popular a
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.

Maybe today's youth-oriented stations are actually the modern
equivalent of the pioneering Top 40 stations, and they'll be
successful for decades to come. But that's not the way I'd bet. I
just don't see a modern-day Alan Freed, Bruce Morrow or Art Roberts
among the current crop of jocks. Nor do I see very many record
industry execs these days who working to find and develop artists with
even moderately broad-based appeal. Tommy Mottola has had
considerable success, but he's still a long way from becoming the next
Clive Davis; as far as I can tell no one is even trying to become the
next Berry Gordy, Sam Phillips or Phil Spector.

I would bet that if Roseland ( a local concert venue in Manhattan) had
a country night every week we'd have to rope off the streets to
control the crowds. Even better, the guns wouldn't be automatic
weapons, they'd be six shooters like the good ol days.

I dunno. These days even rural deputy sheriffs and Texas Rangers (the
closest modern kin of the Old West lawmen) carry semi-autos. People
just don't respect tradition anymore.g

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

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!

The music will still be around, no question. Just start getting used to
not hearing it on commercial radio anymore (and maybe not even
non-commercial radio as the bulk of that is either religous, NPR
war-on-terror talk, Pacifica it's-whitey's-fault talk or kids more
interested in playing their favorite records).

I just finished reprogramming the station memory in my Grundig YB 400
PE; four of the first ten stations play some form of rock/pop oldies.
(Of the other six, four are commercial talkradio and two are public
radio. Positions 11 through 40 are filled with distant AM talkers, a
couple of oldies stations I listen to when in Memphis or Nashville, a
country station where a friend works, and shortwave broadcasters such
as BBC and Radio Netherlands. Interestingly enough, some of the
international broadcasters play pop oldies now and then; rockabilly
and blues are more popular in Europe today than they have ever been in
the U.S.)

It's not a question of how affluent the demographic is...it's how WILLING
to SENSELESSLY and IMPULSIVELY part with that money that is the issue.

Let's see ... I have two new PCs (built my own desktop, bought the
laptop), a motorcycle, guitars, two telephone lines (with DSL on one
of them) plus a cellular telephone, a few other toys. I go out to eat
once or twice a week. I go to movies, and also buy an average of two
or three DVDs per month. My CD collection is constantly growing,
although admittedly it's mostly replacements for my vinyl albums and
45s. My two cars are both 2001 models; I'll probably trade one in on
a newer model next year. I could go on, but you can see my point --
I'm not just sitting on my money, although admittedly I am saving more
now than I ever did as a younger man. (Then again, stockbrokers and
mutual fund companies advertise on radio too.)

Okay, I'll also admit that I buy Metamucil too. I don't buy
blood-pressure pills, at least not directly; that's what insurance and
HMO premiums are for.

How many 60-year olds do you know are drowning in credit card debt, car
payments, etc. versus how many 25-year olds who "GOTTA HAVE" the latest
car, 5 credit cars in their wallet, cell phones, PDAs, the latest music,
the trendiest clothes, etc.?

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.

Last time I checked, places like the Galleria Mall in White Plains, NY and
the Jefferson Valley Mall in Yorktown Heights, NY were full of teenagers
(especially teen-aged girls) spending (their parents') money, not senior
citizens and baby boomers.

I'll grant you that most of the people who hang out in malls are
teenagers. But a typical kid who hangs out in malls, sipping Frozen
Cokes in the food court and buying a CD or two doesn't put nearly as
much money in the cash register as an Old Fart like me who buys
jewelry, major appliances, home entertainment gear, gourmet food,
nutritional supplements, power tools and nice (but not trendy)
clothes.

I don't go to the mall nearly as often a typical teenager, but I spend
much more than a few bucks every time I do go. And I also spend a lot
of money in places other than the local mall. Kids get their ears and
other body parts pierced; Old Farts get hearing aids, lineless
bifocals (or laser surgery), plastic surgery to remove baggy upper
lids that impede vision, and otherwise do what we can to keep what we
still have in working order. Kids buy whatever brand of sneaker is
hot this season; Old Farts buy sneakers too, but we also buy dress
shoes, work shoes, walking shoes, cowboy boots, motorcycle boots and
sometimes special orthotics that go into our shoes. Kids buy pizza at
Sbarro; Old Farts have their pizzas delivered, and go out for steak,
Italian, seafood, Chinese or whatever.

Don't tell me that my generation doesn't spend money, because I know
better. And our numbers mean we spend a lot of it.

And lest you get the wrong idea, I'm not wealthy. Far from it, in
fact. But I'm comfortable, I don't have children living at home, and
I buy quality stuff that lasts instead of junk that ends up in the
closet ... or the trash.

And I'm sure that's the situation with most of such places where "middle
America" shops.

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.

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

"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.

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+.

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.


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.

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.

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

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