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

"gbfmif" wrote in message
...

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.

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.

The issue is not the money. It is how much ad cost per sale it will talke to
convince mature persons to change thier established and less fluid buying
patterns. So far, the bulk of advertisers have determined that the cost is
greater than the gain.

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 :-)

At the risk of redundancy, it is not about income. It is about how many
impressions an ad has to make on a consumer before they will consider trying
a brand or changing from thier present brand.

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)

The difference is that these national publications are extremely cost
effcient with no spillage and can be target to travelers, hobbyists,
investors, etc. Radio is far broader.

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?

50 to 60 is transitional. Social Security does not kick in before 62; ful
benefits are not available until age 65, the same age that Medicare
eligibility is established. However, there are many under-60 retirees who
have done 25 years in the military, some government services, etc... or have
been early retired. Most are on private or government pensions, and they are
still mature persons who have more established buying habits than the
younger adult demos.


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

When advertisers find the dollars at stake warrant a greater investment
based on greater returns, the ad targets will change. First, though,
manufacturers have to be sure ht9ier product targets this age via labeling,
sizes, appetite appeal, style, etc. as applicable.

Most ad dictates for anything except pure local retail come form a corporate
marketing level, not local.

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

"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2003 14:22:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

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.

You are in the tail end of what in radio is called 'the sales demo.' When
you look at the specifications that ad agencies put on their buys, you find
that about 80% are for 25-54 or some part of this. The remainder is fror
12-24, 18-24 and a bit of 35-64 or 45-64.

That ads reach you does not mean you were specifically targeted. It just
means that the media you consume have efficiency in reaching the primary
demo advertisers usually want.

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.

You are using principally anecdotal and personal cases. The studied
behaviour of 55+ and 65+ consumers shows a poor ROI on ad investment except
where the product has no past preferences, such as a product used only by
older folks.

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.

Yet there are many exceptions. Many non-ethnic CHRs get excellent 25-34
female numbers. News stations deliver comeptitive 35-54, even if half the
audience is older.

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?

The average medium US market has maybe 20 viable radio stations. The average
magazine rack has hundreds of magazines. That degree of specialization can
exist in a national magazine, which may pick up subscribers and readers in
tiny quantities locally, but is "massive" nationaly. Radio sells nearly all
its inventory locally, and can not be that specific. there is no "home
remodeling radio station."

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 people define retirment age as the time SS kicks in... 62 or 65. while
a few retire earlier, the general definition is probably some vague place
between the late 50's and 60's.

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.

Anecdotes again. It may be online, but Smart Money had an article on
retirement savings about 3 months ago. In it it showed the average savings
of the retirement-age American. And the amount of debt, both revolving
credit and mortgage debt. Most folks in their 60's have scant savings,
considerable debt and not a lot of maneuvering room.


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.

You are making assumptions again. How old do I have to be? How old do you
assume I am?

"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2003 14:22:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

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.

You are in the tail end of what in radio is called 'the sales demo.' When
you look at the specifications that ad agencies put on their buys, you find
that about 80% are for 25-54 or some part of this. The remainder is fror
12-24, 18-24 and a bit of 35-64 or 45-64.

That ads reach you does not mean you were specifically targeted. It just
means that the media you consume have efficiency in reaching the primary
demo advertisers usually want.

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.

You are using principally anecdotal and personal cases. The studied
behaviour of 55+ and 65+ consumers shows a poor ROI on ad investment except
where the product has no past preferences, such as a product used only by
older folks.

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.

Yet there are many exceptions. Many non-ethnic CHRs get excellent 25-34
female numbers. News stations deliver comeptitive 35-54, even if half the
audience is older.

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?

The average medium US market has maybe 20 viable radio stations. The average
magazine rack has hundreds of magazines. That degree of specialization can
exist in a national magazine, which may pick up subscribers and readers in
tiny quantities locally, but is "massive" nationaly. Radio sells nearly all
its inventory locally, and can not be that specific. there is no "home
remodeling radio station."

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 people define retirment age as the time SS kicks in... 62 or 65. while
a few retire earlier, the general definition is probably some vague place
between the late 50's and 60's.

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.

Anecdotes again. It may be online, but Smart Money had an article on
retirement savings about 3 months ago. In it it showed the average savings
of the retirement-age American. And the amount of debt, both revolving
credit and mortgage debt. Most folks in their 60's have scant savings,
considerable debt and not a lot of maneuvering room.


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.

You are making assumptions again. How old do I have to be? How old do you
assume I am?

This is very interesting. I might ask my station rep from Clear Channel
who's big in my area. She's easier to talk to than the rep from the "dollar
a holler" CHR station in the bottom of the TV studio.

I don't think we can assume there is a homogeneous 25-54 age set. We can
cleave it in half at age 35 or 40. But don't sell oldies short; they are
still in demand.

I wish that these morons at the stations would find out that it isn't
microcasting any more than it was buying listeners with contests a la the
Eighties. What Rush Limbaugh says (and I agree) is that we need more fun
media personalities. Music is great but the older end of the 25-54
demographic wants someone fun.

I am biased in this arena as I collect airchecks and operate an aircheck
station at live365.com. But darnit it's true; some of us want something
besides a wireless MP3 jukebox (which is what radio's become). And people
are getting burned out on slender playlists too.

Another problem is a lack of decent new music coming out. We are trying to
get the baby boomers' kids to listen and they unfortunately like the rap
crap and commercialized alternative nonsense. Thus we are ignoring older
people also likely to spend money. I am 37 btw.

Let's return to good old Top 40 (or if not, CHR) radio and its wonderful
disk jockeys. That may be a hidden secret not many want to exploit.

Thanks
Ken
Macon, GA
--


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com


"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2003 14:22:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

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.

You are in the tail end of what in radio is called 'the sales demo.' When
you look at the specifications that ad agencies put on their buys, you
find
that about 80% are for 25-54 or some part of this. The remainder is fror
12-24, 18-24 and a bit of 35-64 or 45-64.

That ads reach you does not mean you were specifically targeted. It just
means that the media you consume have efficiency in reaching the primary
demo advertisers usually want.

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.

You are using principally anecdotal and personal cases. The studied
behaviour of 55+ and 65+ consumers shows a poor ROI on ad investment
except
where the product has no past preferences, such as a product used only by
older folks.

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.

Yet there are many exceptions. Many non-ethnic CHRs get excellent 25-34
female numbers. News stations deliver comeptitive 35-54, even if half the
audience is older.

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?

The average medium US market has maybe 20 viable radio stations. The
average
magazine rack has hundreds of magazines. That degree of specialization can
exist in a national magazine, which may pick up subscribers and readers in
tiny quantities locally, but is "massive" nationaly. Radio sells nearly
all
its inventory locally, and can not be that specific. there is no "home
remodeling radio station."

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 people define retirment age as the time SS kicks in... 62 or 65.
while
a few retire earlier, the general definition is probably some vague place
between the late 50's and 60's.

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.

Anecdotes again. It may be online, but Smart Money had an article on
retirement savings about 3 months ago. In it it showed the average savings
of the retirement-age American. And the amount of debt, both revolving
credit and mortgage debt. Most folks in their 60's have scant savings,
considerable debt and not a lot of maneuvering room.


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.

You are making assumptions again. How old do I have to be? How old do you
assume I am?