Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|