Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|