America's Fastest Growing and Wealthiest Demo

[TheBigA]

Seems like there should be more research into how to advertise to this fastest growing/wealthiest demo (maybe get a government grant to study this issue more )

Every company has been doing this for years. The radio companies know their audiences are older. Half of the OTA radio audience is over 45. Most of the radio execs are in that exact demo themselves. Starting with iHeart's Bob Pittman. It would be much easier to program radio to older people. That's why you see so much classic rock and classic hits. But advertisers feel they get better return from TV.

BTW, if radio could get a larger share of this money, the ads wouldn't be light or fun. The products being sold are not cool or sexy. They require long disclaimers and lots of instructions. Would you like to hear infomercials in music programs in addition to talk radio? We're not talking about Coke, McDonalds, and Bud. We're talking about reverse mortgages, retirement communities, and "A Place For Mom."

 

[DavidEduardo]

But advertisers feel they get better return from TV.

And that is because so much senior-targeted advertising requires visuals. But an even more powerful reason is that you can reach seniors, whether they be 50+, 55+ or 65+, with just a couple of strategic TV buy that get you the whole country. With radio, you have to make hundreds and hundreds of station level buys and then deal with hundreds and hundreds of creative deliveries and hundreds and hundreds of invoices and...

BTW, if radio could get a larger share of this money, the ads wouldn't be light or fun. The products being sold are not cool or sexy. They require long disclaimers and lots of instructions. Would you like to hear infomercials in music programs in addition to talk radio? We're not talking about Coke, McDonalds, and Bud. We're talking about reverse mortgages, retirement communities, and "A Place For Mom."

All of which have found that visuals are essential. To seniors you are selling touchy-feelie, not things that can easily be described in 30" or 60". It took Dickens almost a year to serialize each of his novels... not just one minute.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I know there's research that advertising to >49 is (generally) more expensive than it's worth.

That is true for mass appeal goods and services. But for senior targeted products, advertising works very well as there are no pre-established brand preferences.

Seems like there should be more research into how to advertise to this fastest growing/wealthiest demo (maybe get a government grant to study this issue more )

CBS TV alone has spent over a decade going directly to major brands and their management trying to show that over-50 viewers are valuable. They want agencies to think 25-64, not 18-49 in TV. They have gotten nowhere.

I still like my idea of including excerpts of the TV ad soundtrack in the (short) radio ad (for the same product/service of course),
Movies and TV shows are promoted on Radio with bits of movie/TV dialog/sound effects and possibly some of the theme song.

The problem is that most regular TV shows get less than 5 million "live and 24 hour" viewers so there are 335 million Americans who don't see the ads on any particular show. It's not like the 60's when TV shows got ratings that are double and triple what today's shares are.

 

[vchimpanzee]

It's nice to see TV shows from the 80's and 90's (like Magnum PI, Macgyver, ... and Walker Texas Ranger) ending up on ANY TV channel.

Those three are back, or in one case were, with new casts.

 

[fordranger797]

Those three are back, or in one case were, with new casts.

They are back on network TV. While I’m not crazy about the new series, it’s good to see these shows getting a reboot. They were all extremely innovative for their time.

 

[Kelly A]

Speaking of viewer/listener preferences; I get a major chuckle out of the recent Progressive ad where Flo is running a focus group session. Anyone who has sat-in on radio or TV focus groups, can totally relate to what ultimately ends up as bizarre participant reactions:

 

[DavidEduardo]

Speaking of viewer/listener preferences; I get a major chuckle out of the recent Progressive ad where Flo is running a focus group session. Anyone who has sat-in on radio or TV focus groups, can totally relate to what ultimately ends up as bizarre participant reactions:

I'm not fond of focus groups, as they all end up with one or two dominant personalities who influence what others will say. I prefer doing one-on-one 45 minute to an hour interviews where each "little discovery" can be explored....

The hardest thing in focus groups is to moderate. I've done less than 100 of them, and each one has some bizarre sidetrack or comment... or even something that pisses thoroughly off the rest of the group. Never is the disruption or strange comment expected, and they all waste several minutes of time getting back on track and getting the other participants thinking about the subject.

Example: "I love Ron's show every morning. But yesterday he was talking about the congestion in I-795 and I have to tell you that if I ran the government I'd ban SUVs and trucks from high traffic times...." Third rail comments like that which may slightly point out the merits of a particular subject are valid if the moderator stops further morning traffic comments by saying, "OK, so traffic is getting worse and that's a good subject. Now, Mary, what is a hot topic for you when you listen to Ron In The Morning?"

It's up to the moderator to keep the focus on target. Doing a couple of groups in one afternoon is thoroughly draining.

The Progressive ad is a bit unrealistic. Usually respondents are seated at a roundtable or in an arc, and the moderator is purposely somewhat distanced from the group so that it is clear that they are the leader. And the ideal group is 8 to 10 people, not the several dozen in the "fake" focus groups one cable channel did at election time.

Like good morning show hosts, good focus group moderators are very hard to find. In some markets, there are professional moderators who can make a couple of thou' for each session. And they are worth it.

But, yeah, the ad is kinda' amusing. OTOH, I absolutely detest Flo and no matter what the show, will change channels when one of those ads pops up.

 

[seatownmedia]

Plus many focus groups are tilted toward what sponsor wants to hear. Not all, but some.

 

[boombox4]

That is true for mass appeal goods and services. But for senior targeted products, advertising works very well as there are no pre-established brand preferences.

CBS TV alone has spent over a decade going directly to major brands and their management trying to show that over-50 viewers are valuable. They want agencies to think 25-64, not 18-49 in TV. They have gotten nowhere.

The problem is that most regular TV shows get less than 5 million "live and 24 hour" viewers so there are 335 million Americans who don't see the ads on any particular show. It's not like the 60's when TV shows got ratings that are double and triple what today's shares are.

So, with all this apparent gradual erosion of TV viewership over the decades, is this new, recent push for internet TV shows (Amazon series, Netflix series, and the like) causing even more of a drop? (the only ratings I'm aware of are the NFL and the news shows).

 

[DavidEduardo]

Plus many focus groups are tilted toward what sponsor wants to hear. Not all, but some.

I've heard that rumor over and over, and never seen any evidence. I believe that such comments come from people who just don't understand the ability of a small group, well recruited, can provide invaluable insights to the sponsoring group.

I had an argument once about a one-on-one project. Our recruit specification required a minimum amount of specific radio usage in the prior week. The critic said that we were missing the "huge majority" of people who did not use radio. Back then, radio had 94% usage weekly, and I pointed out that Arbitron measured over 200 markets and that figure was very uniform everywhere.

I added that of the 6% that did not listen, an Arbitron study showed that half of the non-users did not listen due to health issues, family problems, special work assignments and the like and they were normally users.

 

[seatownmedia]

I appreciate your view on this. I said, some, not all.

I think overall focus groups can be helpful. I just had too many bad experiences with radio focus groups that just played into what corporate was pushing. Not saying this was the the general rule, but there was a certain element of that back in the day.

 

[Kelly A]

I think overall focus groups can be helpful. I just had too many bad experiences with radio focus groups that just played into what corporate was pushing. Not saying this was the the general rule, but there was a certain element of that back in the day.

Like the ad I included, even though satire; sometimes focus groups are merely intended to validate an initiative or strategy in front of the customer. The job of the moderator is to lead the participants to arrive at a conclusion which bolsters the consultant's initial findings. As Seatown said though; if the focus group is provided more generically as a data discovery, the information can be much more useful. The problem is; the number of participants over a longer period of time might be required for a better sample.