Change in Demo Thinking?

[landtuna]

This article refers to TV but the similarities to radio are hard to miss.

I'm really interested in what the Old Gringo thinks since this seems to shatter long-held marketing strategies.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-demographic11-2009jan11,0,5616698.story

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Like Moonves says, I don't think this is new. The other thing that hasn't changed is that shows that have broad enough appeal (e.g. The Mentalist) will make more money than shows that appeal to a tight demo (e.g. The Office) or an older demo (reruns of Lucy)

Music is more difficult to target to a broad demo. A local AC station plays practically everything, and I only like about half of it.

 

[jh]

It might mean some formats that do well 50+ but now are only able to sell their 18-49 numbers would benefit. But I can't see that it would help formats with a primary appeal 50+ (such as oldies) or under 18 for that matter.

Country probably appeals to the broadest age range, so country stations might benefit.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem with the 18-49 demo now is it's made up mainly of two very different groups: Gen X and Gen Y. They are almost polar opposites, equally unpredictable, and technologically more sophisticated than the 50+ boomers. So it's easy to say "we'e looking beyond 18-49," but it may also be that the industry is unsure how to target that group.

 

[landtuna]

The problem with the 18-49 demo now is it's made up mainly of two very different groups: Gen X and Gen Y. They are almost polar opposites, equally unpredictable, and technologically more sophisticated than the 50+ boomers. So it's easy to say "we'e looking beyond 18-49," but it may also be that the industry is unsure how to target that group.

Having both Gen X and Gen Y (as well as a 50+) in my household I'll submit there is very little difference technically between the Gen's. Their choice of music is different and one prefers a rocked-out morning drive to the other who wants music only and no chatter but both have all the techno-gadgets and know how to use them.

As for the oldster (no need to tell you who that is) I am much more technically competent than either of the kids even though I don't carry a cell phone and don't visit social web sites. I have tons more disposable income than either child and an interest in spending it as I see fit. Unless they get some financial discipline in their lives neither will matter to the demo-gods because they will always be living hand-to-mouth. As will most of their friends.

So, all you highly educated marketing wizards, put that in your pipe and smoke it. I guess it matters whether you are selling Kia's or Lexus. No need to tell you which demo those fit.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm really interested in what the Old Gringo thinks since this seems to shatter long-held marketing strategies.

It really does not matter what any of us inside radio (or TV) would like to think. We'd love 55-64 to be a viable demo, as it would open up a number of format options and save several others.

Bit it does not work that way.

Demos for advertsing are determined principally by advertisers. Very little is input from the average agency, and essentially none from the media. Advertisers, like Proctor and Gamble and Coke and Bud and Toyota know who buys their products, who is susceptible to trying them, and who is so resistent that it takes more to make the sale than the profit on the sale.

In fact, from 25-54 the demos most radio buys are placed aginst is increasingly 18-49... younger, not older.

 

[davideduardo]

The problem with the 18-49 demo now is it's made up mainly of two very different groups: Gen X and Gen Y. They are almost polar opposites, equally unpredictable, and technologically more sophisticated than the 50+ boomers. So it's easy to say "we'e looking beyond 18-49," but it may also be that the industry is unsure how to target that group.

When advertisers target an age group, they frequently get even more specific, like Men 21-44 (beer) or Women 25-44 (many package goods) and so on. The buys are not blanketeted always.

And if there is a 25-54 or 18-49 buy, the ad agency will do reach and frequency studies on the prospective stations so the ones that reach more men will be balanced against those reaching women efficiently, and there will be an effort to get younger, mid-range and older performing stations inside the demo. This is why some stations, with lousy 12+ numbers do so well in revenue... they efficiently deliver a pice of the most-bought demos and get on every buy.

Radio knows how to target every group... you just talk to a sample of the group and design around what they want. But if advertisers don't want a specific group, there is no gain in programming to it.

 

[pocket-radio]

As Moonves said, "The biggest hits will transcend any specific demographic group."

Mass media as we know it is dying. TV is rethinking the 18-49's because they know their viewers are shifting tv time to the Internet. The numbers are smaller but they know it's a trend they can't stop. It makes more sense to defend the fort for short-term gain, because older demos still like mass media.

Radio is struggling with this too. Cumes remain strong, TSl is trending down, in part because the 12-24's 18-49's spend a great deal of time with their ipods/iphones and cell phones and the internet. It's a trend radio can't stop either. The games has changed.

IF HD grabs any traction, radio's audience will become more fractured...

How do you target anyone who's taste in music isn't just classic rock? it' all over the road, the mass media model is from the past and being able to target anyone is really a myth. It's mass media.... Radio's audience is more fragmented than ever before and radio's loyal audience, exclusive cumes don't exist anymore.

Mass media and targeting, are models from the past...

Buyers today want accountability.... something radio is struggling with...

 

[kd8hho]

well, im 27. i get my news from the internet. i watch the "shows" i want from the internet, so I personally have no use for TV.

Music, i'm a rocker. classic/alt/hard/metal and i only listen to the radio untill the commercials hit. and most of the time, i listen to my music on cd or the pc.

i listen to 1 talk show (savage nation) and thats the only time ill sit though 5 mins of someone tryin to sale me crap. (but the local 93.9 flipped formats awhile back) so now I listen to savage on KFMB audio feed (it actually works well with linux) and I have noticed they have taken there ad spots out of the internet feed (just left dead space)

and I'm shure alot of people are just like me. which is bad news for the advertisers cause i would say the majority of us. blank them out

idk to me, you guys in radio may really have a hard way to go over the next several years.

 

[KeithE4]

well, im 27. i get my news from the internet. i watch the "shows" i want from the internet, so I personally have no use for TV.

I'm 53 and I do pretty much the same thing. Other than sports and sometimes the cable news channels, I have little use for TV - almost none for the local dinosaurs over-the-air channels other than the morning news and network sports.

Music, i'm a rocker. classic/alt/hard/metal and i only listen to the radio untill the commercials hit. and most of the time, i listen to my music on cd or the pc.

I still listen to classic rock (only two stations in Phoenix) and jazz (one station) on FM, sports radio and occasional news/talk on AM, but that's a total of 6 stations in a 50+ station market. But most of my music listening is over the internet - specifically stations carried on Shoutcast and Live365 - since I tend to listen mostly to blues and pre-1975 rock & roll. Can't play that stuff on the radio anymore, can we? That's old geezer's music. ;D

i listen to 1 talk show (savage nation) and thats the only time ill sit though 5 mins of someone tryin to sale me crap. (but the local 93.9 flipped formats awhile back) so now I listen to savage on KFMB audio feed (it actually works well with linux) and I have noticed they have taken there ad spots out of the internet feed (just left dead space)

and I'm shure alot of people are just like me. which is bad news for the advertisers cause i would say the majority of us. blank them out

Radio doesn't want me to listen because I'm too old and decrepit, my attitude is "screw 'em."

idk to me, you guys in radio may really have a hard way to go over the next several years.

Agreed. People are living longer, and guess what: they still buy products! Folks my age and older may not be the clueless sheep that advertisers want to target (Newsflash! Younger folks aren't either in many cases), but we will still try a newly-advertised product. The quality of the product will keep us coming back, not the advertisement. I think that's the case with younger people as well. Targetting mainly the 18-49 age group is living in the past. That might have worked in 1969 or even 1989, but it's an anachronism in 2009.

Radio (meaning terrestrial transmitters, not broadcasting itself) will be dead and gone once the following occur:

1. Universal WiFi accessible to all, with dedicated receviers available at a reasonable price. The Netbook footprint is a start, but work still needs to be done.

2. An easier way of "tuning" the hundreds of thousands of available stations will have to be invented. Given the fact that the content providers' "tuner" web pages (such as Live365 and AOLRadio/CBS's PlayIt) are advertiser-supported, this will probably have to be done through a web browser. But typing a complex URL even once (to save it as a bookmark) is a non-starter. Someone will have to come up with something similar to what SIP is for telephony, where a real phone number can be entered in place of a URL when using an internet phone.

 

[TheBigA]

Today's hope for wifi radio sounds very much like the hope many of us had in the early 70s for FM. We knew that AM radio wasn't the future., Narrow playlists, too many commercials, and over-hyped DJs turned off an entire generation. Now we hear the same criticism of FM, and the dream that internet radio will be the cure.

I am here to say that a time will come when internet radio (at least the popular channels that most people are aware of) will soon be filled with many of the same problems we currently identify with FM. It's the American way. We over-commercialize. It doesn't matter how high-brow the product.

What I'm more concerned about is the concentration of ownership and power of ISPs. I really think that's a problem that Congress, the FCC, and the courts will have to address in the very near future. The power of a small group of telecom companies is more narrow and more insidious than the "media monopoly." It will become the monopoly of the future, and anyone who depends on the internet for content will become its victim.

 

[davideduardo]

I still listen to classic rock (only two stations in Phoenix) and jazz (one station) on FM, sports radio and occasional news/talk on AM, but that's a total of 6 stations in a 50+ station market.

6 is twice as many as the average diarykeeper registers. You are an atypical listener.

I tend to listen mostly to blues and pre-1975 rock & roll. Can't play that stuff on the radio anymore, can we? That's old geezer's music. ;D

Stations don't play blies as it draws no audience, and 60's Top 40 songs draw mostly 55+ listeners, and there are no advertisers looking for that.

Radio doesn't want me to listen because I'm too old and decrepit, my attitude is "screw 'em."

That's not radio's decision. It comes from advertiser usage of radio as a medium; there are essentially no buys for 55+, so commercial stations can't exist on that demo.

Agreed. People are living longer, and guess what: they still buy products! Folks my age and older may not be the clueless sheep that advertisers want to target (Newsflash! Younger folks aren't either in many cases), but we will still try a newly-advertised product.

The group tries it after hearing many more ads. The result is a negative ROI on the advertising. Marketers are not dumb... they just don't do that.

1. Universal WiFi accessible to all, with dedicated receviers available at a reasonable price. The Netbook footprint is a start, but work still needs to be done.

It is not going, by definition, to be WiFi. Not enough range and spectrum for the needed bandwidth. It's going to be WiMax, maybe. Clearwire and Sprint were starting this, but broke up. The infrastructure cost is over $100 billion... and in this economy, it will go slower than anticipated. It's coming, but not fast.