End of Oldies - Why are Baby Boomers suddenly "poison demographics"?

[raymond_shaw]

>>>New York's WCBS-FM 101.1 and Chicago's WJMK 104.3 both flipped to Jack at 5PM today.

I don't understand why when we reach a certain age, we're an undesirable consumer audience. This is because younger adults are raising childen and spend more money on food, clothing, birthday and holiday presents, etc?

Yes, true, but people with grownup kids spend more money on themselves, including luxury cars, travel, condos, etc, etc. And what about gifts for all the grandkids?

And then there are people like me...nmnk's(never married, no kids) - I spend a lot more money now than I did even 10 years ago. In my case, inheritance money. But I also have a growing Roth IRA I can cash in, tax free, in 8 years! Baby boomers have a lot of money to spend, for many, many years to come, yet I suspect Oldies is now officially a doomed format, now that the largest Oldies stations in the country have dropped the format.

Keep in mind that know matter how old we live, baby boomers will be the largest segment of the population, so there is also strength in numbers.

But apparently I don't know what I'm talking about here. The advertising and broadcast industry obviously no something I don't know or understand. Please explain...

 

[OldiesCat]

Baby Boomers

It is (and really always has been) the pressure to "think young", that's where all the newest and hottest revenue opportunities are.

But I do agree with you. The fallacy that the 25-54 baby boomer demo that was so desirable 10 years ago is no longer attractive baffles the mind (now that they've moded 35-64).

That thinking will change- it's just being realized slower than we'd like.



> >>>New York's WCBS-FM 101.1 and Chicago's WJMK 104.3 both
> flipped to Jack at 5PM today.
>
> I don't understand why when we reach a certain age, we're an
> undesirable consumer audience. This is because younger
> adults are raising childen and spend more money on food,
> clothing, birthday and holiday presents, etc?
>
> Yes, true, but people with grownup kids spend more money on
> themselves, including luxury cars, travel, condos, etc, etc.
> And what about gifts for all the grandkids?
>
> And then there are people like me...nmnk's(never married, no
> kids) - I spend a lot more money now than I did even 10
> years ago. In my case, inheritance money. But I also have
> a growing Roth IRA I can cash in, tax free, in 8 years!
> Baby boomers have a lot of money to spend, for many, many
> years to come, yet I suspect Oldies is now officially a
> doomed format, now that the largest Oldies stations in the
> country have dropped the format.
>
> Keep in mind that know matter how old we live, baby boomers
> will be the largest segment of the population, so there is
> also strength in numbers.
>
> But apparently I don't know what I'm talking about here.
> The advertising and broadcast industry obviously no
> something I don't know or understand. Please explain...
>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: Baby Boomers

> It is (and really always has been) the pressure to "think
> young", that's where all the newest and hottest revenue
> opportunities are.
>
> But I do agree with you. The fallacy that the 25-54 baby
> boomer demo that was so desirable 10 years ago is no longer
> attractive baffles the mind (now that they've moded 35-64).
>
>
> That thinking will change- it's just being realized slower
> than we'd like.

Only if the boomers behave differently as consumers as previous generations in terms of being resistant to switch brand loyalty, etc.

The reason the ad agencies aren't moving older with their buys is not as baffling as you think. It is a fact that the vast majority (more than 75%) of people over 60 are incredibly resistant to change their buying habits. To the agencies, that makes them not worth the effort to market to.

The businesses specific to older demos, as mentioned elsewhere, are an obvious exception to that, but there aren't enough of those ad buys to sustain very many stations.

If the boomers reverse the trend, the agencies will notice.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[OldiesCat]

Baby Boomers

it's been well-documented they have changed are are nowhere near as locked into spending habits as the previous generation--it is a perception that has held but is not nearly the reality it used to be. Not only that, 25 years ago when Beautiful Music stations were fading into the sunset, 50+ listeners did not have anything close to the 401k, pension stock income many have now. AND, it's a different buying age- technology has changed most everything in the past 10-15 years, so many of those barriers that existed in 1980, for example, are no longer.

>
> Only if the boomers behave differently as consumers as
> previous generations in terms of being resistant to switch
> brand loyalty, etc.
>
> The reason the ad agencies aren't moving older with their
> buys is not as baffling as you think. It is a fact that the
> vast majority (more than 75%) of people over 60 are
> incredibly resistant to change their buying habits. To the
> agencies, that makes them not worth the effort to market to.
>
>
> The businesses specific to older demos, as mentioned
> elsewhere, are an obvious exception to that, but there
> aren't enough of those ad buys to sustain very many
> stations.
>
> If the boomers reverse the trend, the agencies will notice.
>

 

[davideduardo]

> >>>New York's WCBS-FM 101.1 and Chicago's WJMK 104.3 both
> flipped to Jack at 5PM today.
>
> I don't understand why when we reach a certain age, we're an
> undesirable consumer audience. This is because younger
> adults are raising childen and spend more money on food,
> clothing, birthday and holiday presents, etc?

No, it is because of several factors:

1. Extensive proprietary reaserch in the consumer brands and services industries has shown that it takes more advertising to change preferences of older consumers. In many cases, the profit on the sale is less than the cost of getting the sale.

2. Many older consumers are more skeptical of advertising, due to a life of trying to ignore it.

3. Retired consumers have more limited incomes. When you talke away any home equity, the median net worth per pre-retirement fiftty-something consumer, per the WSJ last Friday, is around $10,000. Even with home equity averaged in, the average (not median) household has a net worth of less than $100,000 which will produce a grand total of about $300 a month income in tax free muny's)
>
> Yes, true, but people with grownup kids spend more money on
> themselves, including luxury cars, travel, condos, etc, etc.
> And what about gifts for all the grandkids?

Funny, but the median househld income in the US is hovering just over $40,000 per year. The average luxury car costs more than that, and I looked at condos in LA this weekend, and they are starting in the 300's.
>
> And then there are people like me...nmnk's(never married, no
> kids) - I spend a lot more money now than I did even 10
> years ago. In my case, inheritance money.

I'm having a hard time not making a snide remark. Suffice to say that you are in the top 10%, in all liklihood. Most people inherit debts, if anything.

> But I also have
> a growing Roth IRA I can cash in, tax free, in 8 years!
> Baby boomers have a lot of money to spend, for many, many
> years to come, yet I suspect Oldies is now officially a
> doomed format, now that the largest Oldies stations in the
> country have dropped the format.

Because advertisers KNOW that 55+ is not a useful sales demo, and manufacturers and marketers do research that shows there is more money to be made in younger demos. Is it "fair?" No. Is it the way things are? Yes.

Don't blame radio stations for moving younger as time goes on.
>
> Keep in mind that know matter how old we live, baby boomers
> will be the largest segment of the population, so there is
> also strength in numbers.

55+ is now 27% of the Population (US Census 2004 projection). It is not the largest segment, yet.
>
> But apparently I don't know what I'm talking about here.

No, you just don't have all the facts, and are judging your personal and enviable situation as that of the general population.

> The advertising and broadcast industry obviously no
> something I don't know or understand. Please explain...

The ad industry simply follows a client's dicatates, and the media offer products (stations, magazines, etc) that appeal to the prime ad demos. In other words, they mine for gold in the mountains of Nevada, not in the Florida Keys.
>

 

[radioray]

Re: Baby Boomers

"That thinking will change- it's just being realized sloweIf the boomers reverse the trend, the agencies will notice."

Well, thats kind of a self-perpetuatimg prophecy, the baby-boomers won't change un teil there is some agency business encouraging them to do so.

 

[KMRichards]

Re: Baby Boomers

> "That thinking will change- it's just being realized sloweIf
> the boomers reverse the trend, the agencies will notice."
>
> Well, thats kind of a self-perpetuatimg prophecy, the
> baby-boomers won't change un teil there is some agency
> business encouraging them to do so.

Not true. Enough of the boomers are exposed to advertising, in a variety of media, which are not targeted at them but which influences them nonetheless.

My feeling is that the agencies, in trying to chase the demographic with the largest number of potential targets, will -- before too long -- start studying the buying habits of the boomers in detail again. At that point, either the boomers will be shown to be contrary to conventional thinking (in which case 45+ becomes important again) or they will be shown to be pretty much set in their purchase patterns (in which case ... well, you know).

BTW, you combined my quote with someone else's above. That makes it much harder to form a proper reply.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Baby Boomers

There was a series of TV ads for high tech products targeted at older demosa couple of years back. Not sure if they were successful.







> > "That thinking will change- it's just being realized
> sloweIf
> > the boomers reverse the trend, the agencies will notice."
> >
> > Well, thats kind of a self-perpetuatimg prophecy, the
> > baby-boomers won't change un teil there is some agency
> > business encouraging them to do so.
>
> Not true. Enough of the boomers are exposed to advertising,
> in a variety of media, which are not targeted at them but
> which influences them nonetheless.
>
> My feeling is that the agencies, in trying to chase the
> demographic with the largest number of potential targets,
> will -- before too long -- start studying the buying habits
> of the boomers in detail again. At that point, either the
> boomers will be shown to be contrary to conventional
> thinking (in which case 45+ becomes important again) or they
> will be shown to be pretty much set in their purchase
> patterns (in which case ... well, you know).
>
> BTW, you combined my quote with someone else's above. That
> makes it much harder to form a proper reply.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"You can't say 'moron' on the radio, you can only say 'moron' on television"...FCC official on an episode of "The Fairly Oddparents" which my son watches</P>

 

[fredflintstone]

Do we have to keep talking about this over and over?

This question has been beaten to death on the Adult Standards board. Then on the Oldies board. Then someone who is a regular on the Oldies Board brings it over here, possibly hoping to hear a different answer.

Sorry, this is the reality of broadcasting, marketing and advertising. Several people (me included) have posted lengthy and detailed explanations of why older demos are not cost-effective for advertisers. Advertisers and market researchers have been studying this since the late 60's (when the leading edge of the baby boomers were still in college, and an oldie was an occasional song from a year or two ago tossed in on a top 40 AM station).

There is some irony here. Baby boomers were probably not that sympathetic when their parents were upset because ABC cancelled Lawrence Welk and MOR radio stations flipped to top 40. Now it's our turn.

I have yet to see an arguement made on this board that wasn't made 40 years ago. In the meantime, marketers have been accumulating four decades worth of consumer purchase behavior data.

But there is one telling piece of evidence to show the ad people are right in claiming it is not cost-effective to sell to the 50+ crowd: The way oldies and adult standards fans come here to whine about the loss of their favorite music and to come up with ways to have radio the way it was -- instead of listening online to Internet radio, or going out and getting satellite radios and/or mp3 players. If you all have all that disposible income and are so willing to buy (so advertisers should try to sell to you), go out and get the new technology that will give you what you say you want. Another sure sign of old age - complaining about change and how much better things used to be.

 

[OldiesCat]

yes,

Because maybe some of us who actually care deeply about radio would like to
-- are you ready for this-- maybe find a solution to this challenge.

> This question has been beaten to death on the Adult
> Standards board. Then on the Oldies board. Then someone
> who is a regular on the Oldies Board brings it over here,
> possibly hoping to hear a different answer.
>
> Sorry, this is the reality of broadcasting, marketing and
> advertising. Several people (me included) have posted
> lengthy and detailed explanations of why older demos are not
> cost-effective for advertisers. Advertisers and market
> researchers have been studying this since the late 60's
> (when the leading edge of the baby boomers were still in
> college, and an oldie was an occasional song from a year or
> two ago tossed in on a top 40 AM station).
>
> There is some irony here. Baby boomers were probably not
> that sympathetic when their parents were upset because ABC
> cancelled Lawrence Welk and MOR radio stations flipped to
> top 40. Now it's our turn.
>
> I have yet to see an arguement made on this board that
> wasn't made 40 years ago. In the meantime, marketers have
> been accumulating four decades worth of consumer purchase
> behavior data.
>
> But there is one telling piece of evidence to show the ad
> people are right in claiming it is not cost-effective to
> sell to the 50+ crowd: The way oldies and adult standards
> fans come here to whine about the loss of their favorite
> music and to come up with ways to have radio the way it was
> -- instead of listening online to Internet radio, or going
> out and getting satellite radios and/or mp3 players. If you
> all have all that disposible income and are so willing to
> buy (so advertisers should try to sell to you), go out and
> get the new technology that will give you what you say you
> want. Another sure sign of old age - complaining about
> change and how much better things used to be.
>

 

[fredflintstone]

Re: yes,

> Because maybe some of us who actually care deeply about
> radio would like to
> -- are you ready for this-- maybe find a solution to this
> challenge.
>

The radio you "care deeply about" is gone.

Radio, like any business or any species, must adapt or perish. And radio is a business. I don't think you care about the business. What you care about is having your own tastes and preferences gratified. Or if you work in radio, you want to keep doing what you've been doing.

Oldies is going to the graveyard of formats that are no longer commercially viable in the business of radio:
Old-time radio dramas and sitcoms.
MOR
Full Service
Big Band
Adult Standards
Easy Listening/Beautiful Music
Classical
and now Oldies.

Tastes change. Times change. These formats had a long time in the spotlights. All good things come to an end.

Look to Internet Radio. Look to satellite radio. They are radio, too. Don't confuse the technology with the essential medium.