The Aging of the Broadcast Network Audience

[TexasTom]

An interesting article can be found over at the website for Variety. Follow this link for the complete article:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007846.html?categoryId=14&cs=1

Here are a few key excerpts:

TV audiences are growing older
Big Three post median ages above 50
By MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

The networks still preach adults 18-49, but the Big Three are all expected to post median ages above 50 this fall -- with Fox not too far behind.
According to a recent study by former Magna Global EVP Steve Sternberg, the broadcast networks as a whole have once again grown older than ever. The five broadcast nets' average live median age this year -- in other words, not counting DVR usage -- was 51.
That's a whopping 8-year uptick from 10 years ago, when the nets' median age was 43. In comparison, the median age of TV households has grown much less from 1998-1999 to 2008-2009, to 38 from 36.

The article even posits a possible explanation for the agin of the broadcast network audience:

That's because the broadcasters began to greatly age themselves a decade ago as they mostly got out of the kids and teens business. With few shows at the major broadcasters targeted at that aud, save reality competitions like "American Idol," those viewers fled.

This explanation seems all too plausible -- the broadcast networks seem to assume that they'll pick that audience up as they "age into the demographic", but considering the experience of AM radio in the late seventies and the eighties, that seems like wishful thinking.

The problem is that broadcasters are training young viewers to tune into cable channels first -- and happens that start young can hang on for a long time. After all, consider the way that successful independent stations in the seventies and eighties built their audience: they went after the kids first, and built from that. And it worked very, very well.

If broadcast television doesn't want to be rendered irrelevant,it might be time to revisit the strategy of blowing off young viewers.

They may also want to reconsider the false economy of relying heavily on cheap game shows and reality programing, since that stuff also seem to be aging their audiences.

Bottom line -- short term strategies are going to kill the long term viability of their business.

 

[imhomerjay]

The broadcast networks also are at a disadvantage inventory wise. What do you do, cram one hour of less valuable programming in before your two other hours? That would only serve to starve them of yet more money.

There's no false economy in looking for less expensive programming options when the entire landscape is considered. There's absolutely no way to invest the way they did when three networks ruled nearly all the pie and still make money.

 

[Silkie]

How many writers are over the age of about thirty years?

 

[bpatrick]

An interesting article can be found over at the website for Variety. Follow this link for the complete article:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007846.html?categoryId=14&cs=1

Here are a few key excerpts:

TV audiences are growing older
Big Three post median ages above 50
By MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

The networks still preach adults 18-49, but the Big Three are all expected to post median ages above 50 this fall -- with Fox not too far behind.
According to a recent study by former Magna Global EVP Steve Sternberg, the broadcast networks as a whole have once again grown older than ever. The five broadcast nets' average live median age this year -- in other words, not counting DVR usage -- was 51.
That's a whopping 8-year uptick from 10 years ago, when the nets' median age was 43. In comparison, the median age of TV households has grown much less from 1998-1999 to 2008-2009, to 38 from 36.

The article even posits a possible explanation for the agin of the broadcast network audience:

That's because the broadcasters began to greatly age themselves a decade ago as they mostly got out of the kids and teens business. With few shows at the major broadcasters targeted at that aud, save reality competitions like "American Idol," those viewers fled.

This explanation seems all too plausible -- the broadcast networks seem to assume that they'll pick that audience up as they "age into the demographic", but considering the experience of AM radio in the late seventies and the eighties, that seems like wishful thinking.

The problem is that broadcasters are training young viewers to tune into cable channels first -- and happens that start young can hang on for a long time. After all, consider the way that successful independent stations in the seventies and eighties built their audience: they went after the kids first, and built from that. And it worked very, very well.

If broadcast television doesn't want to be rendered irrelevant,it might be time to revisit the strategy of blowing off young viewers.

They may also want to reconsider the false economy of relying heavily on cheap game shows and reality programing, since that stuff also seem to be aging their audiences.

Bottom line -- short term strategies are going to kill the long term viability of their business.

Well put. The other thing to remember is that young people are also spending a lot of time
on their laptops and Twitters, which means they aren't watching television unless--and I'd say
the odds are long--they're streaming something on their computers.

I know ABC was my favorite network when I was growing up and well into my younger
adulthood. Now I hardly recognize the network; it increasingly seems to me to be a clone
of CBS.

 

[imhomerjay]

The other thing to remember is that young people are also spending a lot of time
on their laptops and Twitters, which means they aren't watching television unless--and I'd say
the odds are long--they're streaming something on their computers.

I know ABC was my favorite network when I was growing up and well into my younger
adulthood. Now I hardly recognize the network; it increasingly seems to me to be a clone
of CBS.

Study after study shows young people are not watching significnatly less TV; they're multitasking to be sure. And yes, some "cord cutters" watching nothing but streamed shows, but when the base from which you're starting is relatively low, increases in raw numbers that are relatively small are deceptively, high in percentage terms.

 

[jsu5381m]

I wish networks had real Saturday morning cartoons again.

 

[bpatrick]

The other thing to remember is that young people are also spending a lot of time
on their laptops and Twitters, which means they aren't watching television unless--and I'd say
the odds are long--they're streaming something on their computers.

I know ABC was my favorite network when I was growing up and well into my younger
adulthood. Now I hardly recognize the network; it increasingly seems to me to be a clone
of CBS.

I did say that the odds of young people watching streaming video are probably pretty long.
Another factor no one has mentioned, and I'll vouch for this because I have students in this
situation, is that many young people work nights; I would guess at least half my students
are at a job after 6 PM. Also, many of them take night classes.

While I won't doubt the credibility of surveys, just an informal one (listening to my students)
says they watch only one program regularly: "American Idol."

I'm still curious, homerjay: were you in either law or marketing?
Study after study shows young people are not watching significnatly less TV; they're multitasking to be sure. And yes, some "cord cutters" watching nothing but streamed shows, but when the base from which you're starting is relatively low, increases in raw numbers that are relatively small are deceptively, high in percentage terms.

 

[imhomerjay]

I spent a portion of my life in a quasi marketing role, among other jobs. Not the creative side, to be sure--and for good reasons. Law? No, not a good enough student to tackle that, and my hat is off to those that can do it and use that education to do good in this world.

I don't doubt streaming video will continue to grow, but some of these discussions get so down in the weeds over the transmission method--local broadcasters, cable/satellite or over the Web--that they miss the point entirely. Delivery technology may change and even die out, albeit slowly, but that doesn't mean the companies aggregating the content will all mirror the fate of the pipe itself. Some likely will, but when you cut through the hyperbole, conent isn't free...silly YouTube flashes-in-the-pan aisde. The business models may adapt, and on the macro level they will look markedly different from generation to generation, but someone is goind to be there to finance, at the front end, the professional content audiences want to see. Whether they pay per piece of content or by subscription or by ad support...or hybrids of all three...and whether it comes over the broadcast spectrum, only via satellite/cable or over the Internet, it doesn't matter. An author is no less a writer because he writes at a computer instead of a typewriter, and a "show" is no less a show whether it ever comes through the airwaves or not.

 

[TexasTom]

The broadcast networks also are at a disadvantage inventory wise. What do you do, cram one hour of less valuable programming in before your two other hours? That would only serve to starve them of yet more money.

There's no false economy in looking for less expensive programming options when the entire landscape is considered. There's absolutely no way to invest the way they did when three networks ruled nearly all the pie and still make money.

Unfortunately for the big four, the current demographic trends are unsustainable -- if the audience for ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox keeps aging, at some point they are not even going to be able to maintain the reduced-cost programming that they currently run.

They really do need to find a way of economically producing more programming that would appeal to young audiences, because doing otherwise is sacrificing their futures. That doesn't have to mean putting childrens' shows in primetime, since you're right about that not being economically viable. But more family programming (like ABC's old TGIF block) might be viable, as could a childrens' TV subchannel that is broader-based than QUBO.

 

[cspotrun]

well then, it would appear that 18-34 is "Out Dated" thinking these days, and not based on the Reality of the Television marketplace.

 

[imhomerjay]

Meaning....what?

 

[cowboybud]

well then, it would appear that 18-34 is "Out Dated" thinking these days, and not based on the Reality of the Television marketplace.

20-25 years ago, the advertisers were obsessed with the then-30something baby boomers. Now that they're 50-60 something, they've been thrown under the bus in favor of their offspring, who, by and large, don't watch network TV, read magazines or newspapers, or listen to terrestrial radio.

 

[KeithE4]

well then, it would appear that 18-34 is "Out Dated" thinking these days, and not based on the Reality of the Television marketplace.

20-25 years ago, the advertisers were obsessed with the then-30something baby boomers. Now that they're 50-60 something, they've been thrown under the bus in favor of their offspring, who, by and large, don't watch network TV, read magazines or newspapers, or listen to terrestrial radio.

Some of us like me, who are in our 50s, don't bother with it much either. This is 2009, not 1949, 1969, or even 1989. Life is online now, and has been for 10 years, if not 15. The ionosphere is a liability, not an asset. Terrestrial over-the-air broadcasting won't be going away tomorrow, but it becomes more irrelevant by the day.

I only watch local OTA broadcast TV for the early morning news, mostly for traffic. There is nothing else worth watching on my local channels other than sports, IMHO.

AM and FM radio are relevant only in my car. I rarely listen to radio at home, and with my short commute, I can't justify paying $12 a month for satellite radio. If my cable company can figure out how to make WiMax profitable, and doesn't charge me an arm and a leg on top of what I already pay, radio as it has existed for the last 90 years will be dead to me as well.

At home, 99% of my "radio" listening is online, and 95% of my television watching is cable channels, YouTube, and Hulu. Those that continue to do things the old fashioned way will very quickly be left behind. In fact, they already are.

 

[imhomerjay]

20-25 years ago, the advertisers were obsessed with the then-30something baby boomers. Now that they're 50-60 something, they've been thrown under the bus in favor of their offspring, who, by and large, don't watch network TV, read magazines or newspapers, or listen to terrestrial radio.

That sounds a bit, though, like saying top 40 radio throws listeners under the bus once they're 20 or 30 something. It's not as if the audience members themselves are being thrown under the bus, as we all know. They weren't after the "boomers" because it was Joe, Mike and Cindy per se. So now the advertisers are seeking Joe, Jr., Mike II and Cynthia the daughter. And they're finding them--watching just as much TV as always, but on satellite or cable TV instead. (Magazines and newspapers are a whole additional issue, but for the sake of sticking to TV, probably not worth going there.) How the signal gets to the satellite or the cable headend isn't an issue to the viewers, just what comes out on the other end.

 

[BRNout]

I'll just comment as to what has happened in our extended family's viewing habits over the past 20 years. Go back to 1990 and we pretty much watched broadcast TV first and foremost and cable channels if nothing else was on (a rarity back then).

Some time around 2000 - 2002, most network TV shows started not appealing to my age group (born in the mid to late 1960s) any more. It was interesting because it seemed to happen pretty quickly after the demise of Seinfeld. There were still a few hangers-on from the previous century (such as King of Queens, Raymond, etc.), but most programming seemed to lose our interest. We began finding more to watch on cable networks. Following 9/11, we also tended to tune to cable news networks first and broadcast nets became an afterthought.

Now, our habits are such that we check key cable channels first when sitting down with the remote. I have mine, the wife has hers. My dad has his, my sisters have theirs. I won't say that we watch NO broadcast TV; we do watch some. We put on some PBS shows for the little one; morning news on local TV; syndicated reruns of King of Queens or The Simpsons; sporting events, of course. We watch virtually no reality crap now - the wife used to be interested in American Idol, but that's worn off. I find all of that crap to be, well, crap. Most of what's on doesn't appeal to us, doesn't relate to us and doesn't entertain us.

But the last night of "appointment" programming that we watch from a broadcast network is Sunday night on Fox. That's down from 5 or 6 such nights in 1989 or so. That's a pretty big change from 20 years ago, when I worked at a network affiliate and we had favorite lineups on each network on different nights of the week. TV is constantly on in our house - now it's usually tuned to a cable channel though.

Perhaps we are a microcosm of what's happening nationwide because we're pretty "average" in a number of respects. Use whatever justification you like to explain the tactics of the broadcast networks, but they're not working - all they're doing is alienating their long-standing (older) audiences while not adding the younger ones. Lose - lose situation.

 

[imhomerjay]

Lose-lose. rock-and-a-hard-place...or both. Kind of arguing the cause of death when the end result is the same.

The age moving up suggests they're keeping the older viewers--obviously not all, but those are the viewers staying with them while the younger ones leave. Let's be objective, too--while we talk about overall percentages and shares and such, for the most part, the major networks' shows still finish 1-2-3-4 in the time slots, surpassing all but the most successful cable shows in total viewers. You simply cannot increase the viewing options by a hundredfold or more and think there won't be a monumental shift from the days of a half dozen viable choices. When the rose-colored glasses come off, it's time to accept that the days of 50 shares were a product of few choices as much as the programs themselves.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

I'm 58, so I'm not part of the demo the TV networks or their advertisers want, which I guess is a good thing, as they offer little that I want to watch. I like dramas like Law and Order, NCIS, Cold Case, Lou Grant, the various versions of Star Trek, some comedies like Raymond, Bill Cosby, etc, plus things on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, and PBS. Generally speaking most comedies or sitcoms are simply stupid and not funny or creative, in my opinion. The so called reality shows are a bore. I have about 100 channels to choose from via cable and many a night there is nothing I desire to watch. Radio has the same problem as far as I'm concerned. So I finally made the move and upgraded my internet to high speed and watch shows that interest me on Hulu, You Tube, etc. Same with radio, I can find any type of music I want on line so I'll play the online stations, when at home (my work computer has filters to prevent that or I'd listen to online radio then too).

TV is doing the same thing radio has done. They want the 12-49 year old demos and chase away the 50+ demo, who grew up listening to radio and watching network TV. Unfortunately, for both radio and TV, the desired younger people listen to IPODS, MP3, internet, download music, TV, movies, etc so radio and network TV is usually their last choice. As we Baby Boomers age and are no longer welcomed as listeners or viewers, we've never been a generation to just sit there and take it, so we too, are finding other ways to get our music, and video entertainment some place other than radio and TV. So rather than tell their sales folks to find sponsors that don't mind an aging viewers or listeners (boomers still buy many things every year (and it ain't Geritol) and do have money to spend so it seems like a good group to try to market). Instead they go after the people who are not interested in listening to the radio or watching TV. That sounds like a losing combination, but what do I know, only that from what I've read here and other places, both radio and TV are steadily losing their audience. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

 

[cspotrun]

i think everyone is seeing the Power of SENIORS, in the health care debate. whether they like it or not, there are vast numbers of people that matter and they are 50+ watching TV listening to radio, consuming goods and they should NOT be ignored by the industry.

 

[Silkie]

"The article even posits a possible explanation for the agin of the broadcast network audience:"

Because that's life?

 

[imhomerjay]

i think everyone is seeing the Power of SENIORS, in the health care debate. whether they like it or not, there are vast numbers of people that matter and they are 50+ watching TV listening to radio, consuming goods and they should NOT be ignored by the industry.

Big difference between marketing products to an audience and trying to use scare tactics to get them to vote. The older demos have been a powerful voting bock, so sure, you aim ads there.

If the advertisers wanted that demographic in larger numbers---and this is not an all-or-nothing situation--the entertainment options would reflect that. It isn't "TV" or "radio" that's seeking 18-49 (not 12-49, except the comparitively few that go for more like 12-18), it's the marketing community. Delivering a product your clients aren't going to pay as much for isn't a recipe for success.