This is not your father's 50-something

[radioskeptic]

This morning, NPR's "Weekend Edition Saturday" had an interesting segment on avertisers' aversion to older demographics. Although it dealt with TV, much of it seems relevant to Oldies radio.

The most interesting observation was that the "conventional wisdom" of the advetising business, which says that the 50+ audience is too set in its ways and inflexible to be worth reaching, is more than 30 years old, and is based on empirical observations of people who were in that age range back in the 1970's. These were people who experienced the Great Depression as children or adolescents, and as a result they had a lingering sense of economic insecurity and tended to be very frugal.

But people in their 50's today grew up in the post-war boom when America's economy was at its peak (that is, at its peak for middle and working class Americans, not just for Wall Street buccaneers), and thus today's 50-somethings are more free spending, and thus far more worthy of adverisers' attention.

The conclusion was that, with younger people spending less time with TV and more with the internet, oldsters may be the salvation of network TV for the next decade or two. Couldn't this also apply to radio, with promising implications for Oldies?

(Story titile: "Silver-Haired Characters Slowly Re-Emerge on TV." Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6172344)

 

[fred flintstone]

This morning, NPR's "Weekend Edition Saturday" had an interesting segment on avertisers' aversion to older demographics. Although it dealt with TV, much of it seems relevant to Oldies radio.

The most interesting observation was that the "conventional wisdom" of the advetising business, which says that the 50+ audience is too set in its ways and inflexible to be worth reaching, is more than 30 years old, and is based on empirical observations of people who were in that age range back in the 1970's. These were people who experienced the Great Depression as children or adolescents, and as a result they had a lingering sense of economic insecurity and tended to be very frugal.

But people in their 50's today grew up in the post-war boom when America's economy was at its peak (that is, at its peak for middle and working class Americans, not just for Wall Street buccaneers), and thus today's 50-somethings are more free spending, and thus far more worthy of adverisers' attention.

The conclusion was that, with younger people spending less time with TV and more with the internet, oldsters may be the salvation of network TV for the next decade or two. Couldn't this also apply to radio, with promising implications for Oldies?

(Story titile: "Silver-Haired Characters Slowly Re-Emerge on TV." Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6172344)

No, that's not it.
Once again, when reporters cover business - even the business they are in - they manage to get it wrong.
The key issue is not whether older consumers show higher brand loyalty (as a rule, they do) or are late adopters of innovations (as rule, they are).
The main issue is the 80/20 rule (actual percentages may vary). Core target customers account for a vastly disproportionate amount of sales (i.e., 80 per cent of sales come from 20 per cent of customers). For most product categories, older consumers are on the rim - not in the bulls eye. The advertiser is asking how much will I get in increased sales for each dollar I spend in advertising to reach this station's audience.
Advertisers know who buys and how much they buy. Just as their ratings for radio listening, their are consumer panels for purchase behavior. In addition, store cards and debit/credit cards help track purchase behavior.

Public radio's audience skews old, too. And that's what they've got to sell to their sponsors.

 

[TheFonz]

The conclusion was that, with younger people spending less time with TV and more with the internet, oldsters may be the salvation of network TV for the next decade or two. Couldn't this also apply to radio, with promising implications for Oldies?

(Story titile: "Silver-Haired Characters Slowly Re-Emerge on TV." Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6172344)

I don't think that "oldsters" will ever come back to network TV. Advertisers would be wise to spend their money on niche cable channels such as Animal Planet, The Golf Channel, National Geographic, and The Travel Channel. Terrestrial radio can't create niche music stations. And the Oldies format as we know it (or knew it) can't compete with satellite radio.

 

[amfmsw]

Advertising on low rated fringe channels, specialty channels, is extremely ineffective. Unless it's golf or lifestyle related, the channel is pretty much a waste.
Same for the others. Look up local ratings (if possible). You'll find that that 80/20 rule is in effect, with nearly 80% of all viewing owned by local broadcasters, and the other 20% or so to the other 40 channels. That's crumbs. The exceptions may be the Weather Channel and ESPN.

It would take a lot more money to get the reach (% of population or viewers) with enough frequency (3 times minimun in a week) on poorly viewed channels to make any ad campaign effective. Heck, even at 60/40%, that's 60% of all viewing to what, around 10-12 channels, as compared to 40% for the other 40. That's a 1% average. It's a collasal waste of money.

They are usually sold in packages, with one buy being duplicated on all other owned channels. Comcast is king at that.

 

[Anyacat]

I would like to read the study that claims older people today (you know those aging hippies) are slow to accept new technology, spend less time on the internet (and compared to who, a 14-year-old who has no disposable income), and who are these "oldsters" who are devoted to the crap on network TV--no one I know. Just point me to the study, that's all I ask. I see this same thing posted over and over again about people age 50 and older and I'd like to see from where this myth emanates.

 

[TheFonz]

Advertising on low rated fringe channels, specialty channels, is extremely ineffective. Unless it's golf or lifestyle related, the channel is pretty much a waste.

I believe that most of the channels I mentioned ARE lifestyle-related. "Oldsters" like to golf, fish, travel, watch horse racing, and watch news/educational programming. Heck, I even like to watch "Gene Simmons' Family Jewels" on A&E. (Gene is getting to be an "oldster" himself, you know). There are quite a few lifestyle-related channels in my 180 channel package, INCLUDING satellite radio.

 

[amfmsw]

180 channels! Thank you for proving my point. The viewership is so fractured, advertising on it is ineffective and expensive to get workable reach and frequency.

And I miswrote in talking about "lifestyle". I meant using the Golf Channel for Golf related productes and Golfing Lifestyle. It's only good for niche marketing.

Onto another point, I too would like to see this "research" that show 50 year olds don't swith brands, don't try new products, don't have spendable income. I understand that there was some phone/auditorium interviews done in the early '70's. That was over 30 years ago! I have NOTHING in common with my parents at age 50 when it comes to buying new products, technology and brands. Hell, they'd still be watching a console B&W Zenith TV with a "Sunshine Bright" picture tube if they could buy one! Not our generation...not the boomers.

 

[TheFonz]

And I miswrote in talking about "lifestyle". I meant using the Golf Channel for Golf related productes and Golfing Lifestyle. It's only good for niche marketing.

I guess I don't understand the point. What's wrong with niche marketing? Radio does it all the time when they target certain age groups.

 

[radiofriend1]

And I miswrote in talking about "lifestyle". I meant using the Golf Channel for Golf related productes and Golfing Lifestyle. It's only good for niche marketing.

I guess I don't understand the point. What's wrong with niche marketing? Radio does it all the time when they target certain age groups.

not to 60 yr olds. avail. revenue is way too small and NOT growing (just the reverse)

what so few do not get is that the *oldies demo* is aging past 60............it is a demo that has no long term future for advertisers trying to grow their brands

that is not necessarily bad or good. it just is what it is

so, to those who are so intent on **keeping oldies alive** either program the heck out of your mp3 player or go out and buy a small radio station and get your jollies out of playing elvis records to your hearts content

 

[amfmsw]

Radiofriend, I understand your argument, respect it, but disagree. There are so many products and services for 45-65 year olds, most station sales teams can't keep up.

Levitra & Viagra
Restasin
any Osteo product
Lipitor/Crestor
Centrum supplements
Heck, just watch ANY national network newscast

Reverse Mortgages & Financial Planning
Stock Market Self-Broker Houses

NONE of these things were around 10 years ago. They are targeted EXCLUSIVELY to Boomers. They are thriving on 60 year olds. There ARE budgets, HUGE broadcast, including radio budgets for these products.

 

[OldGringo]

Radiofriend, I understand your argument, respect it, but disagree. There are so many products and services for 45-65 year olds, most station sales teams can't keep up.

Levitra & Viagra
Restasin
any Osteo product
Lipitor/Crestor
Centrum supplements
Heck, just watch ANY national network newscast

Reverse Mortgages & Financial Planning
Stock Market Self-Broker Houses

NONE of these things were around 10 years ago. They are targeted EXCLUSIVELY to Boomers. They are thriving on 60 year olds. There ARE budgets, HUGE broadcast, including radio budgets for these products.

In LA, so far this year, we have seen zero buys targeting 55+. The products you name seldom use radio... one of the reasons is the lengthy disclaimer requirement that video handles with on screen text in part... a radio ad would be 10% selling and 90% disclaimer.

 

[radiofriend1]

Radiofriend, I understand your argument, respect it, but disagree. There are so many products and services for 45-65 year olds, most station sales teams can't keep up.

Levitra & Viagra
Restasin
any Osteo product
Lipitor/Crestor
Centrum supplements
Heck, just watch ANY national network newscast

Reverse Mortgages & Financial Planning
Stock Market Self-Broker Houses

NONE of these things were around 10 years ago. They are targeted EXCLUSIVELY to Boomers. They are thriving on 60 year olds. There ARE budgets, HUGE broadcast, including radio budgets for these products.

a properly run and well supported *oldies* station cannot make a living on that stuff

bread & water. might fill your belly for awhile but u can't flourish on it

 

[Anyacat]

I'm still waiting to find the definitive study that says today's 50+ group is anything like the same age group in the past, that they are less willing to invest in new products and new technologies and that are only interested in ED medications. No-friend-of-radio has contempt for the oldies format, and, apparently, those to whom it appeals. However, I maintain that ad reps who cannot find adequate advertising for their 50s stations are not doing their jobs--and, let's face, it takes a certain lack of creativity to settle for a job selling ad space/time.

 

[radiofriend1]

I'm still waiting to find the definitive study that says today's 50+ group is anything like the same age group in the past

on that point we agree

it's not me U should be complaining to

it's advertisers and their agencies who see little value in attracting 55+ radio listeners. even news-talk stations are trying to **get younger**. not succeeding much but trying

 

[Oldbones]

I'm still waiting to find the definitive study that says today's 50+ group is anything like the same age group in the past, that they are less willing to invest in new products and new technologies and that are only interested in ED medications. No-friend-of-radio has contempt for the oldies format, and, apparently, those to whom it appeals. However, I maintain that ad reps who cannot find adequate advertising for their 50s stations are not doing their jobs--and, let's face, it takes a certain lack of creativity to settle for a job selling ad space/time.

And we're still waiting for you to show us how it's done. If your theories are correct, you ought to be top biller in no time, right?

 

[radiofriend1]

I'm still waiting to find the definitive study that says today's 50+ group is anything like the same age group in the past, that they are less willing to invest in new products and new technologies and that are only interested in ED medications. No-friend-of-radio has contempt for the oldies format, and, apparently, those to whom it appeals. However, I maintain that ad reps who cannot find adequate advertising for their 50s stations are not doing their jobs--and, let's face, it takes a certain lack of creativity to settle for a job selling ad space/time.

And we're still waiting for you to show us how it's done. If your theories are correct, you ought to be top biller in no time, right?

not what i am saying

if they are NOT INTERESTED, nothing i can say is gonna change their minds.

if the 55+ demo was indeed as lucrative as some of u are fantasizing is so, don't u think the radio groups so many of u accuse of being money hungry bottom-line everything's about the buck would be ALL OVER IT? \\

u can say in one breath "corporate radio is all about the money" and in the next breath intimate "there's a ton o' money to be made from advertising to aging baby boomers but becuz gm's and agencies/advertisers don't like boomers they'll leave all that dough on the table"

c'mon

 

[TheFonz]

[/quote]

so, to those who are so intent on **keeping oldies alive** either program the heck out of your mp3 player or go out and buy a small radio station and get your jollies out of playing elvis records to your hearts content
[/quote]

I don't happen to be one of those who is "intent on keeping Oldies alive" on terrestrial radio. I think we would both agree that it's too late, and that terrestrial radio couldn't compete with satellite in that format even if it wanted to. But some posters on this board continue to tell us what terrestrial radio CAN'T do, or WON'T do. For the sake of those who still own stock in terrestrial radio, I'd like to hear what it CAN do or WILL do when its current dwindling audience ages out of the "demo".

 

[radiofriend1]

so, to those who are so intent on **keeping oldies alive** either program the heck out of your mp3 player or go out and buy a small radio station and get your jollies out of playing elvis records to your hearts content
[/quote]

I don't happen to be one of those who is "intent on keeping Oldies alive" on terrestrial radio. I think we would both agree that it's too late, and that terrestrial radio couldn't compete with satellite in that format even if it wanted to. But some posters on this board continue to tell us what terrestrial radio CAN'T do, or WON'T do. For the sake of those who still own stock in terrestrial radio, I'd like to hear what it CAN do or WILL do when its current dwindling audience ages out of the "demo".
[/quote]

THE DEMO is THE DEMO

if u think about it the 25-54's of a decade ago are now 35-64. primo real estate, right?

not to advertisers and their agencies

so, as they say------when in rome

hey if i thought fighting **city hall** would be worth it i'd be the first in line

it would be a VERY short-term victory even IF u could pull it off

 

[OldGringo]

u can say in one breath "corporate radio is all about the money" and in the next breath intimate "there's a ton o' money to be made from advertising to aging baby boomers but becuz gm's and agencies/advertisers don't like boomers they'll leave all that dough on the table"

c'mon

It's not the agencies... it is the agecy clients that specify demos, based on research, product design, ROI on advertising, etc.

 

[Anyacat]

I think there's two things at work here. Large corporations got into radio as a way to make a profit, rather than because they have any roots in music or any interest in news. This is different than, for example, the Jell-o people, who, in the 1930s, sponsored an entire show and wanted to be identified with the star of that show. When your major thrust is to provide a profit by advertising revenue, content or format is unimportant, as long as there is some vehicle by which an advertising message is delivered. However, if nobody listens to the station, then the message goes nowhere. But who decides when the profit is not enough? The advertisers message is being received but the parent company wants more and the only way it can get more is to charge more and the only way it can charge more is to provide numbers. The real problem begins when the numbers and the revenue outweigh programming. There is money to be made from baby boomers, but to make it you have to give them something worth listening to and corporate radio is far more concerned with revenue than it is with content. I don't think terrestrial radio is dead, but I do think it has changed beyond all recognition. Corporate radio has done to radio what was done to network television, they offer a cheap imitation of news and entertainment and then wonder why people, baby boomers included, move to satellite or away from radio altogether to MP3 players or the internet. I don't think advertisers understand this, or care about it, any more than L. Lowry Mays does. It's the classic chicken v egg conundrum.