While I must give you props on the use of the term "blockhead" (haven't heard that one in a while and I love it), I disagree with your statement from an economic perspective. The theory that you can allocate the advertising dollar based on the cost/value of the product itself as relative the the assumption that the older demo has more disposable income is simply not accurate.
Let's look at your example of a luxury car versus a McDonald's hamburger. You seem to be suggesting that advertisers need to realize that the older demo commands more of the disposable income in the country and, therefore, a format of this nature should attract more advertisers and the Madison Avenue folks should recommend to their people that this would be a good target. Here's where that logic is flawed: While I would agree that (generally) the older demo is probably in a different income level that you 18-30's, the difference is that a exponentially larger amount of people can afford to buy a McDonald's hamburger than can afford a luxury car. Looking at the raw numbers, Mercedes (I'll use them because I know the numbers offhand) did about $400 million in the US last years. McDonald's, on the other had, did roughly $2 billion in sales in May of this year. Basically, you average college student and the CEO of Home Depot are going to have a Quarter Pounder every once in a while. The buyer pool for a fast food hamburger, is, well, practically everyone. The buyer pool for a new Mercedes is probably about between 1% and 2% of the population. And, you are also making the assmumption that just because a demo is older, that they will always have a high level of income, which is certainly not true.
Also, there were (in 2004) roughly 50 million income earners in 18 -34 and about the same number in 45 - 64 (according to the census). So, once again, even if you apply your theory that all of the older demo is wealthy enough to afford a luxury car and the younger group is not, you have 100 million income earners that will probaby buy a multiple Big Macs this years, versus half of that number who may or may not buy 1 luxury car and on average will drive it for at least 4 years. Also, the per capita income of those groups is not largly divergent. The per capita income of the 18-34 group was about $24K against the per capita of the 45-64 group with was about $26K.
Man, I shouldn't have gone to business school. Anywho, from an economic perspective, the advertising folks really aren't that dumb when it comes to allocating the dollar....
Let's look at your example of a luxury car versus a McDonald's hamburger. You seem to be suggesting that advertisers need to realize that the older demo commands more of the disposable income in the country and, therefore, a format of this nature should attract more advertisers and the Madison Avenue folks should recommend to their people that this would be a good target. Here's where that logic is flawed: While I would agree that (generally) the older demo is probably in a different income level that you 18-30's, the difference is that a exponentially larger amount of people can afford to buy a McDonald's hamburger than can afford a luxury car. Looking at the raw numbers, Mercedes (I'll use them because I know the numbers offhand) did about $400 million in the US last years. McDonald's, on the other had, did roughly $2 billion in sales in May of this year. Basically, you average college student and the CEO of Home Depot are going to have a Quarter Pounder every once in a while. The buyer pool for a fast food hamburger, is, well, practically everyone. The buyer pool for a new Mercedes is probably about between 1% and 2% of the population. And, you are also making the assmumption that just because a demo is older, that they will always have a high level of income, which is certainly not true.
Also, there were (in 2004) roughly 50 million income earners in 18 -34 and about the same number in 45 - 64 (according to the census). So, once again, even if you apply your theory that all of the older demo is wealthy enough to afford a luxury car and the younger group is not, you have 100 million income earners that will probaby buy a multiple Big Macs this years, versus half of that number who may or may not buy 1 luxury car and on average will drive it for at least 4 years. Also, the per capita income of those groups is not largly divergent. The per capita income of the 18-34 group was about $24K against the per capita of the 45-64 group with was about $26K.
Man, I shouldn't have gone to business school. Anywho, from an economic perspective, the advertising folks really aren't that dumb when it comes to allocating the dollar....