I'm not, but I am older [47] than the typical Fox and CW viewer according to a new study released by MAGNA Global:
"The median ages of the broadcast networks keep rising, as traditional television is no longer necessarily the first screen for the younger set. Not long ago, CBS was by far the oldest network, with a median age above 50. But ABC and NBC have gradually gotten older, and are approaching 50 themselves. In fact, among live viewers, ABC has hit 50, while NBC is at 49. Even FOX, now has a median age over 40. And CW, the one broadcast network that still has a median age under 35, is struggling to manage even a 3 household share with its new programming.
For the first time, the average live median age for the five broadcast networks combined is 50.
Note that FOX and CW have average median ages that are actually much closer to that of the general population than the other networks. Spanish language network, Univision, is also younger, with an average median age of 34. The other Spanish language networks also hover in the 35 range."
I don't think that the differences cited between Live and Live+7 viewing are particularly interesting, but the overall numbers do hammer home the point about why advertisers value TV shows that attract the youth demographics [18-34, 18-49, 25-54]. They are rare, and rarity makes them valuable. Shows that deliver 50 year olds are common and therefore not as valuable.
I don't in any way see this as some kind of civil rights issue, no one is being discriminated against. This is the marketplace at work.
So you think the youth demographics “are rare, and rarity makes them valuable”. I tend to disagree. Polio and small pox are rarities but that doesn’t mean they are more valuable or desirable.
First of all, that median number (50) is going to go up in the next few years. While proportionately, there will be fewer numbers in the youth demographics, there will also be fewer in that group who can afford to buy what the sponsors are selling. I thought the whole idea was to get viewers with money who could buy the goods being advertised, not just attract viewers because they rarely watch broadcast television.
Secondly, I think this ‘youth’ age group will become more of a rarity in the future because they will be watching programming using other media and technology. The television has already become one of many options from which to choose to watch programming. There is already specialized programming on the internet which is not offered on cable or network television.
While I agree that it is not some kind of civil rights issue, there is an element of discrimination. However, as long as we old folks have enough quality programming to choose from whether on cable, computer or perhaps television (although the latter is becoming less attractive all the time), discrimination is not an issue.
I do believe that marketers and advertisers are still not comfortable with the 50+ demo of today because they are still regarding them as they did the 50+ audiences of 50 years ago. It is time they got with the program and started realizing that the bulk of the money and population is and will continue to be part of this older demo for years to come and as a result, will be given the attention, respect and value they deserve.
So you think the youth demographics “are rare, and rarity makes them valuable”. I tend to disagree. Polio and small pox are rarities but that doesn’t mean they are more valuable or desirable.
First of all, that median number (50) is going to go up in the next few years. While proportionately, there will be fewer numbers in the youth demographics, there will also be fewer in that group who can afford to buy what the sponsors are selling. I thought the whole idea was to get viewers with money who could buy the goods being advertised, not just attract viewers because they rarely watch broadcast television.
Secondly, I think this ‘youth’ age group will become more of a rarity in the future because they will be watching programming using other media and technology. The television has already become one of many options from which to choose to watch programming. There is already specialized programming on the internet which is not offered on cable or network television.
While I agree that it is not some kind of civil rights issue, there is an element of discrimination. However, as long as we old folks have enough quality programming to choose from whether on cable, computer or perhaps television (although the latter is becoming less attractive all the time), discrimination is not an issue.
I do believe that marketers and advertisers are still not comfortable with the 50+ demo of today because they are still regarding them as they did the 50+ audiences of 50 years ago. It is time they got with the program and started realizing that the bulk of the money and population is and will continue to be part of this older demo for years to come and as a result, will be given the attention, respect and value they deserve.
So you think the youth demographics “are rare, and rarity makes them valuable”. I tend to disagree. Polio and small pox are rarities but that doesn’t mean they are more valuable or desirable.
First of all, that median number (50) is going to go up in the next few years. While proportionately, there will be fewer numbers in the youth demographics, there will also be fewer in that group who can afford to buy what the sponsors are selling. I thought the whole idea was to get viewers with money who could buy the goods being advertised, not just attract viewers because they rarely watch broadcast television.
Secondly, I think this ‘youth’ age group will become more of a rarity in the future because they will be watching programming using other media and technology. The television has already become one of many options from which to choose to watch programming. There is already specialized programming on the internet which is not offered on cable or network television.
While I agree that it is not some kind of civil rights issue, there is an element of discrimination. However, as long as we old folks have enough quality programming to choose from whether on cable, computer or perhaps television (although the latter is becoming less attractive all the time), discrimination is not an issue.
I do believe that marketers and advertisers are still not comfortable with the 50+ demo of today because they are still regarding them as they did the 50+ audiences of 50 years ago. It is time they got with the program and started realizing that the bulk of the money and population is and will continue to be part of this older demo for years to come and as a result, will be given the attention, respect and value they deserve.
Amen to Katie. She covered the topic well. Economically it makes no sense. In order to attract the audience you are unlikely to get you are pushing away the audience you presently have. Excellent. What the networks need to do is convince advertisers they are misguided in their quest for the youth dollars. Older skewing audiences use their dollars to buy products for themselves, their children, their parents, and their grandchildren.
Katie, your polio/smallpox rarity comparison is nonsense.
My point remains that advertisers that want to reach young audiences through TV have limited options. The limited nature of those options drives up their value/price. Lots of shows deliver big audiences of 50+ aged viewers, few deliver big audiences under age 30.
Catherine, you don’t think that CBS is desperately trying to convince advertisers that its old skewing audience should be valuable to them? Of course they are, listen to what Les Moonves says in public.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/03/17/moonves-stop-talking-upscale-18-34-year-olds/2958
Unfortunately for CBS, they have not been successful in that convincing process.
Katie, your polio/smallpox rarity comparison is nonsense.
My point remains that advertisers that want to reach young audiences through TV have limited options. The limited nature of those options drives up their value/price. Lots of shows deliver big audiences of 50+ aged viewers, few deliver big audiences under age 30.
Catherine, you don’t think that CBS is desperately trying to convince advertisers that its old skewing audience should be valuable to them? Of course they are, listen to what Les Moonves says in public.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/03/17/moonves-stop-talking-upscale-18-34-year-olds/2958
Unfortunately for CBS, they have not been successful in that convincing process.
Are you seriously comparing <30 viewers to smallpox? The ratings bare out the story – we are a harder demo to reach, thus advertizers will pay more for us. It's not discrimination, it's supply and demand.
Remember, you were once in our demo too. And I'm sure that when you were, you really didn't give a damn that the over 50s were virutally ignored. And someday I'll be over 50, and maybe by then I'll care.
Are you seriously comparing <30 viewers to smallpox? The ratings bare out the story – we are a harder demo to reach, thus advertizers will pay more for us. It's not discrimination, it's supply and demand.
Remember, you were once in our demo too. And I'm sure that when you were, you really didn't give a damn that the over 50s were virutally ignored. And someday I'll be over 50, and maybe by then I'll care.
Comparing The CW to smallpox would make much more sense.
I think a more apt comparison would be diamonds. They are valuable not because they are particularly rare or because they’re really all that special. They’re valuable simply because advertisers tell us that they are, and we believe it.
Are 18-34 year olds more difficult to reach? Yes. But are they actually worth more or are they valuable simply because people believe they are?
I think a more apt comparison would be diamonds. They are valuable not because they are particularly rare or because they’re really all that special. They’re valuable simply because advertisers tell us that they are, and we believe it.
Are 18-34 year olds more difficult to reach? Yes. But are they actually worth more or are they valuable simply because people believe they are?
While I agree that the comparison of <30 viewers to smallpox is an absurdity, I used it purposefully to make a point that the constant need for advertisers to market to the 18-49 demo is also absurd and nonsensical.
As well, if it were a case of supply and demand, then they are really off the mark because the largest demand will most likely be created by those with the most money to spend on the products they sell. That is clearly not the 49 demo that will more than likely create the demand which the sponsors will then supply. It is also the >49 demo which gives the money to their children and grandchildren to purchase products. Conversely, If we don’t give them money, we go out and buy the products for them!
I worked in advertising and marketing for a number of years and can honestly say they have done a poor job of keeping up with social changes. In fact, they are still of the mindset that they are the catalysts of these changes. People are smarter, more cynical, and less likely to fall for some of what they are peddling these days and the advertisers are desperate to figure out how to reach them . Well, they need to go back to the drawing board and do some more homework.
By the way, I also feel that the networks are underestimating the sensibilities of the 18-49 demo with some of the crap they are airing. Many are smarter than to fall for the claims and promises advertisers are making.
Just my opinion!
While I agree that the comparison of <30 viewers to smallpox is an absurdity, I used it purposefully to make a point that the constant need for advertisers to market to the 18-49 demo is also absurd and nonsensical.
As well, if it were a case of supply and demand, then they are really off the mark because the largest demand will most likely be created by those with the most money to spend on the products they sell. That is clearly not the 49 demo that will more than likely create the demand which the sponsors will then supply. It is also the >49 demo which gives the money to their children and grandchildren to purchase products. Conversely, If we don’t give them money, we go out and buy the products for them!
I worked in advertising and marketing for a number of years and can honestly say they have done a poor job of keeping up with social changes. In fact, they are still of the mindset that they are the catalysts of these changes. People are smarter, more cynical, and less likely to fall for some of what they are peddling these days and the advertisers are desperate to figure out how to reach them . Well, they need to go back to the drawing board and do some more homework.
By the way, I also feel that the networks are underestimating the sensibilities of the 18-49 demo with some of the crap they are airing. Many are smarter than to fall for the claims and promises advertisers are making.
Just my opinion!
While I agree that the comparison of <30 viewers to smallpox is an absurdity, I used it purposefully to make a point that the constant need for advertisers to market to the 18-49 demo is also absurd and nonsensical.
As well, if it were a case of supply and demand, then they are really off the mark because the largest demand will most likely be created by those with the most money to spend on the products they sell. That is clearly not the 49 demo that will more than likely create the demand which the sponsors will then supply. It is also the >49 demo which gives the money to their children and grandchildren to purchase products. Conversely, If we don’t give them money, we go out and buy the products for them!
I worked in advertising and marketing for a number of years and can honestly say they have done a poor job of keeping up with social changes. In fact, they are still of the mindset that they are the catalysts of these changes. People are smarter, more cynical, and less likely to fall for some of what they are peddling these days and the advertisers are desperate to figure out how to reach them . Well, they need to go back to the drawing board and do some more homework.
By the way, I also feel that the networks are underestimating the sensibilities of the 18-49 demo with some of the crap they are airing. Many are smarter than to fall for the claims and promises advertisers are making.
Just my opinion!
I agree with you somewhat, Katie. But as somebody once said (PT Barnum?): Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. Witness the concentrated 18-49 ratings for dreck like Moment of Truth.
I do believe that people are more cynical these days, but there are swaths of the public who still fall for advertizing hook, line and sinker, which is why it still works. To me, the best ads are tongue-in-cheek; the ones that make me laugh. I don’t consider myself to be very influenced by advertizing (it usually comes down to a medium between price-point and quality for me), but those are the ones I enjoy the most.
“It is also the >49 demo which gives the money to their children and grandchildren to purchase products. Conversely, If we don’t give them money, we go out and buy the products for them!”
That kind of proves the point. If you’re giving them the money, it doesn’t really matter what you like. What matters is what they like, since they’re the ones buying the products. And when you buy these products for them, you’re most likely going to buy what they want which, in turn, is influenced by advertizing.
Studies have shown that younger people are more open to try new products time and time again. If you look at new and innovative products, it’s not the 50+ crowd that have launched them into popularity. Ie – iPods, DVDs, CDs, PCs, etc. Older people have came to these trends later than younger people, even if they have more disposible income to spend on them.
The big sector of advertizing that I can see leaning towards the 50+ crowd would be the auto industry simply because they can be prohibitively expensive for the younger crowd. 20-year-old Suzie can watch consecutive ads for the iPod and the Nissan Versa and both may pique her interest, but the only one she can realisitically go out and buy is the iPod.
Regarding the supply of <30 viewers, the numbers bear that out. Take me, for example. I'm a 27 y/o male, have cable, but have not turned on the television in weeks. After Lost was done for the season, nothing appealed to me at all, so I simply don't watch. Wait, I lie. I watched Swingtown this week, but was bored out of my mind.
Another facet of the demo-targeting is the HH-income target, which would definitely skew more towards the older crowd. The ad rates for Lost hare that out – despite drops in overall ratings, it's audience is the highest earning in all of primetime, so ABC can still charge an arm and a leg for advertizing. With this narrow-marketing, I really don't think that advertizing is solely about age-ranges anymore, although it's still the most important factor.
I agree with you somewhat, Katie. But as somebody once said (PT Barnum?): Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. Witness the concentrated 18-49 ratings for dreck like Moment of Truth.
I do believe that people are more cynical these days, but there are swaths of the public who still fall for advertizing hook, line and sinker, which is why it still works. To me, the best ads are tongue-in-cheek; the ones that make me laugh. I don’t consider myself to be very influenced by advertizing (it usually comes down to a medium between price-point and quality for me), but those are the ones I enjoy the most.
“It is also the >49 demo which gives the money to their children and grandchildren to purchase products. Conversely, If we don’t give them money, we go out and buy the products for them!”
That kind of proves the point. If you’re giving them the money, it doesn’t really matter what you like. What matters is what they like, since they’re the ones buying the products. And when you buy these products for them, you’re most likely going to buy what they want which, in turn, is influenced by advertizing.
Studies have shown that younger people are more open to try new products time and time again. If you look at new and innovative products, it’s not the 50+ crowd that have launched them into popularity. Ie – iPods, DVDs, CDs, PCs, etc. Older people have came to these trends later than younger people, even if they have more disposible income to spend on them.
The big sector of advertizing that I can see leaning towards the 50+ crowd would be the auto industry simply because they can be prohibitively expensive for the younger crowd. 20-year-old Suzie can watch consecutive ads for the iPod and the Nissan Versa and both may pique her interest, but the only one she can realisitically go out and buy is the iPod.
Regarding the supply of <30 viewers, the numbers bear that out. Take me, for example. I'm a 27 y/o male, have cable, but have not turned on the television in weeks. After Lost was done for the season, nothing appealed to me at all, so I simply don't watch. Wait, I lie. I watched Swingtown this week, but was bored out of my mind.
Another facet of the demo-targeting is the HH-income target, which would definitely skew more towards the older crowd. The ad rates for Lost hare that out – despite drops in overall ratings, it's audience is the highest earning in all of primetime, so ABC can still charge an arm and a leg for advertizing. With this narrow-marketing, I really don't think that advertizing is solely about age-ranges anymore, although it's still the most important factor.
I agree with you somewhat, Katie. But as somebody once said (PT Barnum?): Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. Witness the concentrated 18-49 ratings for dreck like Moment of Truth.
I do believe that people are more cynical these days, but there are swaths of the public who still fall for advertizing hook, line and sinker, which is why it still works. To me, the best ads are tongue-in-cheek; the ones that make me laugh. I don’t consider myself to be very influenced by advertizing (it usually comes down to a medium between price-point and quality for me), but those are the ones I enjoy the most.
“It is also the >49 demo which gives the money to their children and grandchildren to purchase products. Conversely, If we don’t give them money, we go out and buy the products for them!”
That kind of proves the point. If you’re giving them the money, it doesn’t really matter what you like. What matters is what they like, since they’re the ones buying the products. And when you buy these products for them, you’re most likely going to buy what they want which, in turn, is influenced by advertizing.
Studies have shown that younger people are more open to try new products time and time again. If you look at new and innovative products, it’s not the 50+ crowd that have launched them into popularity. Ie – iPods, DVDs, CDs, PCs, etc. Older people have came to these trends later than younger people, even if they have more disposible income to spend on them.
The big sector of advertizing that I can see leaning towards the 50+ crowd would be the auto industry simply because they can be prohibitively expensive for the younger crowd. 20-year-old Suzie can watch consecutive ads for the iPod and the Nissan Versa and both may pique her interest, but the only one she can realisitically go out and buy is the iPod.
Regarding the supply of <30 viewers, the numbers bear that out. Take me, for example. I'm a 27 y/o male, have cable, but have not turned on the television in weeks. After Lost was done for the season, nothing appealed to me at all, so I simply don't watch. Wait, I lie. I watched Swingtown this week, but was bored out of my mind.
Another facet of the demo-targeting is the HH-income target, which would definitely skew more towards the older crowd. The ad rates for Lost hare that out – despite drops in overall ratings, it's audience is the highest earning in all of primetime, so ABC can still charge an arm and a leg for advertizing. With this narrow-marketing, I really don't think that advertizing is solely about age-ranges anymore, although it's still the most important factor.
I’m 43. For the first time since the X-Files, there was appointment T.V. on Friday nights. Everyone knew I would not answer my phone while Moonlight was on. WTF??????
I’m 43. For the first time since the X-Files, there was appointment T.V. on Friday nights. Everyone knew I would not answer my phone while Moonlight was on. WTF??????
“I’m 43. For the first time since the X-Files, there was appointment T.V. on Friday nights. Everyone knew I would not answer my phone while Moonlight was on. WTF??????”
This is why people don’t like ML fans. Please stop trying to turn everything into a ML discussion.