The TV networks have it wrong. Older eyeballs matter most
After seeing a recent news story on Mumbrella about Masterchef’s ratings success in the key advertising demographics, Kaye Fallick decided our measurement system was out of touch. In this guest post, she argues the networks, OzTAM and agencies need to better understand their audience – after all, why wouldn’t an advertiser want someone with money, time and the propensity to spend to see their product?
A recent ratings report in Mumbrella told us that news programs dominated Thursday night, but Masterchef had won across the key advertising demographics. So I foolishly assumed that a lot of older viewers had watched Masterchef, causing it to spike against other shows. Foolish indeed.
As I read on, I learned that the key demographics were 16-39, 18-49 and 25-54.
Really?
This depends on many factors.
Like the author, I’ve not met any marketer who wants to ignore over-55’s. However, almost all of the ones I’ve met say that over-55’s are very tricky to talk to, as they also dislike the idea of ageing – and so tend to identify more when things are positioned towards 40 somethings. No doubt part of the reason why many think we don’t understand them – if we showed ‘them’ they probably wouldn’t believe it was them.
I don’t find specific ageism to be an issue, at least in my experience.
I definitely agree though, that the idea of older people staying loyal without communication is ridiculous.
In terms of ratings. All viewers count, for sure. But, at least from a Ten perspective, they have had a long standing focus on younger viewers.
Just a note that OzTAM measures all viewing for people of all ages and offers no opinion on the relative importance of any age group or demographic variable: the interpretation of OzTAM ratings data is a matter for the clients using the information.
Agencies, advertisers and broadcasters select demographics that suit their needs. If a data subscriber wishes to analyse people 65+, viewing data is available for them to do so.
Sylvano Lucchetti
Director of Technical Services
OzTAM
Two reasons why a smart marketer focuses less on older people. Not always right, but worth noting.
– They die sooner. Harsh, but true. Customer lifetime value is less for a business. Plus the marketing tactics you use will be out of date sooner. If I’m marketing to over 65s, in 10 years, half my audience could be gone. That rules out banks, car brands, not to mention brands who like to build long term loyalty or customer relationships.
– They’re more set in their ways. Yes, they watch more TV. Yes, they have more income. But they’ve also been exposed to advertising longer, likely have existing brand affinities and similar. Younger people simply have their tastes changing more. That means there’s less friction to converting.
There are merits to both. But this “older audience is best audience” Bob Hoffman style of argument ignores some pretty harsh realities.
Agreed mostly. It’s harsh, but ultimately true that you don’t want your biggest budget going to the shortest customer lifespan. The odds are many of these companies use more direct or targeted approaches to reach over 55s.
I’m not sure I agree too much around friction to converting. Most over 55s I know are as keen to try new things as anyone else. There’s certainly no real loyalty, but perhaps their brand impressions are a little more rigid over years of exposure.
The sarcastic response also: “Typical baby boomers, making everything about them.” Ha.
Love this answer Henry but couldn’t diasagree more.
That older people are more brand loyal is touching but incorrect. And if you live to 65 statistics suggest you have another 20+ years – with all that money to spend 🙂
Hey Kaye — thanks for the response. Hence why I caveated by saying “not always right”.
I think blanket statements on which demographics are most important are almost always wrong anyway (which was your exact point!).
There is some evidence to suggest older demographics are less likely to change. University of Iowa study here: http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/125567.pdf
It’s driven by two factors:
– Young people less likely to have bought the product. Good example is a mortgage, first car, kids clothes… You get the gist. Brands do create (some) loyalty. Otherwise they wouldn’t exist.
– Old people more likely to have set cognitive paths (check out the study above). Doesn’t mean they can’t learn new things. But the brain WILL be a tad less likely.
What a refreshing analysis and argument from Kaye Fallick. I’m 67, retired a few years, have no debts and spend all my self-funded nest egg on travel, household services, food and hobbies. The trouble is no-one like me works in ad agencies and TV stations so my age profile and spending power is too easily ignored.
Yes and.
Yes, older audiences matter.
And, they won’t be around forever.
And, they won’t be replaced as anyone younger than Gen X doesn’t watch TV.
So the short term gain of targeting older audiences works….short term.
The long term aim of getting a 16 year old who may buy your product for another 60 years makes more sense, but of course they are harder to nab now as….that 16 year old watches youtube instead (as do his older siblings).
The short term gain before the end of the FTV industry might actually be the smarter option though given how hard it is to reach the younger audience.
Congratulations on ‘sweeping generalisation of the day’.
Looking at the last 25+ years of TV ratings the younger have always watched less TV than the older.
Take for example the 16-24s. Around a quarter less back in the ’90s.
You know what?
They are all 40+ now and most have families, and the 40-54 cohort watches more TV than the 16-24s of 25 years ago though they are the same people.
I can’t help but think you didn’t read my post.
Sharp work, expressed very well Kaye. Best to DF.
I couldn’t agree more Kaye. Of course there is more spending power in the middle aged and over age bracket – that’s because we’ve raised our kids, hopefully paid off our house, and are finally able to enjoy a bit more disposable income! Advertisers are crazy if they’re not paying attention. Oh, and my young adults come to me to ask what brands/products are worthwhile so there is another example of why this age group is neglected at advertisers’ own risk!
Gen X watch SBS , ABC and Netflix
Media agencies don’t plan based on what comes out in industry press every night, we plan based on eTAM ratings that are calculated for every possible buying audience. If anything, this article shows a lack understanding of how TV is planned. I don’t think anyone is arguing the value of older audiences, but clients spend millions on CRM and research in order to identify their audience, and if this data says they are 25-54, why would they target 55+? The fact is that the majority of the time, media spend goes where the in-target eyeballs are, and hopefully there aren’t marketers changing their targets based on a Mumbrella article.
One of the things overlooked is the fact that older consumers are harder to convince to part with their hard earned for anything. For me as a baby boomer, the value proposition really has to stack up before I’ll open my wallet. So it might cost more in ad dollars to convince me as opposed to a wet behind the ears millennial.
I think you also find that with most TV buys against those core demo’s is that you get the 55+ audience anyway when you run the data on this buying demo