Opinion piece on attracting younger viewers

[Randy Steinman]

Interesting article by Tom Jicha in Monday's South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

I'm not going to cut-and-paste the entire thing, but I smiled at the anecdote in Jicha's final paragraph....

Link (http://www.southflorida.com/movies/sfl-tvtjnov13colnov13,0,4393314.story?coll=sfe-tv-headlines)

Young viewers don't watch the news and never have for two reasons: They have neither the time nor the interest. Singles are out doing the things singles do, and parents are preoccupied preparing dinner, paying bills and getting the children's homework done. Down the road, after the kids have left the nest and they have a few bucks in the stock market, events that might have an impact on their savings and retirement plans take on an importance that didn't exist before. It's called maturity.

I can't recall the source or individuals involved, but there is an anecdote that perfectly summarizes this. An accomplished editor was interviewing for the top job at a highbrow magazine. The publisher asked if the editor had a plan to attract younger readers, which periodicals of this nature rarely do. "Yes," the editor replied. "I'm going to wait for them to grow up."

[upandown]

See Rocketboom.

[The Fedora]

You are right...

I love the quote: "I'm going to wait for them to grow up"

spot on.

[slipstream]

Great link Randy. And well said.

Instead of continuing to try to attract a demo that won't watch... how about better serving the demo that does?

[The Mockingbird]

If you think that educated young people are going to eventually come back to the fold of local TV news, you should probably increase the dosage of medication.

I live in DC. Know where I, and most of the rest of the population get our news? Two places: the radio on the drive in to work, and the internet. Ask anyone who has a real job.

They could care less about your crappy sweeps piece on the dangers of Pottery Barn. They aren't falling for your stupid 30 second "news updates" that are really just promos, anymore.

TV news is like Terry Schiavo, it's already dead, but no one has had the heart to pull the plug yet.

[Another side]

The search for the younger viewer is futile -- most aren't home when the news is on, and those few who are are eating and getting ready to leave.

[Signature on File]

Most young people get their news from MTV or My Space.

[writer2]

I'm not young, but I get my news from The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. ;)

[John M.]

Originally posted by Randy Steinman:
"Yes," the editor replied. "I'm going to wait for them to grow up."The difference between now and then is that my parents grew up when newspapers, radio and television where the only news sources. When they had enough free time to care, they looked for news in the paper or on TV.

They still do.

For kids today, TV is but one of -- and the least convenient of -- many news sources. Newspapers do not exist. When you grow up with that mindset, you're not going to grow into a regular TV news watcher when you get older.

That's why we're seeing the demos for network newscasts we're seeing. The audience is not only adults; it's only older adults. Waiting for younger people to grow up won't work now.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Mockingbird with cranberry sauce:
TV news is like Terry Schiavo, it's already dead, but no one has had the heart to pull the plug yet.Nice shot -- and very similar to mine:

"Teevee news is spiraling down the toilet, and everyone is just jockeying to be the last turd to turn."

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mockingbird with cranberry sauce:
TV news is like Terry Schiavo, it's already dead, but no one has had the heart to pull the plug yet.And it has been for 25 years.

[overthehill]

As a former ND, I was forever on a quest for the elusive younger (female) viewer in our newscasts. The GM and owners (and sales) were constantly harping on news to run pieces that would pull in younger viewers. And we all know that GMs and sales people KNOW every answer to better news coverage.

Station management brought in consultants to try to help us (yeah right) find the younger viewer. We had already cornered the 55-to-dead crowd.

I have never been convinced there is a formula to grow younger news viewers. No consultant has ever found the secret.

Waiting until the elusive younger viewer grows up is the right answer. And "grow up" is a relative term. Some will "grow up" at 28 others at 35.

Ever want to read a good book about young viewers and TV News, pick up David Mindich's latest:
Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don't Follow the News It's on Amazon.

[sun dog]

Originally posted by slipstream:
Instead of continuing to try to attract a demo that won't watch... how about better serving the demo that does?Exactly, why not do that? And here's what I don't understand about the younger demos--- I've heard that advertisers like them because they say that older people are set in their ways, and younger folks are more likely to try new products. Even if that's true, young people HAVE NO MONEY. I would think that a 50-year-old with a big screen TV and a luxury car would always be a better target than a 20-year-old that's trying to scrape beer money together. Shouldn't that be part of the equation?

[ November 16, 2006, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: sun dog ]

[CKMD]

Great link.
I do, though, see people turning 35 and above who never watched TV news and now are doing just that.
Ask them why...because they want to see some of the crazy stuff the read at work on the internet.

[C St. SW]

Originally posted by sun dog:
.... I've heard that advertisers like them because they say that older people are set in their ways, and younger folks are more likely to try new products. Even if that's true, young people HAVE NO MONEY. Actually, they do....sort of. Twentysomethings can be easily seduced by advertising and are far more likely to be reckless spenders with TONS of plastic at their disposal.

[Vulcan]

Young viewers are coveted by companies that can lock them in now with brand identity and loyalty, on the thesis that getting them early means you'll have them for ALL of their peak earning years, instead of just the "sunset" of the older audience.

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by Vulcan:
Young viewers are coveted by companies that can lock them in now with brand identity and loyalty, on the thesis that getting them early means you'll have them for ALL of their peak earning years, instead of just the "sunset" of the older audience.But do they really remain loyal? :confused: It seems to me that most young people chase an endless series of fads.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by TV Dad:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vulcan:
Young viewers are coveted by companies that can lock them in now with brand identity and loyalty, on the thesis that getting them early means you'll have them for ALL of their peak earning years, instead of just the "sunset" of the older audience.But do they really remain loyal? :confused: It seems to me that most young people chase an endless series of fads.</font>[/QUOTE]I never said it was a rational strategy.

In some instances, though, I can see where it works. For instance, how often do you change toothpastes, shampoos, or soap? Most people are intensely loyal when it comes to personal products like that. Get them on board with a brand as a teen-early-twenty, and you can reap a lot of revenue down the road.

[Jane Craig]

Let's also remember that the media buyers who place all those ads are almost universally under 30 -- and bored by "old people." Facts about disposable income and product choice trends to the contrary, it's just more fun to advertise to one's peer group, and media get bought based, in part, on age prejudice of young buyers.

That said, there's no reason to believe, given the technological changes and exponential increase in news sources, that today's young viewers will "settle in" with papers and TV news the same way as those who have gone before them.

[ November 15, 2006, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Jane Craig ]

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm still wondering when the majority of news directors are going to grow up.

Psssst if you're under 35 it's okay to hire someone over 35.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Vulcan:
I never said it was a rational strategy.

In some instances, though, I can see where it works. For instance, how often do you change toothpastes, shampoos, or soap? Most people are intensely loyal when it comes to personal products like that. Get them on board with a brand as a teen-early-twenty, and you can reap a lot of revenue down the road.As a father of five (four daughters) that's not been my experience. I remember once counting 13 (that's thirteen )bottles of shampoo/conditioner sitting around the edge of the bathtub, and, of course, no two were the same.

One even promised extraordinary cleansing properties because -- unlike its limp-wristed competitors -- it was "tar-based." Tar-based shampoo -- who'd a thunk it?

We've also had egg-based, flower-petal-based, and the ever-popular, honey-extract based that not only comes with your minimum daily requirement of silk amino acids, but puts a fine layer of Vitamin E over every single strand, while leaving your hair smelling like a freshly plucked orchid. That's one mean-ass bottle of shampoo.

And don't get me started on soaps and, er, "body washes." I don't ask a lot out of soap -- a few suds, and that's about it. But my wife and daughters would come up with soaps that promised to enhance their self-esteem, remove all zits and skin imperfections post-haste, and provide them with the soft, feminine,lotion-soaked body to which every woman was apparently entitled.

And the tubes of toothpaste in our house ranged from Bubble-gum flavored, to run-of-the-mill Crest and/or Colgate, to powders and whitening pastes, all sitting among the largest collection of toothbrushes, gum massagers and electric and battery-operated teeth-cleaning devices ever gathered in the Western hemisphere.

There seemed to be agreement among the women that if they paired the right teeth cleanser with the right teeth-cleaning apparatus, you'd not only have pearly white teeth and healthy pink gums, your nose would get smaller and cuter, and your fingernails longer and prettier.

I know you're right about the theory, and that there are TV marketing people and consultants who promote it.

I can only assume none of them had/have kids,and they damned sure didn't have girls. The only thing younger girls are loyal to is the search for older boys, and they will use any combination of soap, shampoo and toothpaste that will help them capture their prey.

[ November 16, 2006, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Another side ]