In a post by TVWatch’s Wayne Friedman today, CBS’s Les Moonves wants TV marketers to stop pestering him about upscale young adults aged 18-34 making >$75,000 annually. Les says “There are no upscale 18- to 34-year-olds — except my children.” Of course, you could chalk that up to rationalization [We don't get that demo, because they don't exist! Next question!], but in this case, we have data that can shed some light on Moonves’ claim.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t tabulate data that exactly matches, but using what’s available there are:
- 4.74 million people between 18-25 in households with annual expenditures above $40,000.
- 11.86 million people between 25-34 in households with annual expenditures above $70,000.
However, if Les’ kids are counted in his household, they’re not in those groups (and I can’t quite figure out how to tease those numbers from the BLS data). I’d guess there may be a significant group of 18-34 year olds that are part of their parent’s households where there is significant family income. I’ll keep looking for that data.
Les is right.
This idea that young people have all the money to spend is hogwash.
The free-spending Baby Boomers are beginning to retire. They are inheriting trillions of $$$ from their frugal WWII-generation parents.
If networks try to cater to the Facebook generation they will continue to bleed viewers.
Advertisers are trying to get a free ride by claiming to only be interested in 18-34.
if Les is right, he’s going to have to completely revolutionize the advertising industry. I doubt he’s up for that really.
I think he’ll do what he’s doing right now. Continue to harp on the 25-54 demo (even though the vast majority of CBS’ viewers on any given night are 55+!).
So much of adveritising is Beer and Soda and Ford and Chevy trucks. Speaking for myself as a 45 year old man, my beer and soda purchases can not be swayed by advertsing and I will also not be purchashing a vehicle based on advertising. Focus on the 18-34 makes sense, they’re not as set in their purchasing decisions.
Focusing on 25-54 makes sense for CBS because they can still count a lot of people in this group. Even if more of them are my age or older than 25-44. Advertisers don’t want the boomers for most of the products that are advertised. I’m not saying that the boomers aren’t a lucrative market and that it shouldn’t be capitlized on — only that this isn’t happening, not even at CBS.
I sure as heck was living hand to mouth until around 34 at least.
I’m 23 and make enough to pay my bills and not much more so I don’t think they’ll be looking for me! LOL.
Well I am the demographic Les says doesn’t exist, but unfortunately I think he’s got a bigger problem on his hands than not finding people who can afford to buy the advertised products. As far as I’m concerned the networks haven’t put much on TV that’s WORTH my time in the first place. And I know plenty of people in his non-existant demographic who feel the same way. Mostly because of reality TV. But also because the networks expect people to get invested in shows immediately and never give them a chance to get going.
FOX is the worst at this. They’ve done more to drive me away from television than any other network. Nobody I know trusts them to keep a good show on the air. I almost didn’t watch Sarah Connor because it was on FOX. Why bother if they’re just going to cancel it? They can thank Summer as the reason I tuned in for the premier at all.
I’m 51, so not in the demo being talked about, but I want to agree with previous poster Frankj about networks, and especially FOX helping drive away viewers and his reasoning behind it. And, I agree about Sarah Connor. I almost didn’t watch it as well because I don’t trust FOX and only tuned in because of Summer Glau. But, look at this site’s post strike up date and FOX listings. What do they have next to Sarah Connor…future uncertain. What a surprise.
Fox is awful about canceling shows before they even get off the ground. I can think of a half dozen just off the top of my head. Shows that I love like Firefly and Wonderfalls. Not that other networks aren’t guilty as well, but Fox really is the worst.
The statistics above are interesting but statistics can be so misleading. In addition, averages do not consider end point extremes. It is also very easy to manipulate statistics. So many young graduates move home with parents after finishing school these days, so I am not surprised by the numbers – but the question is, who controls the expenditure dollars??.
In an article written by Peter Vogt , a Monster Track Career Coach, he states:
“More often than not, the reason why many new grads are picking their parents as roommates is all about money. For as many as 40 percent of recent grads, it made smart economic sense to move back in with their parents, where life is comfortable and rent is either low or nonexistent, while they get their finances in order,” says Nicholas Aretakis, author of No More Ramen: The 20-Something’s Real-World Survival Guide. Don’t forget that the average college student today graduates with more than $20,000 in tuition debt. Most new grads have important life plans that cost more money than the typical entry-level salary can cover. Take Bryan McCarty, a 2007 graduate of Wartburg College in Iowa. He recently accepted a writing job in his hometown of Cedar Falls so he could move back home until next summer, when he’ll be getting married. For McCarty, the decision made sense. “I thought about the opportunity to build a stronger, more stable foundation for myself and my fiancee,” he says.”
Les is right when he says 18-34 year olds making >$75,000 do not exist; at least, if they do, they are in the minority. Marketers are trying to get blood from a stone. They have also fallen behind the times in their thinking and advertising approaches. Time to go back to the drawing board and do some homework.