There’s a constant stream of folks commenting on the site wishing that viewers outside the adult demo groups mattered to broadcast primetime networks (and advertisers). We’re constantly repeating the same refrain that younger viewers are harder to reach in TV advertising, so they’re more expensive to reach, so the shows reaching them have more expensive advertising and are therefore more valuable.
Not that this is going to convince anyone who doesn’t really want to be convinced (which is plenty of people!), but just how much harder are young people to reach with TV advertising?
This is data on the average ratings from last week (10/12-18/2009) for broadcast prime time networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW). I’m not certifying that all weeks fall into these ranges, but the variation is likely not huge.
% of the US age group watching TV during primetime, and their estimated group population:
Adults 18-34: 31.9% of an estimated 68.99 million
Adults 18-49: 35.8% of an estimated 132.71 million
Adults 55+: 52.5% of an estimated 73.68 million
Adults 18-34 are hard to reach. And therefore advertising that reaches them is expensive.
Adults 55+ are easy to reach. And therefore advertising that reaches them is cheap.
The old people even forget what the commercial was for.
If older people wasted money like my generation, advertisers would pay a lot of money for them too. My mom and grandma hardly buy anything now.
But why do these advertisers keep wasting money on the TV medium when they could target them elsewhere and thus save dollars?
Obviously network TV is still a great (the best?) medium to reach them, so why do the advertisers throw so many hissy fits when they do not have a better alternative?
Aggressively targeting something that isn’t going to change or increase is pointless.
So advertisers just sit down and shut up as network tv is still probably your best bet, and if the audience declines are too much of a worry and no 18-49 wants to watch NBC crap, then you still have to take it.
Cruel_Heartless, I don’t think advertisers are the ones complaining about erosion in ratings. If they are complaining at all, it is because cable provides nearly as good a medium for reach the target demos as broadcast, but there is still a premium for broadcast.
Yeah I know they probably aren’t complaining directly, but they are undoubtedly putting pressure on the networks to lower advertising fees which gets the Network execs backs up which presumably puts pressure on the advertisers and thier strict agenda (which is a logical money making one).
The way advertising works is cost per point. Even if no one ever hinted that CPP for broadcast was too high, the fact that ratings are dropping every year means that advertising dollars drop as well. The execs don’t need anyone else putting pressure on them. The ratings are enough on their own.
Perhaps for the 55+ demo (that’s me) we should stop watching! Let’s start a movement to dump broadcast television. Then we can get some attention from advertisers, networks, and sites like this. We need to get that percentage down to 30%.
AZTop, it’s not just broadcast. My guess is that aggregate cable numbers would be similar (although we don’t have those).
Sigh, I know that. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that maybe the advertisers are being too inflexible and narrow minded when it comes to solely spending the most time and the most money on a campaign with 18-39 that really cannot be bothered watching Network tv to an advertisers schedule and that they should adapt or focus elsewhere to catch the 18-34 eyeballs. I mean still spending both time and money on a medium that is eroding so sharply and consistently isn’t really a good business decision. Sure, for the moment and short term it works as well as can be expected, and it probably is the best out there to catch 18-34, but long term its going to be ulimately fruitless. I guess I was trying to see the big picture for the corporations/companies that want to last beyond the next five years.
Yeah I know Bill, but I have to be able to watch something!
Right now I’m just thinking us old folks take on broadcast, then if we bring them to their knees we hit cable too.
I already checked and the domain http://www.dumpbroadcasttv.com is available. I’m all set to go.
AZTop, should I tell the local bingo parlor to expect your friends and you to attend more often instead of watching TV? Seriously, you’d have to get millions of seniors to stop watching television for a long time if you hope to affect any change. You even said you don’t want to stop watching TV; you just want different shows to cater to you more.
Since it’s all about money, the best thing you can do is buy products from the advertisers on your favorite shows. Then let them know you saw your commercials on shows X, Y and Z. Boycotts are ineffective. People outside the demos say they have money to spend. Advertisers say they don’t spend it. So prove them wrong.
Interesting read. What about the demo under 18 what is the percentage of them watching Broadacast TV?
By the way, Bill/Robert this article should be in the featured story of the blog because I guess the readers are not noticing you had this post up. This post deserves more exposure IMO than the renew/cancel index stories since readers will flock those posts anyway
I for one did not notice this since post it was already buried by the several press releases in the ‘Newest Posts” sidebar, I only found this when I checked previous tweets.
forg, you and I may be interested in this, but most of our readers aren’t
The Teens 12-17 demo average broadcast primetime rating last week was a 26.9.
^ Thanks Bill
Suggestion, how about putting a different side bar for the press releases and the TBTN posts? Or at least prioritize the TBTN posts over the press releases so that this kind of informative won’t get buried easily
Forg, we used to prioritize our posts above press releases using the time stamp, but we’ve gotten lazy. I will re-prioritize this one for fun and see if it gets more views.
Sadly, there is no easy technical implementation to separate out the press releases.
It’s not really laziness, and if we reshuffle the order by backdating press releases and changing times on posts, it screws up our RSS readers because it changes the order of the posts. I think doing it for one or two posts here and there (like this one) isn’t a problem, but if we strive to always prioritize the non press release content, it exponentially increases the chances that our RSS readers (especially the skimmers!) will miss something they wanted to see.
I’d rather double the length of the “recent posts” list and make better use of the center column and featured posts than get into a regular practice of reordering posts.
Thanks for taking a chance on this post haha
Would it be possible to exclude press releases from the recent posts, the way cable news comments are from recent comments? I’m not sure you’d want to do that, but if prioritizing non-press releases is more important, it could work. (If it’s possible, that is.)
Julia, it’s possible, yes, but then the press releases don’t get fed to Google. That’s not an issue for the comments.
Ergo…The CW’s target of W18-34 and P18-34 is an excellent strategy. That market IS tougher to reach, but advertisers know exactly who is catering to that segment with programming. No, CW doesn’t have the gaudy overall numbers of a CBS, but why do you think CBS was keen on partnering with WB for this venture? To reach the young viewers it KNEW it would never reach with its aging crime dramas and 60 Minutes.
Face it, the next time an 18-34 year old tunes in regularly to CBS will be the FIRST time.
I understand the logic that a scarce viewer is more valuable than a plentiful viewer. What I am having a hard time with is connecting that to the idea that the 18-49 demo is the ONLY thing that matters to advertisers, which seems to be the conventional wisdom.
Older viewers are easier to come by than younger viewers, thus the younger viewers are more expensive. Corn is easier to come by than truffles, thus truffles are more expensive. But that doesn’t mean I can walk into the supermarket and take the corn for free!
So my (long-winded!) question is, if, hypothetically, “NCIS” gets the exact same demo rating as “So you think you can dance”, but the former gets 20 million total viewers, and the latter 7 million, does NCIS command a higher advertising rate?
Adrienne, 18-49 is definitely not the only demo that matters to advertisers. However, for the purpose of gauging the relative advertising potential for broadcast primetime shows, 18-49 is the best overall measure we have, and the one the industry tends to broadly focus on.
Imagine if corn was actually SO plentiful that the supermarket gave some to you for free with the purchase of anything. Why would you ever pay for it?
That’s viewers 55+
AZTop: I don’t think it would matter if you stopped watching. The 55+ demo already buys what they buy. Consumer choices are not likely to suddenly change because of a tv ad. The only profitable ADS are from drug companies who promise the next “cure” for ED which then causes blood pressure problems so then they get to offer a new drug for the blood pressure problems, but unfortunately that new med created another condition. That’s the only profitable ad for seniors as once they get you hooked, you’re hooked. You can stop watching and it won’t matter, you don’t buy anything new (you is a generalization).
I thought advertising reaching 18-34 or 18-49 viewers was more expensive for the advertisers because the networks can charge more for those viewers; because those are the viewers more desired by the advertisers; because those viewers have more disposable income.
Perhaps if “PR:” preceded the press release headlines, then it would be easier to find discussion posts. Maybe “R/C:” also.
J.R., would kill us in Google search. And some of the longest discussions occur on press releases!
Simon, there are both supply and demand issues that drive advertising pricing. This post was about the supply (relatively low for younger viewers). The demand is also greater for a variety of reasons (some that you cited). We don’t have have numbers to illustrate the different levels of demand the way we do supply though.
Roland: First of all I have no interest in boycotting broadcast television. Lighten up folks – it was a humorous post. However, I wonder if the supposition that 55+ have set buying patterns is supported by serious research. For example, I recently purchased an iPod. I also purchased a new racing bicycle. The 55+ demo is the fastest growing segment on Facebook.
I find it a bit insulting that it is assumed that over 55 should only be interested in denture cream, adult diapers and sleep aids. It may be true that over 55 are more “ad resistant”. They may be easier to reach, but harder to convert. Seems to me there’s an opporutinity there for smart advertisers.
Bill, Thanks. So the proportionally fewer younger viewers leads to more competition for those viewers from the advertisers, thus driving the advertising rates up.
Please excuse my ignorance but I’m also struggling a little with the data. I understand that it’s basically to say there’s a disproportionate number of younger viewers. But I’m sure it doesn’t mean to say that more than half of all Over 55s are typically watching network TV at any given moment during primetime? The percentages are a total of some kind, yes?
Simon, 52.5% of adults 55+ in the US were watching TV (cable and broadcast networks) on average during primetime on that week.
When you say “network TV” I assume you mean “broadcast network TV”. On average 21% of adults 55+ were watching ABC, NBC, CBS, CW and Fox during primetime on the same week, so the other 31.5% were either watching other broadcast networks or cable networks
Different colors? Bold? Italics? Background colors? Icons? Something.
Robert: Different colors? Bold? Italics? Background colors? Icons? Something.
AZTop: Why do you want ads to target your pocketbook? You forgot Liberty and Rascal scooters.
@ JR – LOL – also how about the clapper?
JR, sorry, no. And c’mon, you need designations for R&C posts? We link to them in two very prominent areas of the site and EVERY ONE of the current posts is on the home page somehow. Those are the easiest posts to find.
If you need to satisfy your tweaking jones, I *highly* recommend starting your own blog. There will be more tweaking opportunities than you’ll ever be able to tweak!
Bill, Thanks. (The description specifies “broadcast prime time networks” at one point.) Still, with such a large chunk of the population watching TV – even broadcast network TV – at any one time, it’s no wonder the advertisers are still interested.
Thats why the only answer is a move towards product placement within every TV show. Character drives down road past billboard for the advertiser. Character use products on screen. TV or radio plays in background with ad. Promotions that involve doing to advertiser websites to win prizes. Things like that. These days more and more people nuke stand alone commercials or fast foward them on DVRs.
The only advertising that works is placement. I tire with ads and go off and do something else when they start. When I’m with family we just change channels. Put it in the show though, and you can’t get away from it.
I can understand why ads for reaching the 18-34 and 18-49 demos are more expensive, but what I don’t understand is why they are more desirable. I can sort of see the argument that people 55+ tend to be more set in their buying habits and might not be swayed as easily by a television commercial (though both of my parents are fast approaching that age group and they would disagree heartily with that assumption). However, I don’t see how it matters if a great television ad comes on but the viewer doesn’t have the money to buy the product.
I’m a full-time college student who only works during school holidays, and quite frankly I have more money than most of my peers because I cut costs by going to a state school and living at home. I don’t personally know anyone in their early to mid twenties who has a lot of disposable income. So why is the 18-34 demo so desirable to advertisers versus, say, the 25-50 demo whose members are more likely to have disposable income?
I am 20 years old, and I’ll be honest with you: I don’t have a lot of money.
Well, the chasing of the innocents (18-34) by the advertisers, before they get old and wise enough to know better, makes sense…
…and the broadcasr networks mostly submitting to the whims of their advertisers makes sense also…
…but when (as previously discussed here) a lot of the niche cable networks abandon me to chase after the pyt’s of 18-34, leaving me nothing that I really like on, then what do I do?
Apparently, I am only allowed to let Alec Baldwin turn my brains into a cottage cheese-like mush, so the 18-34 demo cohort can scoop it out with a melon baller and gobble it on up, while watching Dancing With The Slatterns…
…so I guess I am only good for soylent green to the advertisers and networks, then…
…ah well – all I can do is dream that Roger Thornhill gets machine gunned off of Mount Rushmore, whilst I am waiting for the vapid Kardashian tramps to decide whether they want to melon ball me, or David McCallum
@GraceW: “So why is the 18-34 demo so desirable to advertisers versus, say, the 25-50 demo whose members are more likely to have disposable income?”
My understanding is that 18-49 is the most significant demo. Also it’s the 18-49s who do spend money that the advertisers are most interested in – but I don’t think there’s a ratings demo for 18-49 spenders, at least not one that’s published widely. Simply, an average 18-49 year old spends more money on advertised products than an Over 50.
Simply, an average 18-49 year old spends more money on advertised products than an Over 50.
Simon, please link to the data that backs that up, or cite the source if it isn’t one that’s online. Thanks!
Robert, Sorry I thought it was common knowledge. My mistake.
Simon, without data, you’re just another guy stating opinions as fact. No matter how “common” you perceive them to be.
I’ll grant you that there are surely more people 65+ living on fixed incomes than 25 year olds, but, there are more 25 year olds living from pay check to pay check.
None of that says anything about disposable income! Here is something that actually does. Unfortunately it is not sorted by Nielsen demographics, but you can see the average disposable income of the 55-64 group is higher than both the 25-34 group and the 35-44 group. However, there are far fewer 55-64 households:
http://www.esri.com/software/bao/pdfs/dispinc.pdf
Robert,
There is something I will never understand about Neilson or the advertisers. They say they want to reach young people yet they don’t put boxes in college dorm rooms. You have a huge huge chunk of 17-24yr olds in College and I doubt they are calling their parents back home to tell them what they watch at 8pm. Advertisers would have an easier time figuring out which shows young people watch if they actually measure young people.
Just curious, does anyone have a link as to what an ad spot costs for all the specific broadcast shows? I’d be curious to see how the overall demo affects the ad rates.
Well sorry AZTop, you I would call more of an outlier. Not all 55+ people are technology deficient, just as not all are able to use technology. However, I have seen no research that suggests that 55+ demo are the most apt to regularly purchase new consumer goods that they previously did not.
A one time purchase of an ipod or a bike is fine, but the majority of the ads out there are for goods that people will regularly purchase.
Kathy, it’s very possible that I just missed it, though I looked a couple of times. In prior years a couple of sites (Advertising Age and one I can’t remember off the top of my head) posted spot cost estimates by show at the beginning of the season. I didn’t see any of those estimates for this season though.
Robert, I certainly wouldn’t want to be another one of those stating opinion as fact. But I believed I was stating fact as fact. Still, to “insubstantiated” I plead guilty.
Thank-you for the link. Is disposable income the same as income that actually gets disposed, and disposed on advertised products? I took it as a challenge but couldn’t quickly find data on this.
So would the following modification be fair: “Most advertisers believe an average 18-49 year old can be more easily swayed to spending on their products than an average Over 50.”? (I can find a few links to support this.)
My understanding is that advertisers generally pay a premium to reach 18-49 year olds. It may not be the only reason (supply was kindly highlighted by Bill above) but I think advertisers also believe they can get more money out of them. But I could be wrong.
Cheers.
Simon: I think you’re a tad off with the more easily swayed comment. Its not that young people are more or less easily swayed, its that people of older ages are more likely to already be in a routine and purchase specific products. With them being in the consumer field for over 45 years at least, more people in the 55+ demographic are less likely to suddenly switch a product they have been buying for 40 years.
Simon, in the context of the television industry trade press focusing on the 18-49 demographic, I believe (an opinion, not a fact) that this is mostly a function of supply. I do believe advertisers would still want to reach younger viewers for issues of not being as set in their ways plus there are many products that are just intended for younger viewers. Just as there are a lot of products that are intended for older viewers.
I think the relative scarcity is the bigger deal as far as premiums and the industry focus goes.
If all age demos were watching TV equally, and the supply of adults 18-34, and 18-49 was the same on a percentage basis, I think we’d live in a world where there was a lot more focus on average viewers.
I think it’s a fallacy that 18-49 year olds are the ones most likely to change brands and also buy most of the products being marketed. I remember seeing Judge Judy being interviewed on a TV show some years ago and she made some good points – that the older generation has the money but not the power. She pointed out that most of the expensive cars including sports cars are driven by people with gray hair and my personal observation is that it’s true. The 50 year old can finally afford that sports car that he or she has wanted all those years. The 25 year old has no hope of affording it.
It would be interesting to see some actual research on people’s buying habits because I believe that it would be a lot different from the preconceived notions the industry has.
Robert, I do rely on Newer Posts and the Recent Comments because they’re on every page. The thing is, the newer posts don’t always pop in at the top. I would like a way to quickly find your exclusive posts. That’s one tweak.
I already have a stupid blog; it’s linked by my unpronounceable name.
By the way, the twitter link on the Follow Us page goes to tvbtnfeed.
AZTop: I haven’t seen an ad for the clapper or a medic alert bracelet (or a chia pet for that matter) in fifteen years. I forgot Werther’s Originals and Polygrip.
J.R., the Twitter link going to TVBTNFEED is a solvable tweak! it’s already fixed and that at least explains the mystery of why anyone at all was following that ID!
I completely understand what you want and why you want it. We feel the same way. Unfortunately there is not a great solution that will make everyone happy. There are all kinds of ways we could implement an easier way for you to spot those posts but they either require a lot more work for us (i could create the domain releases.tvbythenumbers.com, and we could post all the releases there and stick a widget of them on the main site, but we would have to publish to two different web sites to do that) and we could exclude the press releases from the widget you see, but then they don’t get indexed by Google. We wind up getting a lot of traffic from Google to the press releases so that’s a problem, and one that we have not been able to solve yet.
Nice to see more comments/discussion on this post because this is really an interesting topic to discuss on since this demo decides the fates of our favorite shows on Broadcast TV.
Before I discovered this site, what I thought even if the 18-49 demo was the most coveted by advertisers, the total viewers still matter has value and matters on a show’s renewal. But when I learned through this site that the total viewers don’t really matter that much I was shocked although I understood over time why the 18-49 is important but I do hope that total viewers could somehow matter eventually for a show’s survival. Because in my opinion, all viewers should matter. But then again I’m not from the US so I don’t fully understand how the market is there. Just to share, here in the Philippines,those demo numbers matters only to smaller networks and cable channels, the major broadcast networks look on the audience share but then again we don’t have a TV season like you do have there and telenovelas/soaps (or as we brand it teleseryes) dominate our primetime and there are just two networks that are big players.
Anyway, I’m just fascinated how US TV works that’s why I’m always here on this site and I love what I learning from this site, it could be easily understood by a regular person like me
Roland, I think we are actually in agreement with my “more easily swayed” comment. I said “… advertisers believe an average 18-49 year old can be more easily swayed TO SPENDING ON THEIR PRODUCTS …” which is consistent with your “people of older ages are more likely to already be in a routine and purchase specific products”.
Robert, I suppose it’s possible the average 66 year old throws around as much money as the average 30 year old. It just seems unlikely to me. But, you’re right, I don’t have any real data.
The only data I can find are at the top of this very thread which suggests Over 50s spend most of their time watching television while 18-49 year olds are out spending money!