October 14, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Stuart Buck is asking why,
Stuart Buck is asking why, if the 18-34 demographic is a small group with little discretionary income and a huge overxposure to advertising, advertisers spend so much money pursuing them. On the face of it, it doesn't make much sense. But that's short term thinking. (You lawyers!) Eventually, those 18-34's are going to be well heeled 45's. And by then, many of their brand preferences will already be set.
Oh, maybe you're like me and you read consumer reports and buy what's cheap. But the majority don't. My mother used Whisk for 40 years, and trying to convince her that the cleaning stuff in whatever is on sale is exactly the same stuff as the stuff in the Whisk was like trying to convince Thomas Aquinas that maybe it's all just, y'know, random chance.
When was the last time you switched your laundry soap? Your shampoo? Your dishwashing liquid? Your toothpaste? (Switched brands, I mean). If you drive an American car, there's a very high probability that your last car was American, and chances are better than even that you're driving one made by the same auto company. People are very loyal to their brands, and while they probably won't be wearing their Tommy Hilfiger Hip Hop Specials in 10 years, in most cases, if you get them early, you've got them for life.
The 40-55 segment, on the other hand, is in their peak years. They've already got a shampoo, a laundry soap, a wrinkle cream, and a car. Advertising is both less effective, and offers lower long-term return, than it does when spent on the 18-34's.
Or anyway, that's the theory.
Posted by Jane Galt at October 14, 2002 01:14 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links