thoughts on newest 12 + ratings?

[Dan Strassberg]

This debate has been going on for more than a decade. When I first became
aware of it, I was still in my 50's. After being beaten over the head first
with the argument that people over 55 don't buy anything--except
pharmaceuticals, hearing aids, and cemetery plots (patently untrue), and
then with the slightly more sophisticated, but no less idiotic argument that
the buying habits of people over 55 are fixed and cannot be changed, I
concluded that, since I was part of the "small" cohort of depression babies,
there was nothing that I or people of my age could say or do that would
affect the viewpoint of time buyers, who are mostly in their twenties. There
simply weren't enough people of my age to influence the idiots responsible
for those ridiculous viewpoints and time-buying decisions. But, I said to
myself, although it won't help rescue from oblivion the programming I enjoy,
the tide will turn when the baby boom generation starts to pass 55. You see,
I had convinced myself that there were too many of you to ignore. However,
it looks as though I was wrong. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO SET IN THEIR WAYS ARE
THE 20-SOMETHING TIME BUYERS, WHO LACK THE IMAGINATION TO RECOGNIZE THAT BY
WRITING OFF THE BOOMERS, THEY ARE WRITING THE DEATH WARRANTS FOR THEIR OWN
JOBS! This is ageism in action, but I don't believe there is any practical
way to change the situation. Negative opinions of the economic worth of
people over 55 are urban legends that seem destined to outlive all forms of
broadcasting--and maybe all forms of mass media--those that exist today and
those yet to be invented. Sounds like there's a course in there, Donna:
"Reaching the over-55 audience: Why you should and why doing so is
worthwhile."

--
Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@att.net
eFax 707-215-6367

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna Halper" <dlh@donnahalper.com>
To: "Roger Kolakowski" <rogerkola@aol.com>; "Stephanie Weil"
<stephanie@gordsven.com>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@rolinin.bostonradio.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: thoughts on newest 12 + ratings?


> Roger Kolakowski wrote:
> >If Arbitron can't get 18-35 year old males to participate in their
ratings
> >in quantifiable numbers, why not just make them 35+? Seems like there's
some
> >"extrapolating" going on here, especially at the "low end."
>
> I still cannot understand, given that so many baby boomers are now turning
> 60 and still love music, why would Arbitron (and the ad agencies) not give
> a rat's patootie about the 55+ demo?  Okay fine, in the 'good old days',
> being over 50 meant you were on your way to the rocking chair or about to
> die.  But these days, people live much longer, work much longer, and
remain
> active much longer.  So why are 55+ ratings still considered irrelevant?
>