The audiences for sport are gradually getting older. That is to say that there are fewer young people interested in passively watch sport on TV or at the ground. Why is this happening? Well cost is a factor, ticket prices increase and subscription costs for pay TV are barriers to access. Alternatives, video games, internet, DVD etc alternative entertainment options.
Yet audience levels remain high especially at the grounds of the top teams/events. Therefore the accountants are happy as they collect the aging audiences’ money. Yet as they take the baby boomer’s money in the short term they are building up a long term trend that could have a profound affect on sport. With less spectators, one outcome might be a concentration on the larger teams and events (a trend that some might see already) at the expense of the lesser teams etc.
I was at a conference recently and one speaker said that for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing it will be the pinnacle as far as global TV audiences, with forecast audiences for every subsequent event progressively falling. TV has the same aging audience problem.
In the case of commercial TV there is a dichotomy, on the one hand the advertisers want to get to the 16-35 age group while it is the 55+ age group that watches most TV.
So what is TV doing about it? I’m not sure it is doing anything. They seem to be doing “more or the same”, at best. At worst budget cuts from falling revenue impact production quality and the fear of failure makes the industry risk adverse. Then to top it the financial institutes and investors that hold the leash encourage repeating what worked last time again… and again… and again until ultimately it fails.
Advertisers are attracted to the 16 – 35 year olds, because the perceived wisdom is, if they capture the consumers early, they are likely to retain them. Example, if a collage or university student joins a bank now, even if they have no money now, the chances are will still be with them when they have money at 40+. The same applies to a whole range of white, brown good and MFCG’s in terms of brand loyalty. Whether this is really brand loyalty or apathy and whether it will hold true as the children of the digital age grow older is a different discussion.
Yet the 16-35 have less disposable income, lower paid jobs, highly active social lives, mortgages, young families etc all drain their disposable income. The other day I heard the term NEET’s (Not in Employment, Education or Training – or something like that) a 16 to 25 age that may have a part time job but effectively live off of their parents income, for at least their housing and food needs.
The 40 or 45+ have money and can, and do, pay for simplicity comfort, ease and quality. Part of this desire maybe why they tolerate the NEET’s (its easy). Despite this the ad industry (and their clients, the brands) and consequently the pure ad funded TV channels, are obsessed with this “sub prime” market. A market that prefers speed, interaction, change/new and cheap. A market that has and exercises choice with self in mind. A market with limited or no money.
And the point is, like sport, broadcast TV needs to look at the long term and ensure that it creates a habit and a loyalty that will hold viewers for a life time, not just until the end of the series/season.
No comments:
Post a Comment