Target Market
My parents were over at the end of the week to visit, see the grandchild, and all the usual parental hanging out stuff. They're going to be in Hawaii for the rest of February, you see, so they won't be able to just zip over if they feel like it and we all have the time.
I'd like to have their problems.
During the visit, my father and I got into an interesting discussion about the newspaper. It boils down to the fact that he's frustrated he will no longer be able to get his newspaper delivered seven days a week. That's how he's been taking in his news for quite a while, and at 60 he's really not out there looking for the next new thing.
He blames people my age. We disagree, though I do concede that papers are folding (hah!) due to their inability to get people in my age bracket (I'm about the turn 34) to buy them. His contention is that a paper's core demographic is the 30-45 year old person, the ones in the prime of their spending lives who have money, kids, and have yet to accrue a huge pile of stuff that only needs to be replaced if it wears out.
I told him that was true thirty years ago, but had stopped being the M.O. for news-jockeys several decades hence. As my example, I asked what the most liberal paper in our state - Michigan - was. "Detroit Free Press." I pointed out to him that I found it to be nearly as conservative in both its editorial viewpoint and reporting style as most other papers in the state, and I have lived in the next two largest markets. Sure, you might get a little bit of politically charged liberal reporting, calling out our Republican governor for...whatever, but it always comes across as the entrenched, old guard Democrats railing against their Republican counterparts.
And I couldn't care less.
At some point the money people got a little older. They looked at my generation, shrugged, and continued to market to my parents. It was a calculated move, and for quite a while it worked.
Now it's sort of falling apart. Companies that should have been paying attention to emerging technology didn't; businesses that should have been responding to how a modern 35 year old shops just kept doing "what had always worked" and disregarded our stance on the world; newspapers stopped writing stories relevant to younger readers, either because they didn't think what we cared about was that important, or that what they cared about was so much more. All this happened as new players came on the scene and actually did speak to us, did understand us, did market to us. They're the ones that will likely still be around in ten years.
Oh, they're also generally owned or managed by younger people. Something to think about.
This leaves my dad unable to even get a paper delivered to his house on a Wednesday morning. He doesn't want to read his news on the computer, he doesn't see how I even know what's on sale at places without the ad circular, and he resents having to buy a tablet or e-reader to be able to get the subscription periodicals to his house in a way that allows for his preferred lounge-chair perusal. "Why should I have to buy something just to be able to read the paper?"
Because to my generation, that's what delivery looks like.
I'd like to have their problems.
During the visit, my father and I got into an interesting discussion about the newspaper. It boils down to the fact that he's frustrated he will no longer be able to get his newspaper delivered seven days a week. That's how he's been taking in his news for quite a while, and at 60 he's really not out there looking for the next new thing.
He blames people my age. We disagree, though I do concede that papers are folding (hah!) due to their inability to get people in my age bracket (I'm about the turn 34) to buy them. His contention is that a paper's core demographic is the 30-45 year old person, the ones in the prime of their spending lives who have money, kids, and have yet to accrue a huge pile of stuff that only needs to be replaced if it wears out.
I told him that was true thirty years ago, but had stopped being the M.O. for news-jockeys several decades hence. As my example, I asked what the most liberal paper in our state - Michigan - was. "Detroit Free Press." I pointed out to him that I found it to be nearly as conservative in both its editorial viewpoint and reporting style as most other papers in the state, and I have lived in the next two largest markets. Sure, you might get a little bit of politically charged liberal reporting, calling out our Republican governor for...whatever, but it always comes across as the entrenched, old guard Democrats railing against their Republican counterparts.
And I couldn't care less.
At some point the money people got a little older. They looked at my generation, shrugged, and continued to market to my parents. It was a calculated move, and for quite a while it worked.
Now it's sort of falling apart. Companies that should have been paying attention to emerging technology didn't; businesses that should have been responding to how a modern 35 year old shops just kept doing "what had always worked" and disregarded our stance on the world; newspapers stopped writing stories relevant to younger readers, either because they didn't think what we cared about was that important, or that what they cared about was so much more. All this happened as new players came on the scene and actually did speak to us, did understand us, did market to us. They're the ones that will likely still be around in ten years.
Oh, they're also generally owned or managed by younger people. Something to think about.
This leaves my dad unable to even get a paper delivered to his house on a Wednesday morning. He doesn't want to read his news on the computer, he doesn't see how I even know what's on sale at places without the ad circular, and he resents having to buy a tablet or e-reader to be able to get the subscription periodicals to his house in a way that allows for his preferred lounge-chair perusal. "Why should I have to buy something just to be able to read the paper?"
Because to my generation, that's what delivery looks like.