In Sunday’s Boston Globe, Chris Reidy’s article, Experienced Musician for Hire, addressed the growing phenomenon of famous-name music acts pitching products via songs or even TV ad appearances….
In Reidy’s words, “The trend comes as advertisers avidly woo the 18-to-25 market, a coveted group to win over because people this age make brand choices that can influence their buying decisions for life.”
This is old and familiar reasoning. It’s why advertisers are willing to pay more ad dollars for shows that target the young, even if the overall Nielson ratings are unimpressive. It’s why, when I went to college, I was greeted with a free “care package” of branded personal grooming products on my first day in the dorms.
But is this familiar wisdom still true — if it was ever true? Personally, I can’t think of a single consumer product (deodorant, soap, laundry detergent, shaving cream, after shave, etc.) that I used in my twenties and still buy today. And if anything, today’s consumers seem more, not less, fickle. It seems like only yesterday that the “impregnable” Alta Vista was set on its ear by an upstart named Google.
So I throw it out to this group: Is capturing the brand loyalty of the 18-to-25 set as important as it once appeared to be? Or is this another example of just how clueless the big ad agencies continue to be?
Jonathan,
At the risk of applying a calculated guess as my foundation for the answer, I am fairly confident that the 18 – 25 advertising/marketing/brand strategy was never backed up by good data.
Thinking back to my youth, I rejected any attempt at brand building and was always seeking the next best thing to make me cool. In other words, I was far more interested in fads then value or product manufacturer.
I am confident that none of the products I use today or even used 20 years ago were among those that appealed to me between ages 18 and 25.
Having three children ages 20, 19 and 19 I see one constant with them and their friends, and that is they are fad loyal not brand loyal. They do not care who makes the product as long as it is hip, cool or what ever you want to call it at the time. I think capturing the brand loyalty of the 18 to 25 group is next to impossible.
I tend to agree with Lewis and Jeff. Though I do admit that I still use Gillette razors! (I’ve tried other brands to save money, but found that my tender little baby face deserved the extra buck or two.)
Is it possible that young people aren’t loyal to brands they see as brands (consumer products) but can be very loyal to brands they see as entertainment/lifestyle choices, such as rock groups or extreme sports celebs?
But … aren’t there some enduring “brands of youth” as it were?
In my nonprofit world, there’s a huge age appeal difference between Greenpeace and, say, The Nature Conservancy. Greenpeace is as “cool” to my 12-year-old as it ever was to young enviros in its founding days decades ago.
So while Dads might have “graduated” to TNC (tho this one hasn’t), sons and daughters still enter the enviro world via Greenpeace … it’s managed to be more than a fad.
I am not a marketing expert. So please forgive me if you think my comments are not correct.
But I think that it is a good, sound strategy. It is very difficult for an old person to change his habits and experiment on new things. But it is very easy for a youngster to do so. Hence the marketing is targeted in that audience.
Taking the example for IPod. I really don’t think Ipod would have been as it is today if it was marketed for everyone. The target audience were always the young somethings and popularity amongst them ensured that it is used by everyone.
For a youngster, anything used by his parent will not be cool or hip and that definitely includes Ipods.