the kids are alright
A few questions regarding the report published this week by Morgan Stanley Bank on media habits of teenagers.
The report was written by one of their summer interns, aged 15, and based on the media consumption of him and his friends. Clearly a representative sample of all teenagers.
Top-line nuggets:
They consume more media, but are not keen to pay for it.
They don't like intrusive advertising.
They are happy to chase content and music across platforms
and devices (iPods, mobiles, streaming sites).
Newspapers and printed media are viewed as irrelevant.
Events (cinema, concerts etc.) remain popular and will be paid for.
The convergence of gaming, TV, mobile and Internet is accelerating.
High-end smartphones are desirable but too expensive.
Texting is still key and use of data services limited due to cost.
As a source of insight, it has no real value, however.
Who are these teenagers?
White kids? Black kids? Asian kids?
13, 14, 15, 16, 17?
Middle class? Working class?
Do they live in cities? towns? villages?
Are they hip-hoppers, skaters, football hooligans, ballet dancers?
Are they posh kids who spend their summers working in banks or do they run around smashing windows and sniffing glue?
These kind of reports are interesting to a point but from a marketing perspective it tells you nothing.
Generational segmentation has long been a dead end.
A bunch of kids dressed in black with Converse and eye make up at a My Chemical Romance gig tells you something about fashion, culture, worldview and behaviour of a group.
That's a situation. Situations are something to market to, not demographics.
Pic courtesy of emo fashion
