We don't talk enough about the fact that older people have pretty much all the money in the world, and are routinely ignored by everyone in Marketing and routinely find it extremely hard to find work because for some reason the entire industry is fixated on young, upwardly mobile trendy urbanites. Rather than the people who own stuff, have cash, buy things and tend to know more. ..........Now let me get back to the deck I'm always asked to make about how advertisers can reach Gen Z.
I think it is based on 4 assumptions: 1. brand loyalty can last a lifetime 2 young people do not have brand loyalty yet, so it is easier to sway them 3. Different generations have very different preferences in advertising 4. Younger people are tastemakers However, I think all four of these assumptions is probably wrong, misleading, or situational…
Yes, I wonder about this too. Do you reckon part of it is because it's harder to target them via digital channels as they aren't using it as frequently or in the same way?
The youngest baby boomers are 60. The wealthy ones could probably retire already. They absolutely aren't ignored in advertising. You just don't see it.
Every brief says 25-35 year olds... coincidently, the age of the brand manager.
The graphic shows how complex working with data is. 1. Which Boomers have all the money? Is it the grandma around the corner or is it concentrated at the 1%? 2. Does net worth mean liquidity or does it simply mean: Boomers bought houses that are now valued at completely insane prices, driving up their net worth without giving them money to actually buy things? 3. Do Boomers actually spend their money or is whatever they have in a house, stocks or cash meant to go to their children and grandchildren, meaning they have no intention of spending a lot? 4. Do we market to young people because they’re learning that saving for a house isn’t in the cards for them so they in reality can spend their cash anyway?
Subtle but important distinction: You don't make money by advertising to people who HAVE lots of money; You make money by advertising to those who SPEND lots of money. "Wealth" includes non-liquid assets (e.g., the value of someone's equity in their home, the retirement account that someone in their 60s is trying not to spend from because they're trying to make last 20+ years). If you have $426,070 saved that you're trying to make last 20 years (current median retirement savings for people aged 65+), that means each year you can pull only $21,304. That's only $6,244 per year higher than the poverty threshold. This person is going to be barely scraping by. Of those who have anything left over after that, many have a purpose in life that involves leaving something behind for their progeny. Liquidating and spending their wealth would mean leaving less behind for their kids, so why would they spend more than they need to? The taste for material goods diminishes with age, anyway, so it's not even going to be a pleasurable vice. Wealth, income, and spending do have some incidental overlap with one another (e.g., creditors tend to make it difficult to spend a whole lot more than you earn), but they are not equivalent to one another.
You know who really is the greatest intersection of ignored and cashed up? Women over 50. We go to Europe.
Assume we were having this discussion 25 years ago: baby boomers had about 60% of the wealth of the previous generation and GenX looked insignificant. Similarly, today, Gen X has about half the worth of Baby boomers and Millenials look insignificant. The conclusion I am drawing is that while there is economic slow down (GDP was growing at 4% in the 50s and 60s vs 2% now) that is reflected on the proportional % of each generation vs the previous one, comparing old money to people who are just getting started is an unfair comparison. The question is, if you project Millenials to the future, will they get to the same or lower % compared to GenX? Probably lower my sense is, but still this is all about future potential and growth.
This is exactly when you become a rental and service based economy where people would rather pay others than do something themselves. One reason older people have money vs younger people...they're more wise and conservative in how they spend it. (I won't even get into investment). I'm guessing most old folks don't lease a car, music or pay someone else to deliver them a burger because they're too busy trying the new upgrade they just purchased in a game. The amount of money young folks spend on pure bullshit and fake things is absolutely astounding. One of my kids tells me he's going to be a millionaire. Yet, when he got home from work, paid UberEats to deliver an energy drink because he forgot to stop on the way home. I merely passed by and said.... "You're making someone else's dream come true" One year I calculated, I saved $30k in parts and labor fixing things myself vs paying someone else or throwing things out and buying new. Now I do ok, but I don't have that type of cash laying around. If what someone charges me to do something costs more than my wages & time for me to do it, I'm going to do it if at all possible.
Still have no idea why there isn't a Neobank aiming at these people. It's not like older people don't care. It's all " Help pay for your share of Pizza" and "split the rent with your flatmates" and never " Priority access to the Opera " etc it's mad.