Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

TV Viewers' Average Age Hits 50

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Jul 01, 2008 08:08 PM
from the hey-i'm-almost-that-old-now dept.
Ant writes "Variety reports on a recent study that says TV viewership's median age is outside the 18-49 years demographic: "The broadcast networks have grown older than ever — if they were a person, they wouldn't even be a part of TV's target demo anymore." These totals exclude DVR users, and apparently the oldest since they started tracking it. Of course you know what the means ... TV is for old people! The internet has confirmed it.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Aussenseiter (1241842) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:10PM (#24024651)
    Confirmed it? More like caused it.
    • by telchine (719345) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:24PM (#24024791)

      >>The internet has confirmed it.

      Ah, but what does Netcraft say?

    • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:34PM (#24024861) Journal
      Actually - TFA says "broadcast TV". You know, the networks. A lot of the stuff on "cable" isn't worth watching, by any demographic, so of course the audience for Network programming is skewed towards the older, wiser crowd. Even my 18 year old daughter shakes her head at the crap on MTV, for example. (I tell her it WAS cool, in the 80's, but that is dating myself)

      I don't watch much TV either, but I do find I would rather watch something like "House" over the crap on MTV now-a-days. Although, the cable channels like Discovery actually win out in the end.

      Most "TV" consumed in my house is first encoded to a disk drive, then watched in as close to 44 minutes per hour as possible.

    • by dgatwood (11270) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:39PM (#24024895) Journal

      Well, it's not just that. The Internet has helped, sure, but the biggest problem the networks face is declining viewership as cable channels do better and better jobs at hitting more specific niches. You have channels for everything from sci-fi to home improvement. The Internet merely takes that one step farther and creates channels for everything from nude archery to watching people's feet as they walk past aisles of clothing at J.C. Penney.

      The point is that as the availability of options increases, the interest in individual options decreases, and younger viewers are far more likely to find those new options and take advantage of them than older viewers simply because they are more connected with other people. You hear about things on TV, the radio, email, around work, etc. Retired people have much more limited ways to find out about these things, and thus are much less likely to end up watching the Smurfs With Green Moustaches Drawn On By Monkeys In Tutus Hour. Therefore, the older demographic will be much slower to transition away from legacy technologies like broadcast TV and towards more niche-oriented content like cable channels, towards more on-demand technologies like iTunes, and towards more peer-generated services like YouTube.

      I predicted the death of broadcast TV back in 1995. IIRC, I gave it 10-15 years. It may take a little longer, but I suspect I was a lot closer than the folks who read my essay suspected....

      • by markov_chain (202465) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @09:26PM (#24025279) Homepage

        I'm impressed with what the big broadcasters did with Hulu.com. Shows stream with no strings attached, and the ads are extremely short and unintrusive.

        Plenty of nerds boast about cutting ads out, but the sad truth is that they pay for the content. It's nice to see an ad scheme subtle enough not to cause people to subvert it.

        • by 0123456789 (467085) <h_m_dyson@yahoo.com> on Tuesday July 01 2008, @10:31PM (#24025777)
          Hulu is actually a little smarter than that. Try running it with an ad blocker, and then without. If you run it without the adblocker, each ad runs for between 7 and 15 seconds. With an adblocker, you get a silent, black screen (with a reminder that it's ad-supported, and a "warning" to switch off your adblocker) for 20 seconds wherever an advert would have been. They're cunning enough to give people a reason to watch it with the adverts.
  • by MacDork (560499) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:11PM (#24024667) Journal
    Americans are living longer and having fewer kids. Surprised?
  • Excellent! (Score:4, Funny)

    by overshoot (39700) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:12PM (#24024677)
    So since I don't watch the boob tube [1] I must not be old, right? (Looking at driver's license and checking the date.)

    So how come the AARP keeps pestering me and the stores offer me the "seniors discount?"

    [1] Thanks very much, $HERSELF's boobs here are still very worth watching.

  • We will be seeing the advent of decentralized media taking over. I myself use a cable companies DVR to watch some shows like the Venture Brothers and sometimes the Daily show. Honestly though with the lack of interaction for the television I find myself boring of it within an hour or so. I cannot stand news television that they sometimes leave on at the bar I frequent down from where I work. For one I have carefully made sure that my RSS feeds exclude any mention of sports, celebrity gossip or the like as I do not consider them news.


    I usually get up in the morning and read news.google.com first to see if the world has blown up and than peruse the RSS feeds from Eureka Alerts [eurekalert.org] before downloading my custom top 50 stories unto my Sony Ebook Reader [amazon.com] which I recently upgraded to from my old Palm M500. On the light rail I read the news like people used to read newspapers, completely on most days unless a slew of unwanted stories is downloaded. I find reading things that may not interest me at first can become a pretty enlightening experience and I am now as of a few months ago becoming more familiar with new economic movements such as crowdsourcing [wikipedia.org] and Wikinomics.

  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:28PM (#24024815) Homepage

    Anybody notice something missing from the broadcast (over-the-air) channels from the last few years?

    10-20 years ago... you would find nearly half of your local NBA, MLB, and NHL games on broadcast, and as time went on the other half (mostly home games) would show up on HBO-like pay cable. Now, nearly all the games not on national TV are found on one basic cable network at least partly owned by the team. And cable bills went up a few dollars a month when that network moved from pay to basic status or got started in the first place.

    News coverage has been cut back too. The idea of having a studio in every country we had friendly relations with has gone by the wayside. Longform presantations of things like the political conventions have been shifted to basic cable networks.

    There used to just be "The People's Court" for court shows. Now there's enough syndicated judge-personality shows on broadcast to fill an entire daytime lineup. Cheapest to produce wins, the only thing cheaper is Jerry Springer and his knockoffs.

    It's said what our seniors are getting for television signals these days, no wonder why those of us that can afford it get cable or DBS.

  • hope beyond hope (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fermion (181285) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:55PM (#24025017) Homepage Journal
    We keep hoping for shows like I Love Lucy, Charlies Angles, and BJ and the Bear. We keep hoping for another powerful women, not child girl, like Erin Grey. Young whipper snappers never saw TV when it was fresh and full of possibilities, after the slate of scripted network time wasting, and before the decline to unscripted networked time wasting. When the ideas were recycled from radio, not cannibalized from itself. It is no wonder that a generation raised on Seinfield and Friends would have no love for the one eyed beast. How could even Buffy engender the mythic loyalty of Bewitched.

    TV probably died in the year 2001. It is to be expected that, just like radio, it will hang on with it's one bony hand until it relegated to the backwoods of cheap motel rooms, where internet acess is not available.

  • by camperdave (969942) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @09:03PM (#24025079) Journal
    So does this mean that today's youth are outside riding bikes, skipping, playing games, building tree forts, etc?
  • Simple demographics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jeff Hornby (211519) <[jthornby] [at] [sympatico.ca]> on Tuesday July 01 2008, @09:14PM (#24025167) Homepage

    Given that the trailing edge of the baby boom turns 48 this year, I would have to guess that this statistic is a result of the demographic bulge. So the reason that these numbers are starting to skew higher is that there is now a higher percentage of the general population over 50.

    In other words, move along there's nothing to see here.

  • by Yold (473518) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @10:07PM (#24025587)


      All my friends (myself excluded), spend 80-90% of the time they could be watching TV, playing video games. Hell, my boss who is in his mid-thirties, and well educated, spends his would-be-watching-tv time playing video games too. Same with many of my co-workers.

      And then there are people like me (read cheapskates), who only have extremely basic cable because it comes at next to nothing w/ cable modem service. Netflix on-demand, for like $9 a month, gives me a plethora of documentary programming, and some decent movies, fills in the gaps that free television websites (southparkstudios.com, adultswim.com), do not provide.

      What I have been saying for the last couple years is that cable companies should allow people to pick 10 networks, and be able to watch any of the content at any time, and stream it over the internet. Hell, I'll even provide the computer, it is easy enough to hook one up to a television nowadays. Some cable companies do it now with set-top boxes, but WTF do I want Style Network, Lifetime Network, and 20 other shitty channels just to be able to get their "premium" tier of service (on-demand). At a cost of like $80 a month w/ a cable modem. I'd gladly pay half that for what I just mentioned.

  • by mykepredko (40154) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @10:12PM (#24025625) Homepage

    Except for sports (which we use an antenna), nobody in my family has watched live TV for several years. We get Internet for our news (usually more in depth) and for TV shows we wait until the end of the season and then when the season's DVDs come out, read the reviews on Amazon and talk to friends.

    Cost wise, over the course of the year, the season sets for a dozen shows (say $50 average each for sake of argument) is less than the cable/satellite options which have the specialty channels with CW, HBO, SHO & SciFi shows as well as the network shows. Having the DVDs allows very comfortable time-shifting and being able to re-watch of shows.

    I know quite a few people do it this way (with some swapping of sets although with the recipient usually watching an episode or two and then buying a set for themselves if they like the show).

    Maybe it's *my* demographic, but it works and the content owners are being paid for their product.

    myke

    • by mr_matticus (928346) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:22PM (#24024757)
      The average of the medians of the five broadcast networks is 50 (i.e. each network had a respective median age of 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 [made-up numbers], which averages to 50). There is nothing wrong with TFA.
    • by flynt (248848) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @08:38PM (#24024885)

      OK, I'm sick of this. Some pedant who probably doesn't know UMVUE from UMP always chimes in when someone mentions the words 'average' and 'median' within 1000 syllables of each other.

      I have a Master's degree in Statistics, a BS in mathematics, and work as a statistician.

      There is really not strict mathematical definition of 'average'. There is a concept of averages as measures of central tendency. However, I've just consulted three of my theoretical statistical inference texts, and not a single one of them has an index entry for the word 'average'. They of course have index entries for 'mean' and 'median'.

      Both mean and median are types of averages, neither inherently 'better' than the other. You won't find the word 'average' used in much technical literature because of this. You specify your statistic more precisely than that.

      So the next time you see the word 'average', don't freak out about it. If someone doesn't specify what they mean, ask them, that's an important question, and something you should think about. You're just arguing semantics and come off as uninformed, if not a bit annoying.

    • An interesting point -- but who created the internet and home computers for you?

      Yep -- we are all now in our 50's and up.

      But we didn't grow up on TV either -- the first TV in our family was used to watch the moon landing in '69. But there was no "cable"; we could only receive three stations. Wasn't worth watching, most of the time (except for exceptional events, like the moon landing).

      The previous generation (take my mother-in-law - she's in her '70s) didn't see a TV until their late twenties/early thirties -- it certainly isn't a formative part.

      Still, census disagrees with me a bit -- TV penetration in households in the USA was nearly complete by 1960 (I guess our family was a hold-out):

      http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/mediatrendstrack/tvbasics/02_TVHouseholds.asp [tvb.org]

      It may be that viewers born 1960 (and before) to 1970 (ei. those who did NOT start with cable) view TV programs as an "event" rather than as disposable entertainment, which may drive that demographic to watch first airings.

      (Ob: Now get off my lawn, you damn kids!)