July 24, 2014

A Fine Line Between Marketing and Harassment: The Case Against Age-Targeted Advertising




by Dr. Ellen Brandt


Get two or more Baby Boomers talking, and sooner or later, the topic of age-targeted cable television ads is likely to come up - often accompanied by raised voices, furious scowls, and language of a most un-ladylike or un-gentlemanly sort.

Simply put, the vast majority of Boomers don't just dislike these ads. They consider them malicious, sadistic, bullying, vulgar, and possibly fitting the legal definition of harassment and stalking. Or as one of my friends said the other day, "They've taken all the joy out of watching TV, which some people still like to do."

If your rejoinder is that "there have always been ads targeted to age groups," the answer is, "Yes, there have been: ads targeted to young children. And both parents and child protection groups have been agitating against them for decades."

But mass age-targeting of adult populations didn't start happening in a big way until two years ago, when every cable television customer - which essentially means everyone who watches TV at home - was finally required to utilize plug-in cable boxes, which many people had refused to do until it became a mandatory requirement for getting cable programming at all.

We seem to remember that this government-mandated requirement for plug-in boxes was supposed to have something to do with either National Security or being able to get alerts if tornadoes or hurricanes were coming one's way.

We now suspect, however, that it had more to do with a welfare-like bailout of troubled cable companies, gifting them with one-billionth of a cent per showing or whatever it is they receive for ads targeting various populations: by locality, by ethnicity, or by age.

To be honest, we don't really mind ads targeted by locality, telling viewers about the stores, restaurants, home improvement purveyors, or other businesses in their immediate vicinities. Even if ones hates advertising in general - and Yes, I'm one of those ad-resistant people - one has to admit that at least locality-based ads have some sort of relevance to one's life and needs. So OK: in this instance, target away!

Ethnic-based advertising is more problematic, especially when it becomes insulting. For instance, ad targeters seem to consider daytime television - including quiz shows and talk shows - the newly-designated province of Black American viewers, with maybe a few Latinos thrown in for good measure. You now rarely see a Caucasian or Asian actor or actress populating the ads shown during this kind of programming - which in itself is OK, I guess.

What's insulting is the kind of advertisements targeters consider relevant to this supposed audience: heavy on payday lenders, pawn shops, deep-discount life insurance, the occasional bail bondsman, and auto loans geared to "those with imperfect credit." I am not Black nor Latina, but if I were, I'd consider this targeting nasty verging on malicious.

But age-targeted ads are even worse - and almost certainly illegal under various statutes, although for some reason, the lawyers aren't agitating yet.

Younger adults are targeted for some of the abuse. Shows geared to teens have way too many acne treatment ads, for instance, 80 percent of them featuring Adam Levine. And people in their 20s and 30s may not appreciate the near-constant bombardment of their screens with ads for family-oriented smartphone plans - "I once got eight in a row," says a friend - occasionally relieved by spiels for cars, car insurance, more cars, more car insurance, and pet products.

Nothing compares, however, to what marketing targeters inflict upon you if they even suspect you're over 50. (We've heard the cut-off point may now have been lowered to age 45 or even 42, but by age 50, every one of us has a  bull's-eye targeting our viewing eyeballs.)

Most "old people ads," seemingly produced under the aegis of marketers in junior high school, would be offensive to target viewers of any age - 85, 105, 125. But they are extraordinarily offensive to my fellow Baby Boomers, one-third of the U.S. population. As we've noted in previous stories, despite the ignorance and bias of far too many kiddie marketers, Boomers are in our 50s and 60s, far more fitness-oriented and in far better health than previous generations in these "prime of life" decades. We're still vital, attractive, active, and productive. Many of us have no desire to nor intention of "retiring" ever. And we in no way consider ourselves "old people" or "seniors." Neither should marketers.

Alas, however, most age-targeting marketers do. And what, in their infinite non-wisdom, these targeters believe Boomers are interested in is - prescription medicine. Also - prescription medicine. And did I mention? - prescription medicine.

According the the age-targeters, once you cross over an imaginary Marketing-Maginot-Line into Old-People-Land  - i.e. when you turn 50 (or possibly 45 or even 42) - your existence must be marred by heart disease, cancerous tumors, diabetes, arthritis, severe hayfever, migraine headaches, something called yeast infections - do you get them from baking bread? - erectile dysfunction (presumably for girls as well as boys), and a whole plethora of diseases I swear I have never heard of, but am constantly being urged to treat.

Perhaps I have a limited marketing imagination - (thank goodness) - but I don't understand the basic value of advertising prescription drugs - as opposed to over-the-counter products - on television in the first place. Shouldn't these drugs be marketed only to physicians and other health professionals? Aren't the doctors themselves quite angry? In this age of limited healthcare resources and the push to rein in escalating entitlements, do we really and truly want to encourage generations of potential patients mistrusting their physicians' judgment and expertise and urging them to prescribe "that cute little aqua pill I saw on Bravo last week?"

Just as bad is how egregiously these age-targeted medicine ads ignore all basic principles of targeted marketing per se. Because if marketers can accurately figure out into which age ranges their viewer-targets fall, can they not somehow also figure out whether or not we actually have any of the diseases and ailments whose cures they're so furiously trying to sell us?

In my own case, I have had my share of sports and other injuries over the years - a broken wrist, a broken leg, and a serious eye injury that required several operations. But other than minor food poisoning, bug bites, and a few colds - all treated successfully over-the-counter - the last real "illness" I had was whooping cough the summer between 4th and 5th grades. The only prescription drug I recall having taken as an adult was a terrific painkiller, after I had some impacted wisdom teeth pulled. (This drug made me tipsy and cheery, like drinking a full bottle of champagne, and dentists are welcome to prescribe it for me again.)

With a little extra research, Dear Marketers-Who-Target, you could have discovered that: I don't have any chronic illnesses whatsoever; if anything, I am an anti-hypochondriac; and as little of my budget as possible is spent on anything remotely "medical." So, Dear Fellas, are you really accomplishing anything, other than making me angry, by bombarding me with nonstop medical ads, based on your misconceptions and biases about my Baby Boomer generation?

Angry about these ads, I am - along with pretty much every Baby Boomer I've talked to. Since the imposition of universal cable boxes replacing VCRs, ads per se are getting harder and harder to avoid completely, so everyone's come up with their individual ways of coping. Personally, I keep crossword puzzles or sudoko handy, to occupy my brain whenever the first frame of an "old people ad" comes into sight. Or I use my remote's "Last" button and set it to the Disney Channel, the only remaining place on cable TV where disease-focused advertising's taboo, because it scares the little children.

If the Market Targeters reading this - and I hope some are - want to know what they might substitute for their obnoxious and sadistic medical ads, if they truly care to reach a Baby Boomer audience, the simple answer is: The same advertising you show everybody else! Humans don't morph into a different species once they pass an arbitrary Age Boundary imposed by the kiddie mis-managers of advertising programs.

Now, me - let's be frank - you probably won't reach in any case, because I have very low tolerance for all advertising in video or digital form. I will read interesting "advertorials" - ones that actually contain appealing information - in upscale print magazines like Smithsonian or National Geographic. But on television - Well, maybe you could hook me with baby pandas. "Baby pandas love our beer." "Baby pandas drive our cars." "Nine out of ten baby pandas prefer shopping at our department store."

But most Boomers, I believe, won't actively curse, write letters to their Congresspeople, or throw plates of steaming spaghetti at ads featuring cosmetics or clothes or restaurants or stores or furniture or - Goddess help us! - even smartphones.

Just spare us from a sadistic diet of ads about chronic illness, wheelchairs, prosthetics, reverse mortgages, and anything whatsoever featuring either Joan Lundin or the AARP.

A last note to financially-strapped cable companies: Whatever the Ninnies-who-Market are paying you to bombard Baby Boomers with these ads, most of us would happily pay you double or triple - three-billionths of a cent per showing? - to rid our screens of age-targeted stalking.

And to every ambitious class-action attorney out there: Willing potential plaintiffs abound. So what in the world are you waiting for?