February 3, 2018

No Image

Advertisers Say The Influential Male Demographic Is Waning

Men between the ages of 18 and 34 have been a key demographic for marketers for years. That’s starting to change, say some marketing experts, who say the economic fortunes of these men have declined.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

OK, let’s stay on the Super Bowl for a minute. Even with all the recent debate about the sport, tomorrow’s game is certain to have a huge audience, and because of that, so will the ads. That’s why the ads – creating them, watching them, rating them – is almost a sport of its own. And no doubt you will see many aimed at 18-to-34-year-old males. It used to be thought that they have an outsized influence on purchasing decisions but no longer. Charles Lane from member station WSHU reports that many advertisers have been noticing a shift.

CHARLES LANE, BYLINE: Gareth Evans is a market researcher for Flamingo, a London-based company that researches fashion trends. And about a year ago, he was running a focus group.

GARETH EVANS: Quite regular, quite sporty guys – and rather than talking to me about soccer players, basketball players, they were really switched on to a number of kind of female style influences.

LANE: He looked at their Instagram feeds and saw that these guys weren’t influenced by other men but women.

EVANS: When I step back and look at the male 18-to-34 demographic, I see a lessening of their ability to influence.

LANE: He took these findings to his data team. They said what’s really happening is that the power of certain groups, like young men, is being diluted by the proliferation of new age and gender brackets online. Flamingo isn’t the only research group seeing this, major brands are too. Lucas Galan runs data forensics at Flamingo.

LUCAS GALAN: Today, corporations are no longer coming to us and saying, we want to target males 18 to 34. That’s very anachronistic.

LANE: These changes are happening at a time when women are graduating from college at higher rates than men and when traditionally-male jobs, especially those in manufacturing, are harder to find. Scott McDonald heads The Advertising Research Foundation.

SCOTT MCDONALD: You kind of have a shift in the occupational structure of the country that corresponds with some segments of the male population losing their buying power.

LANE: But overall, McDonald is skeptical that men 18 to 34 are less influential in advertising. He says there’s not much research available. Also, he says, the 18 to 34 age group will continue to be important because of its sheer size. Millennials outnumber even baby boomers. Slaine Jenkins is a market researcher for Insight Strategy Group. She says it’s not that males 18 to 34 are less influential, it’s that as advertising dollars shift online, traditional demographics are less important. Advertisers these days are more interested in a consumer’s past behavior and psychological makeup.

SLAINE JENKINS: In market research, we’ve seen a great need to explore influence beyond demographics and really dig into the psychographics to understand audiences and their behaviors.

LANE: Instead of breaking consumers up by age or gender, companies are targeting values and passions. Big data sets of past purchases, Internet searches, GPS locations – these give companies a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer in order to find their customers. But there is a downside to these more highly-targeted advertisements. Chris Jackson is a pollster for the market research company Ipsos.

CHRIS JACKSON: That’s sort of this sort of narrow, this is the view they have of you from your online behavior. But who knows if that’s actually the totality of your life or your experience?

LANE: For example, political junkies who mostly visit news sites might miss out on major cultural trends, while fashionistas on Instagram risk never seeing political ads. For NPR News, I’m Charles Lane.

Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Elephants For Eagles, Puppies For Patriots: Animals Predict Super Bowl LII

All eyes will be on the New England Patriots and Philadelphia Eagles this Sunday as the teams face off in Super Bowl LII. Who will win the coveted Vince Lombardi Trophy this year, the perennial favorite or the underdog? You can spend hours analyzing statistics, or you could trust the intuition of animals that don’t understand football. As a reference, the Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook had the Patriots as 4-point favorites on Friday.

This might not be the most scientific approach, but it’s undoubtedly the most adorable. Here are the results:

Bubbles, the elephant: Eagles

[embedded content]
Robert Johnson/Myrtle Beach SafariYouTube

At the Myrtle Beach Safari in South Carolina, Bubbles, a 9,000-pound African elephant, flipped over the Eagles helmet with her trunk and devoured the apple underneath.

Fiona, the hippo: Eagles

See who Fiona picks to win! Does she go with the @Patriots, the favorite to win, or the @Eagles, one underdog rooting for another? Cincinnatians will get to see Fiona starring in a #SuperBowl commercial this Sunday when it airs during the big game! https://t.co/7wKxwD6x59pic.twitter.com/R9RYMKzyq3

— Cincinnati Zoo (@CincinnatiZoo) February 1, 2018

Cincinnati Zoo’s celebrity hippopotamus, Fiona, ate her greens out of the Eagles box. Underdogs have to stick together, after all.

Nicholas, the dolphin: Patriots

Nicholas the rescued dolphin at Clearwater Marine Aquarium chose the New England Patriots on Jan. 29, 2018 to win Super Bowl LII.

Courtesy of Clearwater Marine Aquarium

hide caption

toggle caption

Courtesy of Clearwater Marine Aquarium

When given the choice between a Patriots and Eagles football, Nicholas the rescued dolphin at Clearwater Marine Aquarium in Florida guided the Patriots football toward the “dolphin football judge.” This psychic dolphin is six for seven in sports predictions, including a correct selection last year for the reigning Super Bowl champions Patriots. The Eagles have reason to fear.

Fernando, the sloth: Eagles

How long does it take a sloth to make a #SuperBowl pick? Not long at all, as Fernando showed us at @PhoenixZoo on #12Today! Enjoy his real time selection, set to a sultry slow jam. pic.twitter.com/lIxFqYAB8X

— Paul Gerke (@PaulGerke) January 31, 2018

Phoenix Zoo’s sloth, Fernando, made a decisive pick in favor of the Eagles by slowly climbing toward Philadelphia’s container. It’s always a delight watching sloths eat flowers, but this video set to a sultry soundtrack is a true gem.

April, the giraffe: Patriots

[embedded content]
Animal Adventure ParkYouTube

The Patriots are going to get its third Super Bowl title in four years, according to April, Animal Adventure Park’s celebrity giraffe. April gained worldwide fame in 2017 when the late stages of her pregnancy and eventual delivery were streamed live on YouTube.

Le Le, the panda: Eagles

This morning, Le Le picked the @Eagles to win #SuperBowl on Sunday. Who will you be rooting for? ???? pic.twitter.com/EJVPxXl588

— Memphis Zoo (@MemphisZoo) February 1, 2018

Le Le, a giant panda at the Memphis Zoo, declared Philadelphia to be the Super Bowl LII champions by pulling down the Eagles banner first. At just 1-3 in Super Bowl predictions, though, Le Le is more cute than accurate.

Jimmy Fallon’s puppies: Patriots

[embedded content]
The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy FallonYouTube

In the 2018 installment of this fan-favorite segment, more of Jimmy Fallon’s 11-panel of puppies ate from the Patriots bowl than the Eagles bowl. The real MVP, though, is the puppy that refused to participate at 1:39.

Ahren, the eagle: Eagles

[embedded content]

Ahren the eagle, a resident of Myrtle Beach Safari in South Carolina, swooped down from a perch and looked briefly at the stuffed bear donning Patriots gear before picking her stuffed counterpart. Of course, this surprised no one. Even Ahren’s handler admitted: “She might be a bit biased.”

Linda Wang is an intern on the National Desk.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Why A Cancer Patient Opposes The 'Right To Try' Experimental Cancer Drugs

Michael Becker is dying from cancer. But he tells NPR’s Scott Simon that he opposes the passage of the Right To Try Act, which gives terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

Imagine you’ve been diagnosed with cancer. You’ve been told it’s terminal. Doctors have tried everything. The only option left may be experimental, unapproved drugs. You want these drugs no matter what the risk. This week, President Trump urged Congress to pass what’s called the Right To Try Act in his State of the Union address. But many doctors, scientists and those involved in research think it may be a bad idea. Michael Becker is the former CEO of two biotech firms working to develop cancer treatments. Mr. Becker also has terminal cancer. Michael Becker joins us from Bucks County, Pa. Thanks so much for being with us.

MICHAEL BECKER: My pleasure, Scott. Thanks for having me.

SIMON: And I have to begin by asking you, how are you?

BECKER: (Laughter) Feeling pretty good. The quality of life at the moment is not too bad. And I’m happy to still be here.

SIMON: Why are you suspicious of the Right To Try Act?

BECKER: You know, I agree with President Trump that patients like me that are facing a terminal illness should have an opportunity to access experimental drugs. Fortunately, we already do. It’s the Compassionate Use mechanism for the Food and Drug Administration.

SIMON: Having read about you, you just don’t believe that this would be redundant but could be dangerous.

BECKER: Yeah. If you put the two side by side, there’s only one difference. And that is the FDA. The FDA gets taken out of the equation with the proposed legislation. The FDA is in the equation with the existing regulations. Compassionate Use process is extremely easy. Basically, go to your doctor. Find one who will agree to administer the therapy. Contact the drug company. See if they’re also willing to agree. Fill out the paperwork. And then if the FDA doesn’t object, the patient can get the treatment. And the only difference with the new legislation is that last part. The FDA is taken out of the equation.

SIMON: With respect, why care so much about the FDA if a life is hanging in the balance?

BECKER: So as a terminal cancer patient, I would, you know, obviously love to try something that’s going to prolong my life or cure my cancer. The reality is that that’s a very, very small statistic in terms of drug development discovery. Only 5 percent of drugs that go through phase one development actually go on to be approved. So you’re talking about giving people medications that, in historical context, have only had a 5 percent chance of actually working at the end of the day. And then you’re exposing these patients to, potentially, additional toxicities that could accelerate their death or cause additional problems for them.

SIMON: I’m sure you’ve run all this through your mind. Why not – I was about to ask you, why not let the patient decide? Why not let you decide?

BECKER: Well, the problem becomes that you have a lot of false hope as a terminal cancer patient. You want to cling to anything that’s going to sound like it’s an opportunity to live longer or have a better quality of life. And that hope can sometimes cover up the realities of some of the more sinister aspects of getting a drug, which are things go wrong. So I could take a drug that was purported to help me, and it may actually make my condition worse. It could create other difficulties for me. And then my quality of life may be even worse than it was originally. That’s what I would fear as a – or what I do fear as a patient.

SIMON: Yeah. And would it potentially take advantage of people at their most vulnerable?

BECKER: Absolutely. I can’t tell you how many times I see miracle cures and herbal remedies and everything from unsolicited emails to Internet ads, you know, talking about cures and treatments for cancer. If you take the FDA as the policeman out of that equation, I’m scared to death as to what cancer patients or other patients facing terminal illnesses may be subjected to.

SIMON: Well, Mr. Becker, good luck to you. We are so grateful to speak with you. Thank you so much.

BECKER: Thank you, Scott.

Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)