• 
• |
• 
• |
• |
• 2

I can’t quite get my head around the piece about More magazine in today’s New York Times. Apparently the fact that a magazine aimed at women over 40 is pulling readers who are women over 40—and rich ones, at that—is off-putting to advertisers. Silly me, I thought all advertisers cared about was money! But even though “the average More reader makes about $93,000, around $30,000 more than the average for Vogue, Allure or Harper’s Bazaar, according to Mediamark Research and Intelligence,” the ads it runs are notably low end: “The July/August issue’s ads included Crystal Light, Pringles, Coffee-Mate, packaged meals from Oscar Mayer, Bertolli, Tyson and Marie Callender’s, and two liquor ads—for wines under $10. Oh, and Friskies.”

What am I missing here? Are women over 40 really so dreadfully uncool that it’s worthless—or worse—to have them buy your expensive wares? Or so close to death that their spending power is rendered moot? Other theories that my colleagues have offered, in response to my baffled query as to what these advertisers could possibly be thinking: that older women are less likely to switch to new brands; that women old enough to have kids and a mortgage aren’t going to want to spend frivolously. Really?

Granted, I’m being influenced by my atypical surroundings—Manhattan streets crawling with uber-chic white-haired ladies; a mother whose Casch by Gro Abrahamsson coat makes me drool—but I’ve often spotted and been inspired by well-dressed women of the More demographic; more inspired, actually than by similarly-stylish women my own age. With a fancy Gen Yer, I’ll assume she has some means (inherited wealth; an investment banking job; a sugar daddy) that I can’t hope to achieve. But a designer-clad Baby Boomer gives me something to look forward to: Maybe once I’ve squirreled away enough for a house and kids and my kids’ college education, I too can be indulgent and stylish.

Writing off older buyers as brand killers seems wrong to me, as does assuming that they wouldn’t spend on anything but lunch meat and diet drinks. After all, as seems to be typical of my generation, the only way I’d wind up with a Gucci bag or Tiffany necklace would be if a friend or relative 50 or older bought it for me. So why in the world would advertisers eschew the ones with the spending power in favor of someone like me? Are illogical discrimination and unfounded misconceptions to blame for advertisers steering clear of More? Or is there something ... more to it?

Photograph by Joe Raedle/Newsmakers/Getty Images.

Tags: advertising, media, more, new york times

• 
• |
• 
• |
• |
• 2

Sam, I had a different reaction to the NYT story on More magazine and its dearth of luxury advertisers. Whereas magazines geared toward younger readers are full of ads for expensive clothes and purses and jewelry, poor More, with its target audience of women north of 40, is stuck with Oscar Mayer and Bertolli even though its readers make more money than readers of magazines such as Allure and Vogue. Where you saw perhaps “illogical discrimination,” I saw a big “Duhhhhhh.”

I made less money back in my 20s than I do now, but those were also my carefree childless days. (I’m a few years away from 40, but close enough to relate.) Even though I was never a clotheshorse, I spent my weekends combing the racks at J. Crew and Banana Republic, eating out at good restaurants, and traveling. A nice watch or a good purse was an occasional luxury but still within reach.

Now that I’ve got three kids and a house big enough to hold them, those days are but a lovely memory. It’s not just the money—though, admittedly, I could buy a different Coach bag every week with what I spend on child care—but time. Right now both my disposable income and free time are dedicated more to the kids than to myself. (And that’s what I wanted, so I’m not complaining.) I even stopped renewing my subscription to In Style a few years ago because it was frustrating to see fashion spreads with $90 shoes labeled a “steal” when I was wondering if I should “splurge” on a pair that cost $40. That doesn’t mean I yearn to read magazines that have ads for cheap wine and Coffee-Mate. But I don’t blame advertisers for not reaching out to me.

Photograph by Getty Images.

Tags: advertising, new york times

Samantha, Rachael, yes: Women over 40 are, if not yet terminal, terminally uncool. That seems to be the sole reason that More magazine has not been able to attract the kind of advertisers you would think would sign up for a magazine with 1.3 million readers whose average income is $93,000. Ironically, More's advertising staple of processed food manufacturers has helped insulate them from the ad page drop-off suffered by magazines that rely on luxury brands. But the notions behind this de facto ad boycott are themselves antiquated and based on decades-old thinking about consumers. This article about advertising age bias points out that the idea of needing to capture young readers and viewers to build brand loyalty is idiotic because that's not how consumers think anymore. The other point is that Americans ages 18-34 have $1 trillion in disposable income (and how quickly income gets disposed of these days!), while those over 50 have $2.4 trillion. You would think such money talks, but apparently not if it comes from the purse of grandma. And Rachael, you make the argument in favor of the older consumer. You're young, so your disposable income goes to disposable diapers. But once the kids are grown, there are several decades of spending left for most consumers before they hit the diaper stage of life again.

Tags: advertising, new york times