We hear often enough from youth marketing groups how younger generations are leading the online revolution; how they are constantly wired and highly tech-savvy. Well, new findings from Ipsos Reid suggest that teens are not quite online as much as stereotypes suggest, and the online time they spend is rather narrowly focused. What’s more, teens’ comfort level with technology is actually much lower than adults.
According to Ipsos Reid’s survey of thousands of Canadian youth aged 12 to 17, the time spent by teens online is actually rather limited, with teens spending, on average, 13 hours per week on the Internet, compared to a weekly average of 19 hours for online adults. And teens’ time online has not increased at all since the last survey performed four years ago.
There are at least a couple of factors that might account for the comparatively less time teens spend on online, say Ipsos Reid analysts. One is the influence parents still have on teens: more than half of online teens surveyed said their parents place time limits or curfews on their access.
Text messaging, we’d argue, is a big factor too, as it directly displaces instant messaging, which is a top wired activity for kids.
Also at play, says Ipsos, are findings that show only a minority of teens (37%) agree that using the Internet is an "important part of their day." That compares to 51 percent of adults who view the Internet as that important.
All the while, teens don’t see themselves as being technologically advanced. Only about a quarter (28%) of online teens would describe themselves as very skilled or an expert on the Internet, and almost as many (24%) admit to not being skilled at all. The remaining respondents identify themselves as fairly skilled.
Where the Internet does remain very important to kids largely is in its ability to facilitate the things that teenagers like to do: listen to music, play games and, most importantly, socialize. Teens usage is narrowly limited to these three activities, say the findings, and social networks lead the way. The good majority of online Canadian teens, says Ipsos, consider the Internet to be important to their social lives, and a fill 88% say they have participated in an online social activity. More than half (59%) visit online social networks or communities a few times a week to daily.
What might not so clear, however, is whether being wired, or better yet wireless, is more about a fundamental change in behavior, as the Internet often is given credit for, or simply is a newer way to do what kids do anyway: hang out, chat, swap music and share interests.
Of course, when kids grow up, they’re likely use the Internet in ways and at the usage rates that grown ups do now, probably even more so. But conventional wisdom that says kids today are spending substantially less time out and about, hanging at the mall or McDonald’s or kicking around the park, might not be entirely accurate.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Blue is Green (Er, the other green)
The notion that “misery is not miserly” is by no means unfamiliar to veteran advertising and marketing executives, and it’s really no surprise in a culture that “buys to feel better.” Consider the old, “you deserve a break today” slogan, for example.
Even so, a new study found a great willingness to spend loosely when people are sad, particularly when their sadness triggers feelings of self absorption, according to reports on the research by AP. The study involved two groups: one that watched an emotional video about the death of a boy’s mentor and another that watched an emotionally neutral video on the Great Barrier Reef. Researchers from Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford and Pittsburgh universities measured the “self-focus” response by counting how frequently study participants used references to "I," "me," "my" and "myself" in writing an essay about how a sad situation such as the one portrayed in the video would affect them personally, although we don’t see how one could write “personally” about anything without using those words.
Nonetheless, on average, the group that watched the sad video was willing to pay four times as much for an insulated water bottle than the group that watched the nature video. Specifically, the 33 young adults in the study were given $10 for participating and then were offered a chance to trade some of the money to buy the water bottle. The sad group offered to trade an average of $2.11 for the bottle compared to 56 cents offered by the neutral group. And despite the difference in willingness to spend, participants in the sad group usually insisted that the video’s emotional content didn’t impact their spending decisions, say the researchers.
Here’s a bit from the AP story that hit the wires over the weekend:
"This is a phenomenon that occurs without awareness," Jennifer Lerner, a Harvard professor who studies emotion and decision making, said in a phone interview. "This is really different from the idea of retail therapy, where people are feeling negative and want to cheer themselves up by shopping. People have no idea this is going on."
The researchers concluded sadness can trigger a chain of emotions leading to extravagant tendencies. Sadness leads people to become more focused on themselves, causing the person to feel that they and their possessions are worth little. That feeling increases willingness to pay more — presumably to feel better about themselves.
"Because the study used real commodities and real money, results hold implications for everyday decisions," according to the authors of the study, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, and presented Saturday at a meeting of the Society for Social and Personality Psychology.
We are not really sure how outdoor companies can use this information, or how anyone would promote sadness when selling “recreation,” but it might be fun to consider …
Even so, a new study found a great willingness to spend loosely when people are sad, particularly when their sadness triggers feelings of self absorption, according to reports on the research by AP. The study involved two groups: one that watched an emotional video about the death of a boy’s mentor and another that watched an emotionally neutral video on the Great Barrier Reef. Researchers from Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford and Pittsburgh universities measured the “self-focus” response by counting how frequently study participants used references to "I," "me," "my" and "myself" in writing an essay about how a sad situation such as the one portrayed in the video would affect them personally, although we don’t see how one could write “personally” about anything without using those words.
Nonetheless, on average, the group that watched the sad video was willing to pay four times as much for an insulated water bottle than the group that watched the nature video. Specifically, the 33 young adults in the study were given $10 for participating and then were offered a chance to trade some of the money to buy the water bottle. The sad group offered to trade an average of $2.11 for the bottle compared to 56 cents offered by the neutral group. And despite the difference in willingness to spend, participants in the sad group usually insisted that the video’s emotional content didn’t impact their spending decisions, say the researchers.
Here’s a bit from the AP story that hit the wires over the weekend:
"This is a phenomenon that occurs without awareness," Jennifer Lerner, a Harvard professor who studies emotion and decision making, said in a phone interview. "This is really different from the idea of retail therapy, where people are feeling negative and want to cheer themselves up by shopping. People have no idea this is going on."
The researchers concluded sadness can trigger a chain of emotions leading to extravagant tendencies. Sadness leads people to become more focused on themselves, causing the person to feel that they and their possessions are worth little. That feeling increases willingness to pay more — presumably to feel better about themselves.
"Because the study used real commodities and real money, results hold implications for everyday decisions," according to the authors of the study, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, and presented Saturday at a meeting of the Society for Social and Personality Psychology.
We are not really sure how outdoor companies can use this information, or how anyone would promote sadness when selling “recreation,” but it might be fun to consider …
Monday, February 4, 2008
SHOT vs SIA
We just got back from a quick trip to Vegas where we had the chance to catch the last day of SIA on Friday followed by the first day of SHOT on Saturday. It provided a unique perspective on the differences between these two outdoor segments.
Most glaring of all, and not very good news for the SHOT crowd, was the difference in demographics. At SIA, most age groups were well represented, including plenty of kids and twenty-somethings, as most would expect. At SHOT, on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of attendees were in their 40s, 50s, 60s and beyond. SHOT celebrated its 30th Anniversary this year, and one got the feeling a lot of those in attendance had been to all 30 shows.
Clearly, the industry served by the SHOT show has to be concerned as to where their future participants will come from.
At present, however, SHOT could swallow SIA several times over. The SHOT show is massive, covering several exhibit halls inside the Las Vegas Convention Center, with additional booths in tents located in the parking lot and flooding over into the neightboring Hilton. And depsite the expansive nature, the floor was crowded and bustling everywhere one went. It simply was overwhelming.
SIA also was energetic and crowded, but it's hard not to notice how the show is about half its size from the days when it was held in March. The reduction, no doubt, is due to consolidation, a few years of poor snow and the fact that snowsports retailers simply aren't ready to buy in January, which is right in the middle of their peak season.
Here's a few less serious comparisons between SIA and SHOT; we'll add more as they come to mind, and feel free to shoot us a note if you think of any of your own:
Ya Brah vs. Good buddy
Skull caps vs. Bald spots
Most glaring of all, and not very good news for the SHOT crowd, was the difference in demographics. At SIA, most age groups were well represented, including plenty of kids and twenty-somethings, as most would expect. At SHOT, on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of attendees were in their 40s, 50s, 60s and beyond. SHOT celebrated its 30th Anniversary this year, and one got the feeling a lot of those in attendance had been to all 30 shows.
Clearly, the industry served by the SHOT show has to be concerned as to where their future participants will come from.
At present, however, SHOT could swallow SIA several times over. The SHOT show is massive, covering several exhibit halls inside the Las Vegas Convention Center, with additional booths in tents located in the parking lot and flooding over into the neightboring Hilton. And depsite the expansive nature, the floor was crowded and bustling everywhere one went. It simply was overwhelming.
SIA also was energetic and crowded, but it's hard not to notice how the show is about half its size from the days when it was held in March. The reduction, no doubt, is due to consolidation, a few years of poor snow and the fact that snowsports retailers simply aren't ready to buy in January, which is right in the middle of their peak season.
Here's a few less serious comparisons between SIA and SHOT; we'll add more as they come to mind, and feel free to shoot us a note if you think of any of your own:
Ya Brah vs. Good buddy
Skull caps vs. Bald spots
Samplin' beats vs. Beef jerky samples
Lots of skin on display vs. Dear hides and duck feathers
What's Going Green Now?
Can't say we saw this coming, but now, "for the first time," we can enjoy guilt-free (well almost) organic horchata and cotton candy.Load up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
