Teens don’t use Twitter; not interested in traditional media
A recent report for the European Media Analysts of US Investment back Morgan Stanley about the media habits of teenaers has caused shockwaves throughout the media world and will have an effect even further afield among anyone who makes media products for that target audience.
What gives it the most credence so far is that it was written by a 15 year old intern at Morgan Stanley, based on the preferences of his friends, and so it paints a very interesting picture of what media teenagers do and don’t use.
The full report can be read here.
In short, they have a Twitter account but don’t use it (it costs them money and no-one reads it) and they don’t use traditional news media (newspapers, TV or radio). They don’t pay for music and will illegally fileshare. They don’t like intrusive advertising but will support viral-type marketing. They appreciate a different approach to marketing. They significantly use Facebook and YouTube. They know that they can get information from the net so won’t use hard copy directories, e.g. for listings. They go to the cinema for the experience, as much as for the film itself. They all have high quality mobile phones but are mostly on pay-as-you-go. They use Bluetooth but not video messaging (Bluetooth is free, VM is expensive). They like the idea of new gadgets but their computers are basic (they rarely have state-of-the-art) and mostly PC, not Mac.
What does that mean for us, as media producers for a young audience?
Well, we should not presume that because we use an online or electronic service, younger people do too. We should bear in mind that while we know that students like to use their phones, they have to pay for the privilege and so they may be restricted in their use by their budget. There is plenty they can do for free; cost should not be an issue in consuming our media. They are very savvy about exchanging media files and appreciate the communal experience of consuming media together. They will appreciate a clever ’spin’ or ‘take’ on a media presentation.
There are lots of gimmicky things we can do but we should bear in mind the tolerances and expectations of our target audience. What we shouldn’t do is make media that presumes we know best how they are going to use it, or stipulates how theyshould use it in the future. The learning experience can be enhanced by the inclusion of multimedia resources but using those resources should not force them to do things they can’t afford to do, or exceed the limitations of their gadgets.
5 Responses to “Teens don’t use Twitter; not interested in traditional media”
Leave a Reply
Nick on July 28th, 2009
Hello Nick,
I think it would be unwise to read too much into this particular ‘report’. If you have a look in the comments section of the Guardian article you’ll notice that Morgan Stanley were roundly rubbished for relying on the thoughts of a single 15 year old intern. This is not research from a respected analyst or even ‘gut feel’ from a grizzled veteran, it is the thoughts of one 15 year old, and a privileged 15 year old at that.
Nick Birch on July 30th, 2009
I appreciate what you’re saying about the rigour (or lack of) applied to this report. However, I would argue that in the absence of anything better, it’s a fairly useful indicator of what is happening with a group that is otherwise notoriously difficult to monitor or categorise. Of course it should not be used as a definitive study but it has value as a mood piece which raises definite points of interest. Qualitatitve, rather than quantitative.
I would take issue with a couple of your points, though. It IS a study, not just the thoughts of the writer – they have sampled their friends’ tastes and preferences, then reported on those (though granted they didn’t present their figures). Secondly, the received opinion is that this teenager must be privileged beacuse he was an intern at Morgan Stanley, and therefore their opinions don’t count. This is a dangerous generalisation to make without knowing who they really are, and anyway their opinions should not be devalued by their background. If issues of cost and access are important to someone of a wealthy upbringing, then they will be even more acutely important to those without the same comforts.
Anyway, why should ‘the gut feeling of a grizzled veteran’ about teenagers carry any more weight than the report of a teenager about his peers? In fact, the best comment on the Guardian page that I can see is from a 13 year old who gives lots of information about their media usage and says that he both agrees and disagrees with parts ofthe report. This has far more value than the rubbishing comments. The report will never speak for everyone but I feel that it’s been easier to knock this one down than build on its foundations.
Rubbishing this report and the reporter as valueless is a pointless and short-sighted thing to do; Morgan Stanley doesn’t just publish these things without reading them first and considering their value and impact before putting its name to them, you know. By putting its name to the report, Morgan Stanley assumes ownership of the information and lends its considerable credibility to the information within. They obviously think it’s valuable.
If anyone can show me any other authoritative, comprehensive studies covering these areas, with real crunchable data, then I’d be happy to put this report in the wider context.
Inm my opinion, no group can safely be quantified but the more insights and information we get into a group’s dynamics and interests, the better we will be able to make informed decision about how we communicate with them.
Adam on August 5th, 2009
Neilsen released some stats to confirm the trend today.
Adam on August 7th, 2009
Or do teens tweet after all?
Nick on August 18th, 2009
Thanks for your reply, Nick.
> I would argue that in the absence of anything
> better, it’s a fairly useful indicator of what is
> happening with a group that is otherwise
> notoriously difficult to monitor or categorise.
Unfortunately, I could not disagree more. The trouble is it’s the opinion of one 15 year old about his peers. I don’t know whether teens use Twitter or download music illegally. To find out you or I could stop a single teenager on the street and ask them about how they and their friends use different media. They might give a totally different response, perhaps they use Twitter all the time and read the Metro. What do we do then? That response would have the same validity as the Morgan Stanley research. This is why ‘traditional’ research studies question large numbers of people (usually between 1,000 and 2,00 for Mori YouGov etc.) depending on the population.
You can’t reliably go from 1 teenager and his friends to all teenagers as the title of this post suggests.
In the same vein, here’s a cheeky piece about the way 31 year olds consume media.
http://www.wilsondan.co.uk/2009/07/17/how-31-year-olds-consume-media/
> Qualitatitve, rather than quantitative …
> It IS a study, not just the thoughts of the writer
I think that calling it ‘qualitative’ and a ’study’ is to give this credibility that it doesn’t deserve. What was the methodology? What questions were asked? How many people were questioned? What was the background of the research participants? How were they selected etc. etc.
> this teenager must be privileged beacuse he was > an intern at Morgan Stanley.
> This is a dangerous generalisation to make
> without knowing who they really are
I will agree that’s a dangerous generalisation if you’ll agree that it’s also a dangerous generalisation to take the opinions of one 15 year old as being somehow representative of an entire population or giving us broader insight.