Does advertising’s desire for young consumers drive ignorance?

The “rural purge” in American TV was the cancellation, between 1969 and 1972, of “everything with a tree in it.” Wikipedia lists 26 shows that were purged, everything from Lassie to Gunsmoke to Red Skelton. Some of these shows were probably declining anyway and would have been cancelled sooner or later, but most, like Hee Haw (#16 in the ratings), or Red Skelton (#7) were doing quite well.

According to Wikipedia, CBS’s original plans called for Gunsmoke–a TV and radio success since 1952–to be canceled at the end of the 1970-71 season, but Gunsmoke kept defying them by doing things like coming in #5 and #4 in the Nielsen Ratings; it didn’t get canceled until the end of the 1974/5 season, when it came in #28.

The entire cast was stunned by the cancellation, as they were unaware that CBS was considering it. According to Arness, “We didn’t do a final, wrap-up show. We finished the 20th year, we all expected to go on for another season, or two or three. The (network) never told anybody they were thinking of canceling.” The cast and crew read the news in the trade papers.[26]

Gunsmoke was replaced with Rhoda and Phyllis. Rhoda did well for two seasons; then it cratered. By season 5, it had sunk to #43 and was cancelled. Phyllis made it for an impressive two whole seasons, ending at #40.

If ratings didn’t drive the purge, then what did?

Advertisers.

Advertisers wanted TV shows that appealed to young people with money to spend and tastes to shape, not old people whose tastes and incomes were already fixed. (The same dynamic that lead tobacco companies to try to market cigarettes to children.) Everything that appealed to the wrong demographics–old people, rural people, poor people–got the axe. They were replaced with “relevant”show like All in the Family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and the Brady Bunch Comedy Hour, which everyone agreed was awful.

Amusingly, Congress–which tends to be full of old people–was upset about all of its favorite shows getting cancelled and replaced with programs aimed at 20-something single women and hippies. According to Wik:

The backlash from the purge prompted CBS to commission, perhaps somewhat facetiously, a rural family drama for its Fall 1972 schedule, but the network scheduled it in what it thought would be a death slot against popular series The Flip Wilson Show and The Mod Squad, allegedly hoping the show would underperform and head to a quick cancellation. Instead, The Waltons went on to run for nine seasons, reaching as high as second in the Nielsens and finishing in the top 30 for seven of its nine years on air.

Dude lives in a trash can.
Dude lives in a trash can.

Mary Tyler Moore only lasted for 7 seasons.

I suspect something similar happened in the late 80s/early 90s as the grittiness of our degraded cities, reflected in shows like Taxi, Sesame Street, and Welcome Back Kotter, began to distress watchers instead of inspire them, and networks began focusing on suburban comedies like The Cosby Show and Full House, but I have yet to find any articles on the subject. (This trend may have reversed again once Giulliani cleaned up NYC, resulting in shows like Seinfeld and Friends.)

 

“If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re old, you have no brains.” — Variously misattributed

While I wouldn’t describe younger me as a total idiot, there are certainly a great many things that I know now that I didn’t know back when Joe Camel ads were a thing or when I attended candle lit vigils for Darfur. That’s part of growing up and getting older: hopefully you learn something.

What happens when most TV programming for 40 or 50 years is intended to appeal primarily to people who don’t yet know much about the world?

It took quite a bit of rumination to come up with something better than “obviously they have trouble telling when the wool is being pulled over their eyes,” and “small children tend not to notice the pattern of kids’ TV shows making the black character the smartest one.” (I’d make a list except I don’t care that much, but I’ll note that even LazyTown, an Icelandic TV show, does it.)

So the non-obvious effect: People massively over-estimate the percent of the country that agrees with liberal values, and then are shocked by reality.

Basically, TV–a few cable stations excepted–functions like a great big liberal bubble.

For example:

42% of Americans are young-Earth creationists

27% of Americans–20% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans–favor deporting illegal immigrants. 39% of Americans favor amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship; 41% believe immigrants are, on net, a burden.

17% believe the Bundy-led militia takeover of a building in Oregon was just.

40% of Americans oppose gay marriage.

60% of Republican primary voters think the US should should ban Muslims from entering the US; 45% of Democrats agree, so long as you don’t mention that it was Trump’s idea.

7/10 Republican presidential candidates favor getting into WWIII with Russia.

44% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 don’t know which country America gained its independence from. (Also, while 85% of men know the answer, only 69% of women managed the same feat.)

57% of Americans see the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern pride, rather than racism; 43% oppose removing the Confederate flag from government buildings.

31% of Americans believe it is immoral to be transgender; 59% believe trans people should use the bathroom that corresponds to their birth gender.

If your perception of “normal” is based on the sitcoms you see on TV, chances are good that virtually all of these stats are surprising, because they don’t feature many young Earth creationists who fly the Confederate flag and want to start WWIII with Russia.

But given the structure of our electoral system–Republicans pick a candidate; Democrats pick a candidate; everyone gets together and we vote for the Republican or the Democrat–there’s a very good chance that about half the time, the president will actually agree with a variety of the positions listed above (except he’s pretty much guaranteed to know who we fought in the Revolution.) If you think that’s an absolutely horrible outcome, I recommend either advocating for massively changing the structure of the electoral system, or investigating some form of Neocameralism.

One of the more amusing experiences of the past few months has been watching people–both Democrats and Republicans–express outrage, shock, and confusion at Donald Trump’s success. Who could have predicted that “kick out illegal immigrants” might attract more voters than “Let’s all die in a war with Russia”? (Clearly not anyone paid to understand which issues appeal to voters.)

“It’s time we punched the Russians in the nose.”–Presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich

“Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it,” blurted Christie: … Yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling … we have in the Oval Office … right now.”

Carly Fiorina would impose a no-fly zone and not even talk to Putin until we’ve conducted “military exercises in the Baltic States”

Lindsey Graham, …opined that he “would shoot [Putin’s] planes down, I would literally shoot his planes down”.

Ben Carson said of his call for a no-fly zone and Russian planes: “You shoot them down, absolutely” then added “Whatever happens next, we deal with it”.

There are a lot of people who would describe Trump as “literally Hitler” (which seems a little unfair to a guy whose daughter is Orthodox Jewish,) for wanting to deport illegal immigrants, temporarily halt Muslim immigration, and create some kind of Muslim registry, at least until we have fewer incidents like the San Bernardino Christmas Party shooting.

But on the scale of human suffering, I guarantee that a war with Russia would be far, far worse, and yet no one is protesting against that possibility, screaming that those candidates are going to start WWIII, nor even mildly concerned that the “mainstream” Republican candidates are so completely off their rockers, they make Trump look like a pacifist. (Here the Rand Paul supporters would like to point out that their candidate is also sane.)

Perhaps political commentators have become accustomed to Republicans starting wars and the threat of nuclear armageddon. Killing foreigners is a normal part of the Republican agenda–but trying to keep them out of the country? That’s completely novel. (Or at least, we haven’t done it since the 20s.)

Or perhaps people are mad because Trump is vocally anti-liberal and garners much of his support from people who hate liberals, and liberals had not realized just how many people really hate them.

Liberals must not get out very much.

I didn’t actually intend this to turn into a Trump post, but the subject is popular thee days. Had I written this in 2004, I’d have discussed the two young women I had just spoken with who swore up and down that George Bush couldn’t win reelection because “no one likes him.”

(As always, this blog makes no official political endorsements.)

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Does advertising’s desire for young consumers drive ignorance?

  1. Some older people (in their 70s) I know think Jeff Jacoby is “far right”… Disabusing them of this notion would require acknowledging that I’m very familiar with ideas much further to the right, and they don’t even know I’m not a rank-and-file progressive, let alone probably “a bit” conservative (and getting more so)… I seem to “present” as liberal, and I’ve found that socially, it’s easier to let people think this.

    Like

  2. That CBS poll ticks me off. “Gender” is socially assigned, but when people have arguments about bathrooms, the conservative side is not talking about people’s gender — they are talking about sex. If you have a penis, you use the men’s room. And indeed the actual poll question does mention “sex or gender”. So I think a fairer summary of that poll is “59% believe trans people should use the bathroom that corresponds to their birth sex.”

    Like

    • You know the sole test case for floating the sex/gender difference theory rejected gender reassignment therapy and later killed himself? And John Money, the guy who floated the theory was a child-molesting crackpot?

      Like

    • Normal people consider “gender” and “sex” to be synonyms. The idea that they are different is a political position put forth by one, small group of people.

      Often people in technical fields use words in ways that are not exactly synonymous with the way lay people use them–a banana is a “berry” in the technical sense, but a blackberry is a “cluster fruit,” for example–but it makes no sense to invent an arbitrary definition for a word counter to the way the vast majority of people actually use it and then complain that they’re doing it wrong. It’d be like me insisting that blackberries be called “blackclusterfruits” and that bananas be carried in the berry section.

      In this case, yes, there are trans people whose internal identities do not correspond with the external appearances of their bodies, and we can refer to those two things as “gender” and “sex” if we want to. But the people responding to the poll and writing up the results are not technical specialists in obscure developmental disorders of gender expression in the brain.

      Like

  3. Most of this post seems spot on. Though I do think it raises an interesting point about the nature of capitalism. Capitalism as practiced is not going to involve ruthless efficiency that only cares about what makes money fast – that would have left many of the popular shows still on television. Instead capitalist drives are interpreted by human beings, who are flawed and complex and have their own emotional drives. In this case, cosmopolitan artists and executives cared very much about what young, urban people thought of them, so they rationalized that focusing on young, urban people was the best way to make money, and ignored large segments of the population more out of disdain than rational profit-maximizing motive.

    Like

    • I don’t know how much of it was disdain.

      Young people actually do spend more than old people, and they have many years of spending ahead of them. Between graduation and one’s mid thirties, say, the average young person aspires to buy a degree, a car and a house, a wardrobe or two, furniture, a ton of baby stuff (mostly clothes, furniture, diapers, and formula,) and a ton of kid stuff (clothes, games, toys.) All of this adds up. Between 65 and 80, by contrast, people typically decrease their spending. They already own clothes, cars, and homes, (and if they don’t, they’re not going to buy one,) their food tastes are set, and they aren’t having children. All you can market to old people are travel and medical care, and they’ll get the latter whether they want to or not.

      Or let’s just talk cigarettes: why did Joe Camel attempt to market cigarettes to 5 yr olds? Not because the cigarette companies disdained old people, but just because young people have a lifetime of cigarette buying ahead of them.

      That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were right, too.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s