I've been critical of this approach from the beginning because, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to put people over 50 in a bracket with people in their 70s, 80s or 90s.
There was never a target group 50minus in marketing either, quite striking.
For decades, solutions and products have been developed for "the elderly" in general, but in the area of young consumers, there is a very decided focus on age groups such as twens, teens, kids, or "subcultures" - very differentiated approaches that aren’t applied to older people, even though people differentiate themselves much further with increasing age.
Today - 35 years later - "50+" is still in circulation, and I wonder why that is.
In Germany, 50+ became established in the context of the privatization of television.
Around 1984, the then CEO of RTL, Helmut Thoma, defined the "relevant advertising group 18-49". 50+ people were the rest of the shooting party and not the focus of the marketing of the TV stations of the time. In an interview in the 2000s, Thoma then admitted that the development and description of the relevant advertising group was purely arbitrary. "Arbitrariness" you will find again later in this post 😉.
So, a definition that originated 40 years ago finds unchanged application in today's marketing. That does not occur too often.
However, 50+ has actually been around for much longer.
The target group description originally originated in the USA. In 1957, Leonard H. Goldenson, the founder of the TV station "ABC Network," described the 50+ target group as irrelevant.
So this target group has existed 70 years in the USA, because 50plus products are still coming onto the market. Quite recently, a beer for the 70plus target group has just been introduced for the American market: Beck's 70+ - let's see how that is received and whether the target group likes it.
But it's interesting to note that in 1957, the baby boomers in the U.S. were in their younger years, which means that the current 50+ target group actually evolved from already being a target group as young persons.
So today, this definition from back then now excludes the same people in advertising, respectively tempts to develop special services and products for people over the age limit of 50, because they do not belong to the normal target group. In addition, "old" is always equated with limitations.
At the SXSW conference in Austin, Texas, book author Bradley Schurman made it clear in a session called The New Demographic Reality and It's Impacts, "Nobody wants to be othered."
What did he mean by that?
“Othering” means ascribing negative characteristics to people or groups that distinguish them from the perceived normative social group.
So "the old" are different from the rest of society.
This "us versus them" way of thinking divides societies because it is essentially looking at others and saying, "They are not like me" or "They are not one of us." So it's the opposite of a diverse and open society.
Peter Kaldes, President & CEO American Society On Aging, shares this viewpoint.
In our conversation on technology and digitization of an aging society, which also took place at SXSW, he states:
"I think there are a couple of things going wrong: One is, there's a kind of social barrier that both founders and venture capitalists and others have to overcome, and that's the stereotype that older adults aren't interested in using technology to solve their problems."
Again, "we," the digitally savvy, talk about "them," and clichés and stereotypes develop. It goes without saying that no suitable products can be created on this basis.
Currently, in May 2023, something is happening in Germany, because there is a very interesting development at the level of federal politics.
It has been decided that the “heating energy reform” will be implemented. That is, installed gas and oil heating systems must be replaced. There is a clause in the current bill with an exemption for homeowners over the age of 80. They are to be exempt from this requirement, and here's the interesting part:
This bill will go to the Upper House (Bundesrat) and the Environment Committee is going to oppose it, quote, due to an ''arbitrary and constitutionally questionable age limit.''
I think that is very remarkable.
Finally, it seems politics has become aware that limits based on a certain age make no sense.
What do the people on the Environment Committee of the Bundesrat want to do instead?
They want to adopt an exemption that is based on the individual's retirement age. A clear move away from chronological age to a life stage event!
I was very happy to hear this news today, because it corresponds to my conviction and I hope that such regulations will be applied in many areas and that we can finally put the 50-, 60- or 70+-definition to rest.