Us ad hacks have a problem. We don't understand math.
The result is that we're easily impressed, mislead, and bullied by sneaky or irrelevant data, meaningless charts, fast talking metrics monkeys, and cement-head marketing mavens who know even less than we do..
Here's an example.
Someone recently sent me one of those articles about the brilliance of auto makers shifting to online media to attract the precious Millennials. The piece featured this fact...
"Millennials, defined as 18 to 30 year olds, make up 40 percent of the total available car buying population..."Wow! We better get our millennial strategy going pronto, right?
Not so fast.
While they may make up 40% of the total available (that's the sneaky weasel word) car buying population, they make up a tiny percent of the actual car buying population.
In fact, the last stats I saw were that 18-34 year olds buy about 12% of new cars. So 18-30 year olds have to be less than 10% of actual car buyers.
Let's go to the blackboard.
If 18-30 year olds are 40% of the available population but only 10% of actual buyers, that means they index at 25. That is, they buy 25% of what they would be expected to buy if they bought proportionately to their population.
Meanwhile, if people over 30 represent 60% of the available buyers and buy 90% of the actual cars, they index at 150. That means they buy 1.5 times as many cars as they should in a normal distribution.So if this guy's numbers are correct, a person over 30 is six times as likely to buy a new car as someone under 30.
Still excited about that Millennial strategy, amigo?
11 comments:
I'm lost.
Is there any argument for under 30s pestering parents for first car purchases? If so, would still make sense to advertise to the under 30s.
Just cos they're not the ones handing the money over, doesn't mean they don't get new cars.
Numbers...getting headache...ack.
-copywriters
The picture has set me right.
Seems like we've gotta get our "increasing penetration into millenials to make them buy more cars proportionally" strategy on the go - I expect it by the end of the week.
I admit it: I'm a bit lost too. The statement that puzzles me is, "In fact, the last stats I saw were that 18-34 year olds buy about 12% of
new cars. So 18-30 year olds have to be less than 10% of actual car buyers."
How did you get to the 10%?
And does it seem right, that "a person over 30 is six times as likely to buy a new car as someone under 30"? Seems like a huge difference. Might be true, I suppose.
Here we go:
1. If people 18-34 are responsible for 12% of car purchases, I'm assuming that people 18-30 (4 fewer years) are responsible for no more than 10%
2. If people under 30 index at 25 and people over 30 index at 150 (6 times 25) it means that people over 30 are six times as likely to buy a new car as people under 30.
Any help?
B
You may have to speak slower for the digital lemmings.
i'm tempted to agree. but brilliant math, without a doubt. media planners ought to have more of this in their number crunching.
Yes, that is very helpful! I didn't notice that the one stat was for 18-34 and the other for 18-30. In fact, you were generous: A strictly linear interpolation would have allowed you to drop the percentage to 9% instead of 10%. That would have given you an index of 22 or 23 and a ratio of 6.66. (Oh, now I see why you didn't do that. No one wants to print the number of the beast.)
You jump from stats about "car buyers" to statistics referring to "new car buyers." That leap fails me and any logical thought process. Of course, younger adults are going to buy a lot of autos, but many of them will be "used" vehicles.
Post a Comment