Et tu, AARP?

I’ve been in a foul mood ever since AARP introduced RealPad, a 16GB, Android-based tablet. (Full disclosure, I’ve pretty much been in a foul mood since 1977, but that’s beside the point.)

Anyway, I’m not mad at the product. It could be awesome for all I know. And at $189, it seems well priced. What pisses me off is the marketing.

From the press release:

AARP ANNOUNCES REALPAD, FIRST OF ITS KIND TABLET DESIGNED FOR AMERICANS 50+ APPREHENSIVE ABOUT TECHNOLOGY  

Powered by Intel, RealPad to Serve as Digital Gateway to Over 70 Million Americans 50+

WHAT?!?

I hate to break it to you AARP, but I lost my virginity--oops, I mean "digital gateway"--more than 20 years ago. In fact, most of us are pretty adept at the whole digital game.

Shit, some of us even invented it. Paul Allen (58), Tim Berners-Lee (59), Larry Brilliant (70), Ward Cunningham (65), Bill Gates (58) and Larry Ellison (70). Oh, and a couple of guys you may have heard of named Wozniak and Jobs.

And then there’s this:

--88% of people aged 50-64 in the U.S. are online

--33% of all tablets and eReaders are owned by people 50+, including 23% of all iPads and 30% of all Kindle Fires

--An estimated 50 million Facebook users in the U.S. are older than 45

--Smartphone use among people 55+ is growing at a faster rate than 25-54 year olds

Perhaps it’s not entirely accurate to say that technology is “a daunting experience for a large majority of Americans 50+,” as AARP’s CEO JoAnne Jenkins tells us. Perhaps there’s more to the story.

By all accounts, RealPad is super simple to use. The interface features large type and big icons. It comes with free, 24/7 customer support from live experts. And it’s pre-loaded with video tutorials that walk you through tablet basics like how to use a touch screen.

But here's the thing, perpetuating the myth that people over 50 are digital dimwits is not good karma, or good marketing, for AARP.

This is a tablet for seniors, and AARP knows it. And by pretending RealPad is designed for users 50+, they’re guilty of the same lazy, ageist thinking as most other marketers.

AARP needs to get back to first principles. Market to peoples' needs and interests, not their age.

No Douchebags, No Service.

I know why A&E cancelled Longmire.

The show suffers from a complete and utter lack of douchebaggery.

Three seasons in A&E cancelled Longmire, the network’s highest rated drama ever. Their reason? The show’s viewers are too old. Yup. All 6.5 million of ‘em. Too old.

Like you, I figured there must be another reason. No network is that stupid. So I started binge-watching the show, looking for a clue. (The first two seasons are streaming on Netflix.) I had my answer by the second episode.

In case you’re not one of the unlucky 6.5 million shit out of luck viewers, Longmire is an hour-long crime drama set in rural Wyoming. It’s based on Craig Johnson’s popular mystery books about Sheriff Walt Longmire and the community he protects and serves. Walt is an earnest, hard-working man’s man who endeavors to do the right thing. This kind of pablum has zero chance.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of grit. Cases involve teen girls forced into prostitution, serial killers who sell their victim’s kidneys on the black market, and severed fingers stored in safe deposit boxes. But by the end of each episode, good conquers evil and the bad guys always get what they deserve.

Can you believe that bullshit? Even the show’s executive producer agrees. Longmire is “not hip and sassy,” says Greer Shephard. “It’s not a cynical show.”

Well, you know what happens to non-cynical shows without mustached, hipster zombie/vampires, morally ambiguous internet billionaires, or fundamentalist Christian homophobic duck hunters don’t you? They get what they deserve: cancelled.

You wanna succeed in the TV game, you gotta go all douchebags all the time. Networks and advertisers love that.

Next time: Or maybe this is why A&E cancelled Longmire.

Business decisions & other lame excuses.

Yesterday I wrote about how cable channel A&E recently cancelled its highest-rated drama ever because the show’s audience was too old.

Longmire had just begun its third season when A&E decided that it could no longer abide the crime show’s wrinkly fans, whose median age is 60. (The network overall draws an audience of sprightly 48 year olds.)

“It was a business decision,” said A&E’s senior vice president Dan Silberman, as if that excuses the stupidity of flushing 6.5 million viewers down the toilet.

In fairness to A&E, the economics are dicey. First of all, A&E has no skin in the game. Warner Bros.—not A&E—owns Longmire, and the network pays Warner Bros. an estimated $1.5 million licensing fee for each episode. With no revenue coming on the backend through reruns and syndication, A&E needs to make its money through ad sales. This is difficult when advertisers are convinced that the only consumers worth talking to fall into the 18-49 demographic. It’s nearly impossible when the network believes that as well.

Even after Warner Bros. agreed to reduce both the licensing fee and the number of episodes for the coming season, A&E passed.

Rather than explain to advertisers that consumers over 50 have way more money and buy way more stuff than younger consumers, A&E simply dumps 6.5 million viewers.

I guess that was a “business decision” too.

Next Time: I know why A&E cancelled Longmire.