How teenagers really consume media

by Adam Bernstein in News on 15 July 2009 at 15:46 Google+

With all the talk of teenagers’ online habits in the news, we got our most knowledgeable man in to blog on the matter. 17 year old Adam Bernstein is an A-level student currently on work experience with We Are Social, and here are his thoughts.

It’s been the buzz of the social media sphere this week: how Matthew Robson, a 15 year-old intern at Morgan Stanley, had written a report which had shocked and dazzled city bosses in equal measure.

The trouble is, as another teenager – admittedly a slightly older one – Robson’s arguments do not hold true. There is much value in Robson’s report – it does provide an interesting insight into how one particular teenager consumes media. But there is a danger in taking isolated examples and extrapolating them to be indicative of society.

Robson’s report is supposed to be focussed on the teen market, yet too often he ignores important economic & social factors. For example, the argument that teenagers don’t buy newspapers because they’re too expensive is an interesting one. But this argument is based on one assumption which underscores Robson’s entire report: teenagers are independent of their parents. But this simply isn’t the case – most people I know who do read a newspaper read it because it’s in the house. Teenagers probably wouldn’t pay 80p a day for a newspaper but it’s not an issue because in many cases they don’t have to.

If Robson wanted to know the real reason teenagers don’t read newspapers, it is more about content. Teenagers will consistently have their lifestyle treated with derision in the papers; but how often will a viable alternative be offered? With the continual damning of teens in the papers, it’s no wonder teenagers don’t read them.

But it was Robson’s claims about Twitter which were the most ignorant: “Twitter is pointless to teens” screamed the headlines. It’s true to say that teens (on the whole) don’t use Twitter but his fixation on the costs of texting missed a crucial point: only 5% of Tweets are made via SMS – the success of applications such as Tweetdeck and Twitterfox show how it is really used.

The reality is that teens don’t use Twitter because of demographics: to make a broad – and somewhat unfair – generalisation, teenagers use Facebook, whereas Twitter is used by older people. Essentially, teens follow other teens so it’s inevitable that most of the age-group stays away from Twitter. Twitter’s relevance to the younger market is diminished because many perceive a ‘tweet’ as being the same as a Facebook Status Update – they don’t see the need for both.

Robson’s report is useful for the many truths it does contain: Teenagers doing all they can to avoid advertising is an important point which the ad companies will be trying hard to counteract. But Robson’s suggestion that teenagers are motivated above all by cost is a spurious one: teenage consumption of media probably does have something to do with money; but most teens don’t have a full-time job, many are in full-time education and are supported by their parents – it is they who pay for everything so his argument that costs are the most important thing to teens is wrong.

But, as Suw Charman-Anderson notes, the main problem with Robson’s report is that he thinks his experiences are emblematic of teenagers as a whole. The reality is that there is much greater diversity in the teen market than Robson suggests. Teenagers are an eclectic bunch – and Robson would do well to remember this.

Update: I’ve just come across an interesting report by Forrester about this exact topic (for those interested in US rather than UK data, there’s also a good presentation from the Pew Internet & American Life Project and Nielsen’s recent How Teens Use Media report). Robson’s argument that all teenagers are always listening to music, particularly free online music, is kicked into touch:

With its findings suggesting socio-economic factors are unimportant in how teenagers consume media, Robson’s arguments that costs are the primary factor in deciding what teens do is shown to be false.

But what is most interesting for companies is that teenagers are using social media for the same reasons as the population as a whole. Possibly this means they don’t need tailored advertising; more probably, it means that in time teenagers will drift over to Twitter – Facebook was originally intended for Harvard University students yet is now used worldwide.

Having said all of this, the accuracy of the report does have to be considered – speaking to 261 13-19 year olds and making assumptions that this data covers society as a whole is questionable. But at least it’s more accurate than Robson’s report which was simply the findings of one person.

Update 2: Dubit have also added some stats into the mix with their How UK Youth Really Consume Media Report: Newspapers & Magazines and Twitter

If you liked this post, why not subscribe to We Are Social by or ?


tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/Ensign_Jen Jennifer Davis

    This is a really interesting point of view. I admit that while reading the reports of Matthew Robson's brand new Insight I kept thinking to myself, “..really?” As this blog says, he made some valid points. But I really agreed with, “If Robson wanted to know the real reason teenagers don’t read newspapers, it is more about content.” I wonder if Adam Bernstein's blog will cause as much of a stir? Probably not, but I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking along these lines.

  • http://www.dannywhatmough.com/ Danny Whatmough

    Some great counter-arguments here Adam – thanks!

  • http://twitter.com/imjustmike Mike Phillips

    I think the last paragraph sums it up perfectly. This whole thing got blown up way, and it was quite annoying how much attention the report got – it essentially just what he and his friends think. A select few people then saw this as indicative of all teenagers, which is a statistical faux pas.

    I'm glad there finally seems to be some criticism of the report, rather than people jumping on the band wagon and hailing it as the most important document in marketing history.

  • ianthomas

    Interesting post Adam. And I'm with you on the idea that Robson's comments were representative of an entire age-group. I tend to take the view that the reason the debate took off at all was more to do with traditional media anxieties over the creeping reality of media fragmentation via social media. Why else was the angle most traditional media brands took was, essentially, anti-Twitter. I made a similar point to you about the prevalence of Facebook in my own blog post. The significant thing here is the trend in communciation and not necessarily the preferred brand of web app that people choose to use; it's all about what you like, what's enriching and what's convenient for you.

  • http://www.imamountaineer.co.uk idmoore

    Nice counter to it all Adam.

    Concerning just how quickly people forget such basics to herald a short report as gospel, but then there's a lot of panic/fear within business about the rise of Social Media and how to deal with it. This panic means that when a succinct answer comes along, then people will jump on it and ignore previous experience to make things easier.

    The sweeping statements sold it to business. It's almost as though you could hear the collective sigh of relief from some business, that at least teenagers weren't on Twitter where they didn't know how to reach them.

    - Ian

  • http://twitter.com/arsereview Adam

    To be honest, I approached this from a social media angle.

    But there were even greater errors in his report in other spheres – his explanation of teenage use of conventional media also seemed very odd.

    I could understand people being impressed by the social media angle of the report as there has been very little published about how teenagers use media. But I was surprised – as it seems you guys also were – by the way Morgan Stanley and the media overlooked the failings of his report – teens not listening to the radio has nothing to do with radio being outdated; its to do with the fact most of the radio audience comes from car drivers and teenagers are too young to drive.

    I would of thought a fundamental error like that would of been spotted.

  • http://physiotoolbox.com/ Physiotools

    I still think the his report holds some value: it is an insight into how teens use and consume media – the key point being that use of media has changed/is still changing. If it has highlighted this to a few people then its done a good job – even if the statements didnt take into account the entire teen population.

  • http://twitter.com/Sweena Sweena

    I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this Robson kid is talking twaddle through his typing. I can't help but think that the entire report was texted in to the Telegraph during Robson's lunch break, forcing them to bring in their very own 15 year old interpretor to turn it into English, all the while adding in specific spelling and grammatical errors to ensure readers he really is 15.

    His ideas, although informative, are somewhat misleading and quite negatory. The bulk of his argument stems from the fact that he thinks that teenagers nowadays have very little disposeable cash; a fact that, to be quite honest if you see teenagers nowadays just isn't true. If, according to our enlightened teen-friend, 99% of teenagers have mobile phones then those same 99% have the latest colourful Nike trainers, fancy fresh-from-the-salon haircuts, the girls all have the latest handbags which are the size of a small island and a multitude of really bothersome downloadable ringtones that we all get to hear on the tube on our rather cumbersome journeys to work. Connection between all of these? They cost money – and they're not cheap, either. This blows his “…teenagers are very reluctant to pay for a newspaper…” square out of the window. The real reason teenagers can't be bothered to read newspapers is because it takes WORK. Yes, that special little word that looks a bit like 'word', but, in actual fact, means you have to pay attention to something a little harder than .

    He goes on to mention that “…teenagers do not use twitter [sic].” The prime reason being that, once again, most of them can't be bothered to put in the work. Those of us that use it on a bi-minutely basis understand the inner workings of Twitter and what makes it function. It requires a little nurturing and a little love; if you give to it, it'll give to you. A concept that actually applies to most things in life and something, I feel, that the younger generation are a little devoid of understanding until they get older and have to take on a few more responsibilities aside of their newest 'Lil Wayne' ringtone. Try understanding that Morgan Stanley.

    I'm going to also have to pedantically take umbrage at the fact that Robson claims that the GTA: IV viral marketing ads were designed to “cause people to stop and think about the advert, maybe leading to further research” – sorry, dear Robson, as you've so kindly explained, most of you teenagers are fairly ignorant towards the world and so the only way to get you to notice something is by shoving it in your face smack bang on a fifty foot billboard on your walk to school. Try ignoring that. Make sense, now?

    I think Morgan Stanley failed in their task to find what they were looking for, especially in a social media context. Although this Robson kid has stated a few home truths about what teenagers get up to nowadays, they’ve still not actually managed to get any useful information on how to implement any further marketing campaigns and aim them towards this so-called ‘poor’ target audience. Teenagers have the attention span of a gnat and it is this that causes them to stay away from things that are long-winded and tedious. Put bright colours on it, make it flash, make it interactive and, by-and-large, make it fun. Because if it’s not fun, it’s not worth doing – according to not only them, but most of us.

    Oh dear, look how I've ranted on.

    I cld babbl a lttl lngr, bt I hv 2 go, othrwis Im bout 2 mss Nghbrs & Blu Ptr!

  • http://www.telltaletravel.co.uk/ Dee Edwards

    Robin – you've got yourself a good hire here ;-)

    I saw an article about in the papers last night which caught my attention, however, I did think it was a bit 'well I asked my mates and then knocked up a report in a day'.

    I just had a quick scan of the report and it's fine in that context, but I certainly hope nobody is making strategic decisions based on it..

  • http://timialcala.wordpress.com/ Timi Stoop-Alcala

    Looks like Time agress with you. Its verdict is to 'toss' it. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,859…

    What surprises me more is not the content or conclusion of the report, but the frenzy it created in the business world. It's one intern's view and while that may be interesting and relevant as a personal blog post, for instance, its bold assertions deserve to be scrutinised. Instead of generating questions and a deeper investigation, a lot just took it as gospel truth. It was if business was disconnected from the world of social media for them to buy so readily into the conclusions of the report.

  • blujez

    'Bankers take piss poor data as certain indication of second coming'

    Nice counter point that was badly needed… whether or not it will get the coverage those tits over at MS created is another thing altogether.

    The real news in this story is just how totally inept and publicly desperate the banking industry has become to publish a load of drivel.

    RESEARCH FAIL.

  • Jas

    Robin, I completely echo Dee's thoughts, (you've indeed got a great intern here!).

    The Morgan Stanley report was nothing but journalist fodder IMHO and for that it served its purpose. As a serious bit of research to be thought about? #fail.

    I don't like generalisations, but do agree with the point, that teens do tend to collect as a tribe. Facebook offers a teens a 'framed' structure in which to socialise and share. 'They' choose who they want to engage and share with. In my experience, teens don't like Twitter because (as outlined above) the status update feature already serves them well. Also, Twitter is almost 'too public' for them. Sharing tools such as twit pic and yfrog are too fragmented (something else to connect to)

    The years ahead will be an interesting time for digital marketers, how do you engage and sell advertising to teens who do their best to avoid it?

  • http://www.broadstuff.com/ alan pa

    risk of being the sole contrarian, doesn't this piece just eplace one teen's view with another's criticism of it :-)

    What interested me more about The Robson Case was not what he said – frankly, he was about 80/20 on he money, but that:

    (i) The Big Co's treated it like a revelation

    (ii) The Bloggerati got so huffy that the BigCo's treated it like a revelation.

    Its a datapoint, there are many others, by the time you get all the data its too late – value is created by acting while there is still arbitrage from uncertainty

  • tomjenkins

    “I did think it was a bit 'well I asked my mates and then knocked up a report in a day'.”

    Saves Morgan Stanley getting an agency in to do the exact same thing.

  • Elika

    It's funny, isn't it, that a company who by nature needs to be so careful about their assessment of the landscape in which they operate, should be so naive about the way they assess such a subjective piece from one source.

    What does MS know about teens anyway? It's like Columbus sailing across the Atlantic, finding the wrong place, picking the first North American he could find and declaring their knowledge gospel on East Asia. Sort of.

  • http://mediaczar.com/blog mediaczar

    I suspect, Adam, that you've had a sense of humour bypass. This was clearly intended as a joke. Why otherwise would they publish a paper by “Matthew Robson (Aged 15 yrs & 7 months)”? The whole Adrianmoleness of the exercise is obvious.

    Take a deep, deep breath all of you and repeat after me: “It's just PR for God's sake.”

  • Peter Copping

    Matthew would be right to write off some comments here as the usual “squash the teen” reaction. There are very few sources about this topic in the public domain thought there are some very expensive private sources. Given this, his report is an alternative to running a pre survey focus group. As it happens his local authority school Kidbrooke Arts College (actually a long established London comprehensive) would be an ideal site for taking the project further since it is accidentally highly representative of London, rich and poor, white, black and asian etc.
    That said I think Matthew deserved better from a number of people. He had to find his work experience by befriending a dog , The planning was rather ad hoc, and perhaps more involvement from all concerned with supporting him would have yielded better results. However he and his erstwhile employers are to be congratulated in startng a debate.

  • http://propellernet.co.uk/ Lucy

    Really interesting piece. I starting reading it already bored because I thought I knew what to expect from the copy, but was pleasantly surprised. Thank you for a quick and educated response to what was for me, one of the biggest non stories of the week.

  • paulstallard

    Some nice counter arguments – interesting post.

  • Bystander

    A fine talent here. Many worthwhile points, well-made. Very interesting and informative.

  • http://www.twitter.com/mattlawton Matt Lawton

    My read on this is that this was the first time Morgan Stanley had listened to anyone under the age of 45 and decided it would make good PR.
    Secondly, it's been sensationalised and taken to a level Matthew Robson never intended it to go to. Despite refering to 'teenagers' as a demographic, my read is that he was only ever talking from his own perspective. But when you're 15 and smart enough (or well connected enough) to get an internship at MS, you probably are naively arrogant without realising it. The point is it's insight. That is all.
    Adam, lighten up.

  • http://twitter.com/Sweena Sweena

    I take it you've all seen how 31-year-olds consume media?

    http://www.wilsondan.co.uk/2009/07/17/how-31-ye…

    Haha.

  • wilsondan

    Sweena,

    How sweet of you to share. *does a little bow*

    dw

  • James H

    “I would of thought a fundamental error like that would of been spotted.” The irony is delicious. Off you pop, back to school for a bit, then you can come back and dribble on about the meedja a bit more.

    Oh, the most specious part of your “argument” was the hilarious truism that 'teenagers don't use twitter because teenagers use facebook'. Truly execrable writing. Way to jump on a bandwagon.

  • http://postmodernpr.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/social-media-and-the-youth-of-today-my-two-cents/ Social media and the youth of today: my two cents « Postmodern PR

    [...] intern, Adam Bernstein, over at social media consultancy We Are Social’s blog (find it here). He systematically picks apart the the inconsistancies in the report and provides some interesting [...]

  • http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/12/social-blog-2009/ The best of the We Are Social blog, 2009 / we are social

    [...] How teenagers really consume media In response to 15 year-old Matthew Robson’s famed Morgan Stanley report, we got our own teenager, Adam Bernstein, to give a more balanced view of teenagers’ media consumption habits. [...]

  • http://wearesocial.net/blog/2011/02/socials-monday-mashup-59/ We Are Social’s Monday Mashup #59 / we are social

    [...] How are teens using social media? Pew released an interesting report last week into how teens communicate with each other, although they seem to have been asking some seriously odd questions – the one stage in life where people do communicate with their friends face-to-face daily is during school years – and I find it hard to believe that only 33% of teens speak to their friends daily – it just doesn’t chime with any of my (reasonably typical) experiences. [...]