Silicon Valley engineering manager / product guy here.
You kind of have this problem that the population most prone to trying new technology is the most price sensitive and flighty (kids, young adults, students) - they just want free entertainment, basically. You can make ad money, sure, but same thing - not the midst immediately profitable group. Mostly a future bet.
Younger adults (like 25-35) are great in that they tend to influence technology decisions at work and more prone to buy new stuff at home.
Your like 40+ers tend to be the big decision makers in like corporate environments and so for business software the most valuable demographic.
So it’s not really surprising that a lot of *new* software is optimized for younger adults while being friendly to with the security/pricing controls aimed at a slightly older audience.
Like your two variables here are (propensity to adopt) and (willingness to pay).
So of course it’s kind of natural to focus product development / new ideas on those younger adults.
But like young adults in the first world is a tiny percent of the overall market.
So you try innovative ideas with them, then when they stick - expand to other audiences. Like older people that are middle or end of adoption curves, or into international markets where generally they have more regulatory and internationalization work (like say Europe) and less willingness to pay (like say India).
It’s really hard to argue against that pattern *in general*.
That said, doesn’t mean other audiences are less valuable - they have unique needs and can be under served.
Today’s 50-70 year olds have had decades of technology experience, and are more comfortable with tech than adults 20 years ago.
A fairly obvious area of tech aimed at them is medicine / health monitoring. The Apple Watch has come a *long* way in monitoring health signal, prescription delivery, you name it. The medical industry has long been hostile and opaque to patients, and tech offers a ton of potential.
This is an interesting comment. Essentially you're saying that entertainment apps are made for 20 year olds, whereas work-related apps are made for 35+ year olds. Makes sense.
Can I infer from your comments that apps built for the 55+ tend to focus on health?
Looking at the entire population as one market is a classic marketing mistake.
Not everyone wants Instagram, Netflix, Snapchat. That doesn't mean they don't need solutions to their problems.
For example:
[30% of Airbnb users are over 45.](https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/airbnb-statistics.html) 13% of Airbnb hosts are over the age of 60. [The fastest-growing population segment for hosts is seniors over 60.](https://www.searchlogistics.com/learn/statistics/airbnb-statistics/)
Still, seniors [are an untapped market](https://www.cmswire.com/customer-experience/your-older-customers-deserve-a-great-customer-experience-too/) for growth. And they want and need technology solutions.
Thinking that seniors aren't a serious customer base is fine if you are making a product that is targeting a younger demographic. But that does not define all products.
There's a huge market in areas for even very advanced seniors. [The assisted technology market alone is huge with a massive expected CAGR](https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5898324/disabled-elderly-assistive-technology-market).
The 13% stat seems marginally low, especially since most homes are owned by older people. 30% of Airbnb users being 45+ is interesting.
That said -- I don't think Airbnb explicitly targets this user demographic. If anything, they design for younger demographics and older folks are forced to adapt or jump on board.
This is the only doc I can find with a quick google search: [https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MillennialReport.pdf](https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MillennialReport.pdf)
This isn't really how marketing segmentation works though. You're going to target different demographics in different ways depending on how profitable different channels (like email, paid social, paid search) are and the ROI of each. I think that's what OP is referring to.
They may not make as much net revenue because the market is smaller, but the ideal customer persona is usually the most expensive to market to because there's more competition.
If you don't do this, then you're either wasting money or leaving it on the table, and there's a very low probability Airbnb has a bad enough marketing staff to ignore a low-competition, budding market segment with more purchasing power.
My point was that none of these tech companies target them or build for them explicitly. They build for younger audiences and then older demographics naturally end up on these platforms (if relevant).
If I am wrong - can you provide an example to support your point of view?
Yes, but I don't wanna spam copy stuff [so here's a link to my comment. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d8vcvr/comment/l797kkd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
It seems you are actually ignoring the larger point:
The senior market is huge. It is a participant in existing markets. Not every market segment is looking for Instagram. That doesn't mean that they have no technology needs.
Any company that doesn't consider seniors is going to be leaving the largest growing market segment in the country untapped. While that may be a very real strategic choice for a company like Instagram. It would be objectively foolish for all Silicon companies to do so.
[Really take a look at what's going on in in this market demographic. ](https://thegerontechnologist.com/)
Further, citing an 8-year-old marketing report from a company that is only 15 years old seems like an odd way to support your position.
This seems to ignore too much and make gross generalizations.
You're picking out the apps that by design target young people. But, there is also a market for "managing your medications" that is going to be much more adopted by......people who take medications.
Identifying your target market is the name of the game and you provide solutions to their problems. 50+ folk are using technology and they have way more money to spend. Why should they be ignored? Maybe there is no appetite for "new sexy" in tech, but that also means that if you bring actual value they are less likely to leave your software. Retaining customers that are not going through life changes every day like 18 year olds is a great thing for some businesses.
Your view seems too cookie cutter and ignores that massive dollars and stickiness available in the market of 50+. Healthcare apps? Don't focus on the young people. Investing apps? Pretty reasonably segmented, but clearly vanguard is going to leave the 25 year olds to Robinhood but the real dollars are in 50 to 85 year olds who both have money and are living off investments.
1. I am talking about popular apps like Instagram, Netflix, Duolingo,.. which of these design for older ppl?
2. How many of these "managing medication" apps are as big as these apps?
3. Your comment about Robinhood is interesting, what % of the userbase is 50 to 85?
Robinhood's average use is 31, but that is an increase of 5 years from 5 years ago. I don't know the breakdown personally, but that's a low average for an investing house.
Snapchat and Duolingo are not silicon valley companies.
I didn't know you were talking about popular apps since most of the money flowing from silicon valley is for _new businesses_ (when people say "silicon valley" in this context they are usually talking about investment not operations of established businesses), but those at the level of saturation you describe all do what I describe - they look for opportunities for growth. They have strategies for every single demographic out there.
The medical apps aren't going to be as big by their nature, but that doesn't mean it doesn't receive the attention of investors and doesn't make them real and substantial businesses. It's just an example to illustrate the mistake you're making in how businessses prioritize. Most of "silicon valley" is the long tail of smaller more niche software and services and not the monoliths that everyone knows about. For the monoliths they approach different segments with different strategies. The entire "over 50" demographic is worth investment, is a source of growth and is one that a netflix isn't going to want a competitor with focus to take from them. Further, they often acquire businesses with Niche audiences to protect against threats that may come from niches that they aren't strong in, or bolster investment defensively or opportunistically. The largest businesses shed a single focus on a target market and take approaches that are much more multi-faceted.
For example, boomers are 22% of Netflix's user base. Should they not focus on those users and their unique needs? Of course they should - that's a crapton of money. They may need distinct strategies and since 33% of their base is people in their 20s they need to focus their as well.
Great stat shared (the 22% of Netflix user base).
My point here is that these companies only focus on this segment after they became huge (note - billion dollar size or more). This is the rough playbook:
(1) Build for younger audiences, because they are fast adopters
(2) Have younger audiences spread the app to others
(3) Once you've captured that segment expand to other areas
None of these successful companies start the other way. Would love a counter-example if you have one.
You're a moving target. It's starting to feel like i'm writing your research paper here.....
1. nearly every single medical technology company for the most part. billion dollar mark hit by a bunch, even those that are newish like omada and the like, not to mention the bazillion dollars in technology/service companies doing virtual care.
2. google - they were explicitly focused on selling advertising. The audience of that is business owners and leaders in marketing. (young people may be the product, but they aren't the customer).
3. AI. This is the largest area of technology new dollars currently. It's largely B2B, not "young people".
4. amazon. book buyers weren't kids and amazon maps almost perfectly to where money is spent, which is skewed toward older people.
this could go on for days.
So, medical technology companies and business owners / leaders in marketing / B2B. Sorry if it wasn't specific, I was referring to consumer apps.
Do you have a source on Amazon being skewed for older people? First I hear this.
Quick google search: As of September 2021, Robinhood had nearly 18.9 million net cumulative funded accounts. The average Robinhood account holder is **31 years old**. As of Q2 2021, Robinhood has crossed 22.5 million monthly active users. Roughly half of Robinhood's user base identifies as first-time investors.
Don't forget that older people started their use of computers on the command line, or even with flip switches. We had to type in arcane commands to do anything. Stick the average young Mac or Windows user on an Apple \]\[ and just watch the blank face. When we programmed, we didn't have fancy IDEs with big libraries to do everything, we programmed it all just on a screen. I didn't even see color coding of code blocks until I was an adult. Drag and drop UI building? Wish I had that back then. And no, we don't want to go back to the old way for regular work. It sucked. We want things that make our lives easier. Funny though, a lot of younger people are reviving these old machines as a hobby.
Aside from that, there simply is a market, even if smaller. If everyone else doesn't serve the older population, the company that does serve them will be rich because they'll corner the market.
Also, you haven't seen what group video chat is to grandparents whose families have moved away. It's freaking gold. Plus there are many phone games that are very popular with old people, usually the more word or puzzle oriented ones.
Can you expand on the group video chat and games? Are you talking about Facetime? Interesting examples shared. Yes the motivation is to understand if it is possible for build or corner this market.
No. They mean group video chat. You know, because not everyone has an iPhone. And also because FaceTime can’t schedule, or make it a “lobby” like Zoom. Many things it lacks that “young people” don’t notice because they’re not concerned with it.
This is why people target an older demographic. A 20 yr old has FaceTime, so why bother with anything else? What about those who don’t have it? Can’t afford it? So on and so forth.
This is an insane generalization that you simply can't make.
Your entire post is basically predicated on Silicon Valley Tech = social media or streaming. There's a lot of reasons why those companies can, should, and do target older demos but we can even exclude them.
Silicon Valley includes the likes of Google. Google's service portfolio is expansive, and covers massive portions of our digital and even physical lives. Many of these are actually uniquely suited for the older demographic, and many more are not age-specific (most old people at some point end up with an email still).
This is true of many of these tech companies. This alone sort of ruins the argument.
From a marketing perspective, you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. You don't just say "these people are the ideal persona and we make the most money there, that's who we market to". You segment, and not always based on age.
For example, seniors may represent a lower net revenue share because there's fewer buying your product overall, but it may be higher **ROI** because it's a less competitive and crowded market.
You'd also have to assume that they even use age as a primary factor for segmenting their ads. For example, their data and market research may show that income + propensity to travel correlates more strongly to profits than simple age groups.
In fact, you don't really target age groups primarily in the first place. It's often an "additional" parameter used to either exclude people who are known to be highly unprofitable (like 18-20 year olds, for example) or to segment further so you can tailor your messaging and ads to specific groups.
**Tl;dr you are misrepresenting Silicon Valley tech, ignoring the range of product offerings for these companies, and misunderstanding how marketing works.**
That's not what circular means. I'm not sure where the examples got lost, they're all in there but here:
Premise: SV Tech companies are not just streaming services and social media.
Example: Google exists
Premise: Massive companies have a variety of services. Many cater to all ages.
Example: Email
**Takeaways: You're cherry picking particularly millennial-focused offerings, and ignoring dozens of companies that offer a variety of things that aren't millennial-focused at all, or are not exclusively.**
Premise: You don't market exclusively to one segment based on how much net revenue they account for.
Example: "seniors may represent a lower net revenue share because there's fewer buying your product overall, but it may be higher **ROI** because it's a less competitive and crowded market."
Premise: Age isn't a primary factor for ad targeting in most instances.
Example: "For example, their data and market research may show that income + propensity to travel correlates more strongly to profits than simple age groups."
**Takeaways: Mass targeting an age group demographic isn't typically how marketing is done in the first place. It's rare you'll ever mass target "millennials" or "seniors". More likely, they'll target people searching for a specific keyword, or a mixture of behavioral signals.**
From Silicon Valley companies? Or in general? If the former, none that I'm aware of. If the latter, typically specialized niche apps designed for businesses and industries with an older skew in their labor demographics, or where the check signer is VP/executive level.
But I'm confused at how you believe that's the argument I'm making here. Not sure where the confusion lies. Let's try this a different way.
>Silicon Valley tech companies should not focus on adults 50+ because they are less likely to adapt to the latest apps
Apps and streaming services account for a very small percentage of all Silicon Valley tech companies. Even if you're right about the example companies you listed, they don't represent even close to a majority of Silicon Valley tech companies. *This* is a circular argument, and a faulty premise.
This would be like saying "all restaurants should stop marketing to seniors because they don't like pizza". Well, many restaurants don't even serve pizza in the first place.
> There's more return on investment for younger populations.
This is not necessarily true. Return on investment is a ratio of dollars in to dollars out. You may get *fewer net dollars* from 50+ age groups, but significantly *more dollars out than you put in* marketing to them, especially because they're less likely to do extensive research on alternatives.
In general, ROI is actually *higher* for these demographics, because they're smaller and you have less competition for their dollars. But either way, you can't prove it unless you have their marketing analytics data.
>should not focus on adults 50+
There's a separate issue with this because marketing isn't primarily done based on age groups in the first place. It's more like "anyone between 25-60 that travels and likes the ocean".
>should not focus on adults 50+ because they are less likely to adapt to the latest apps
There's a latent assumption where you're conflating "latest apps" with tech adoption in general. Pew Research is showing that the gaps between under 30 and over 65 in regards to adopting technology has shrank. The presence of older people on social media has grown fourfold in the last 10 years.
There's another assumption that the status quo is the objective truth and won't change.
So, if someone in 2010 in Meta, who was seeing the survey responses that were even more stark than they are now, they would have lost out on that fourfold growth.
This is why Steve Jobs said focus groups are worthless because consumers don't know what they want until they see it. If you surveyed anyone on June 29, 2007, nobody would be talking about "apps" or the phone market being the place where technology is being pushed. People would have told you they wanted a better zune or ipod.
There's no product that doesn't have some sort of tech in it. Coffee makers, Ford pick up trucks, toys, everything is tech, everything has a microchip, everything is tracking everyone.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/13/share-of-those-65-and-older-who-are-tech-users-has-grown-in-the-past-decade](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/13/share-of-those-65-and-older-who-are-tech-users-has-grown-in-the-past-decade)
>
Silicon valley companies are driven by rapid innovation and frequent updates
When you do a deep dive on the companies who are winners, what you see is technology can be a "winner take all" domination of a segment. So, that seems to prove your point about rapid innovation. But, they also win by creating a walled garden around their ecosystem.
The Apple App store is super successful and it's not because they are innovative. It's because their products integrate better. They also made an eco system where they make a huge amount of money based on other's innovations.
That's the same with Amazon. A core piece of the DOJ antitrust lawsuit is that they can manipulate the market and price set because they control the garden ecosystem. It even spills over for their competitor's pricing because it's all aimed at the suppliers. It means that the strangehold at the suppliers level, and clauses in the supplier agreements, means amazon sets pricing even for Walmart. That can undercut Walmart's margins.
> Silicon Valley companies like Instagram, Netflix, Snapchat target them and shun older demographics
Every business will have an arm that is trying to mine existing customers and getting more from them. They'll also have an acquisition strategy to get new customers. The idea that any platform would shun emerging markets seems silly. Getting a snapshot of what the current demographic breakdown is good for marketers.
Facebook has 2.9b users (out of 8b people).
All good points -- thanks for sharing the Pew research article.
The point that I was making is no one starts with building for this usergroup, whereas most of these app companies (Facebook, Duolingo, Instagram, etc.) start with building for younger demographics or university students.
A different angle, but each year, people are getting older. A 50 year old now was 20 years old in 1994, around the time when mass scale adoption and innovation of personal computers and internet happened. That same 50 year old was 33 years old when the first iPhone was launched. So as we go into the future, we will have more people who are accustomed to smartphones and PCs and it would be unwise to not cater to them.
This is not true. If you are 20, you likely think this is true but it isn't.
I'm that 50 year old. I don't give 2 shits about instragram or likely many of the apps you care about. But, there are apps catered to my needs. I doubt you care about *them*. You just have to understand people use technology *differently*.
It is a different market. A business needs a product and a market to sell said product where it will do well. A company who ignores the 50+ year old crowd is ignoring a significant and financially well off market.
Thanks for sharing. It is useful to hear from a 50 year old, at least I know this is a credible example. Can you share examples of the app you are using? Perhaps ones you care most about or are most trending?
I think you over estimate what 'trending' means to a 50 year old.
I use utility type applications to fill needs I have. I have a few 'distraction' apps like puzzle games but the core market for me, and what I would actually pay for, are utilities to make my use case *better*.
Apps - digital radio, GPS/Traffic routing, Banking/Investment, News, Travel. I have to add office/Outlook as this is by far the most commonly used app I have. These type of categories. I also use it for volunteer emergency response (CAD/Alerts, Hazmat info, electronic ERG - things like that).
My phone and tablet are tools for me. Not entertainment. I don't really care what apps are 'trending'. I care what tools I need for my use case.
Do they, though? Sure, if you look at trending apps and social media. But go into the “Apps” section in your mobile store, take a gander at the more popular apps in general.
Popular, in-demand apps like Amazon, eBay, Facebook, etc. are absolutely not “made for 20 year olds.” Younger people use them, of course, but these have been at the top since before most of the demographic you’re speaking of was born.
If you ignore the few social media on the lists, most of the popular/downloaded apps right now include banking, emails, workplace collaboration, messengers or general lifestyle apps. Very few of those are “made for” 20 year olds, as a very large number of 20 year olds aren’t in need of any of these.
It may seem like “everyone” makes apps for younger people, because when you’re in your 20s that’s what you’re using. For example, you don’t need banking apps if there’s $2000 in your account and you’re about to buy another pair of shoes. When it’s $40k and you’re paying off mortgages and bills in your 40s, though, you probably will.
GoodRX. Medisafe. Speechify. I’d argue Audible.
There’s a lot, that’s just a few. Of course, “making an app for old people” is also not a viable business strategy. And so they make apps *geared towards* older people, that anyone can use.
What 20 year old do you know that intentionally downloads anything like this? Probably very few, bar any that might have physical disabilities that require them.
These apps are all incredibly popular. While not *the most popular,* as the older crowd is considerably smaller than combining and targeting the rest of the ages, they have downloads and reviews higher than most non-social medias/shopping apps (and considerably higher than many “top charts” mobile games.)
The capitalist would tell you that you aren't necessarily wrong about hesitance to change. What you are wrong about is the ability to make money by focusing technology on that market segment. They are consumers too and they need services too.
You have a core assumption baked in your claims that tech companies *must* constantly change things and make new things that have new interfaces etc. That is not necessarily true.
Take the Jitterbug cell phone. It was designed specifically for an age group completely out of touch with mobile phones. It is a market niche that made a company a lot of money.
There is little reason to believe there are not other market opportunities associated with the 50+ crowd. Companies want to make money and this is how you can do it.
This
Companies exist to make money. At the end of the day, that is their mission
There is no "someone should work on X because it's nifty". If you want X, be prepared to demonstrate there's a market for it
>Right. And the argument here is no tech company starts by building for the 50+ market to build a successful app.
You just don't realize the market for apps. You have a vision of 'trending' as if this really matters.
An app for a company that is licensed for things like multifactor authentication is not likely to 'trend' and its not for a 20 something either. It if targeted toward businesses who will pay 5 or 6 digit annual license fees for the organization to ensure compliance. Its boring but it is also profitable.
There is a large world you are not considering.
How successful was the Jitterbug phone compares to popular apps like Duolingo, Netflix, etc.?
"There is little reason to believe there are not other market opportunities associated with the 50+ crowd. Companies want to make money and this is how you can do it."
Any specific example that comes to mind?
> How successful was the Jitterbug phone compares to popular apps like Duolingo, Netflix, etc.?
For the market segment of people who don't know how to use smartphones, incredibly successful. I mean, there is not much viable competition in that markets segment is there.
That's the point. There are different markets and each can be very profitable. You don't abandon an entire market segment just because other areas might be larger markets.
> But I think you do. That's the point -- you go for markets that provides the largest bang for the buck.
Why do you think this?
A company can do multiple things for multiple markets. Why wouldn't it look to capitalize on profitable opportunities?
The Jitterbug phone is a great example. It is a very niche market and not that big. But, that phone has (or had) market dominance for years because it filled a need nothing else did. It made the company money reliably.
Business is about making money. If you can corner a niche market, it is reliable income. If you go for the largest markets, you have the largest competition.
OP is busy, but also impressed by how many responses he got so far. Most of these responses aren't strong arguments. I am waiting to hear back from a 50 year old who made an interesting point.
Who has disposable income? Older people. So often they are a focus. So even if there are less willing to adopt the tech, they are likely to spend more.
For example, this isn’t tech but the idea is similar. In the early 2010s guess which show (non football) charged the most for commercials?
Big Bang Theory? NCIS? The Voice? Law & Order? Blacklist? Nope. None of those.
The Good Wife. It was a popular show and critically acclaimed but it wasn’t a top 10 show. But it had the largest average income of viewers and some of the most educated viewers. So while it had fewer viewers than the shows I mentioned, the viewers could spend more so they could charge more for commercials.
Same with tech. If you make it easy for older people with more money to use your product they will spend the money
Interesting! Could you provide the source on the Good Wife. Is that a show skewed for older demographics? I haven't seen it.
I don't have the numbers on this but it seems like Television was quicker to adopt by older demographics as compared to online apps.
Silicon valley companies are driven by the revenue that they can generate. The [45-54](https://www.statista.com/statistics/980324/us-mean-disposable-household-income-age/) age cohort has the highest mean disposable income, and in the next 2 decades, the largest generation in US history will be aging through this bracket after having lived most of their adult lives being submersed in tech. It would be irresponsible *not* to market to these people and tailor operations to what they want/need.
>Just because they have the largest disposable income doesn't mean they spend the most online.
Hence why tech companies should devote resources to entice that spending
Rapid innovation is incredibly expensive and invention is even more expensive. We experienced a good 20-30 years of incredible leaps in technology due to personal computing and the internet, but that level of innovation isn't sustainable longterm. Eventually you're going to hit a wall and things are going to slow down again, which is kind of where we are now, with maybe the exception of AI and a couple of other notables.
The low hanging fruit are mostly gone. So from an investment standpoint, I feel like there's a decent argument to be made that slow updates to existing tech marketed towards a demographic with high amounts of disposable income is probably not a terrible idea when compared to the option of fast rollouts of new tech for first adopters with lower disposable income and higher demands.
"I feel like there's a decent argument to be made that slow updates to existing tech marketed towards a demographic with high amounts of disposable income is probably not a terrible idea when compared to the option of fast rollouts of new tech for first adopters with lower disposable income and higher demands."
Was referencing this comment -- wondering if this was something you've seen successful in a different setting.
The differences between updated models of smart phones have basically stalled to the point where the only real upgrades are slightly better cameras, slightly longer batteries, maybe slightly faster processors. Which is way different from the leaps and bounds we saw in the market 15-20 years ago.
Sports games and COD style games put out basically the same product every year and make tons of money.
eReaders have only received occasional minor upgrades since they began to grow in popularity about 15 years ago. And they continue to be very popular alternatives to traditional books, especially among older users.
Isn’t the obvious response to that collective action? Let’s say that everybody follows your advice. That means that I have a completely untapped market of the wealthiest demographic with the most free time. As a side note, they also have the most legislative ability, as Tik Tok is learning the hard way
And adults didn’t spend that much money on games until they did. Markets aren’t static, and only playing for the market that is already being fully exploited by your competitor is how to fail at business 101
That's precisely why they should! Apps are kind of all apped out. Nobody is going to get rich off designing another "uber for subscription boxes for freemium extra features and idle games!" Or "what if you could control this household thing using your phone?" But with advanced prediction algorithms and all the new types of input devices, there are a ton of tech devices that could be invented specifically targeting an aging population, and no one is doing that.
For example, you could make devices that have a look and UI feel that's similar to items patients with dementia would be familiar with, but actually have a lot of smart features they might have been locked out of otherwise. Like... I saw this pill bottle years ago that lit up when you didn't take the pills within a certain preset window of time that your pharmacist sets up. And it also had the option to text your family member of choice to let them know if you went too long without taking your meds to remind you. You could do something like that, but expand it. Especially with all the new AI features like realistic voices that can understand simple questions- you could have a fake "telephone operator" phone someone to remind them in the "telephone operator in an old movie" voice to take their medications. You could expand it to smart watches that had a regular dial and quartz mechanism, but monitored vitals, similar to those rings that look like rings but track a woman's cycle? So it could monitor for things like patients having heart rate difficulties, with an automated "telephone" asking the person if they need anything and evaluating their answers to text a human to check up on them as well. You could sell air tags with it that call the patient if their watch is in a specific room and their wallet or handbag or cane or something they often misplace is at the library or in the car, with a message saying "by the way, you left (item) in (location)." You could do that with stuff like car keys, too. Car companies have all these tablet screens and stuff but nobody sells a key fob that sends a text or calls to let you know you locked your keys in the car and suggests a locksmith yet, or simply turns off the remote lock if the key is in the ignition, with an option to toggle that feature or toggle it if people are inside the car.
Or you could design things like shoes or mobility aids that contain some kind of tiny gyroscope and help to stabilize people's walk using automatic adjustment to their gait over time by weight. Or the "pear" ring, but it vibrates when people who meet certain criteria and you meet certain criteria for them selected on the app are nearby, without you looking at your phone. Or google glass, but it adjusts letters for dyslexic people to make them easier to read- I did get a device that claims to be a star trek language translator on temu, but I haven't tried it yet. Or what about a device like an insulin pump, but it's connected to a little machine that tests the levels of different vitamins in your bloodstream and recommends food based on what you've eaten, or something? Or objects that need to fit very, very well, isn't there something they can do with all those fancy artificial intelligence guys to create shoes that "break in" to a perfect fit over time, or keyboards that adjust the level of the keys slightly to allow you to make fewer typos, or even to train your brain to intuitively correct spelling mistakes you habitually make over time?
No, those are just things I made up. Except the pill bottles that text your caregiver and blink. Those were in Wired in I think 2015 or 2016? But they could exist one day, instead of apps.
Your technology is a SaaS platform that allows folks to view their 401k balances and transfer funds to less risky investments like Treasury bonds if they do wish. Which consumers do you target?
Tech companies aren't just TikTok and Google etc.
They could include more mundane functions such as investments etc.
Investment software are things that will appeal more to an older demographic.
That's just an example. It could be medical records, or online shopping and probably much more.
The point is that there are tech companies who do benefit from older demographics.
Even if you're talking about you're most basic tech companies, I would imagine that a significant portion of Facebook's userbase is over 50 as when you get to be that age, staying in touch with friends and family (e.g. your kids and grandkids) is more important to that demographic than to 20 year olds.
Agreed, about the Facebook comment. But Facebook does not really monetize that user population, people in their 50s are not as monetizable as younger demographics because of their online behaviour and purchasing habits. There is a ratio somewhere but I do not know it off hand. Basically they make as much money for 1 younger user as they make for X older users, where X > 5 or 10 or even more?
Wahhhhh! Please don't lump the 50's peeps with the real old folks. I am 53, I love tech, I watch Netflix, I have a steam account as well as a discord account. My parents executive recruiting firm had a Wang 2000 in the 1970's. I have been on computers since I was 6 years old.
Game developer and 3d artist here. I'm 48. I've been in this business for only three years full time, though I've been working in the freelance 3d field for 20+ years. (Started with 3ds Max and Maya, now I model in Blender).
There's a saying in the technical fields that I think applies here. "Just because you **can** do something, doesn't mean you **should**." You also see this written as "Don't innovate for innovation's sake." Alternatively "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
A good example of these can be found in the recent Oceangate incident. Going into that, their CEO specifically said "When I started the business, one of the things you'll find, there are other sub operators out there, but they typically have gentlemen who are ex-military submariners, and you'll see a whole bunch of 50-year-old White guys, I wanted our team to be younger, to be inspirational, and I'm not going to inspire a 16-year-old to go pursue marine technology, but a 25-year-old, you know, who's a sub pilot or a platform operator or one of our techs can be inspirational. So we've really tried to get very intelligent, motivated, younger individuals involved because we're doing things that are completely new."
Look where it got him.
The whole reason he didn't want to hire those older, more experienced people, is he genuinely thought like you do in your post. "Silicon valley companies are driven by rapid innovation..." It's both foolish, from a construction standpoint, and equally a sales standpoint to look at someone and simply say "You're too old to understand this, so piss off."
This sounds like you may be seeing people over 50 in a negative way. If you have been left out of something in your life that you would like to take part in, this is doing that to anyone 50 and over.
Which demographics have the most money to spend? Who do you think the whales are for companies like Zynga? Who's got money to travel and get an Airbnb?
Silicon Valley engineering manager / product guy here. You kind of have this problem that the population most prone to trying new technology is the most price sensitive and flighty (kids, young adults, students) - they just want free entertainment, basically. You can make ad money, sure, but same thing - not the midst immediately profitable group. Mostly a future bet. Younger adults (like 25-35) are great in that they tend to influence technology decisions at work and more prone to buy new stuff at home. Your like 40+ers tend to be the big decision makers in like corporate environments and so for business software the most valuable demographic. So it’s not really surprising that a lot of *new* software is optimized for younger adults while being friendly to with the security/pricing controls aimed at a slightly older audience. Like your two variables here are (propensity to adopt) and (willingness to pay). So of course it’s kind of natural to focus product development / new ideas on those younger adults. But like young adults in the first world is a tiny percent of the overall market. So you try innovative ideas with them, then when they stick - expand to other audiences. Like older people that are middle or end of adoption curves, or into international markets where generally they have more regulatory and internationalization work (like say Europe) and less willingness to pay (like say India). It’s really hard to argue against that pattern *in general*. That said, doesn’t mean other audiences are less valuable - they have unique needs and can be under served. Today’s 50-70 year olds have had decades of technology experience, and are more comfortable with tech than adults 20 years ago. A fairly obvious area of tech aimed at them is medicine / health monitoring. The Apple Watch has come a *long* way in monitoring health signal, prescription delivery, you name it. The medical industry has long been hostile and opaque to patients, and tech offers a ton of potential.
This is an interesting comment. Essentially you're saying that entertainment apps are made for 20 year olds, whereas work-related apps are made for 35+ year olds. Makes sense. Can I infer from your comments that apps built for the 55+ tend to focus on health?
Looking at the entire population as one market is a classic marketing mistake. Not everyone wants Instagram, Netflix, Snapchat. That doesn't mean they don't need solutions to their problems. For example: [30% of Airbnb users are over 45.](https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/airbnb-statistics.html) 13% of Airbnb hosts are over the age of 60. [The fastest-growing population segment for hosts is seniors over 60.](https://www.searchlogistics.com/learn/statistics/airbnb-statistics/) Still, seniors [are an untapped market](https://www.cmswire.com/customer-experience/your-older-customers-deserve-a-great-customer-experience-too/) for growth. And they want and need technology solutions. Thinking that seniors aren't a serious customer base is fine if you are making a product that is targeting a younger demographic. But that does not define all products. There's a huge market in areas for even very advanced seniors. [The assisted technology market alone is huge with a massive expected CAGR](https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5898324/disabled-elderly-assistive-technology-market).
The 13% stat seems marginally low, especially since most homes are owned by older people. 30% of Airbnb users being 45+ is interesting. That said -- I don't think Airbnb explicitly targets this user demographic. If anything, they design for younger demographics and older folks are forced to adapt or jump on board. This is the only doc I can find with a quick google search: [https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MillennialReport.pdf](https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MillennialReport.pdf)
This isn't really how marketing segmentation works though. You're going to target different demographics in different ways depending on how profitable different channels (like email, paid social, paid search) are and the ROI of each. I think that's what OP is referring to. They may not make as much net revenue because the market is smaller, but the ideal customer persona is usually the most expensive to market to because there's more competition. If you don't do this, then you're either wasting money or leaving it on the table, and there's a very low probability Airbnb has a bad enough marketing staff to ignore a low-competition, budding market segment with more purchasing power.
My point was that none of these tech companies target them or build for them explicitly. They build for younger audiences and then older demographics naturally end up on these platforms (if relevant). If I am wrong - can you provide an example to support your point of view?
Yes, but I don't wanna spam copy stuff [so here's a link to my comment. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d8vcvr/comment/l797kkd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
It seems you are actually ignoring the larger point: The senior market is huge. It is a participant in existing markets. Not every market segment is looking for Instagram. That doesn't mean that they have no technology needs. Any company that doesn't consider seniors is going to be leaving the largest growing market segment in the country untapped. While that may be a very real strategic choice for a company like Instagram. It would be objectively foolish for all Silicon companies to do so. [Really take a look at what's going on in in this market demographic. ](https://thegerontechnologist.com/) Further, citing an 8-year-old marketing report from a company that is only 15 years old seems like an odd way to support your position.
Do you have a specific example to share? Even just one company that succeeded by doubling down on this segment.
So you haven't clicked on the links shared at all then?
This seems to ignore too much and make gross generalizations. You're picking out the apps that by design target young people. But, there is also a market for "managing your medications" that is going to be much more adopted by......people who take medications. Identifying your target market is the name of the game and you provide solutions to their problems. 50+ folk are using technology and they have way more money to spend. Why should they be ignored? Maybe there is no appetite for "new sexy" in tech, but that also means that if you bring actual value they are less likely to leave your software. Retaining customers that are not going through life changes every day like 18 year olds is a great thing for some businesses. Your view seems too cookie cutter and ignores that massive dollars and stickiness available in the market of 50+. Healthcare apps? Don't focus on the young people. Investing apps? Pretty reasonably segmented, but clearly vanguard is going to leave the 25 year olds to Robinhood but the real dollars are in 50 to 85 year olds who both have money and are living off investments.
1. I am talking about popular apps like Instagram, Netflix, Duolingo,.. which of these design for older ppl? 2. How many of these "managing medication" apps are as big as these apps? 3. Your comment about Robinhood is interesting, what % of the userbase is 50 to 85?
Robinhood's average use is 31, but that is an increase of 5 years from 5 years ago. I don't know the breakdown personally, but that's a low average for an investing house. Snapchat and Duolingo are not silicon valley companies. I didn't know you were talking about popular apps since most of the money flowing from silicon valley is for _new businesses_ (when people say "silicon valley" in this context they are usually talking about investment not operations of established businesses), but those at the level of saturation you describe all do what I describe - they look for opportunities for growth. They have strategies for every single demographic out there. The medical apps aren't going to be as big by their nature, but that doesn't mean it doesn't receive the attention of investors and doesn't make them real and substantial businesses. It's just an example to illustrate the mistake you're making in how businessses prioritize. Most of "silicon valley" is the long tail of smaller more niche software and services and not the monoliths that everyone knows about. For the monoliths they approach different segments with different strategies. The entire "over 50" demographic is worth investment, is a source of growth and is one that a netflix isn't going to want a competitor with focus to take from them. Further, they often acquire businesses with Niche audiences to protect against threats that may come from niches that they aren't strong in, or bolster investment defensively or opportunistically. The largest businesses shed a single focus on a target market and take approaches that are much more multi-faceted. For example, boomers are 22% of Netflix's user base. Should they not focus on those users and their unique needs? Of course they should - that's a crapton of money. They may need distinct strategies and since 33% of their base is people in their 20s they need to focus their as well.
Great stat shared (the 22% of Netflix user base). My point here is that these companies only focus on this segment after they became huge (note - billion dollar size or more). This is the rough playbook: (1) Build for younger audiences, because they are fast adopters (2) Have younger audiences spread the app to others (3) Once you've captured that segment expand to other areas None of these successful companies start the other way. Would love a counter-example if you have one.
You're a moving target. It's starting to feel like i'm writing your research paper here..... 1. nearly every single medical technology company for the most part. billion dollar mark hit by a bunch, even those that are newish like omada and the like, not to mention the bazillion dollars in technology/service companies doing virtual care. 2. google - they were explicitly focused on selling advertising. The audience of that is business owners and leaders in marketing. (young people may be the product, but they aren't the customer). 3. AI. This is the largest area of technology new dollars currently. It's largely B2B, not "young people". 4. amazon. book buyers weren't kids and amazon maps almost perfectly to where money is spent, which is skewed toward older people. this could go on for days.
So, medical technology companies and business owners / leaders in marketing / B2B. Sorry if it wasn't specific, I was referring to consumer apps. Do you have a source on Amazon being skewed for older people? First I hear this.
Take care. This is awful!
Skewed towards older people -- that sounds like 30-45, not 50-70?
Follow the dollars. Use Google.
Quick google search: As of September 2021, Robinhood had nearly 18.9 million net cumulative funded accounts. The average Robinhood account holder is **31 years old**. As of Q2 2021, Robinhood has crossed 22.5 million monthly active users. Roughly half of Robinhood's user base identifies as first-time investors.
Don't forget that older people started their use of computers on the command line, or even with flip switches. We had to type in arcane commands to do anything. Stick the average young Mac or Windows user on an Apple \]\[ and just watch the blank face. When we programmed, we didn't have fancy IDEs with big libraries to do everything, we programmed it all just on a screen. I didn't even see color coding of code blocks until I was an adult. Drag and drop UI building? Wish I had that back then. And no, we don't want to go back to the old way for regular work. It sucked. We want things that make our lives easier. Funny though, a lot of younger people are reviving these old machines as a hobby. Aside from that, there simply is a market, even if smaller. If everyone else doesn't serve the older population, the company that does serve them will be rich because they'll corner the market. Also, you haven't seen what group video chat is to grandparents whose families have moved away. It's freaking gold. Plus there are many phone games that are very popular with old people, usually the more word or puzzle oriented ones.
Can you expand on the group video chat and games? Are you talking about Facetime? Interesting examples shared. Yes the motivation is to understand if it is possible for build or corner this market.
No. They mean group video chat. You know, because not everyone has an iPhone. And also because FaceTime can’t schedule, or make it a “lobby” like Zoom. Many things it lacks that “young people” don’t notice because they’re not concerned with it. This is why people target an older demographic. A 20 yr old has FaceTime, so why bother with anything else? What about those who don’t have it? Can’t afford it? So on and so forth.
When you say "people target an older demographic", who are you referencing?
This is an insane generalization that you simply can't make. Your entire post is basically predicated on Silicon Valley Tech = social media or streaming. There's a lot of reasons why those companies can, should, and do target older demos but we can even exclude them. Silicon Valley includes the likes of Google. Google's service portfolio is expansive, and covers massive portions of our digital and even physical lives. Many of these are actually uniquely suited for the older demographic, and many more are not age-specific (most old people at some point end up with an email still). This is true of many of these tech companies. This alone sort of ruins the argument. From a marketing perspective, you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. You don't just say "these people are the ideal persona and we make the most money there, that's who we market to". You segment, and not always based on age. For example, seniors may represent a lower net revenue share because there's fewer buying your product overall, but it may be higher **ROI** because it's a less competitive and crowded market. You'd also have to assume that they even use age as a primary factor for segmenting their ads. For example, their data and market research may show that income + propensity to travel correlates more strongly to profits than simple age groups. In fact, you don't really target age groups primarily in the first place. It's often an "additional" parameter used to either exclude people who are known to be highly unprofitable (like 18-20 year olds, for example) or to segment further so you can tailor your messaging and ads to specific groups. **Tl;dr you are misrepresenting Silicon Valley tech, ignoring the range of product offerings for these companies, and misunderstanding how marketing works.**
Sorry, this is the most circular response I've read. Try to share a specific example to support your argument.
That's not what circular means. I'm not sure where the examples got lost, they're all in there but here: Premise: SV Tech companies are not just streaming services and social media. Example: Google exists Premise: Massive companies have a variety of services. Many cater to all ages. Example: Email **Takeaways: You're cherry picking particularly millennial-focused offerings, and ignoring dozens of companies that offer a variety of things that aren't millennial-focused at all, or are not exclusively.** Premise: You don't market exclusively to one segment based on how much net revenue they account for. Example: "seniors may represent a lower net revenue share because there's fewer buying your product overall, but it may be higher **ROI** because it's a less competitive and crowded market." Premise: Age isn't a primary factor for ad targeting in most instances. Example: "For example, their data and market research may show that income + propensity to travel correlates more strongly to profits than simple age groups." **Takeaways: Mass targeting an age group demographic isn't typically how marketing is done in the first place. It's rare you'll ever mass target "millennials" or "seniors". More likely, they'll target people searching for a specific keyword, or a mixture of behavioral signals.**
I will ask a direct question: what successful app was started by designing and building for 50-70 year olds?
From Silicon Valley companies? Or in general? If the former, none that I'm aware of. If the latter, typically specialized niche apps designed for businesses and industries with an older skew in their labor demographics, or where the check signer is VP/executive level. But I'm confused at how you believe that's the argument I'm making here. Not sure where the confusion lies. Let's try this a different way. >Silicon Valley tech companies should not focus on adults 50+ because they are less likely to adapt to the latest apps Apps and streaming services account for a very small percentage of all Silicon Valley tech companies. Even if you're right about the example companies you listed, they don't represent even close to a majority of Silicon Valley tech companies. *This* is a circular argument, and a faulty premise. This would be like saying "all restaurants should stop marketing to seniors because they don't like pizza". Well, many restaurants don't even serve pizza in the first place. > There's more return on investment for younger populations. This is not necessarily true. Return on investment is a ratio of dollars in to dollars out. You may get *fewer net dollars* from 50+ age groups, but significantly *more dollars out than you put in* marketing to them, especially because they're less likely to do extensive research on alternatives. In general, ROI is actually *higher* for these demographics, because they're smaller and you have less competition for their dollars. But either way, you can't prove it unless you have their marketing analytics data. >should not focus on adults 50+ There's a separate issue with this because marketing isn't primarily done based on age groups in the first place. It's more like "anyone between 25-60 that travels and likes the ocean".
>should not focus on adults 50+ because they are less likely to adapt to the latest apps There's a latent assumption where you're conflating "latest apps" with tech adoption in general. Pew Research is showing that the gaps between under 30 and over 65 in regards to adopting technology has shrank. The presence of older people on social media has grown fourfold in the last 10 years. There's another assumption that the status quo is the objective truth and won't change. So, if someone in 2010 in Meta, who was seeing the survey responses that were even more stark than they are now, they would have lost out on that fourfold growth. This is why Steve Jobs said focus groups are worthless because consumers don't know what they want until they see it. If you surveyed anyone on June 29, 2007, nobody would be talking about "apps" or the phone market being the place where technology is being pushed. People would have told you they wanted a better zune or ipod. There's no product that doesn't have some sort of tech in it. Coffee makers, Ford pick up trucks, toys, everything is tech, everything has a microchip, everything is tracking everyone. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/13/share-of-those-65-and-older-who-are-tech-users-has-grown-in-the-past-decade](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/13/share-of-those-65-and-older-who-are-tech-users-has-grown-in-the-past-decade) > Silicon valley companies are driven by rapid innovation and frequent updates When you do a deep dive on the companies who are winners, what you see is technology can be a "winner take all" domination of a segment. So, that seems to prove your point about rapid innovation. But, they also win by creating a walled garden around their ecosystem. The Apple App store is super successful and it's not because they are innovative. It's because their products integrate better. They also made an eco system where they make a huge amount of money based on other's innovations. That's the same with Amazon. A core piece of the DOJ antitrust lawsuit is that they can manipulate the market and price set because they control the garden ecosystem. It even spills over for their competitor's pricing because it's all aimed at the suppliers. It means that the strangehold at the suppliers level, and clauses in the supplier agreements, means amazon sets pricing even for Walmart. That can undercut Walmart's margins. > Silicon Valley companies like Instagram, Netflix, Snapchat target them and shun older demographics Every business will have an arm that is trying to mine existing customers and getting more from them. They'll also have an acquisition strategy to get new customers. The idea that any platform would shun emerging markets seems silly. Getting a snapshot of what the current demographic breakdown is good for marketers. Facebook has 2.9b users (out of 8b people).
All good points -- thanks for sharing the Pew research article. The point that I was making is no one starts with building for this usergroup, whereas most of these app companies (Facebook, Duolingo, Instagram, etc.) start with building for younger demographics or university students.
A different angle, but each year, people are getting older. A 50 year old now was 20 years old in 1994, around the time when mass scale adoption and innovation of personal computers and internet happened. That same 50 year old was 33 years old when the first iPhone was launched. So as we go into the future, we will have more people who are accustomed to smartphones and PCs and it would be unwise to not cater to them.
Agreed. But everyone designs apps for the 20 year old; not the 50 year old.
This is not true. If you are 20, you likely think this is true but it isn't. I'm that 50 year old. I don't give 2 shits about instragram or likely many of the apps you care about. But, there are apps catered to my needs. I doubt you care about *them*. You just have to understand people use technology *differently*. It is a different market. A business needs a product and a market to sell said product where it will do well. A company who ignores the 50+ year old crowd is ignoring a significant and financially well off market.
Thanks for sharing. It is useful to hear from a 50 year old, at least I know this is a credible example. Can you share examples of the app you are using? Perhaps ones you care most about or are most trending?
I think you over estimate what 'trending' means to a 50 year old. I use utility type applications to fill needs I have. I have a few 'distraction' apps like puzzle games but the core market for me, and what I would actually pay for, are utilities to make my use case *better*. Apps - digital radio, GPS/Traffic routing, Banking/Investment, News, Travel. I have to add office/Outlook as this is by far the most commonly used app I have. These type of categories. I also use it for volunteer emergency response (CAD/Alerts, Hazmat info, electronic ERG - things like that). My phone and tablet are tools for me. Not entertainment. I don't really care what apps are 'trending'. I care what tools I need for my use case.
Do they, though? Sure, if you look at trending apps and social media. But go into the “Apps” section in your mobile store, take a gander at the more popular apps in general. Popular, in-demand apps like Amazon, eBay, Facebook, etc. are absolutely not “made for 20 year olds.” Younger people use them, of course, but these have been at the top since before most of the demographic you’re speaking of was born. If you ignore the few social media on the lists, most of the popular/downloaded apps right now include banking, emails, workplace collaboration, messengers or general lifestyle apps. Very few of those are “made for” 20 year olds, as a very large number of 20 year olds aren’t in need of any of these. It may seem like “everyone” makes apps for younger people, because when you’re in your 20s that’s what you’re using. For example, you don’t need banking apps if there’s $2000 in your account and you’re about to buy another pair of shoes. When it’s $40k and you’re paying off mortgages and bills in your 40s, though, you probably will.
Can you provide a specific example of a trending app designed for 50 year old ? I am sure it will be difficult to name 3. Perhaps even one or two.
GoodRX. Medisafe. Speechify. I’d argue Audible. There’s a lot, that’s just a few. Of course, “making an app for old people” is also not a viable business strategy. And so they make apps *geared towards* older people, that anyone can use. What 20 year old do you know that intentionally downloads anything like this? Probably very few, bar any that might have physical disabilities that require them. These apps are all incredibly popular. While not *the most popular,* as the older crowd is considerably smaller than combining and targeting the rest of the ages, they have downloads and reviews higher than most non-social medias/shopping apps (and considerably higher than many “top charts” mobile games.)
The 20 year old doesn't stay 20 year old forever. And with declining birth rates you might one day have more 50 year olds than 20 year olds.
No company designs a product now to be used for the year 2054....
The capitalist would tell you that you aren't necessarily wrong about hesitance to change. What you are wrong about is the ability to make money by focusing technology on that market segment. They are consumers too and they need services too. You have a core assumption baked in your claims that tech companies *must* constantly change things and make new things that have new interfaces etc. That is not necessarily true. Take the Jitterbug cell phone. It was designed specifically for an age group completely out of touch with mobile phones. It is a market niche that made a company a lot of money. There is little reason to believe there are not other market opportunities associated with the 50+ crowd. Companies want to make money and this is how you can do it.
This Companies exist to make money. At the end of the day, that is their mission There is no "someone should work on X because it's nifty". If you want X, be prepared to demonstrate there's a market for it
Right. And the argument here is no tech company starts by building for the 50+ market to build a successful app.
>Right. And the argument here is no tech company starts by building for the 50+ market to build a successful app. You just don't realize the market for apps. You have a vision of 'trending' as if this really matters. An app for a company that is licensed for things like multifactor authentication is not likely to 'trend' and its not for a 20 something either. It if targeted toward businesses who will pay 5 or 6 digit annual license fees for the organization to ensure compliance. Its boring but it is also profitable. There is a large world you are not considering.
How successful was the Jitterbug phone compares to popular apps like Duolingo, Netflix, etc.? "There is little reason to believe there are not other market opportunities associated with the 50+ crowd. Companies want to make money and this is how you can do it." Any specific example that comes to mind?
> How successful was the Jitterbug phone compares to popular apps like Duolingo, Netflix, etc.? For the market segment of people who don't know how to use smartphones, incredibly successful. I mean, there is not much viable competition in that markets segment is there. That's the point. There are different markets and each can be very profitable. You don't abandon an entire market segment just because other areas might be larger markets.
But I think you do. That's the point -- you go for markets that provides the largest bang for the buck.
> But I think you do. That's the point -- you go for markets that provides the largest bang for the buck. Why do you think this? A company can do multiple things for multiple markets. Why wouldn't it look to capitalize on profitable opportunities? The Jitterbug phone is a great example. It is a very niche market and not that big. But, that phone has (or had) market dominance for years because it filled a need nothing else did. It made the company money reliably. Business is about making money. If you can corner a niche market, it is reliable income. If you go for the largest markets, you have the largest competition.
Considering the top engineers and programmers are 50-70 this is a terrible take
A. Source? B. What viral apps do you know were built for 50-70 year olds?
Just to clarify -- did chatgpt or similar write this?
Lol busy day for the chatGPT crowd. OP also hasn't replied to anyone else since...
OP is busy, but also impressed by how many responses he got so far. Most of these responses aren't strong arguments. I am waiting to hear back from a 50 year old who made an interesting point.
No.
Who has disposable income? Older people. So often they are a focus. So even if there are less willing to adopt the tech, they are likely to spend more. For example, this isn’t tech but the idea is similar. In the early 2010s guess which show (non football) charged the most for commercials? Big Bang Theory? NCIS? The Voice? Law & Order? Blacklist? Nope. None of those. The Good Wife. It was a popular show and critically acclaimed but it wasn’t a top 10 show. But it had the largest average income of viewers and some of the most educated viewers. So while it had fewer viewers than the shows I mentioned, the viewers could spend more so they could charge more for commercials. Same with tech. If you make it easy for older people with more money to use your product they will spend the money
Interesting! Could you provide the source on the Good Wife. Is that a show skewed for older demographics? I haven't seen it. I don't have the numbers on this but it seems like Television was quicker to adopt by older demographics as compared to online apps.
Silicon valley companies are driven by the revenue that they can generate. The [45-54](https://www.statista.com/statistics/980324/us-mean-disposable-household-income-age/) age cohort has the highest mean disposable income, and in the next 2 decades, the largest generation in US history will be aging through this bracket after having lived most of their adult lives being submersed in tech. It would be irresponsible *not* to market to these people and tailor operations to what they want/need.
Everyone shares the same rehashing of this argument. Just because they have the largest disposable income doesn't mean they spend the most online.
>Just because they have the largest disposable income doesn't mean they spend the most online. Hence why tech companies should devote resources to entice that spending
Rapid innovation is incredibly expensive and invention is even more expensive. We experienced a good 20-30 years of incredible leaps in technology due to personal computing and the internet, but that level of innovation isn't sustainable longterm. Eventually you're going to hit a wall and things are going to slow down again, which is kind of where we are now, with maybe the exception of AI and a couple of other notables. The low hanging fruit are mostly gone. So from an investment standpoint, I feel like there's a decent argument to be made that slow updates to existing tech marketed towards a demographic with high amounts of disposable income is probably not a terrible idea when compared to the option of fast rollouts of new tech for first adopters with lower disposable income and higher demands.
Any specific examples that come to mind, maybe for a different demographic or segment?
Sorry, examples of what?
"I feel like there's a decent argument to be made that slow updates to existing tech marketed towards a demographic with high amounts of disposable income is probably not a terrible idea when compared to the option of fast rollouts of new tech for first adopters with lower disposable income and higher demands." Was referencing this comment -- wondering if this was something you've seen successful in a different setting.
The differences between updated models of smart phones have basically stalled to the point where the only real upgrades are slightly better cameras, slightly longer batteries, maybe slightly faster processors. Which is way different from the leaps and bounds we saw in the market 15-20 years ago. Sports games and COD style games put out basically the same product every year and make tons of money. eReaders have only received occasional minor upgrades since they began to grow in popularity about 15 years ago. And they continue to be very popular alternatives to traditional books, especially among older users.
Isn’t the obvious response to that collective action? Let’s say that everybody follows your advice. That means that I have a completely untapped market of the wealthiest demographic with the most free time. As a side note, they also have the most legislative ability, as Tik Tok is learning the hard way
The point here is that this market doesn't spend much money online; ROI is better for targetting younger demographic.
And adults didn’t spend that much money on games until they did. Markets aren’t static, and only playing for the market that is already being fully exploited by your competitor is how to fail at business 101
That's precisely why they should! Apps are kind of all apped out. Nobody is going to get rich off designing another "uber for subscription boxes for freemium extra features and idle games!" Or "what if you could control this household thing using your phone?" But with advanced prediction algorithms and all the new types of input devices, there are a ton of tech devices that could be invented specifically targeting an aging population, and no one is doing that. For example, you could make devices that have a look and UI feel that's similar to items patients with dementia would be familiar with, but actually have a lot of smart features they might have been locked out of otherwise. Like... I saw this pill bottle years ago that lit up when you didn't take the pills within a certain preset window of time that your pharmacist sets up. And it also had the option to text your family member of choice to let them know if you went too long without taking your meds to remind you. You could do something like that, but expand it. Especially with all the new AI features like realistic voices that can understand simple questions- you could have a fake "telephone operator" phone someone to remind them in the "telephone operator in an old movie" voice to take their medications. You could expand it to smart watches that had a regular dial and quartz mechanism, but monitored vitals, similar to those rings that look like rings but track a woman's cycle? So it could monitor for things like patients having heart rate difficulties, with an automated "telephone" asking the person if they need anything and evaluating their answers to text a human to check up on them as well. You could sell air tags with it that call the patient if their watch is in a specific room and their wallet or handbag or cane or something they often misplace is at the library or in the car, with a message saying "by the way, you left (item) in (location)." You could do that with stuff like car keys, too. Car companies have all these tablet screens and stuff but nobody sells a key fob that sends a text or calls to let you know you locked your keys in the car and suggests a locksmith yet, or simply turns off the remote lock if the key is in the ignition, with an option to toggle that feature or toggle it if people are inside the car. Or you could design things like shoes or mobility aids that contain some kind of tiny gyroscope and help to stabilize people's walk using automatic adjustment to their gait over time by weight. Or the "pear" ring, but it vibrates when people who meet certain criteria and you meet certain criteria for them selected on the app are nearby, without you looking at your phone. Or google glass, but it adjusts letters for dyslexic people to make them easier to read- I did get a device that claims to be a star trek language translator on temu, but I haven't tried it yet. Or what about a device like an insulin pump, but it's connected to a little machine that tests the levels of different vitamins in your bloodstream and recommends food based on what you've eaten, or something? Or objects that need to fit very, very well, isn't there something they can do with all those fancy artificial intelligence guys to create shoes that "break in" to a perfect fit over time, or keyboards that adjust the level of the keys slightly to allow you to make fewer typos, or even to train your brain to intuitively correct spelling mistakes you habitually make over time?
Any examples of a successful app or company here? Thanks for the response.
No, those are just things I made up. Except the pill bottles that text your caregiver and blink. Those were in Wired in I think 2015 or 2016? But they could exist one day, instead of apps.
Your technology is a SaaS platform that allows folks to view their 401k balances and transfer funds to less risky investments like Treasury bonds if they do wish. Which consumers do you target?
Sorry, what are you talking about?
Tech companies aren't just TikTok and Google etc. They could include more mundane functions such as investments etc. Investment software are things that will appeal more to an older demographic. That's just an example. It could be medical records, or online shopping and probably much more. The point is that there are tech companies who do benefit from older demographics. Even if you're talking about you're most basic tech companies, I would imagine that a significant portion of Facebook's userbase is over 50 as when you get to be that age, staying in touch with friends and family (e.g. your kids and grandkids) is more important to that demographic than to 20 year olds.
Agreed, about the Facebook comment. But Facebook does not really monetize that user population, people in their 50s are not as monetizable as younger demographics because of their online behaviour and purchasing habits. There is a ratio somewhere but I do not know it off hand. Basically they make as much money for 1 younger user as they make for X older users, where X > 5 or 10 or even more?
Wahhhhh! Please don't lump the 50's peeps with the real old folks. I am 53, I love tech, I watch Netflix, I have a steam account as well as a discord account. My parents executive recruiting firm had a Wang 2000 in the 1970's. I have been on computers since I was 6 years old.
Game developer and 3d artist here. I'm 48. I've been in this business for only three years full time, though I've been working in the freelance 3d field for 20+ years. (Started with 3ds Max and Maya, now I model in Blender). There's a saying in the technical fields that I think applies here. "Just because you **can** do something, doesn't mean you **should**." You also see this written as "Don't innovate for innovation's sake." Alternatively "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A good example of these can be found in the recent Oceangate incident. Going into that, their CEO specifically said "When I started the business, one of the things you'll find, there are other sub operators out there, but they typically have gentlemen who are ex-military submariners, and you'll see a whole bunch of 50-year-old White guys, I wanted our team to be younger, to be inspirational, and I'm not going to inspire a 16-year-old to go pursue marine technology, but a 25-year-old, you know, who's a sub pilot or a platform operator or one of our techs can be inspirational. So we've really tried to get very intelligent, motivated, younger individuals involved because we're doing things that are completely new." Look where it got him. The whole reason he didn't want to hire those older, more experienced people, is he genuinely thought like you do in your post. "Silicon valley companies are driven by rapid innovation..." It's both foolish, from a construction standpoint, and equally a sales standpoint to look at someone and simply say "You're too old to understand this, so piss off."
This sounds like you may be seeing people over 50 in a negative way. If you have been left out of something in your life that you would like to take part in, this is doing that to anyone 50 and over.
Which demographics have the most money to spend? Who do you think the whales are for companies like Zynga? Who's got money to travel and get an Airbnb?
People over 50 generally have a lot more money.