Growing the hobby: Why target the young?

[buzz]

The other day, my brother and I were talking about Harley-Davidson. Namely, the phenomenon of "yuppie bikers," i.e., the rising popularity of Harleys among older, wealthier cycle enthusiasts, and how the company itself has embraced the idea of a Harley as a "boutique" item. These are poeple who finally have a lot of disposable income, and they want the bikes they long dreamed of getting.

This made me wonder. Whenever I read discussions about the "health of the hobby," it's often lamented that the player base is aging, and that companies are not doing enough to bring in younger gamers. "Younger gamers" seems to be a holy grail of sorts.

But, is this really important? Kids (i.e., under 18) generally don't have their own income, nor much say in how the income they do have access to is spent. OTOH, many people over 30 pretty much have more buying power than is really good for them and don't really have to answer to anyone about what they purchase. They can walk into a game store or surf Amazon.com and drop $100 without really flinching.

Might it be a more sound strategy to focus on the adult customer? To bring back older players whose interest can be driven by nostalgia? To bring in new players who are further along in life and don't consdier $39.95 for a rule book financially problematic?

It's possible that this is a big "duh!" I mean, the "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel" marketing for D&D3e and companies like Necromancer certainly plays on bringing in the player old enough to remember 1st edition in the first place. And Ryan Dancey has talked about tapping the "boutique" demographic, which we're seeing in things like the special edition PHB that's coming out, the coffee-table 30th anniversary D&D book, or the deluxe versions of games like V:TM, Buffy, or SAS/BESM.

The flip side, I suppose, is that there may be a potential to alienate other demographics. I understand that Harley-Davidson has been pressuring old-school, mom-and-pop dealerships to remodel their stores with a boutique look or forsake their product. I certianly hear lots of complaning on various fora from gamers about how games are too expensive these days--something I still don't agree with at all, really, but hey.

Still, I wonder. Maybe the general "greying" of the gaming populace is really a good thing, and should be embraced wholeheartedly.

Discuss.

 

[buzz]

Oh, and:

I mean, the "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel" marketing for D&D3e and companies like Necromancer certainly plays on bringing in the player old enough to remember 1st edition in the first place.

Not to mention a product like Castles & Crusades.

 

[Mystery Man]

I started playing back in the early 80's when I got the purple box as a gift. I was like 12 or so. 34 and still going strong. This hobby sticks with you even if you go for years (like me) without playing.

As an aside I was going through some old boxes under my stairs and found that box! I knew I wouldn't have thrown it away, but thought it was lost forever.

 

[Samothdm]

This made me wonder. Whenever I read discussions about the "health of the hobby," it's often lamented that the player base is aging, and that companies are not doing enough to bring in younger gamers. "Younger gamers" seems to be a holy grail of sorts.

Younger demographics are usually the "holy grail" of most products that are advertised. While the gray generation does tend to have more disposable income for things like luxury cars and such, most cars aren't really marketed to them. Look at Cadillac's recent advertising, using Led Zeppelin music to target a slightly younger demographic (at least, younger for Cadillac). The idea here is to have your consumers grow with your product over time so that they have a special connection to it. You want people buying Fords when they're in their 20s, because ideally you'd like them to have such a good experience that they'll continue to buy Fords into their 30s, 40s, and 50s. (Let's not discuss the merits of Fords or else this thread will get derailed).

But, is this really important? Kids (i.e., under 18) generally don't have their own income, nor much say in how the income they do have access to is spent. OTOH, many people over 30 pretty much have more buying power than is really good for them and don't really have to answer to anyone about what they purchase. They can walk into a game store or surf Amazon.com and drop $100 without really flinching.

Very young children don't have a lot of disposable income. But, most college aged "kids" between 18-24 have a lot more disposable income than we give them credit for. They're usually working while going to school and a lot of their income goes to "entertainment" like CDs, video games, DVDs, movies, and eating out. So, D&D fits in their pretty naturally.

Might it be a more sound strategy to focus on the adult customer? To bring back older players whose interest can be driven by nostalgia? To bring in new players who are further along in life and don't consdier $39.95 for a rule book financially problematic?

I think 3rd edition did this pretty well when they announced the new edition in Maxim magazine. I heard from quite a few friends who hadn't been involved in the hobby in years who were interested in picking up the Player's Handbook just because they saw that particular ad. It was targeted at "older" players in their mid-20s to early-30s who had played when they were younger but had dropped out of the hobby.

It's possible that this is a big "duh!" I mean, the "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel" marketing for D&D3e and companies like Necromancer certainly plays on bringing in the player old enough to remember 1st edition in the first place. And Ryan Dancey has talked about tapping the "boutique" demographic, which we're seeing in things like the special edition PHB that's coming out, the coffee-table 30th anniversary D&D book, or the deluxe versions of games like V:TM, Buffy, or SAS/BESM.

Those special edition type books will appeal to the serious "collector" who does have a lot more disposable income, but not necessarily to gamers in general. Younger gamers, especially, I wouldn't think would be very interested in the 30th Anniversary book, whereas someone like me or maybe Diaglo might be.

The flip side, I suppose, is that there may be a potential to alienate other demographics. I understand that Harley-Davidson has been pressuring old-school, mom-and-pop dealerships to remodel their stores with a boutique look or forsake their product. I certianly hear lots of complaning on various fora from gamers about how games are too expensive these days--something I still don't agree with at all, really, but hey.

Whether or not games are too expensive is probably a topic for a different thread.

Still, I wonder. Maybe the general "greying" of the gaming populace is really a good thing, and should be embraced wholeheartedly.

I wouldn't say it's a good thing necessarily. In general, for the hobby to stay vibrant, it needs to add new players. Some of those might be older people in their 30s, sure. But, I think you're missing a key component: time. Yes, people in their 30s have more disposable income to spend on games. They also have things like significant others, children, house-work, full-time jobs that often require travel during the week and potential weekend hours, visiting parents and in-laws (who, as they get older, will need more time commitments), etc.

Younger people, especially the "sweet-spot" of young adults between 16-24 tend to have a lot more free time to play games and thus might actually feel that there's a need to buy a lot more accessories and supplements. They might actually have the time to use all of them.

Adding new people to the hobby in general is a good thing, no matter the age. To keep the hobby thriving, though, I think that it's necessary to concentrate marketing efforts on the younger demographics and count on word-of-mouth and "nostalgia" to help bring in the older gamers.

 

[ConspiracyAngel]

(Laugh) It is simple, my dear Watson, ... the younger they are, the more things they will buy. If you hook them on something when they are young, most likely they will keep buying it well into their 30's, that is as long as the hobby lives that long and has others willing to play.

 

[Sir Elton]

(Laugh) It is simple, my dear Watson, ... the younger they are, the more things they will buy. If you hook them on something when they are young, most likely they will keep buying it well into their 30's, that is as long as the hobby lives that long and has others willing to play.

I like this thought. It's worked for me.

 

[Felix]

I think you might misunderestimate (I love that word!) the spending power that young kids have in today's market. If you consider the popularity of singers that appeal to the 12-17 year old girls, and the profits that they reap from selling their crud to them, you might begin to think that marketing to 12-17 year old boys and girls could reap some of that windfall, as well as have a longer potential cash flow from them over the years.

As a side thought, do you think that younger kids are more likely to get their friends to start playing, while older folks will just look for people who already play?

 

[Chimera]

Because, like Cigarettes, we need to replace those thousands of gamers lost every year to the following causes;

> LARP weapons accidents.
> Mountain Dew related heart attacks and strokes.
> Rules dispute related Murders.

and of course,

> Mysterious deaths blamed on the occult when some gamer is found dead on the floor of his room surrounded by odd drawings and Monster Manuals.

 

[MacMathan]

Teenagers have more disposable income than ever in this generation and the 18-24 demographic is very worthwhile targeting from a $ perspective. Ideally WotC can do both if they are careful and do not overexpand into low profit areas.

 

[micromaximum]

While it's true that middle aged people often have more disposable income than younger people, it's also true that they have a lot more options when it comes to spending that money. I think they're more likely to spend their money on high-cost luxury items instead of low-cost items. A middle-age person with a comfortable income can afford to buy novels, CDs and DVDs and restaurant meals at will but they only have so much available free time so there's a limit to their consumption rate. It doesn't matter if they can afford to buy a new book or DVD every day if they don't have the time to actually enjoy their purchase.

Teenagers and pre-teens have a lot more time on their hands and fewer options to choose from, especially before they start to spend money on transportation and socializing. So even though they might not have as much money, they tend to spend almost all of it on material entertainment. When I was growing up there was a stage of my life when almost all of my income was spent on comics, novels, RPGs and arcades. There really wasn't anything else for me to choose from until my later teenage years.

As other people have already mentioned, companies want to condition people to buy their products as early as possible. The amount of time I can spend enjoying RPGs has drastically declined as I've gotten older, but old habits die hard and now I purchase more RPG products than I could ever hope to use. Chances are that if I wasn't into RPGs at an early age I wouldn't even consider spending money on RPG material now.