Why we care about "Target Audience" in specific things?

[rutger5000]

Live gets easier when you consider other people's ignorance and stupidity as hilarious (unless of course it's dangerous). People who judge other based on their hobbies are very immature, and you shouldn't be bothered by them. If you want you can laugh at them for laughing at you.

 

[SweetShark]

Live gets easier when you consider other people's ignorance and stupidity as hilarious (unless of course it's dangerous). People who judge other based on their hobbies are very immature, and you shouldn't be bothered by them. If you want you can laugh at them for laughing at you.

Sadly is easier said what you really like than done.........
Do you really have the heart to tell to others peoples you like "specific" things?
I speak on Internet more freely because I know there are people they share similar interest like me.
In real life.......really tough. Only specific people I really care about know about some interests that are "taboo" to others....

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Don't kid yourself about the effects of the target audience, the majority of CoD players are still late teens early 20's college kids, pokemon is still played by a lot of young children, and MLP is indeed popular with its 5-10 female market demographic. If any of those properties had failed to acquire popularity among their target audience they wouldn't exist as they are today, CoD can't support its massive popularity on children's sales, pokemon wouldn't be able to support itself on nostalgia alone, and if bronies were the supermajority of the people watching MLP the show would have never made it past the first season.

The bit about MLP is especially true given that the intent of that show, like many cartoons, is to hawk toys. While the young male audience that often declares their love for the show, I would think it rare that they invest heavily in the myriad toys associated with the show.

 

[EternallyBored]

Don't kid yourself about the effects of the target audience, the majority of CoD players are still late teens early 20's college kids, pokemon is still played by a lot of young children, and MLP is indeed popular with its 5-10 female market demographic. If any of those properties had failed to acquire popularity among their target audience they wouldn't exist as they are today, CoD can't support its massive popularity on children's sales, pokemon wouldn't be able to support itself on nostalgia alone, and if bronies were the supermajority of the people watching MLP the show would have never made it past the first season.

The bit about MLP is especially true given that the intent of that show, like many cartoons, is to hawk toys. While the young male audience that often declares their love for the show, I would think it rare that they invest heavily in the myriad toys associated with the show.

This is actually an interesting and somewhat unprecedented situation (in the West anyway, I've heard anime and Manga run into this phenomenon on occasion.) The older fan set for MLP is apparently collecting at least some of the toys, enough that Hasbro has seen fit to specifically retool some of its product lines to appeal to the older audience, it was actually kind of shocking to walk down the pink aisle at a Toys'R'Us to do some birthday shopping and noticing that in the sea of glaringly pink girls toys that Hasbro has seen fit to repackage a number of its pony toys in black and very dark purple of all things. It certainly stands out among all the pink and soft pastel colors you normally see in a girls toy section. They are also apparently making toys of the villains which is a first in MLP toy history and I can't think of any other girl targeted toy line that sells toys of the villains from their tie-in show. I'd actually be interested in finding out how popular those particular models are with the target audience, the idea that girls prefer playing house rather than having adventures with heroes and villains is a common stereotype in the toy industry, I kind of want to see it broken just for the sheer novelty of it.

Of course the target audience is likely still the major driving force behind the doll sales, at least the brushable ones that make up the core of the MLP brand for the last 30 years. So your point still stands, I doubt the toy sales from bronies alone would be enough to take the show itself as far as it has come.

 

[senordesol]

Social stigma & social prejudice has existed LONG before 'target audience' became a colloquial term. Men are supposed to like man things. Women are supposed to like women things. We humans do not usually deal with either vagueness or 'otherness' very well.

Take sports, for instance. I understand sports in terms of I can appreciate being outside, doing something physical and fun. I've got no issue with that. What I don't understand is sports 'fandom'; specifically people who get elated or upset about outcomes to games. In fact, just today a friend of mine was actually angry that Brian Wilson (SF Giants, Baseball) signed on to the LA Dodgers. I wanted to ask her how that could have possibly affected her in the slightest, but I knew better.

The point is, however, that her sort of reaction is considered normal whereas mine is considered odd. The reason I didn't interact with her on this, is because I knew nothing I might have to offer would alter her opinions of the events, nor would my opinion be particularly informed since I have a dim view of the proceedings anyway.

I suppose this is a roundabout way of saying that interfacing with a culture or media that's not *for* you is kind of looked down upon because it can dilute and eclipse the enjoyment of who the media is *for*.

 

[DragonStorm247]

The idea of a target audience is more of a business construct. See focus groups and the like. All it means is it was designed with that group of people in mind, and that group is primarily who they advertise to. By no means does that exclude members of other demographics from enjoying it.

 

[Dangit2019]

ITT: Further evidence of the brony infestation fanbase's tight grip on the Escapist's balls. But I can't say much about that, now, can I?

The target audience is just a concept used to insure money in some niche market, if it appeals to others, than the people pumping that shit out won't give a damn. That's for the Internet and ignorant people to ***** about.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Needless to say I don't really care whether something's aimed at my age group, and neither should anyone else. If you enjoy it and if it doesn't hurt anybody then like what you like. Life's too short to be worrying about 'liking the right thing'.

This to a T.
Luckily, I live in an area where people are very friendly.
"That's your thing? That's cool."
Or maybe that's just the company I keep.
At any rate, I have the luxury of not caring what other people think.

 

[IceForce]

Most of the stuff targeted toward my age group is crap.
If most people my age think this way (which this thread leads me to believe), maybe society has the whole concept of "target audience" completely wrong.

Anyway, here's a thread with people caring way too much about the target demographic of something:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.823686-US-Air-Force-Confirms-Existence-of-Brony-Squadron
.. the old "it's for little girls" argument again.

 

[AlexanderPeregrine]

I think most of the concerns of this thread can be answered by a C.S. Lewis quote from 1952:

"Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

 

[[REDACTED]]

Most of the stuff targeted toward my age group is crap.
If most people my age think this way (which this thread leads me to believe), maybe society has the whole concept of "target audience" completely wrong.

Anyway, here's a thread with people caring way too much about the target demographic of something:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.823686-US-Air-Force-Confirms-Existence-of-Brony-Squadron
.. the old "it's for little girls" argument again.

You have an Age of Mythology avatar. Can we be friends?

 

[Buffoon1980]

This sort of snobbery (don't mean to be insulting here, but that word is the best I could think of to describe it) is exactly the problem at hand. You say that there's nothing wrong with enjoying Pokemon for example, but follow it up by saying that you'd be worried about people who didn't enjoy natural history, philosophy or Shakespeare. You take it for granted that there is something inherently superior about those things that isn't present in (say) Pokemon or Call of Duty, but there simply isn't, it's all 100% subjective.

When Shakespeare was alive his "modern" plays were considered to be the lesser, more disreputable entertainment for the masses, unlike the more high-brow Latin or Greek plays. The fact is that people will always find reasons to look down on other people, and that's all it comes down to. An interest in philosophy is no different, no better, and no more useful than an interest in digital soldiers shooting each other for points. Nor does it have anything to do with a person's intelligence.

My opinion is that people should enjoy literally anything they want, so long as it harms nobody, and they shouldn't be judged for it. Sadly, many people find it difficult to accept interests they don't understand.

Hmm. Your point is well made, although I still disagree with some of it, and I'd like to clarify something as well.

The clarification:I would never judge anyone for not liking Shakespeare, I only like a small amount of his work myself. However, I was more expressing concern that some people will never be encouraged to form an opinion one way or the other, and may never acquire the ability to form an opinion. That, I think, would be a shame.

The thing I disagree with: I think an interest in philosophy *is* better than an interest in digital soldiers shooting each other for points, and I *do* think it has something to do with a person's intelligence. I'm not necessarily talking about needing to know the finer points of classical Western philosophy (for example), I'm talking about the ability and willingness to think deeply about the world around us and the people that inhabit it. That's not to say, of course, that it is impossible to have an interest in philosophy *and* in killing digital soldiers. But yes, I think the former is "better" than the latter.

And yes, this is a judgement call. I do judge people. I consider some people to be better than others. I don't think there's anything wrong with that; it's something we all do. Does that make me a snob? By some definitions, I guess it does. I'll wear that.

 

[Risingblade]

Target audience is one of those things that should be helpful but often gets misused. There's nothing wrong with liking something that's not aimed towards you but you have realize you're a minority for the sale of a product. Games, tv shows etc all of these are aimed at one specific group to make the company money. We all know this, this is why shows like MLP are labeled as girls cartoons. They are aimed at that group, it's something meant to entertain young girls. Anyways play/watch/buy whatever you like, it's your life and your money. People will judge over anything and everything even your closest friends will judge, just how we are as a species.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Keep in mind the concept of "target audience" is more of a business term then a social term. It will always be important to the business world since it's only logical to target your products towards the people who will actually buy them.

In a social context though, judging people just because they fall out of the target audience makes no real sense at all. The reasons why somebody likes something is more important then their age. Really it goes to show that people would be much happier if we all adopted the well proven social philosophy of "not giving a shit".

 

[rutger5000]

Live gets easier when you consider other people's ignorance and stupidity as hilarious (unless of course it's dangerous). People who judge other based on their hobbies are very immature, and you shouldn't be bothered by them. If you want you can laugh at them for laughing at you.

Sadly is easier said what you really like than done.........
Do you really have the heart to tell to others peoples you like "specific" things?
I speak on Internet more freely because I know there are people they share similar interest like me.
In real life.......really tough. Only specific people I really care about know about some interests that are "taboo" to others....

Well if it's regarding pornography I'd keep my mouth shut if I were you. That can freak people out, and rightfully so. (Not saying there's anything wrong with pornography as long as all involved parties are consentfull, but no one needs to know what floats your both). Otherwise I can see no reason to avoid your interest when your striking up a conversation with someone. If you like to dress up like a pretty little princess (really regardless of what gender you are), then I can see how that can be embarrassing to mention in a conversation. But that doesn't mean you ought to feel ashamed about it or something. And if people judge you for that, it only says something about them.
As for me I'm still very child-like. I like running, jumping, climbing trees etc etc. As a 22 year old that's considered to be embarrassing, but that doesn't stop me from doing it whenever I get the chance.

 

[rutger5000]

This sort of snobbery (don't mean to be insulting here, but that word is the best I could think of to describe it) is exactly the problem at hand. You say that there's nothing wrong with enjoying Pokemon for example, but follow it up by saying that you'd be worried about people who didn't enjoy natural history, philosophy or Shakespeare. You take it for granted that there is something inherently superior about those things that isn't present in (say) Pokemon or Call of Duty, but there simply isn't, it's all 100% subjective.

When Shakespeare was alive his "modern" plays were considered to be the lesser, more disreputable entertainment for the masses, unlike the more high-brow Latin or Greek plays. The fact is that people will always find reasons to look down on other people, and that's all it comes down to. An interest in philosophy is no different, no better, and no more useful than an interest in digital soldiers shooting each other for points. Nor does it have anything to do with a person's intelligence.

My opinion is that people should enjoy literally anything they want, so long as it harms nobody, and they shouldn't be judged for it. Sadly, many people find it difficult to accept interests they don't understand.

I disagree heavily with this. Natural history and philosophy are directly related to the world we live in, and therefore indirectly to the life you live. If you take no interest in these fields, then that says a lot about you. I'm not saying that everyone should know the works of important philosophers, or should take a philosophy course. But if you never philosophize, then that means you never wonder about live, society and the universe. That missing out on some very important aspects of personal growth, and it means you can't (almost by construct) be very intelligent. The same can be said in a lesser degree for Shakespear or whatever literature is prominent in your culture. An English person never reading Shakespear, is akin of an English person taken lesser interest in his/her own culture. While that is not as disastrous as not taking an interest in live and the universe, it's still pretty bad.
This was not the case when Shakespear had just written his work, as back then it had not yet become a part of the English culture. Latin/Greek plays on the other hand were.
Now I agree that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anybody (themselves included).
But I am convinced that there are many fields of interest that can be completely objectively said to be superior to others.
Science, History, Philosophy, Culture, Economics, Technology etc etc are all superior fields of interest then say Pokemon.

 

[ArithianFlame]

I love Looney Tunes. I'm not entirely sure (it was before my time), but I believe it's "Intended Audience" was for small children. Being 20, my enjoyment of the show has only increased as I have grown up. I am obviously a man-child and should feel bad.

I like MLP. For irrelevant reasons. I am obviously *insert here* and should feel bad.

I also really enjoy jazz, satire, debate and a great variety other things normally associated with a higher age group/and different demographics.

I do not agree that any particular interest is "superior". One can be more useful to the individual than another, but because enjoyment for something is subjective, you can't label anything as better. Sure, I would argue that a strong interest in philosophy would better serve an individual. I do do not agree a persons interest in cartoons is worse than than an interest in technology. It all comes down to the right choice being the one that makes him happiest. It's not like you get to live twice.

 

[IceForce]

]You have an Age of Mythology avatar. Can we be friends?

Heh, I'm surprised anyone recognized it.

Age of Mythology is one of my favorite RTSs.
I also like the "avatars" that represent the various gods in that game. I particularly liked the Egyptian god Nephthys, so I'm using it as a forum avatar.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't care too much for a thing's 'target audience' mainly because that kind of a standard is set by sub-human things that are only vaguely aware of what us humans like. The only time I really care about something's 'target audience' is when something absolutely horrible is made and marketed specifically for me (or rather; my demographic). This hasn't happened since Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2 (Star Wars: The FU). I remember being really pissed off with the film Grandma's Boy because it was also made for my demographic...

Like someone else said though: I love buying things that I'm "not supposed to" such as any given Nintendo game which I suppose are meant for children between the ages of 5 and 13 whereas I'm a 25 year old.