I was on a panel yesterday at Osbourne & Clarke's annual Interactive Entertainment event, a very cosy thing stuffed with CEO types, so lots of strategic talk. Chatham House rules too, so lots of honesty, which made it superb.
At one point in the discussion I threw up the stat that TV is ageing - average age 57 or so - and that this is a bad thing for TV. Nicholas Lovell shot back that the average age of a gamer is - something like? - 43, and on we went. I didn't have the speedy-brain moment to dig into why this is important, however: while the average age of a tv-watcher is 57, the mode is probably only about 55. Most telly is watched by over-55s, and by an extraordinary amount: 35+h plus a week, compared to sub-15 for under 16s. Plus the 55+ group is numerous, and the under-16s less so. Skew.
For games, the opposite in consumption pattern is probably true. I say probably, because I'd love to see data here, but we do know that committed gaming tends to be done by the young, and/or by folks at lunchtime/ weekends, and the retired. Employed people and parents have less time to play, and their profile is thusly a bit different. At a guess, I would say while the average age of a gamer is 43, the time-spent will be the flip of TV: most gameplay by hours per week is done by younger audiences.
It's for this reason that broadcasters should always be interested in games: if they lose out reaching their younger audiences, will those people care about them as they get older? If they have a public service remit to reach target audiences with relevant material, in younger folks games are as relevant - if not often more so - than TV.
Recent Comments