91热爆

Interested particularly on your comment that this seemed an affluent group, based on the phones and the contracts.

You are probably right as I suspect that a group of bankers were keen at finding information not from just teenagers generally, but from a targeted segment of teenage society that they feel are going to be interested in their product.

However, when I see my kids friends - even those from far less affluent backgrounds - I am amazed at how much their parents spend on their children's phones!

But this also brings up another point - maybe a serious point of concern.

Is the internet generation becoming so middle class (or is already) that we are in risk of ignoring other important groups who either have no internet access (for money reasons), have no interest or much less interest, or who have other barriers between them and new media?

I think there are two things we get wrong:

1. Internet access is NOT a right
2. Internet access should NOT be the core of society

At the moment we are being carried away on a wave of new media possibilities - but I think we are leaving a lot of people behind in the process, and blaming them for not keeping up.

That is fundamentally wrong.

@gurubear

I'm not sure I agree with you that internet access is not a right. While we don't necessarily have a right to a high speed internet connection in our own homes, I do think everyone (who wants it) has the right to internet access of some kind.

It is just too useful a tool in this day and age for communication, research and as a general social network for people to be excluded from it due to social or economic factors.

We shouldn't ignore the groups who don't have or use the internet, but neither should we downplay it's importance, the changes it has effected in the global community in the last 10/20 years are huge.

They did see the possibility of moving on to other networks. "Nobody over 25 should be allowed on Facebook," one girl put it. Her demographic analysis went like this - "Bebo 11-14, Facebook 15-25, Twitter 18 and over."

What a little snob. I'm over 25, and the vast majority of my "Facebook friends" are over 25 as well. If she thinks people suddenly stop wanting to share photos etc when they reach 26, she's sorely mistaken, and Twitter just doesn't cut it when it comes to this (especially as it's still yet to properly cross into the mainstream - only about 6 people that I know in real-life have Twitter accounts, and only 2 of those use it regularly, both of which are among my more net-savvy friends). The only people I know who don't have Facebook accounts are those who avoid social networks altogether, regardless of their age.

If Facebook were to employ some sort of age restriction policy, it would surely be 18+, as the vast majority of users are people wasting time at their work computers or university students skiving lectures, as opposed to those still in school. I would suggest Facebook is the closest there is to an all-encompassing social network site, with Myspace perhaps being more suited to the "young adult" demographic this girl alludes to (although not reaching anywhere near 25 in it's age-range).

1. At 10:47am on 02 Sep 2009, Gurubear wrote:

Interested particularly on your comment that this seemed an affluent group, based on the phones and the contracts.

You are probably right as I suspect that a group of bankers were keen at finding information not from just teenagers generally, but from a targeted segment of teenage society that they feel are going to be interested in their product.

However, when I see my kids friends - even those from far less affluent backgrounds - I am amazed at how much their parents spend on their children's phones!

But this also brings up another point - maybe a serious point of concern.

Is the internet generation becoming so middle class (or is already) that we are in risk of ignoring other important groups who either have no internet access (for money reasons), have no interest or much less interest, or who have other barriers between them and new media?

I think there are two things we get wrong:

1. Internet access is NOT a right
2. Internet access should NOT be the core of society

At the moment we are being carried away on a wave of new media possibilities - but I think we are leaving a lot of people behind in the process, and blaming them for not keeping up.

That is fundamentally wrong.




-----

It is funny how these studies always show the demographic as being the middle class "well offs" who can afford everything. Personally I'm sick of it being that way.

I don't agree with your point about internet access not being a right, when more and more services are moving online and people are expected to use them internet access should be treated as a right and those who cannot afford it are being left behind because those who can afford it don't seem to care because it doesn't affect them. But we see that in almost everything in the UK, those who cannot afford something fall by the wayside and those that can afford them criticise the "have nots" for not "keeping up".




"I'm always online when I'm doing my homework," said one girl, to a gasp from the adult audience. "I've several tabs open (in a browser), and I'm listening to my iPod at the same time. "

-----

Big deal, they aren't the only ones. I'm 32 and I've been doing that for as long as the technology has allowed me to.

I really see nothing that could be considered as an earth shattering revelation in the "study" by Morgan Stanley.

While internet access is not a right, it's a pretty obvious continuation of the social networks we already have. It started orally, went on to post, and radio and television. All increasing the speed and quantity (not necessarily quality, but that's another discussion) of communication. The stage of instantaneous communication with everybody would seem to be a natural conclusion of that. While off in the realms of science fiction, the idea of a 'headnet' is probably next. So you can argue that while the internet itself isn't the core of our society, communication is, as society can't exist without it. To refuse the newest form of communication is a little short-sighted.

As a teenager myself I agree almost entirely with the findings of this think tank. I'm always online when I'm doing my homework as well (but since it's uni work most of it is either submitted or completed fully online). I am amazed that the older generations were surprised that we watch TV. Yes we watch different programmes to other groups (as you would expect) but all of my friends watch Heroes, Familly Guy, Scrubs etc. The iPlayer makes watching TV easier to fit around other commitments but Youtube is no real substitute: lower quality, limit to lenght of film etc. All in all, reasonable findings but perhaps not controversial enough!!!

I agree that TV is still a great draw. There is something about catching the programme and the anticipation caused by waiting for the next in the series that keeps it going. Also online TV quality isn't as good (we need faster broadband and at the very least higher caps for that).

I disagree with Twitter though. Most of the people I know (I am a teenager if you have guessed) have heard of Twitter, but refer to it as "It's just that thing. It's rubbish". This is in part because many people my age don't know that much about Twitter, but also because we don't generally see the point of it (a generalisation, I know).

Personally I have tried Twitter and don't see much use for it. Facebook is better for updates (you can had more meaning, rather than "I'm on the toilet"), Windows Live Messenger is better for online conversationsn and texting is better when out. I do use it sometimes like an RSS feed and did use it for Channel 4's Surgery Live.

Torrents are quite populur as far as I can tell, but a lot of music and videos are shared on USB drives, Cds etc. Spotify is certainly becoming kmore well known and services like Grooveshark seem to be used quite a lot.

Quite a pointless study by looks of it. Kids do slightly different to what a previous study showed and think differently to how some bankers expected! Dear god what will happen next?

Net access is not a right.

This is a matter of fact, not opinion.

To be a right, it has to be enshrined in law that people are entitled to this and... it isn't.

There is no law that says "all citizens have the right to bear browsers". Nor anything even close.

"Bebo 11-14, Facebook 15-25, Twitter 18 and over."

I notice there's no suggestion for where over 25s migrate to?

I'm in my 50s and on FB, all on my Friends list there are also well over 25, we only keep in touch with people that we know from 鈥榬eal life', so we're invisible to her, as she is to us. I wonder which site she'll be using when she's 26?

Gurubear (comment 1) has hit upon a major point. Many are excluded from the Web by a number of factors; social exclusion and web exclusion go hand in hand. I think IQ possibly also plays a part. As with everything the better educated and more affluent groups in society are more able to lever services and opportunities to their advantage.

That "The focus of the think tank session was on how banks and other financial services companies might build relationships with young people, given their new media habits" suggests that this is another example of that happening.

The banks want to gain the business of those youngsters that will go on to become university students and young professionals. Not of those that leave school with few qualifications and swell the ranks of the unemployed (and given the lack of unskilled jobs become virtually unemployable).

Moving govt services (whilst closing Post Offices etc) and job applications online is only widening the gap (and social disadvantage).
No, it's not fair to blame those that are digitally excluded for not keeping up anymore than it is fair to blame all the ex miners for not suddenly transforming into office managers and bankers following the pit closures.

Research shows that those that take the greatest advantage of the Web and online services are those that are best educated and in 鈥榩rofessional' jobs.

The Web is dominated by, and shaped by a small (10%) elite.

Let me just clarify about the internet not being a right.

I think we have to be very careful at allowing the idea of fundamental rights encompass too broad a range of ideas, or else we end up splitting society into packets artificially. (Which seems to be something we love doing)

I think citizens of a country ought to have the right to be housed (not own a home, but have a roof), to have access to clean water, access to food to ensure a balanced diet, access to basic education, right of worship, right to speak their mind and the right to live in peace - that sort of thing.

But I think the idea that everyone has an automatic right to broadband, or even a telephone is political nonsense.

One child, in my knowledge, who was "grounded" from the internet for a few days, told their parent that it was against their human rights.

Now, obviously it isn't, but that idea is gaining credibility, especially amongst the young. If they cannot talk to their friends on Facebook, then they feel alienated and isolated - talking face to face is seen as second best, strangely.

If high speed internet access (which also means owning a half decent computer) is out of the pocket of many people, or out of their technological ability, then society should not simply cut them off from things by making them only available on the internet - that would be against their fundamental rights.

If you make having internet access some sort of right (rather than just useful), then government will end up serving part of the population less than the rest purely because providing service online is cheaper.

If your rights are to have your government serve you, whatever your set up, then that becomes paramount rather than revolving round some sort of communications system.

As an aside, I think there is an "all you eggs in one basket" issue here too. The person (teenager or otherwise) who has a rich mix or internet society, street corner/pub society, meeting at clubs, organisations, schools, work and so on, will rarely feel lost or isolated, even if one of those falls over.

My concern is that we are building the importance (rather than the usefulness) of the internet up to such a high level, that many people feel they have no replacement for it should it fail them.

I see it in my own home. If the broadband connection fails, the whole family is chasing me to fix it as a matter of urgency (I haven't been able to collect my emails for a whole hour now!!!!!)

Should we really be relying on one social idea that much?

We will if we think it is a right.

@Gurubear - I hope you don't make your family sufffer when the broadband conection goes down (or are you sneakily pulling the plug to proove a point?) - life without broadband and the wonderful world wide web would be an empty hollow experience. Have you tried using www.google.co.uk ? - its amazing what you can find.

Just noticed this interesting and rather well timed article on the tehnology front page:

It talks about the fact that in spite of hopes that the internet would broaden the reach of political involvement, it has only served to possibly increase interest in the higher earning bracket (who were probably interested anyway, but have just moved their information source)

I think it is a mistake to assume that the internet will change demographics - it will simply emphasise them, and may increase division.

intellectualbookworm wrote:

@Gurubear - I hope you don't make your family sufffer when the broadband conection goes down (or are you sneakily pulling the plug to proove a point?) - life without broadband and the wonderful world wide web would be an empty hollow experience. Have you tried using www.google.co.uk ? - its amazing what you can find.

###

My only concern when the connection goes down is my business - but I don't lose sleep if it goes down at night.

Strangely, bearing in mind I run a lot of websites, including being heavily involved with the running of an MMO, I have little problem with leaving the 91热爆 news site, Google and the rest to their own small world, and stepping outside and taking a great big lungful of the much bigger and better real world!

I think the girl who suggests that no-one over 25 should be on Facebook is missing the point. The whole point about Facebook is you can restrict who has access to you so it's only a circle of friends and acquaintances who can view your stuff.

I have no interests in the random musings of prepubescents and teenagers and I'm sure they would have no interest in me and my mates going on holiday or arranging a booze up. It's horses for courses.

However, it's interesting that they agree Twitter is a complete waste of time. It might be useful for infomercials and some specialised professions - like journalism - but otherwise it's pointless and the bubble is going to burst on it pretty quickly.

Finally, I appreciate these are nice middle-class kids and fundamentally that's what the bankers will be interested in. Trouble is, nice middle class kids don't always dictate where society goes.

@4: ravenmorpheus. Yes, it seems it's yet another 'No s-t Sherlock' moment. I find myself exactly the same, using multiple media at once. Oddly, I've been doing this since childhood, reading multiple booska t once and writing, watching and listening at the same time. This is not an age issue, but one of transliteracy. and transliterates vary in age, as myself and ravenmorpheus demonstrate

Another thing that struck me was the following:

"A panel of teenagers was assembled and interrogated in an attempt to find out what the media habits of Generation Y (or "Generation Whatever" as one cynical father at the session had it) meant for the spending patterns of new customers for financial services."

Now, we're not told how this panel was assembled. There's no guarantee that it is in any way representative of this demographic at all. It just seems fundamentally clueless at pretty much every single level.

It never ceases to amaze me how focus (sic) groups conduct there research as if they already know the answer when they haven't even framed the question.

In this case the "focus" has been on how web 2.0 can be used to entice the yoof into banking via sites like Facebook and offers of free downloads.

Yet contained within their research is a nugget of information so blindingly obvious that you could only fail to see it if you have the mote of social networking on the web in your eye.

These people trust their mobile phones and only use Facebook because its free. Yet do any of the backs have an "app" that allows you to access your bank account via your mobile phone? One that allows you to pay fro goods and services via the same medium? No, because they are applying old-fashioned marketing thinking to the problem and making the same mistakes marketeers always make, "focusing" on the marketing instead of the product.

To be fair, if teenagers behaved in a way that banks expect, the wisest thing to do would would be to cull that entire generation.

Interesting study, but I cant see much that isn't true of older users who are used to the net.

One thing about banks:

It used to be true that there was no such thing as a new customer - by that banks meant that once someone joined a particular bank, they tended to stay with them for life.

The one variation with that rule in more recent times is that a person may move if another bank offers a better mortgage. However, people still often stay with the bank, even if they complain about it!

Consequently, the only truly NEW customers are people who dont have bank accounts at all, and that tends to be young people. You will notice that over the last 20 years, much of banks advertising spend has been in that market.

So, this is a crucial area for banks, and although some of the questions and answers seem obvious, what they are not publishing is the fine analysis from the question answer sessions, and the related research that shows how to change that info into cash! hehe

First question - how many of them were telling the truth anyway ? Most kids like to 'big' things up given half a chance with an adult audience they think are listening.

Maybe the 'yoof' of today ought to take their heads out of FB (personally I hate seeing all their latest woes and emotional bleeding hearts wafted under my face. When will they learn that 'personal' means 'keep it to yourself' ?) sit up, read the news, understand something of life and realise that the banks all suck anyway. I wouldn't trust that lot to run a pitch on a car boot sale, let alone anything else.

Of course the banks want them young - as discussed above, the majority of people can't face the hassle of changing once they have started. A customer for life. Or Until they throw themselves out of an upper storey window when the bank forecloses to pay off it's huge debts :-)

Me ? I don't think I'll ever be a Twit ;-)

Bebo, MySpace et al for the under 20-25s or so who want to tell the world about their relationships, or lack of them

FB for anyone with something sensible to say - maybe we could have a system to vote off the schmucks ?

@reetspetit

Your views are clearly outdated and missguided.

Clearly you have problems with other groups in society if you believe that the 'yoof' should take their heads out of Facebook. it is a social networking site for people to communicate with each other. So status updates are exactly what it was intended for.

Secondly, on young people bigging things up, where is there an opportunity for those participating to big things up? Spending 拢45 a month on phone bills. We have already been told that some had iPhones, which can cost (drumroll) 拢45!

The results of this panel may surprise other groups but as a teenager this is EXACTLY how this group (age, wealth etc.) uses various media channels.

Perhaps people like reetspetit should accept that not everyone is exactly the same as them.

Working on an online game (you know, one of those zitty MMOs) we have fun trying to guess the ages of some of the more stupid players - the ones that like to spam the chat, swear, use capital, smash up other peoples villages, make life a misery for the moderators and other players and so on.

We get the age wrong so often it is unbelievable. I found myself the other day congratulating someone who was acting the previous week like a 5 year old on the birth of their grandchild.

The lesson here is that the world is full of painful examples of the human race, and age is not a barrier - not one bit of it!

Might a teenager who is the only person who can comment here and not be seen like some sort of arrogant "lame" ...wait, whats the most recent word that my generation seems to use? oh i can't be bothered...

I am actually somewhat offended by this "study" not to mention sections of this article and defintely a couple of commenters. I'm only going to quote maybe once or twice as I hate proof reading and there are no doubt too many points I could really let go at.

"And where exactly are they going online? Facebook of course ...all seemed to use it to socialise"
This is the first one at least which i wish to completely disprove this. Firstly, for one I have never had an account, no wait, I tell a lie, I did sign up once purely to stop the stupid invites I kept getting from other luddites trying to get me to join, and subsequently delete said account, oh, and all under a false name by the way, oo, such deception and fraud, "gasp from the adult audience"

I actually know more people of my own age (18 by the way) that tried facebook and said something rather rude about it, than I do ADULTS!!! (i'm talk > 25 here) who use it continuously. Everytime I walk in and find my mother on it i poison my network's DNS until she eventually gives up from the large amounts of time it takes her to play her silly little games.

I suppose I should probably clarify a few things, no I'm not a little "script kiddie" which I swear I have heard in this supposed "tech" blog, HA! go read theregister people, you'll suddenly understand what real technology journalism is... oh, and in response to one commenter, no I'm not middle class... I might have a 300 pound phone but thats because i saved up and bought the bloody thing. I pay a 19 pound a month contract, which suits me fine, I use MSN for my "socialising" unless I, oh, I don't know, text or RING my friends, and suddenly arrange to do something that way... WHY must an online company(facebook) have to know where to find me and my friends and every "event" I decide to go to.

Oh, and if i want to poke my friends, I do it the good old-fashioned way, with the finger! not a knife as the daily mail would have you believe...

At times I like to think my friends and I might just be some of the last hopes for our generation, I am not trying to be prococious or think I am "above the rest", but unlike the rest I don't walk around like i have rikkets or with some stupid accent, and I attempt not to follow the stereotypes of chav,goth,emo, etc etc etc. no, i'm not rebelling, I just think they are stupid... as do my friends. Until of course I realised I'm probably worse than the rest of my generation as it seems the rest are all to preoccupied with "playing" with a silly little online game called "how many friends can I get", not to mention all the girls suddenly meeting up with strange men they've met off the internet ...wait, I thought that used to be a bad thing?

I on the other hand spend my time ACTUALLY sociallising, have got into a university where I start soon. So, I guess i'm one of those outdoor teenagers, who... stabs people? rapes? wait let me check the daily mail as to what else i'm supposed to do, oh yes, kills, steals, is infact a princess diana suspect? and an immigrant (i'm not/don't-do any of these by the way).

I'm fed up with how the youth is always classed as one complete unit of failure and disappointment, please, don't include me in it... I beg of you, actually say "nearly all" and I'd be happy... I do agree with you the rest are a lost cause and deserve to be left to their own devices that they claim to have, ie guns and knives and just let them battle it out until all that is left are the ones who have better things to do...

Thank you for letting me rant, its finally just got to the stage that I can't standby at see 1. people slagging off every teenager, I know for a fact there are a number of good ones out there, and 2. I can't stand this blog that claims to be a technology one where it is infact a just a prat with a tie... i swear i saw an iplayer clip with someone saying "Mac OS X" with the "OS" quite phonetically, it couldn't be any easier to say unless they put a hyphen in to make you seperate the letters you twit!

Anyway, thats all from me ...remind me not to come here again.

glasseyes42 wrote:

Anyway, thats all from me ...remind me not to come here again.


###

You are dutifully reminded.