You may know you’re old when after a morning of mountain biking, meeting for lunch with your financial adviser and then watching the sun set over a lake with your significant other while sitting (for some weird reason) in separate old claw-foot bathtubs that you dragged out on the lawn — you just want to relax in front of some good old-fashioned TV. That is if you believe the latest TV viewer median age data gives you the complete picture.

Steve Sternberg, a media analyst, just released some new data showing that TV’s audience — which should be no surprise to anyone — is getting older. ABC’s median viewership is now 51, one year older than last season. CBS is now 55, also a year older. NBC is up two years, to 49. Fox is still at the kid’s table at 44. Ten years ago  ABC was 43, CBS was 52, NBC was 45 and Fox was just 35. That means the same viewers haven’t changed their habits. They’re just putting more candles on their birthday cakes.

It’s not quite fair to point fingers at broadcast either. Cable is in the same boat (or is that a clawfoot bathtub?). In fact, Fox News is the oldest channel of all time at 65 — surprisingly older than the Hallmark Channel, Military Channel and the Golf Channel. CNN is 63, MSNBC 59 and CNBC (oddly enough) 52. What’s the youngest fully distributed channel? Oxygen. Then Bravo, VH1 Classic, Travel and TLC. Their median age is about 42.

So what’s happening here? Why are younger people not watching TV anymore? Are they all on the Internet? Do you know many people who don’t have cable, satellite or fiber optic TV in their homes? Of course not. I think the problem lies within how younger people consume media and the way we currently collect data.

Learning how to be less loyal

Not that long ago broadcast television was king. There were three major channels. And then Fox. I remember when Fox took over WFLD in Chicago. My father dismissed the station out of hand — thinking it wouldn’t be around long. After all, how could it compete with three big juggernauts. As far as I was concerned it was great — why wouldn’t I want another programming option. Especially one with cutting edge shows like The Tracy Ulman Show (the birthplace of The Simpsons) and In Living Color.

The introduction of Fox wasn’t merely an extra channel. It was the beginning of new way to consume media. We were being taught that we didn’t need to be loyal. That’s confusing to networks; television programming is designed around loyalty, airing certian shows after other popular shows to gain viewership. Television was quickly turning into dim sum. Younger viewers now consume media in tasty little bites by surfing around, bouncing from channel to channel, show to show. Older viewers are more inclined to tune into a station and leave it there. Want physical and anecdotal proof? Two words: Fox News.

In other words younger viewers are more splintered. Not only do we have 50 channels to surf, we have social networking sites, YouTube, blogs and streaming television options like Hulu (which has a cluelessly designed, extremely limited and underutilized advertising model) and Netflix (with absolutely no advertising model). The current ratings model isn’t only skewing older, it’s skewing older and because of a relatively unsophisticated interpretation and collection of data, dangerously ignoring younger viewers. There needs to be even more sophisticated methods of measuring data across multiple television channels and alternative media at the same time — and a way to compile all that data into one massive profile analysis.

Pulling back and looking at a more complete picture is vitally important. For example: yes — older people may be signing up for social media sites like Facebook — but they’re not using those tools to their full advantage or frequently enough (learn more at our free webinar, Tuesday, August 17th at 12pm CST, titled Reaching Boomers Via Social Media). TV is still the best way to reach consumers over 45, but the larger picture is that they’re not alone. Make no mistake. Younger viewers are still watching TV. They’re just consuming it differently.

According to the July, 2010 issue of Scientific American, online ratings sites are not exactly fair, with the writer even declaring that their “judgments are inaccurate at best, fraudulent at worst.”  Whoa, that’s a pretty hard slap in the face.

What drives this opinion is some pretty good research combined with some good old common sense.

Eric K. Clemons, Professor of Operations and Systems Management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, says there are quite a few inherent biases in online ranking systems.  The first one is that people who rate a purchase already made the purchase so they already are slanted toward liking the product.  The best example of this is consumer reviews of books.  In general, people who buy a book when it’s first released already have some knowledge of the writer or subject.  They may even be a fan.  So the first consumer reviews to come out are normally positive.  These high ratings lead other people who may never have considered the book to give it a try.  If they end up hating the book, it may be because their expectations were too high.  But instead of leaving well enough alone, these dissatisfied readers might post a negative review just to balance out the positive ones.

Glenn Beck Book Review on Amazon -- Click to Enlarge

Then there’s the point that “people tend not to review things they find merely satisfactory.  They evangelize what they love and trash things they hate.”  That’s why most ratings are not in the middle, despite the fact that true opinions follow a bell curve, where “ratings cluster around three or four, with fewer scores of two and almost no ones and fives.”  So basically, those with the most emotional connectivity to a product tend to do the most reviewing.

But it gets worse.

In a 2009 study of more than 20,000 items on Amazon, researchers “found that a small percentage of users accounted for a huge majority of the reviews.”  They’re called “super reviewers” and they’re even given a “Top Reviewer” badge by Amazon and then pitted against one another to promote even more participation.  But who says this overly enthusiastic crowd is any good at what they are doing?  What credentials do they have, other than a lengthy list of products they reviewed?  And why do consumers see these reviewers’ badges and think they have some sound advice?  In general, 95% of Amazon reviewers have rated fewer than 8 products, yet consumers put less weight in what this majority says.

Fortunately, these “Top Reviewers” are not paid by the companies whose products they review — at least as far as any researchers can tell.  Plus, ratings sites in general use automated filters to search out and purge extremely positive or negative reviews, especially if the reviewer has little on his list of review.  So while the reviews shouldn’t be trusted, it’s not because anyone is tampering with the system.

But the story points out that there are fair review sites out there, it just depends on the products and the audience.  RateBeer.com has 3,000 members who have rated at least 100 beers each, with just about all beers being reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of times.  These reviewers are passionate about their beer, and so are the readers of the site.  In fact, the reviewers tend to post on all beers they try, rather than just those they love or hate.

So what’s a business to do about review sites?  Take them seriously, regardless of how inaccurate they are, and treat review sites as an opportunity to engage readers in your brand.  Because while the system may have flaws, most readers do not know it; thus, they read the reviews and believe what they read.

So treat review sites like a dinner party where the conversation turns negative about your company or product, and respond professionally.