Those in the Mass Affluent category are apprently deemed to have disposable income after ‘needs’ are met, AND are LBYM.
The family income FLOOR is 75k. This author apparently uses the income floor definition, while other analysts focus on families that have liquid assets.
Homes and such are deemed too illiquid for use in defining a Mass Affluent family.
{ Some analysts define mass affluent individuals as those with liquid assets between $100,000 and $1 million, explicitly focusing on money that is investable rather than tied up in illiquid holdings. That framing puts the spotlight on brokerage accounts, 401(k) balances, IRAs and sizable cash reserves, rather than just home equity.
…snip A household that earns a solid salary but spends nearly all of it on housing, childcare and debt service will struggle to accumulate the six figure savings that define this tier. The mass affluent profile usually combines a stable career path, disciplined saving and a lifestyle that does not fully expand to match each raise. }
Contrast this article concept that a family can be in the Mass Affluent category with 75k/year income, with the ‘Poverty is less than 140k income’ article from a month ago.
We had a conversation with our oldest granddaughter just the other day. She was asking how much she needed to earn to be rich. I told her it wasn’t how much you earned but how much you spend that determines your wealth. I know people that earn six figures but are still broke all of the time. I also know people that earn a modest five figure income and have accumulated a good deal of wealth.
Not really germane to this thread, but I don’t think it deserves its own.
I spend a lot of money on Amazon. I order from Home Depot. I have a Kroger card. I buy at WalMart, and have a Costco credit card. BJ’s can track my purchases because I have a membership there, too. My car is linked to an account, and I have subscriptions to Comcast and other providers who can report on my proclivities.
I look at Facebook almost daily, and cruise other websites at random almost all of which ask (in one form or another) “Accept all cookies?” And I usually say “OK” because I mostly don’t care.
I would be one of those “Mass Affluents” and I’m sure there are several other boxes that marketers put me in.
So why, I have to ask, when I am being served “targeted ads”, presumably to make the advertisers’ dollars more efficient, am I given ads for women’s Depends? Off Road cars? Froot Loops for Kids? Homes for rent in Illinois? Survival food? Kitchen ware for serious cooks? Pharmaceutical products for a disease I do not and never have had?
Somebody is getting hosed here, and it’s not me. I don’t care, it’s exceptionally rare that an ad makes me do something I wasn’t already going to do anyway.
Marketers? I think they come up with a lot of blither blather to make ad spenders think they know what they’re doing. I’m pretty sure they don’t.
I take the opposite approach, I deny all cookies except those that are necessary. Have no way to verify or know what is necessary. I’d say about 80% of my ads are on target. I get plenty of fitness equipment, athletic wear, fitness event ads, investment ads, vacation property, etc. but also get things that are more for young women. Maybe my profile fits what a “sugar daddy” would be.
That’s an interesting question. One possibility is that the advertisers are being bilked by whoever’s serving them up. You allude to that one. A second one is that your spending habits and patterns are so unusual that you’ve bonked up the algorithm. It doesn’t know what to serve up to you, so you get random carp.
A third possibility, though, is that they actually do have you pretty well pegged. You’re a retired senior with a lot of disposable wealth, who engages in varied pursuits, might be amenable to traveling (but perhaps not overseas), and is intellectually curious.
So all of your recommendations make sense. Old people like you (and me, I might add) are unlikely to switch brands for products they currently use. Decades of consumption habits are hard to break. So the algorithm is going to be pitching you stuff you’re not currently using. They’re trying to find the stuff you might one day need.
So, let’s look at your list. Women’s Depends makes a ton of sense, and is a product I would have chosen to include for you myself. You’re an older person and you’re married, so odds are your spouse is older too. You don’t currently buy adult diapers, but there’s a good chance someone in your house might need them in the near future. Because of their biology, women face incontinence problems earlier (and more frequently) than men. So you’re a perfect candidate to start building brand awareness for a woman’s incontinence products. Same thing with pharmaceutical products for a disease you don’t have - old people consume a lot of medical services, and they want to start advertising for you and your elderly wife.
From Loops for Kids? Old folks have grandkids who don’t get to make their own purchasing decisions, and the way to get them sugary foods is perhaps less likely through the parents than the doting grandparents. Survival food and Off Road vehicles? Old folks are more conservative (in general) and perhaps prone to conspiratorial planning for TEOTWAWKI - plus, they certainly know that you owned an RV and used it actively, and might still be in the market for outdoorsy things. Kitchen ware for serious cooks? Retirees are prone to taking up new hobbies, and perhaps you’ll land on cooking. Etc.
I don’t know. If it is exceptionally rare that an ad makes you do something you weren’t already going to do anyway, then it makes sense that the algorithm would start serving you more random, anticipatory carp than stuff you’re currently buying. Because maybe that’s the best value-add for someone like you?
The OP article mentions High Net Worth Individuals:
{ Analysts who map out the wealth spectrum note that [HNWIs] have more assets than those who are mass affluent but make up a narrower segment overall. Another breakdown describes the [Mass Affluent]as typically possessing between $100,000 and $1 million in investable assets, while those in the High Net Worth tier sit above that range. }
It further says HNWIs are offered more sophisticated financial choices.
Perhaps the Mass Affluent are just learning, and predators are hoping to help them learn?
As for ads… I am amused that I BUY a product, then get flooded with ads for that product. I feel targeted, but also that I’m ahead of the curve.
Oh they’re almost definitely being bilked. For example, in my car, I listen mostly to LiveOne (the comedy channels) or TuneIn (90% CNBC) channels with commercials. And every single day I hear a few commercials that are not regionally relevant at all. I am in south Florida on the east coast (like you are), and I hear ads for Finley Mazda in Henderson Nevada, and I hear ads for places on the west coast of Florida, and various other places (Atlanta, etc). I will never, and can’t, shop at any of those places, because I am not anywhere near those places. But you can be sure that every time they play those ads to me, that play counts as an “insertion” or whatever they call an individual ad that is inserted into the content I listen to via streaming into my car.
I clean my computer of cookies every night using Superantispyware (free). The first time I did it there were over 1,000 cookies. Last night there were zero. Typically less than 10 now.
Wendy
