The Buzz Over “How Teenagers Consume Media”

Matthew Robson is a very big deal.  The 15 y/o Greenwich resident has written a report entitled How Teenagers Consume Media.  Normally, such reports would not be the darling of news outlets and social media networks, except this one was published by Morgan Stanley Research Europe as part of the teenager’s work experience placement (internship).  In case you don’t feel like reading it yourself, Robson’s most salient points about teenagers are:

• They are on pre-paid rather than contractual cell phone plans
• They have mid-range rather than high-end cell phones
• They do not use the phone for voice calls (unless calling girls), but rather for texting and web surfing
• Because video game consoles include free voice chat capability, teenagers use that functionality rather than place phone calls
• They do not listen to the radio; rather, they stream audio content
• Due to the fact that they don’t really have any money, teenagers pirate audio and video media
• They do not read newspapers or use directories (phone books), but rather use Google to search for everything
• They do not use Twitter

What do I think of all this?  Aside from my inner social scientist not liking his sample size or selection methodology, I think he makes some good points.  Each successive generation is exposed to technology, particularly social technology, at a progressively younger age.  I wonder how applicable many of his observations are to American teenagers, they of the family mobile and unlimited messaging plans.  Does this portend the inevitable collapse of Twitter, or will that more likely result from Facebook’s decision to adopt Microsoft’s Persian strategy (subsume or outflank).

I can’t help but wonder if UK teenagers don’t use Twitter because, well, they’re teenagers.  Generally speaking, they’ve spent their entire lives in a narrow geographic area, as have most if not all of their friends.  They don’t use social networking to reach people in disparate geographic areas, or to spread the word because they have no word to spread.

Regardless of the implications on social media, this doesn’t portend well for traditional print journalism.  Of course, traditional newspapers have been about as successful as Twitter in monetizing their online presences, so the entire discussion could be moot given the economic downturn and the increasing scarcity of VC money (at least in Twitter’s case).