Simple as ABC…
Isn’t it strange how we seem to spend most of our lives attempting to classify the various things, people, places around us. Its almost as if we require this process in order to fully understand, to put things into perspective as it were. Racket sports as opposed to motor sports, dairy products, horror movies…
However as media planners and buyers will agree, there are certain classifications that are imperative to our work. Geographic segments, income brackets and of course demographics generally. And its the latter of these three that I think deserves some inspection.
According to NRS the Social Grading classifications were born from a survey dating back over 50 years. They also claim “it remains a highly effective way of classifying readers of different publications”. Certainly the natural hierarchy of Doctors and Lawyers still holds true, but surely there must be instances of social migration; leading to a shift in the traditional running order? For example, teachers (according to NRS) are classified as B, whilst Junior Managers come in at C1. Subtleties aside I think it’s fair to assume that teachers are generally considered underpaid for their efforts and that it’s certainly not the desirable austere profession it was some 50 years ago.
More obvious discrepancies include skilled tradesmen (sparkies, plumbers etc) that can demand a very high premium for their services now that they’re seemingly in short supply. Then there’s musicians, celebrities, and sports personalities… where do they fit into this antiquated rank?
In my opinion it no longer ‘remains a highly effective way of classifying readers of different publications’ but rather an old fashioned way of doing business that’s no longer relevant to today’s consumer.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I agree the system is antiquated and hard to work with in the modern world, but what are the alternatives and who could undertake such a huge task as reclassifying the whole population?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Aren’t teachers and junior managers the same thing?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Demographics are subdividing and fragmenting all the time – its becoming increasingly harder to group consumers and accurately say “this group have these characteristics and therefore read this”.
Models change however slowly so there is light at the end of the tunnel but accurately measuring changing trends is something I feel never will be achieved. Its how close we can get to the facts and keep up with them that interests me. NRS, ABC etc etc will change, its how much better that concerns us in media.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I agree… Society constantly redefines itself, one can not assume that any system/grouping will ever be accurate. However having a system that groups individuals is vital for all of us working within markets so we need them if not accurate at least as close to accurate as possible. A new model needs to be created, I would argue that it could be a new way of defining segments as we now have overlapping between segments in society. A 1950’s model is completely irrelevant – also in response to Emily, there is no comparison on the amount of money that the industry wastes everyday using this system and what it would cost to create a new one.
PS. this site should really change its colours! White on black background!! not good!
June 26th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
A bit of good old fashioned common sense should see you right and repeating over and over “TGI is not God”
June 27th, 2008 at 10:34 am
In 2008 the expression ‘ABC1′ is so divorced from its actual statistical reality that it has basically become shorthand for ‘people who own an ipod and who dont shop at Iceland’. You are right, the actual classifications are barely relevant in 2008 and something must be done to update this antiquated classification system if we are to put any faith in demographical research at all. However, in the mean time, you would hope that a little common sense and a basic knowledge of your product and your audience will compensate for the dirth of reliable statistics in TGI.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Hmmmm, I’ve been wondering what social classification I’d be if we got rid of the old social grade classification.
Think I’d be classed as ‘Too old for Hollyoaks’
July 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Yes, the old socio-economin grading system is antiquated and contains various anomalies. I was once told by a MORI man who doorstepped me one fine day that Uni lecturers were classified as C1’s, but as a senior lecturer I rejoiced in being elevated to a B.
I was so overwhelmed by this that I mmediately informed the dog. On my next, infrequent visit to the Uni I demanded a corner office.
I think the point is that, outdated or not, the system at least provides a workableframework within which to operate and finesse with other details and insights. Thus when the Tories spoke of targeting ‘C2 Essex man’ and ‘C1 Cheltenham lady’ in various election campaigns we all had a pretty good idea of the target, thought the final profile was maasively more detailed and psychograhpically inclined than that.
Take the framework for what it is: a useful shorthand.
As ever, the devil – and possibly the fun – is in the detail.