True Earth Case Hbr Answers

True Earth 1. Wheeler’s primary choices were between targeting the general audience of all men and women over the age of 34, and specifically targeting the high value 18-34 year old women. The upside of taking a generalist approach is that it would be safe. There was already evidence that the 1.0 neilson rating was coming from an audience of women 34 and up. However, there are many downsides to this strategy. The primary downside is that men only made up 39% of the viewership, yet by targeting marketing at men equally with women, funds are being wasted. This assumption is based on the theory that the 39% male viewership would remain intact if marketing was shifted distinctively away from them.
The other strategy is to shift the channel’s focus onto women in the 18-34 demographic at the risk of sacrificing the current audience. This would be beneficial, because the value of advertising time on the Fashion channel would increase as the audience would become a more valuable consumer demographic. This positive outlook must be tempered with the consideration that it is a risk, and there is no guarantee that the risk of losing the current audience will be offset by the increase in revenues generated through a higher per capita audience value.
My opinion is that it is worth the risk of advertising to the premium demographic, because the channel is a niche product, and the premium demographic of 18-34 women is already interested in the subject matter the Fashion Channel is presenting. The channel already has more of this demographic than CNN, and if targeted, the channel could likely poach some of the viewers from lifetime, as the fashion channel is a niche venue for the subject matter, and lifetime is a general channel that just happens to have a niche fashion show. The benefit of stability posed by a generalist approach is offset by the decreasing advertising revenue under the current model. 2. I would recommend that Wheeler not only target women