How to Get the 18-34 y.o. Set to Read

Anonymous Patron shares “This goofy, but astute piece from the Dallas Observer about how to target-market print materials to young adults. (Not like teens, but real adults who are young. Is that group still called Gen X, or are they post-Gen X?)”

November 26, 2003 by rochelle Uncategorized 8

Bibliofuture says:

November 27, 2003 at 12:11 am

Reading
If we take someone that does not read and we get them into a reading habit how important is what they read?

If the person used to watch a lot of tv and now reads lots of Stephen King books and Tom Clancy books is this really an important improvement? I don’t make this comment to demean Clancy or King but to have people question whether reading fiction is really any different from watching tv or movies?

I make these points after quite a bit of thought because I have a sister in law that is very educated that just does not read. If she takes a class she will read for the class but other than that she just does not read. At first this really took me aback, but as I thought about it I wondered how much it really matters. If she did read would she be reading things that had any more impact than a movie or a tv show.

I am curious to hear people’s comments. I put forth the above comments to induce thought not to denigrate reading. Please take my comments as such.

Reply
Anonymous says:

November 27, 2003 at 12:22 am

Interesting Read
Good read, there’s some good points in there, I liked this one the best:
“…they’re not aimed at young people so much as they are at young ad buyers who place ads aimed at young people, but that’s a column I’m writing for Ad Age.“
Good reminder of just why they exsist, they are in the advertising business.

Also, on why “youngins” read more books:
“That’s because books often have at least one of three qualities that young people demand, things few dailies have: 1) They’re smartly written, because kids are smarter than you think; 2) they’re useful, while much of what is in newspapers can be found easily and quickly online; and 3) they reflect the world young people live in.“

I’m no youngin’ but I very rarely read a print paper, sitting in front of a computer all day lets me read more news than I’d see in a month in any newspaper (printed).
I’d need to see something with original, interesting, informative, useful, or funny stuff in it, and I don’t care if it’s “edgy” or has “attitude.”

Of course this means I can’t find anything I read again, somewhere today I read one about a guy who is on a mission to read every page of the NYTimes and is running a few years behind, but it’s somewhere on the web, never to be seen again.

Reply
Anonymous Patron says:

November 27, 2003 at 1:18 am

Re:Reading
reading is much more active than watching TV people read to learn or escape but they watch tv to veg out and relax.
can’t put my finger on it, but reading anything is better than most tv. Something about medium/message, perhaps someone can pull a good quote from Neil Postman?

Reply
rochelle says:

November 27, 2003 at 1:35 am

Re:Reading
Hmm…what’s the difference between escape and vegging out? Last night I first watched the final episode of MTV’s “The Real World.” Pure, selfish pleasure shite. Before bed, I started reading a book by Candace Bushnell (of Sex in the City fame). It’s pure shite fiction about high-heeled city women ho’in around. I’m not sure I could say that one was more edifying than the other.

I’ve been grappling with this the past year because I have a 12 year old who used to read constantly. While she still reads, more and more I find her in front of the computer monitor. Something in my old school self bristles at this, but the other part realizes that were she reading, she would be reading mostly crap. Online, she’s still reading, AND interacting, via role play. I’m not a big advocate of reading for reading’s sake–some people are not readers and/or get their info in other ways. But, this is a nearly heretical view in library circles.

Reply
liz says:

November 27, 2003 at 1:47 am

Big surprise?
I always wonder about these stories, lamenting that younger people aren’t reading newspapers anymore. Is it really a big revelation that people are getting their news via alternative channels like the Web, TV, or one of those free dailies like the Metro (sounds like this is what those two new Dallas papers are)? My 60+ year old parents wouldn’t dream of not getting their physical papers delivered; that’s just what they’re used to. They’ve only discovered the existence of the Internet in the past year, though, so perhaps that might change. Me, I find it more convenient to view the online version, being that I’m in front of a PC all day anyway.

As far as reading books goes, I’ve stopped trying to fight that battle with the non-book readers I know, chiefly with my SO. No amount of edgy-ness or curse words is going to make him more likely to pick up a novel. His interests simply lie elsewhere

Reply
Anonymous Patron says:

November 27, 2003 at 2:14 am

Re:Reading
Rochelle–good comment in general (and, as an avid reader, I’m aware that the number and percentage of readers is probably at an all-time high: it’s NEVER been the case that everyone reads).

Why the anonymity? Because I’m so pleased to see your comment about SATC (or related books). It gets praised to the heavens because it’s on HBO, but if you took exactly the same situations, dialogue, even actresses, called it “Downtown Sluts,” and ran it on UPN, it would (I believe) be despised by the critics (and equally loved by some viewers).

(I could make a case for “Mafia, Murders, and Dysfunctional Families!” also being treated too generously because of its network, but I’ll stop there.)

Anyway: While I do believe that books involve a different level of involvement than other media, I also believe some intelligent people can live fulfilled, engaged, healthy lives without being big readers.

Reply
rochelle says:

November 27, 2003 at 2:20 am

New ALA poster series?
Since audio books are becoming such a major part of our collections, I wonder if ALA will be coming out with a series of LISTEN posters? And more than audio books (or anything else), Internet access is one of the main reasons people come to the library where I work. Maybe a set of SURF posters would be good, too.

Reply
SpinsterLibrarian says:

November 29, 2003 at 9:36 pm

Re:Interesting Read
I read the same article (NYT online, I think) and it said that he was 2 1/2 years behind, and tries not to hear/see current news — wait until he gets to the Sept. 12th, 2001 paper…

I get most of my news from reading articles on Google News and blogs, and from listening to NPR. My hometown paper was/is a waste of perfectly good trees, usually having, at most, three articles worth reading. The AP wire stuff is okay, but I’ve usually already heard it on NPR or read it online. I’m in college right now, so mostly read the university’s daily paper, which is pretty good, and is more relevant to my life right now than, say, the local paper.

Reply