Curmudgeon faces the end of demographic relevance

I was joking at home last night with Youngest Son. The topic was unimportant; Youngest Son's observation is the starting point.

"That's high school humor, Dad," Youngest Son observed (accurately).

"Well, I was in high school once," I shot back.

"Yeah, 40 years ago," said Long Suffering Spouse.

Yikes.

But, as always, Long Suffering Spouse was correct: I was in high school 40 years ago. I am, in fact, about to observe a natal day. And it will be a Major Landmark Birthday, a day of special significance -- like these other landmark birthdays:

• 16 -- when a kid becomes eligible to get a driver's license;
• 18 -- when one can register to vote;
• 21 -- when a kid can take that first legal drink;
• 30 -- when I couldn't trust myself any longer;
• 40 -- when (according to some) life begins;
• 50 -- which is either the new 30 or the new 40, depending on who you talk to; or
• 65 -- which isn't 65 for persons my age any more. The new 65 is 66 years and 10 months. So far.

According to the calendar, next week I will turn 54.

Oh, I know some of my readers will dismiss my apprehension of this occasion as the whinings of a still-callow youth. Others will scoff that this seems a pretty random age to declare a "landmark." But it really is significant.

This coming year will be the very last that I cling to the coveted 18-54 demographic. Advertisers really care about what people aged 18-54 like. It's persons in this age range to whom networks pitch shows and advertisers pitch products.





In other words, Beyoncé will try and sell me stuff for only one more year.





After that, apparently, advertisers believe I will respond better to pitches from Wilford Brimley.

Advertisers are obviously idiots.

Anyway, I have one more year of demographic relevance. I'm not sure how, but I hope to make the best of it.