Beware the Ad Agency Selling You Tomorrow’s Customer While Ignoring Today’s Buyer.

By Robert Douglas

During a recent meeting with a consumer packaged goods company, it occurred to me that somewhere along the way, a dangerous idea became fashionable in marketing:

“Let’s get them while they’re young.”

On the surface, it sounds strategic. Influence brand preference early. Build favorability before the competition does. Create a relationship with future buyers before they become actual buyers.

There is some truth in that thinking. Young people do influence certain household purchases. They ask. They nudge. They pester. They shape family conversations around food, entertainment, fashion, technology, travel, and gifts. There is also research suggesting early exposure to brands can create familiarity, recognition, and preference later in life.

But here is the problem.

Familiarity is not revenue.

Preference is not purchase.

And “maybe they’ll buy us someday” is not a media strategy most growth-hungry companies can afford to overfund.

For many brands, the absurdity is not that young audiences are included in the plan. The absurdity is that they are sometimes given a wildly disproportionate share of investment despite the obvious reality that the brand, product, or service is stronger with older consumers who are already buying the category today.

That older audience may be 18–24. It may be 25–54. It may be 55+. The number is not the point.

The point is this:

Are we targeting people who can actually buy the product, influence the business now, and create measurable growth within the time horizon the company actually has?

Because most CEOs, CFOs, investors, and shareholders are not waiting 15 years for the under-18 awareness plan to mature into revenue.

They want growth this quarter.

They want growth this year.

They want brand building and sales activation working together.

They want customer acquisition, repeat purchase, market share, margin protection, household penetration, retail velocity, pipeline, leads, bookings, subscriptions, renewals, or whatever else the business depends on.

So when a CMO is sold an “investment audience” that cannot yet buy the product, does not control the household budget, and may not become a meaningful customer for another 2, 5, 10, or 15 years, someone in the room should ask a very simple question:

Show me the return.

Not the theory.

Not the trend deck.

Not the generational mythology.

Show me the return.

Show me the return on ad spend.

Show me the return on sales.

Show me the lift in household penetration.

Show me the incremental revenue.

Show me the measurable influence on actual buyers.

Show me the evidence that this audience deserves the budget you are recommending.

Because “they influence their parents” is not enough.

Influence exists. Of course it does. Any parent who has walked through a grocery aisle, toy aisle, theme park, airport, mall, or car dealership with children knows influence exists.

But influence is not equally valuable across every category.

A child may influence a cereal choice. A snack choice. A streaming show. A fast-food stop. A birthday wish list. A holiday gift. A vacation activity.

But does that same influence justify meaningful media spend for financial services, home appliances, B2B software, luxury audio, insurance, home improvement, healthcare, automotive, professional services, or premium durable goods?

Maybe.

But “maybe” needs math.

There are a handful of dominant brands where long-range youth investment may make sense. If you already dominate adult buyers, have enormous budgets, sell an accessible product, and need to seed the next generation to preserve future dominance, then yes, there may be a role for investing early.

But that is not most brands.

Most brands are fighting for growth now.

Most brands are not operating with bottomless budgets.

Most brands are not Coca-Cola, Nike, Apple, McDonald’s, Disney, or LEGO.

Most brands need to find buyers who are in-market, adjacent to market, or likely to become valuable within a commercially reasonable window.

And that is where too many marketing plans go wrong. They confuse cultural visibility with business opportunity.

They chase the audience that looks exciting in a presentation instead of the audience that looks valuable in the data.

They over-index on youth because youth feels like growth, trend, energy, future, relevance, and momentum.

But youth is not always where the money is.

In fact, in many categories, the money is sitting with older households. According to AARP’s Longevity Economy reporting, households headed by someone age 50 or older accounted for more than half of U.S. consumer spending in 2024. That is not a niche. That is the economy.

Yet many agencies continue to treat older audiences as an afterthought, a compromise, or worse, a creative burden.

Why?

Because youth is easier to romanticize.

You can build a sexier mood board around Gen Alpha (born 2013-2024) or Gen Z (born 1997-2012) than around a 52-year-old homeowner with disposable income, a Costco membership, two cars, three insurance policies, aging parents, college-age kids, premium subscriptions, and a willingness to pay for quality.

But guess which one may be more valuable to the business?

This is where marketing discipline matters.

The question is not, “What audience feels culturally interesting?”

The question is, “Which audience gives this brand the best chance to grow?”

At Left Off Madison, we believe target audiences should be built from business reality, not agency fantasy.

We dig into actual users.

Actual buyers.
Actual households.
Actual category behavior.
Actual spending power.
Actual competitive pressure.
Actual media efficiency.
Actual barriers to conversion.
Actual white space.

Sometimes that means youth. Sometimes it does not.

Sometimes the right answer is 18–24.

Sometimes it is 25–44.

Sometimes it is 45–64.

Sometimes it is a very specific segment inside a much broader demographic.

Sometimes it is not an age target at all, but a behavioral, attitudinal, cultural, household, retail, or life-stage target.

The target should come from the evidence.

Not from a lazy generational headline.

Not from a recycled agency deck.

Not from the assumption that “younger” automatically means “better.”

And definitely not from the fear that if a brand does not chase teenagers today, it will be irrelevant tomorrow.

Relevance does not come from pretending every brand needs to be young.

Relevance comes from understanding who matters, why they matter, what they need, how they buy, where competitors are over-investing, and where the brand can win.

For clients spending $100,000 a year, every dollar has to work hard.

For clients spending $100 million a year, every dollar still has to make sense.

The budget size changes.

The discipline should not.

That is why we spend so much time looking for audience white space. Some call it a Blue Ocean. We call it common sense.

Where can the brand find valuable buyers without entering the most crowded, most expensive, most over-targeted part of the market?
Where are competitors shouting?
Where are they ignoring profitable demand?
Where is the brand already strong?
Where is the category growing?
Where is the audience underserved?
Where can media dollars create both near-term business impact and long-term brand advantage?

Those are the questions worth asking.

Not, “How do we look younger?”

Not, “How do we win Gen Z?”

Not, “How do we make this feel more TikTok?”

Those may be valid questions for some brands.

But they are not universal questions.

The better question is: Who can help us grow?

If an agency cannot answer that with evidence, beware.

Because they may not be selling you a target audience.

They may be selling you a fantasy.