Target audiences; beta readers by age group?

[Dan]

It just occurred to me, that once a writer declares his or her target audience then and however large the number of members in a group, the potential for acquiring a beta reader is cut off somewhere just above the ankles. Of course, that is as it should be, since there's not much point in acquiring a beta reader outside one's target audience.

Accordingly, I thought it might be a good idea for goodreads to provide for some way of knowing the average age of a group. Granted, to accomplish that, we'd all have to (and whether public or hidden) declare our age in our profile and at which, the website would have to keep a running tally and form that, an average.

The question is, is that: a) generally desirable b) practicable, and c) would goodreads be willing?

Oh! a further thought. It might be best to have beta reader groups themselves divided into age groups. (There seems too little point in a writer looking for a beta aged 18—30 where the average age of the group could well be over forty.

[Jane]

Some interesting thoughts there Dan. But I'm not convinced that age is the biggest factor in determining a target audience. There are people in their 50s reading middle grade fiction and YA/NA! And I think I read somewhere that like 20% of romance readers are male.

I sort of take it on faith that if someone offers or agrees to beta read for you then they are vaguely interested in your synopsis or genre and therefore are part of your target audience.

Plus, if I was an elder male, I might be uncomfortable admitting that I read fantasy children's fiction if I was divided into some age range group on goodreads.

But you are right, it might be helpful to have some demographic information about beta readers so that you could make sure that you had a wide representation of people within your target audience.

For example, you might want to know their ages /jobs /hobbies /interests etc. I'm most curious about whether readers are writers too, what their favourite genre is (assuming they're happy to read many, this might not be clear), their favourite authors and their experience as a beta reader.

But I can't imagine that people would be comfortable posting that kind of information publicly.

I'm conscious of not annoying people who may be about to sit through 50,000+ words of your unedited manuscript. The last thing you would want to do is offend someone.

[Dan]

Hello Laladee,

You too raise many good points—for I by no means had thought out to the end my own, totally off-the-cuff idea. Age is by no means the biggest factor, but it is a factor and a writer has to base one's actions on something. Even for myself and not for reasons of vanity but of security, I would not want my age made public; still, as for the website keeping a discreet tally then posting the average, that could be beneficial to everyone.

As a hearty believer in the wisdom of the crowd, only that will tell if mine is a good idea or not. So let's watch this space.

My point, of course, is that, had I access to a group of beta readers who I knew were all, age-wise, in my target audience, I would corresponding, specifically, to that group. I guess it's kind of like school. If you want to be a lawyer, you don't just go "to school," you go to a Law school.

(There's one way of gleaning the age-group of a correspondent. Who, under fifty, uses words like "hearty"?)

[Dan]

Ooh! Someone's in a bad mood. Rest assured, world, that there is none of scheming, sneaking, lurking or anything of the sort going on here. (I seem to recall saying that in such an event even I would not want my own age made public. Oh. There it is, too; in black and white.) It's just me, tossing out a thought, fishing for opinions. It seems a shark has taken a shine to my canoe. (My comment about "hearty" was an attempt at humourous self-belittment—but, as they say, "No good deed goes unpunished.")

You needn't concern yourself too much, by the way, Maureen, about the deep regret in which and in the aftermath of your rant you must now be paddling. We've all made that mistake at one time or another. You have passion. That's plain; and if you could only redirect it a tad you might even make a writer. Pick up any book, go to any website, or take a course, anywhere, on the subject of how to become one, and one of the very first pieces of advice to be encountered is: not to write to "the world"; write, instead, to a "target audience." Don't write "about fishing" write "to": Brobdingnagian fly-fishermen between the ages of 36–47, who only like to fish at night and with bamboo rods. (Apologies to anyone who thinks that's Bamboo-rod-ism.)

I read Harry Potter when in my late fifties (not my cup of tea, really, but hey; who amI?); and thanks, Maureen, for bringing it up. Sure, anyone, of any age, can and did and will read Harry Potter; but does anyone seriously think J.K. Rowling didn't have a particular age group in mind when she was writing her books—or, indeed, her publishers, when selling them? It's not about ageism—or, indeed, any other ism. It's about being able to reach out of a page and say, suggestively, to a reader, "We're having this conversation, you and I. I'm writing specifically to and for you (and if anyone else cares to read what I've written, well, then, great!" Ca-ching!) If I succeed in my goal, people from fifteen to a hundred will be reading what I have written—but the people I most specifically and initially want to communicate with are, broadly speaking: from those who have just left or are near leaving school, to those who are thinking of starting a family. If it's ageism, (and another great piece of advice from writers and publishers) wanting to attract a beta reader from within my target audience, then sue me.

Maureen, when I began by saying you shouldn't concern yourself too much with your little faux pas, I didn't mean to suggest there would not be consequences. Every act, every breath a person takes, every thought one thinks, carries consequences. In your short 122-word posting (don't you just love word processors?) I count six profoundly offensive accusations and one or two debatable ones. This, from somebody whose javelin-like humility prevents them from "gett(ing) all confrontational." I gott'a hand it to you, though Maureen. Setting completely aside, the question of my "sneakingly (sic)", "offensive", " scheme," (etc.) your offensiveness is right out there. And you needn't worry about your getting all confrontational, since the process requires two people. As of this moment, you see, I'm just going to ignore altogether, anything else you have to contribute here. All you've managed with your gall is to have rendered yourself in my eyes, a non-person. Still; seeing as I'm noted for self-defense but not for bearing grudges, then and assuming your much vaulted humility is up to it, you can easily undo that.
_________

Now, where were we all? I think the score stands at two maybes—for even I have doubts about my totally spontaneous notion—and one dead against.

[Library Lady 📚]

I'm moving this to the correct folder.

[Dan]

Apologies, Lena, and to goodreads members. It sometimes gets confusing, understanding what goes where or at what point things go off piste.