A 15-year-old schoolboy on work experience at Morgan Stanley has stunned the media industry by writing a paper that has had a huge impact on media analysts and Internet companies that rely on adverts for generating income.
Matthew Robson was asked by US bank Morgan Stanley to talk to his mates and find out how and why they used popular forms of media. Whilst Matt’s findings will come as no surprise to anyone with half a brain cell, he should be duly applauded for his report that pointed out the bleedin’ obvious:
- Teenagers don’t use Twitter as they know nobody is reading their tweets and it costs money to use it from a mobile handset
- Chatting via a mobile also costs money so teens prefer to use consoles that let you do this for free
- Adverts of any kind are annoying and pointless (rather like all marketing and PR execs says Grumpy Bear)
- Teenagers don’t have time for TV and would rather listen to online radio stations or advert-free music instead of traditional radio
- There is a reluctance among teenagers to pay for any kind of media
- Pirate DVD’s are in, pricey cinema tickets are out
- File-sharing is far more widespread than anyone actually paying to download content
That is to say, the bleedin’ obvious to any normal and sane person but apparently a whole new value proposition to the highly paid media analysts, parasitic consultancies, PR personnel and advertising numbskulls who are treating the report as if they’ve just found the definite risk-free guide to alchemy.
Edward Hill-Wood, head of Morgan Stanley’s European media analysts and presumably being paid a six figure salary on account of a double barrel surname and a pair of red braces, said Matt’s report was "one of the clearest and most thought-provoking insights we have seen".
This does beg several questions, chief of which is just what kind of nonsensical drivel are the Morgan Stanley spivs publishing and how much are they earning for their effort if all it takes is a level-headed 15-year-old intern to provide an insight into a market that’s about as difficult to read as the top line of an optometrists eye chart?