????與貝佐斯的說法相反，并不是所有企業(yè)都非得要“永遠(yuǎn)追逐年輕人”。當(dāng)然，它們必須與時(shí)俱進(jìn)，盡量避免疏遠(yuǎn)年輕人，但所有的生意都需要迎合年老群體的需要（至少需要老少兼顧），媒體也概莫能外。雖然有線新聞并不是報(bào)紙的好榜樣，但它的受眾確實(shí)包含對(duì)公共事務(wù)感興趣的人，而有線新聞的受眾幾乎完全是老年人。福克斯新聞(Fox News )觀眾的平均年齡至少是65歲，甚至更高齡。美國有線新聞網(wǎng)（CNN）和微軟全國有線廣播電視（MSNBC）觀眾也不甘落后，它們黃金時(shí)段觀眾的年齡中位數(shù)徘徊在60歲左右。全國公共廣播電臺(tái)（NPR）聽眾的平均年齡為55歲。日益流行的家園頻道（HGTV）的觀眾年齡中位數(shù)為53歲，其中超過一半的觀眾處于25歲至54歲這個(gè)備受廣告商垂青的年齡段。年輕人也看有線新聞，就如同倘若報(bào)紙刊登更多吸引人的內(nèi)容，年輕人和老年人都會(huì)讀報(bào)紙（在線或離線）一樣。

????喜劇中心頻道（Comedy Central）觀眾的年齡中位數(shù)是28歲。這些人通常并不是小孩，渴望巨細(xì)無遺地掌握拉拉?安東尼的一切信息。他們是成年人——經(jīng)常是準(zhǔn)備建立家庭，購買房產(chǎn)，投資大學(xué)基金的大學(xué)畢業(yè)生。如果把這家有線電視網(wǎng)絡(luò)的頭牌節(jié)目——即主要討論公共事務(wù)的《每日秀》（The Daily Show）和《科爾伯特報(bào)告》（The Colbert Report）——單列出來，觀眾的平均年齡就將迅速上升至40歲左右。

????如果報(bào)紙要追逐一個(gè)特定的人口群，它應(yīng)該是所有年齡段中那些聰明，而且有一定立場(chǎng)觀點(diǎn)的人，喜歡閱讀的人。報(bào)紙的讀者群向來都是隨著年齡的增長而上升。此外，在未來幾十年，隨著嬰兒潮一代不斷退休，人口總體上將繼續(xù)老化。這種態(tài)勢(shì)理應(yīng)會(huì)減損為吸引年輕人而不惜放棄其他人這一策略的吸引力。

????貝佐斯援引伍爾沃斯百貨公司作為反例的說法也站不住腳。與少數(shù)其他企業(yè)一樣，伍爾沃斯是一個(gè)典型的美國成功故事。這家公司延續(xù)了近120年，與亞馬遜非常相像的是，它發(fā)明了一種全新的零售方式：廉價(jià)商店。此外，在其公司生命延續(xù)的相當(dāng)長時(shí)間內(nèi)，它都是在創(chuàng)新，而不是“老化”。至1979年，也就是伍爾沃斯成立100年后，它已成為全球最大的雜貨連鎖店。上世紀(jì)60年代初，伍爾沃斯公司創(chuàng)建了單級(jí)折扣連鎖店——沃柯（Woolco），沃爾瑪（Wal-Mart）、凱瑪特（Kmart）和塔吉特（Target）當(dāng)時(shí)也在做同樣的事情。但依憑“做大”策略，伍爾沃斯走在了時(shí)代前列：一些沃柯商店超過10萬平方英尺，這么大的經(jīng)營面積在當(dāng)時(shí)極不尋常。它的旗艦廉價(jià)商店不僅在大型購物中心時(shí)代來臨后幸存了下來，而且還繼續(xù)蓬勃發(fā)展。此外，這家公司還推出了Kinney Shoes和Styleco等新店。這些商店在商場(chǎng)和購物中心大行其道的時(shí)代都獲得了不錯(cuò)的經(jīng)營業(yè)績。

????在某種程度上，伍爾沃斯的種種嘗試其實(shí)是為了實(shí)現(xiàn)多元化和追逐潮流，同時(shí)也是為了跟上讓美國幾乎所有零售商（除沃爾瑪之外）的日子變得尤為艱難的經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型大勢(shì)。伍爾沃斯公司推出了富樂客（Foot Locker），隨后又在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代推出了目錄/在線運(yùn)動(dòng)服飾零售商Eastbay。至1997年，伍爾沃斯基本上消逝了，主要原因在于它的注意力遠(yuǎn)離了它的核心業(yè)務(wù)：折扣和百貨商店。

????從另一個(gè)角度來看，我們可以說伍爾沃斯依然在茁壯成長，而且還在不斷創(chuàng)新——富樂客公司是伍爾沃斯的直接繼承者，它目前的股價(jià)大約是它1997年放棄伍爾沃斯這一名稱時(shí)的3.5倍。富樂客擁有好幾個(gè)備受歡迎的品牌，其中包括Champs Sports和CCS。這家公司現(xiàn)已成為滑板和滑雪運(yùn)動(dòng)設(shè)備的主要供應(yīng)商。這算不算服務(wù)于年輕群體呢？

????貝佐斯的評(píng)論只是隨口說說，我們不應(yīng)該過度解讀。就整體而言，他恰切地傳遞出正確的信息，尤其是以下這句話：“頭號(hào)規(guī)則是：不要令人厭煩?！币歉鄨?bào)紙?jiān)趲啄昵敖蛹{了這條建議，它們目前的處境或許會(huì)好得多。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

????譯者：任文科

????

????Contrary to Bezos's statement, all businesses do not have to "be young forever." Of course, they must keep up with the times and avoid alienating younger people, but there are all kinds of businesses that cater to an older, or at least mixed, crowd -- including in media. Not that cable news should be considered a good example of what newspapers should do, but their audiences do comprise people who are interested in public affairs, and cable-news audiences are downright geriatric. The average Fox News viewer is at least 65 and probably older. CNN's and MSNBC's audiences aren't far behind, with the median ages of its prime-time viewers hovering at around 60. NPR's average listener is 55. The median for the increasingly popular HGTV is 53, with more than half the audience in the 25-54 demo that advertisers covet. Young people watch it, too, just like young and old alike would read newspapers (online or off) more often if there was something more there to attract them.

????The median age of Comedy Central's audience is 28. These generally aren't kids who want to know everything that La La Anthony is up to. They're grownups -- often college graduates, starting families, buying real estate, and investing in college funds. And if you isolate the network's top shows -- The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, which are geared toward public affairs -- the average age quickly rises, to about 40.

????If newspapers are going to chase a particular demographic, it should be that one: smart, engaged people of all ages. People who enjoy reading. Newspaper readership has always risen with age. Further, the population as a whole is going to continue to age for the next couple of decades as the Baby Boomers continue to move into retirement. That should take away some of the appeal of attracting the young at the expense of everyone else.

????Bezos's reference to Woolworth doesn't quite wash, either. Woolworth is an American success story like few others. It lasted for nearly 120 years and -- much like Amazon -- it invented a whole new way of retailing: the five-and-dime store. It also spent much of its corporate life innovating, not "aging." In 1979, 100 years after its founding, it was running the largest chain of variety stores in the world. It started a chain of single-level discount stores -- Woolco -- in the early '60s, just as Wal-Mart (WMT), Kmart, and Target (TGT) were doing the same. But it was more ahead of its time than either by going big: some Woolco stores were more than 100,000 square feet, highly unusual at the time. Even its flagship five-and-dime outlets not only survived the onset of shopping malls, but thrived within them. The company also launched new stores like Kinney Shoes and Styleco that did well during the mall/shopping-center era.

????What did Woolworth in, in fact, was in part an effort to diversify and chase trends, as well as the economic transformations that were making life tough for nearly every American retailer other than Wal-Mart. Woolworth launched Foot Locker and, during the dotcom era, the catalog/online athletic-wear retailer Eastbay. Woolworth was essentially gone by 1997, thanks mostly to the company diverting attention away from its core businesses -- the discount and department stores.

????Viewed from another perspective, it could be said that Woolworth continues to thrive and innovate -- Foot Locker Inc. (FL) is the direct successor of Woolworth, and its shares are worth about 3.5 times what they were when the company dropped the Woolworth name in 1997. It owns several popular brands, including Champs Sports and CCS -- a huge supplier of equipment for skateboarders and snowboarders. How's that for staying young?

????Bezos's comments were offhand, and we shouldn't read too much into them. On the whole, he delivered exactly the right message, especially when he said, "The number one rule has to be: Don't be boring." If more newspapers had taken that advice years ago, they would probably have found themselves in a much better position now.