Advertisers eye spendy DINK couples
The DINK (Dual Income, No Kids) lifestyle is helping thousands of people beat the recession. Working couples without the high cost of childcare are left with lots of extra cash, and advertisers are starting to take notice. Jeremy Hobson reports.
Man and woman dining in a restaurant. (iStockphoto)
More on America's Financial Crisis
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: The economy has started getting better. We got that much from the gross domestic product report this past Friday morning. GDP's not shrinking as fast as it used to. Still, it's going to be a while before a lot of consumers start feeling really good about things and start spending again. I'm thinking here about consumers who, like me, have kids to help burn through a paycheck. But there is a huge chunk of the population without kids, and many of them have been experiencing the recession in a very different way. Advertisers call them DINKs, double income, no kids. Marketplace's Jeremy Hobson reports.
JEREMY HOBSON: If you want to get an idea how DINKs spend their money during a recession, where do you go? Maybe Times Square?
They've got all kinds of people there and all kinds of pricey diversions. Yvonne and Rick Yu are visiting from Toronto. They have no kids, and they're spending like it's, well, 2007.
RICK YU: Oh, I think we're just still young, so we can just kinda do whatever we want to do right now and be free to see whatever we want to see.
Same story for Rebecca Lopez and her boyfriend. She says she wouldn't have flown from Spain to take in New York's tourist attractions if she had kids.
REBECCA LOPEZ: We are free. We are not married, but we are a couple for years, but we don't have kids, and it change everything.
It sure does, according to Wes Combs of the marketing firm Witeck-Combs Communications.
WES COMBS: To raise a child today, at a minimum, from birth to 18 before college is between $100,000 and $200,000 per child. That's a lot of money that an individual without children can spend on themselves.
Combs says one of the best ways to get an idea what DINKs are doing is to look at gays and lesbians. Sure some gay couples have kids, but there are still plenty that don't.
COMBS: They're more confident about what's going on right now and what they're seeing, and there's also some additional evidence to show that they're spending more when they go out, specifically with travel.
Combs conducted a survey recently that found 62 percent of gays planned to maintain or increase their travel budgets this year. To find out for myself, I hopped on a bus to the gay Mecca of Provincetown, Mass.
BARKER: Looking for hungry people! Bayside Betsy's has lots of food and it ain't gonna eat itself!
It's just after noon on a hot sunny day. On P-town's main strip, Commercial Street, the barkers are out. And so are the spenders. Like partners Larry Walsh and John Buchan from Peoria, Ill.
LARRY Walsh: We're doing our stimulus package for P-town.
Hobson: And what are you doing today?
Walsh: Today, we're going shopping again. We're shopping today, and then we're going to the pool later on, and then we're going out to dinner.
If you're looking for a place to stay the night in Provincetown, good luck. No vacancy signs are more prevalent than the for-lease signs on the store fronts back in New York. Howard Weiner runs a guest house called Howards End.
Hobson: How many rooms are vacant right now?
HOWARD Weiner: Ummm...none.
Hobson: Totally full.
Weiner: Yeah.
Now, Weiner says business is still off about 20 percent off from last year. But not among couples, both gay and straight, without kids.
WEINER: They're spending pretty much the same thing. Of course, gays will spend more on drinks, on liquor and at the clubs, than straight couples will. That is definitely for sure.
If there's one place where the money in P-town drains like the tide, it's the Boatslip. Patrons sip down $10 drinks before an evening of entertainment.
Mark Sam Rosenthal's trying to lure an audience for his one-man drag show, Blanche Survives Katrina in a FEMA Trailer Named Desire. I asked him if the crowds have been indicative of the greatest recession since the Great Depression.
MARK SAM ROSENTHAL: No, but I wasn't here for that one. I'm not that old! I mean, I hear that it's worse than last summer, but I don't see the greatest, whatever you said.
Neither do companies that are taking advantage of the DINKs, whether they're gay or straight. Again, here's marketing consultant Wes Combs.
COMBS: They understand this unique element that this segment, while other parts of the economy are going down, is more likely to spend right now. So they're making sure that they target those dollars, the limited dollars that they have for advertising, at a minimum, on this market.
Combs says those dollars will be well spent, because so far DINKs are behaving as though this recession has been dinky.
In Provincetown, Mass., I'm Jeremy Hobson for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
08/14/2009
@ Gary Wroughton: Actually, it is the Baby Boomers that "screwed up" Social Security (far more retirees than workers). And if you think Social Security will be around when I retire, you're severely misguided.
From Vancouver, BC, 08/07/2009
While the term DINK is commonly used to describe Dual Income No Kids couples, many of us prefer the term THINKER (Two Healthy Incomes, No Kids, Early Retirement).
Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father Emeritus of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net
From SD, 08/06/2009
I was pleased that at last some attention has been paid to DINKS after all these stories about people bemoaning their financial problems when they have unwisely just started or added to their families in a time of great financial and employment uncertainty. I wish, however you had not portrayed us as somewhat selfish, spendthrift dillitantes. Let's hear about those whose DINK status has allowed them to make meaningful contributions to society or stay off the welfare rolls.
From Columbia, MO, 08/05/2009
I know it's more fun to report on the frivolous excesses of privileged white males who like to be seen in "hot' venues like Provincetown, but a truly balanced story would look at the majority of DINKs who live closer to reality. the reality is nowhere near as exotic but interesting in its own way. And this reportage ignores the great number of DINKs who work in low-paying jobs that fail to produce enough to do much but stay home and get on with simple living. This is probably most typical of lesbian couples, but not exclusively. I was disappointed with this bit of fluff and hope that somebody will do some actual journalism on the topic soon.
From Daytona Beach, FL, 08/05/2009
Lots of gay childless couples are watching their pennies very carefully, forgoing the vacations and clubbing they might have indulged in a few years ago. We are not immune from the recession or the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, energy, property taxes, insurance, etc. Let's face it, the standard of living for the entire U.S. middle class -- gay, straight or whatever -- is on the decline.
From Mechanicsburg, PA, 08/04/2009
This story was interesting but fluffy. Some actual statistics on the spending patterns of the DINK demographic would certainly help back up the 'man in the street' interviews. Especially since the conclusion - that DINKs spend more in a recessionary economy - just does not jibe with my own experience of my peer group (over 30, married, and childless by choice.) If you define having and spending on children as 'non-discretionary', then by definition childless couples have a greater percentage of 'discretionary income' in the short term. However, we also have greater expectations to meet for planning for our own elder care (without the 'safety net' of children), and for caring for aging extended family, and thus have been hit just as hard by reduction in real income, home prices, retirement savings, etc. In my opinion, this story was geared more towards a young, technically single (dating) demographic, which tends to prioritize finding, impressing, and keeping a life partner over any other financial goals. :-)
In my own experience, I find my peers with children are spending much more during the recession than my married DINK peers as the 'pressure' to spend is greater. From what I hear, a family vacation can be downsized, but it 'can't be cancelled or it will disappoint the kids' whereas my husband and I can immediately canceled such discretionary expenses when it becomes prudent (not that we personally did any discretionary travel to begin with.) Perhaps we are in a self-selecting peer group that blinds me to the larger picture, but my impression is that DINKs tend to be on the fiscally conservative side by nature; the same long-term outlook that led them to think long and hard about the impact on themselves and on the future before procreating also shows up in the tendency to delay gratification in spending, avoid credit risks, and live well below their means. I admit this is anecdotal evidence… but no more so than what was presented in this story.
From Atlanta, GA, 08/04/2009
Jeremy Hobson's report on the DINK (Dual Income, No Kids) lifestyle earned points by bucking one stereotype... he was good enough to note that some gay and lesbian couples DO have kids. But the data supporting his report unfortunately propped up another stereotype: that LGBT couples have more disposable income than the general population. This urban legend has been around for years in part because it relies on income data from SELF-IDENTIFIED gay and lesbian people... data that's helpful for queer magazines in charging high ad rates, but can't claim to describe all gay Americans. Sure, people "out" enough to self-identify likely do have good jobs and healthy incomes, but the closeted lesbian farm couple in Kansas or the gay truck driver who know his job would be at risk if he came out... these less affluent gays' incomes aren't being factored in. Just be careful in generalizing!
From IL, 08/04/2009
"Social security is predicated on the model that the working generation pays for the benefits of the retired generation. Well, the DINK's are screwing up the system, so they need to get busy making kids or have their FICA tax doubled/tripled/quadrupled. No free rides you moochers." Excuse Me! My income help taxes pay for your children's school. I do not receive a procreation subsidy on my yearly income tax. I as watch my co-workers are giving extra time off to attend their children's special events. I've been paying into a social security system that will be broke long before I ever see a dime. These are just a few of the ways DINKs are subsidizing your Breeder lifestyle. Who's mooching off who? Maybe we need to rethink an economic system completely dependent on unsustainable growth.
08/04/2009
Social security is predicated on the model that the working generation pays for the benefits of the retired generation. Well, the DINK's are screwing up the system, so they need to get busy making kids or have their FICA tax doubled/tripled/quadrupled. No free rides you moochers.
From VA, 08/04/2009
For the most part, I agree with Adrienne who commented first. My husband and I are successful in our careers and earn far more than we spend. This is our choice. We are able enjoy some of our surplus or be philanthropic when we choose, and don't exactly use the surplus to shop and drink. We are saving for what we hope will be a comfortable retirement, as we are dubious about what types of benefits will be available to us, and do not expect the government sustain us in our senior years. However, the state of the economy is disturbing, and only reaffirmed our choice to be fiscally conservative - not party more. People who desire to have children, certainly may proceed, however, I am certain that many of the circumstances in which our country now finds itself is largely in part due to the lack of savings, and high degree of irresponsible spending in the first place - kids or no kids.
From new york, NY, 08/04/2009
This is simply a shoddy piece of reporting. It begins by questioning whether or not DINKS are feeling any financial pain and it ends up giggling about childless gay couples buying expensive drinks in Provincetown. Did Mr. Hobson talk to any of the DINK property owners in Provincetown who would never blow their money on overpriced drinks and drag shows in any economy? After hopping his bus to Provincetown, Mr. Hobson should have taken one to Orlando and questioned some of the non-DINKS about their methods of disposing income on thrill rides for their kids. He should have offered a sensible and balanced conclusion about economic choices being variously made across the board in good financial times and in bad.
From Chapel Hill, NC, 08/03/2009
I just got out of my car and came right in to comment. I am a bit miffed with two points in this piece. What I spend is truly discretionary. I know how much I can spend after paying the bills. I am not over my head and "partying" the money away. As a homeowner, I pay lots of taxes, which support community activities that will not benefit me personally. I make contributions to 401k, savings and to philanthropic endeavors. I work hard -- earn my money. Let's not feed the sterotypes, shall we? The argument that DINKS, gays, straight singles (anyone without kids) go out and party like its 2007 or 1999 -- that's when my 401k really was worth something -- just seems unfounded. Families use their discretion to spend their money differently. Most chose to have children, to raise them and love them unconditionally paying for sports teams, college and weddings. Next thing you know we'll hear that people with children deserve to earn more money than the childless who blow their money on drag shows and $10 drinks in P-Town.
From Prescott, AZ, 08/03/2009
I was a little disappointed by this story; it perpetuates the idea that if you are a DINK couple, you have money to burn, no worries. That's true of many, and good for them, but not all DINK couples share this mindset.
We have fun, but our idea of fun is a morning at the coffee house and a walk to the library, or a weekend road trip a few times a year. We eat out a few times a week but rarely buy drinks and go to non-pricey restaurants unless it's a special occasion. In twenty years we have bought 3 cars. Our biggest expenditures are health insurance and taxes. We are still in the small but comfortable house we bought 17 years ago. Our credit cards are paid off every month.
So we have the money to spend--but mostly, we don't want to. We both know how quickly things can change and how important having that cushion can be.
I'm grateful we aren't in the dire financial straits so many people are in, with kids or without. It's partly due to luck but mainly to planning and choices made. It means we can continue to live as we have--because our way of life is already pretty low-key.
It wouldn't suit everyone, but I imagine there are quite a few couples like us. Advertiser's nightmares, I suppose.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.