The original Digital Divide was rooted in the idea of accessibility. There were the “have” and the “have nots”. Policy has been very successful. A remarkable 5.3bn people are connected, up from just over 1bn in 2005. In 2020 an amazing 466m people used the internet for the first time.
72% of urban dwellers in the world are connected (compared to only 37% in rural areas). The “unconnected have nots” are down from 3.6bn in 2019 to 2.7bn in 2022. Lagging behind is Africa where only 28% of Urban dwellers are connected. That average hides a huge range. Morocco has 90.7% penetration, higher than Europe at 89.8%. There are 11 other African countries above 75%.
The Digital Divide II
Having first worried about connectivity the target moved. First to an extension of accessibility. The definition of “connected” extended to include a good quality of service. It had also to be affordable. The goalposts then moved again to usage not just availability. This was the Digital Divide II. It was here that ageism crept in. People realized that many older consumers used the internet less. The internet afterall only celebrated its 40th birthday recently. The distinction was drawn between young “digital natives” and older “digital immigrants”.
It was assumed that there were age specific barriers. Older people could not follow instructions. They lacked IT knowledge and were full of fear and skepticism. These barriers were attributed to cognitive and physical decline with age. There is no proven connection. Instead lack of internet usage fitted well with the old age stereotype. Older people could be treated as a homogeneous group.
How wide is “the Divide” today?
The first thing to point out is that the “old” are catching up. Usage of social media has plateaued for the US 18–29-year-olds at around 84%. The over 65’s usage has grown from 11% in 2012 to 45% in 2022. Much is made of the almost continuous internet usage by the US young. This has been enabled by smartphones. A full 96% of the young now have one. This compares to 61% for the over 65’s. Even that number has grown from 13% ten years ago. COVID is believed to have driven usage across all ages but especially the "over 65's".
Are the “old” on the wrong side of the digital divide?
Usage is not dependent on age alone. Accessibility is still not 100% especially in rural areas. These are areas that often have an older profile. Income, gender and education levels can all explain at least part of the story. It is hardly surprising that the lowest users of the internet are the rural poor. Income could be related to “availability” and the cost of data and technology. It also determines the affordability of smartphones. Education of course is correlated with income but seems to incrementally explain usage.
The definition of usage may itself be a problem. In many research areas it includes a selection of all activities. These including information gathering, e-commerce and social media. A recent study of older people in rural New England looked at many kinds of usage. Their sample ranged from ages 64 to 104. They looked across 48 different activities enabled by internet usage. The most common was “emailing family and friends” (68%). This was followed by “looking for Health and Wellbeing Information” (57%). Staying in touch with distant friends and shopping online was done by just over half. Pornography by 6%. They found that beyond 75, age explained little variation in usage. Graduates outperformed all other educational groups. Interestingly living alone did not promote internet use. It was thought that it would encourage social media use. Instead it seems that having someone else in the home stimulates internet activity. Other studies have shown a strong relationship with income.
Similar results occur when comparing usage across European countries. The researchers found that they could not look at all usage. It was first necessary to separate e-services from social media usage. Less older people were using social media. When it came to e-services there were little statistically significant differences. Neither age, nor gender, nor income and education made much of a difference to usage. There was little digital divide for these services. It was only in social media usage that differences appeared with age. There are many possible reasons not related simply to age. Many social media platforms are targeted at the young. Facebook penetration has been static for the last 4 years in the US. Some older people worry about the societal impact of social media.
Smartphones are driving access around the world. There are still big differences in ownership and usage across Europe and the world. In Iran, for example, internet penetration is 79% or 70m out of the population of 88m. There are 48m social media users, it is still a very young country. There are 127m active mobile phones for those 88m people. Broadband speeds on a mobile average 41Mbs. On a land line the average is 11Mbs. The cost and availability of smartphones and mobile data must be driving usage.
Is the Digital Divide II really a marketing problem?
It is now clear that it is not appropriate to treat older people as a homogeneous group. The stereotype that underpins “Digital Divide Ageism” does not hold. There are many different segments in a diverse group of “over 65’s”. Healthy ageing has pushed frailty back beyond 80 or 85 for most of us. We will remain mentally and functionally effective until then. Our subjective age is always younger than our chronological age.
Are the over 65s resistant to innovation or do they not see the benefits of the remaining services? Why then would they invest the effort and skills to use them. Interestingly studies have shown that many over 65s have good technology skills. However, they may not accept this. Their internal stereotype defines what someone their age should do. Once they understand the benefits, they become committed users. Less older people may use the internet but 70% of those that are users access the internet every day.
It is time to retire the "Digital Divide II"