Do Embedded Markets Cost Other Markets Money?

[Pattern.Guru]

Do Embedded Markets Cost Other Markets Money?

Using San Jose as an example:
1. San Jose Arbitron subscribers can strut their stuff as the #36 market
2. The San Francisco market, which includes the embedded San Jose market, ranks #4

If San Francisco did not have San Jose embedded, it would drop to #6 behind Dallas and Houston.
If San Francisco-San Jose were simply one Arbitron market, all the markets below San Jose would move up one in the rankings.

Similarly, Nassau-Suffolk (embedded in New York market) currently ranks #19, which pushes Baltimore out of the Top 20, and so on down the line.

A bit further down, #39 Hudson Valley, and #41 Middlesex-Somerset-Union are embedded markets.

Thus, Memphis, Hartford-New Britain-Middletown, Louisville, and Richmond are pushed out of the Top 50.

If some markets are losing billings because they are below a cutoff (Top 20, Top 25, Top 50, or whatever) is there any resentment about this double-counting costing them money?

Or has this practice been around so long that no one even notices it any more?

Note: I post this message here because there has been some recent mention of embedded markets in this Los Angeles forum, and I did not see a more appropriate forum. If the moderator or anyone feels it belongs elsewhere, please let me know. Thanks.

 

[MisterGort]

Who set up the system ? Who sets up what "markets" are which ?
Maybe - the question should be put to the companies that take the ratings and set up the stardards.

It seems a matter up to the rating bureaus. It works great for the big boys who "buy" the ratings. Why should it be changed - unless the big boys want it to be changed?

 

[davideduardo]

Do Embedded Markets Cost Other Markets Money?

Using San Jose as an example:
1. San Jose Arbitron subscribers can strut their stuff as the #36 market
2. The San Francisco market, which includes the embedded San Jose market, ranks #4

Embedded markets are created to enhance the saleability of stations that don't cover all of a metro. They are essentially breakouts of a larger area's survey, with some statistical controls put in to satisfy the MRC.

Embedded markets like San José or Nassau Suffolk tend to bill lower than the population rank since advertisers realize the full market SF and NYC buys they make cover the embedded markets to some extent. That is why the San Jose market, ranked 36th, is 71st in billing... and Nassau Suffolk, ranked 19th, is around 40th in billings.

Agencies are used to different geographies... MSAs for radio, DMAs for TV, circulation areas for newspapers, and widely difused usage for new media. They look beyond the OMB or Nielsen and Arbitron rankings based on their client's marketing areas.

If San Francisco did not have San Jose embedded, it would drop to #6 behind Dallas and Houston. If San Francisco-San Jose were simply one Arbitron market, all the markets below San Jose would move up one in the rankings.

That is the way it has always been. When the Orange County embedded market disappeared, everyone moved. When Riverhead Hamptons dissappeared, everyone below them moved.

[/quote]If some markets are losing billings because they are below a cutoff (Top 20, Top 25, Top 50, or whatever) is there any resentment about this double-counting costing them money? Or has this practice been around so long that no one even notices it any more?
[/quote]

Markets for media are based on usage. The radio markets are based a bit on history and a lot on coverage of local stations.