Anyone know when LA surpassed Chicago as the 2nd biggest radio market?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Number 3
- Thread starter KlunkLetter
- Start date
The earliest ranking of Arbitron markets that I've ever seen is from 1970 and Los Angeles is already the #2 market.
It's always been number 2 since Arbitron started. LA surpassed Chicago as the nation's second largest city back in the 60's. Advertising revenue - which is the other factor in determining market rankings, also increased to the point where Chicago could not keep up. Still, number 3 ain't bad.
There are those who think LA should be ranked number one because for many years more money has been spent on advertising there than New York. But Arbitron and Neilson haven't made that call yet. It's an ongoing battle.
The quirks of market rankings sometimes have nothing to do with population, either. Consider San Francisco which is nowhere near the top 20 when it comes to population but is number 4 due to advertising revenue. Meanwhile Dallas and Houston have surpassed Philadelphia (now market 7) as markets 5 & 6 respectively.
There are those who think LA should be ranked number one because for many years more money has been spent on advertising there than New York. But Arbitron and Neilson haven't made that call yet. It's an ongoing battle.
The quirks of market rankings sometimes have nothing to do with population, either. Consider San Francisco which is nowhere near the top 20 when it comes to population but is number 4 due to advertising revenue. Meanwhile Dallas and Houston have surpassed Philadelphia (now market 7) as markets 5 & 6 respectively.
B
bobbybooey
Guest
Boogie Skank said:It's always been number 2 since Arbitron started. LA surpassed Chicago as the nation's second largest city back in the 60's. Advertising revenue - which is the other factor in determining market rankings, also increased to the point where Chicago could not keep up. Still, number 3 ain't bad.
There are those who think LA should be ranked number one because for many years more money has been spent on advertising there than New York. But Arbitron and Neilson haven't made that call yet. It's an ongoing battle.
The quirks of market rankings sometimes have nothing to do with population, either. Consider San Francisco which is nowhere near the top 20 when it comes to population but is number 4 due to advertising revenue. Meanwhile Dallas and Houston have surpassed Philadelphia (now market 7) as markets 5 & 6 respectively.
Markets are ranked by Arbitron by population, period. Just because San Francisco is not one of the largest cities doesn't mean its metro isn't. The Bay Area is the 4th most highly populated metropolitan area in the US, hence they're market 4, based strictly on population, not ad revenues. Size of city-proper has nothing to do with it... if it did, the Top 10 would be New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philly, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose.
btw, San Francisco is the 14th largest city in the US... hardly "nowhere near the top 20".
bobbybooey said:Boogie Skank said:It's always been number 2 since Arbitron started. LA surpassed Chicago as the nation's second largest city back in the 60's. Advertising revenue - which is the other factor in determining market rankings, also increased to the point where Chicago could not keep up. Still, number 3 ain't bad.
There are those who think LA should be ranked number one because for many years more money has been spent on advertising there than New York. But Arbitron and Neilson haven't made that call yet. It's an ongoing battle.
The quirks of market rankings sometimes have nothing to do with population, either. Consider San Francisco which is nowhere near the top 20 when it comes to population but is number 4 due to advertising revenue. Meanwhile Dallas and Houston have surpassed Philadelphia (now market 7) as markets 5 & 6 respectively.
Markets are ranked by Arbitron by population, period. Just because San Francisco is not one of the largest cities doesn't mean its metro isn't. The Bay Area is the 4th most highly populated metropolitan area in the US, hence they're market 4, based strictly on population, not ad revenues. Size of city-proper has nothing to do with it... if it did, the Top 10 would be New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philly, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose.
btw, San Francisco is the 14th largest city in the US... hardly "nowhere near the top 20".
bobbybooey said:Boogie Skank said:It's always been number 2 since Arbitron started. LA surpassed Chicago as the nation's second largest city back in the 60's. Advertising revenue - which is the other factor in determining market rankings, also increased to the point where Chicago could not keep up. Still, number 3 ain't bad.
There are those who think LA should be ranked number one because for many years more money has been spent on advertising there than New York. But Arbitron and Neilson haven't made that call yet. It's an ongoing battle.
The quirks of market rankings sometimes have nothing to do with population, either. Consider San Francisco which is nowhere near the top 20 when it comes to population but is number 4 due to advertising revenue. Meanwhile Dallas and Houston have surpassed Philadelphia (now market 7) as markets 5 & 6 respectively.
Markets are ranked by Arbitron by population, period. Just because San Francisco is not one of the largest cities doesn't mean its metro isn't. The Bay Area is the 4th most highly populated metropolitan area in the US, hence they're market 4, based strictly on population, not ad revenues. Size of city-proper has nothing to do with it... if it did, the Top 10 would be New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philly, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose.
btw, San Francisco is the 14th largest city in the US... hardly "nowhere near the top 20".
Well, 14th place would put it within the top 20. Do you mean the top 10?
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.