-
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
When did Los Angeles become the second largest TV market?
- Thread starter ixnay
- Start date
According to the NY Times, the population of Los Angeles passed Chicago in 1984, replacing Chicago as the second largest city in the US. That might give you some clue, though that's not the population of the two metro areas, so LA may have been the second largest TV market prior to that.
From a population standpoint (not a tv household stat), it happened during the 1950's.
http://www.peakbagger.com/PBGeog/histmetropop.aspx
My best guess would be the mid to late 50's, when LA was booming. Note how high Detroit was during this era.
Last edited:
Keep in mind that the radio and TV markets are very different. The TV ADI (past) and HDA areas include what are separate surrounding radio markets, while the radio market is just LA and Orange counties... and pre-Arbitron, the radio market was just a part of the LA County area.
As a governmental issue, that is certainly interesting. For radio, that's irrelevant. Stations serve markets, metros, MSAs. It does not matter if there are big or small cities within it; what matters is the total population of all of them.
Interestingly, the measurements of local audience done prior to the late 60's generally was based on the people in the area that could be called toll-free from the largest city in the market. That's why lower power stations were sometimes #1 in that era, since they still covered most of the telephone toll-free area.
The Chicago metro area has about 9 million people. Metro Houston has about 6.5M, and metro Phoenix (which is physically much smaller than the Phoenix TV market. The latter covers the northern 2/3 of the state.) is roughly 4.2 million. No way will the Phoenix area eclipse metro Houston in population in our lifetime, if ever. Same goes for metro Houston becoming larger than the Chicago area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Los_Angeles_County
What about this one the Demographics of Los Angeles County. Its Population is slightly larger than New York City Proper maybe Nielsen is basing its territory for a TV Market based on the surrounding counties plus Los Angeles county. I'm not sure for how long had LA took the 2nd DMA though for how long.
What about this one the Demographics of Los Angeles County. Its Population is slightly larger than New York City Proper maybe Nielsen is basing its territory for a TV Market based on the surrounding counties plus Los Angeles county. I'm not sure for how long had LA took the 2nd DMA though for how long.
New York City is not a market, nor is LA County. They are political subsets of individual states. TV and radio signals do not pay much attention to lines on a map.
Nielsen uses DMA market definitions which all counties (or parts of counties) where the TV stations cover or even are extended by means of cable.
"A DMA region is a group of counties that form an exclusive geographic area in which the home market television stations hold a dominance of total hours viewed. There are 210 DMA regions, covering the entire continental United States, Hawaii, and parts of Alaska."
Note that DMAs are counted in households, not persons. Radio MSAs are measured in persons.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/838822-us-media-market-maps-data.html has a Designated Market Areas showing the counties. The LA DMA goes up to the Nevada border, for example. The SLC DMA has pieces in NV, UT, WY and ID.
Last edited:
The Chicago radio metro (Metro Survey Area) is 9.6 million in 11 counties of IL, IN and WI. Houston also has 11 counties, but a larger number of square miles.
Do the math. Houston, with 6.6 million, has a growth rate projected out to 20 years, of 1.8% Chicago has a 0.6% growth rate, so any more rapid growth of Houston is offset in part by the slower growth rate of Chicago.
Dallas is growing at the same rate as Houston, so it will retain its position. More possible is that Dallas and even Houston could pass very slow growth San Francisco and take 4th and 5th places, leaving SF as 5th.
That is a a good overview, David. I also believe that Dallas and Houston will grow faster than the CA Bay Area, simply due to recent stats, and the high COL in The Bay. There are variables, of course, such as the somewhat depressed oil industry which might negatively effect Texas markets. But overall, I think you are spot on.
The largest city in the San Francisco metro area is...San Jose...not San Francisco. Offhand, I cannot think of another metro area whose name sake city is not the largest city in that metro.
The City and County of San Francisco (they are one in the same) was built out long ago and has little room to expand except up and that is somewhat limited by building restrictions and the cost and threat of the inevitable earthquake. And there are only so many Hippies you can cram into the Haight-Ashbury.
Actually, its "smallness" is one of the things that makes SF one of my favorite "big" cities.
Ancient history, Landtuna. The Haight-Ashbury district, like most of SF, has gentrified - but it actually started earlier than most neighborhoods- in the 80s, IIRC. Building requirements are strict, but the potential for earthquakes has stopped nothing. Building here in SF has been crazy lately, with the booming tech economy. For some reason, even techies who work down in Silicon Valley prefer to live in the City. You've heard of "Google buses?" Many businesses south of here have them, so employees can commute to the software campus their office is in, and work via computer and WiFi during the commute.
Gas stations are closing for new buildings - generally 5-6 stories, car dealerships, and smaller buildings and parking lots are being demolished for new construction. The famous old S&C Ford dealership on Market St. is now a 5 or 6 story condo building with a Whole Foods on the street level.
The population of San Francisco was 805,235 in the 2010 census, up from 777,360 in 2000, and is now estimated at 860,000. That's an 11% increase in 17 years, and 6.8% in 7 years.
But San Jose is over a million.
True but lets go back to Los Angeles though and broadcasting. I noticed that CBS Radio and NBC Radio once thought it was a good idea to put the KCBS and KNBC radio call letters in San Francisco mainly I suspect that NBC and CBS thought San Francisco was a larger market than Los Angeles. This was prior to ABC obtaining the KABC call Letters from San Antonio and placing them on 790 KECA and Channel7 KECA-TV. Sometime in 1954 ABC had the evidence that Los Angeles is a bigger media market than San Francisco though and that's what lead to NBC moving the KNBC call letters to Channel 4 Los Angeles and 680am renamed KNBR in San Francisco. CBS ratings from KCBS in San Francisco may have prevented the KCBS call letters to 1070 Los Angeles and from entering Channel 2 Los Angeles (delayed until 1984).
The "formative period" for NBC (Red and Blue) and CBS was in the period following the FRC reorganization of frequencies in 1927. The foundation for the 50 kw clear channel stations was laid then, although by 1930 there were only about a dozen stations running the full 50 kw on the air.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/city...cal-population-metropolitan-areas-decade.html shows the metro area populations of the time. By 1930, LA had grown larger than San Francisco and had also become the hub of entertainment, culminating in the first Academy Awards in 1929. LA had arrived.
But the two networks had seen San Francisco as the larger market, and as a communications center as well. So that "mistake" in reading the future caused the key call letters to be used "up there" initially.
KECA became KABC because Earle C. Anthony, also owner of KFI, had to sell it's duopoly partner due to the new rules. And NBC had to spin off one of its two networks, which became the separate Blue network in 1943 and was renamed ABC two years later.
http://www.theradiohistorian.org/Dixon/Dixon1.html. Well according to this link KNBC call letters was originally used for a shortwave station in Dixon,CA out in the Sacramento Valley and it was one of a few shortwave stations in northern California that aimed their signal to Hawaii and Philippines during World War II. Note the KNBC Call letters in some sources did not go to San Francisco until 1947 at 680AM. Im just not sure how NBC and CBS got the evidence that San Francisco is a larger Media Market than Los Angeles came from but I seen the 1930's census showing Los Angeles is larger than San Francisco at that point though. In the case of KCBS going to San Francisco wasn't this issue a debate over who got the CBS affiliation on 740 AM. Because KSFO was mentioned as one of the CBS Affiliates in the Bay area at the time and KQW was moving from San Jose to San Francisco at that time though.
I don't have any history of Shortwave stations specific for Los Angeles during WWII though.
I don't have any history of Shortwave stations specific for Los Angeles during WWII though.
Channel 4 in LA remained KRCA until about 1962, when it became KNBC. So if you're right about 1954, it took them 8 years to make the switch. Interestingly, when KCBS was moved to KNXT and FM in LA, the FCC had changed their rule about allowing call letters in different markets, so KCBS was allowed to stay on the AM in San Francisco, and be in LA simultaneously. If that had been true in '62, they could have kept KNBC on 680 AM San Francisco, and avoided the switch to KNBR NBC had no O&O on AM in LA, since the affiliation was held by Earle C. Anthony and KFI.
- Status