the various avenues of media all have autonomy as far as their own individual definitions of what constitutes a "market area". when it comes to the DMAs for television, nielsen subdivides some metro areas and designates each part as a separate market. thus the rankings you linked to, which list west palm beach as distinct from miami-ft. lauderdale.

when you take the entire metro into acct -- which, again, is what we're really talking abt in 2010 when we refer to "media markets", particularly in this specific context -- all the media rankings (tv, radio, newspaper) reflect the reality here, which is that the south florida market is 2-2.5x the size as cleveland. it's the 5th biggest market in the country. and growing. not to mention the fact that it's waaaay more culturally diverse, has a more varied economy, that it's the 5th richest city in the world according to UBS, and that, well, that it's miami and cleveland is cleveland.

and this is all moot anyway; even the numbers that you posted, as limited in use and scope as they are, bear out the fact that miami's market is indeed larger! and bigger, as you know, is better. which is all frank said in the first place.

so again, what's really the point of contention here?

by any metric, miami's a "better" market than cleveland. much better. like, not even remotely comparable. longo's right here. i mean, it's not like he doesn't say lots of other dumb shit (no offense, longo), no need to belabor this particular point.






>for whatever media market you are trying to define here.
>
>
>>"virtually"?
>>
>>i'll assume, since you qualified, that miami is, in fact,
>>bigger.
>
>just barely. they're basically the same size:
>
>Rank of Designated Market Areas -
>http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp
>
>Miami - Fort Lauderdale , FL: #17; 1,538,090 TV households,
>1.339% of US
>
>Cleveland-Akron(Canton), OH: #18; 1,520,750 TV households,
>1.324% of US
>
>
>so yes, like I said, their tv media markets are virtually
>identical in size.
>
>
>>so quantitatively, it is bigger, and qualitatively, it's
>>inarguably better (PLEASE don't tell me you think otherwise)
>>
>>sooooooo... what are you arguing again?
>
>I was arguing market size. and quantitatively, they are
>virtually the same size.
>
>.... so what is it that you are arguing about, exactly?