40% of all people know that.

>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.

... and it lists columbus as distinct from cleveland-akron-canton, soooooo...


>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.

again you are assuming metropolitan area as equivalent to the relevant media markets here. I mean are you saying bron's media market didn't extend beyond the cleveland metropolitan area? because he was probably the biggest media star in the history of the entire state & his media market there appeared to extend throughout most of ohio (except maybe cincy). is lebron's new south florida media market going to likewise extend that far? I dunno, but I doubt it. so yeah while miami's metropolitan area is 2-2.5x the size of cleveland that doesn't really reflect the reality of the relevant market sizes here I don't think.


>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 that means there's alot more going on in miami than lebron, whereas in cleveland bron was the biggest thing going on bar none. so in terms of media market is it better to be the clear top attraction and undisputed king of all media in an albeit less glitzy region, or is it better to be in the more glamorous area where you're not necessarily the biggest thing going on?


>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!

by a whole whopping 1 percent! woohoo! that shows miami's market is indeed marginally larger by a slim fraction!

>and bigger, as you know,
>is better. which is all frank said in the first place.

nah I said that, not frank.


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

I dunno, you're raising all the contention here.


>by any metric, miami's a "better" market than cleveland. much
>better. like, not even remotely comparable. longo's right

miami's obviously a far more enticing place for a 25 year old megamillionare to live. but is it actually that much of a better market for bron? I dunno.


>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.

dude I just mentioned it in passing, you're the one belaboring the point here.