Reply With Quote
Actually, you have the 7th most populated city in the US (city proper) but metro area is a bit different.
WTF? SA is ing gigantic. Every time I go back there the city has grown like a metastasizing cancer. It's on steroids.
Actually, you have the 7th most populated city in the US (city proper) but metro area is a bit different.
Schertz, Selma, Cibolo....
San Antonio is almost as large as LA proper. Of course, when people refer to LA, they also mean the surrounding cities in the same way people refer to the 5 boroughs as NYC.
The city is over 400 square miles. The problem is, there aren't many people occupying all that land.
Funny thing about land area. The largest city in the US is in Alaska at over 7000 square miles. However, that "city" has 800 residents.
I had a friend say that some friends of his from Alaska talked about how Texans thought we were big when Alaska was twice as big as us. I responded that the city of San Antonio has twice as many people as the state of Alaska, and that's why no one cares what they think.
Marketing people must factor in median/average per-capita income (what's the point of marketing if the market doesn't have enough money to buy ?), and there SA has no large, super-wealthy contingent like Dallas and Houston to pull up the median/average per-capita/household income , and with poor or very poor East/West/South sides.
According to the 2000 census:
SA has 2.77 people per household while Dallas has only 2.58. So even just taking into account the cities themselves there are more households in Dallas than in San Antonio despite there being more people in SA. And contrary to popular belief, the income per household is similar in SA ($36,200), Houston ($36,600) and Dallas ($37,600) but the larger household brings down the per capita income in SA ($17,500) as compared to Houston ($20,100) and Dallas ($22,200). BTW Austin has a per capita income of ($24,200) with only 2.40 persons per household.
It's all relative. Go to a truly large city and SA seems like a small town by comparison.
It's funny to read through the posts and see no matter how many times people explain how SA has no large suburbs (Arlington has like 400,000 people by itself), people still think this has to do with how the Mexicans in SA are too poor to own TV's or shop at Target, or with some government conspiracy to keep Pflugerville out of SA's metro area so it can't get the NFL.
Some quick research shows that they must be using Designated Market Areas as determined by Nielsen which signifies the number of television households in that transmission area. So it is based upon population, but number of households as opposed to persons, and television ownership seems to weigh in, as well. Here is San Antonio which is shown to be ranked 37th with blue for the added DMA.
Here's the top 50. Of course the article is worded poorly because it does not even include Toronto which would be way up this list.
U.S. TV Household Estimates Designated
Market Area (DMA) — Ranked by Households
Rank Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Households
1 New York, NY 7,433,820
2 Los Angeles, CA 5,654,260
3 Chicago, IL 3,492,850
4 Philadelphia, PA 2,950,220
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 2,489,970
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 2,476,450
7 Boston, MA (Manchester, NH) 2,409,080
8 Atlanta, GA 2,369,780
9 Washington, DC (Hagerstown, MD) 2,321,610
10 Houston, TX 2,106,210
11 Detroit, MI 1,926,970
12 Phoenix, AZ 1,855,930
13 Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota), FL 1,822,160
14 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 1,819,970
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 1,730,530
16 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,546,920
17 Cleveland-Akron (Canton), OH 1,524,930
18 Denver, CO 1,524,210
19 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, FL 1,466,420
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, CA 1,399,520
21 St. Louis, MO 1,249,820
22 Portland, OR 1,175,100
23 Pittsburgh, PA 1,156,460
24 Charlotte, NC 1,122,860
25 Indianapolis, IN 1,114,970
26 Baltimore, MD 1,102,080
27 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville), NC 1,080,680
28 San Diego, CA 1,066,680
29 Nashville, TN 1,016,290
30 Hartford and New Haven, CT 1,014,990
31 Kansas City, MO 937,970
32 Columbus, OH 925,840
33 Salt Lake City, UT 919,390
34 Cincinnati, OH 915,570
35 Milwaukee, WI 905,350
36 Greenville-Spartanburg, SC-Asheville, NC-Anderson,SC 858,050
37 San Antonio, TX 818,560
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce, FL 779,430
39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, MI 741,420
40 Birmingham (Anniston and Tuscaloosa), AL 739,750
41 Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York, PA 738,880
42 Las Vegas, NV 728,410
43 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News, VA 718,020
44 Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM 689,120
45 Oklahoma City, OK 687,300
46 Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem, NC 685,110
47 Jacksonville, FL 674,860
48 Memphis, TN 673,770
49 Austin, TX 667,670
50 Louisville, KY 667,230
For the complete list:
http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettr..._hh_by_dma.asp
Driving out of Austin I can't get SA for a long time. NO Saints are an anomoly. How do they calculate their metro area compared to ours
53 New Orleans, LA 602,740
TV market is still smaller than SA's. But the NFL doesn't want to appear evil. And the Saints barely made the attendance numbers needed to kick in state support for the team.53 New Orleans, LA 602,740
If the Saints don't reach their attendance figures, they have an out of their Superdome lease. You bet Tom Benson wants out considering that even before Katrina hit (and especially after) the Saints were selling tickets for about $10 the day of the game just to achieve sell outs and meet their attendance figures.
Anyway you put it, the Saints are losing money and Tom wants out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
