Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1960)

able for the bu) ing ■ ■I spot radio. ble fact that the metro areas do exist significantlv. is allied with Young ir 1 he metro area, il i pointed oul in the sense that there is a wealth this Advertiser Area push. Thev an |.\ the forces aligned against it. was of economic dats available on them also used bv Nielsen. Although Nid -ci up years jefore the electronic ad and that useful trends can be spotted sen nrovides both metro area rating med ;i came to the fore and made because Census Bureau figures go and total station homes-reached fig meai . unseen count] lines back many years ures, the latter are not area-in-com whit h were important in a more lei The leavy hand of tradition (as mon data — and it is an area in com Burel j era. Furthermore, there is well as the fact that the ad business mon to most , if not all. stations in i ' -..nit question toda] whether — with would spend only so much for ratings given market that Young is looking i the \ asl suburban gr< wth — the metro and no more) made the metro area a for. (Hooper, with three or four ex area is useful for the purpose for logical choice for comparative station cepti ons, defines its survey areas b\ : whic i il \\;i ongina Iv created. On ratings early in the game. They are stick ing to a non-toll or local, tele ■ the other hai d, there is the undenia the basic areas used by Pulse, which phone samp] e.) • 1 1 PROPOSED RANKINGS OF 'ADVERTISER AREAS' 1 I Metro Advertiser Metro Advertiser Metro Advertiser Area rank Area rank * Market Area rank Area rand Market Area rank Area rank* Market 1 1 New York 28 26 45 40 56 83 32 33 34 35 36 37 Tampa-St. Peters. San Diego Sacramento Louisville Toledo Wlks.-B.-Hazleton 57 75 50 67 55 62 76 72 54 58 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Oklahoma City Orlando Akron Wilmington Youngstown Jacksonville Canton Wichita Springfld-Holy. Allntn.-Beth.-East. 1 2 2 L. A.-Long Beach " 3 3 Chicago [ 4 4 Philadelphia 5 5 Detroit 6 6 Boston 7 7 San Fran.-Oakland 74 65 38 39 Harrisburg Salt Lake City 9 8 Pittsburgh • 8 9 Washington 43 44 40 41 Rochester Memphis a 11 10 Cleveland 10 11 St. Louis 61 42 Omaha 98 73 Ft. Wayne 13 14 12 13 Mpls.-St. Paul Baltimore 60 43 Norfolk-Portsmouth 88 51 74 75 Dvnpt.-Rock Is.-Mol. Worcester 1 71 44 Flint 17 14 Seattle 36 45 Providence 97 76 Shreveport 15 15 Houston 31 46 San Bern.-Riverside 87 77 Chattanooga 21 16 Milwaukee 69 47 Grand Rapids 99 78 Stockton ' 22 17 Miami 95 48 Greensb.-High Pt. 84 79 Knoxville ■: 23 18 Cincinnati 41 49 Phoenix 79 80 Lansing 1 20 19 Kansas City 82 50 Charlotte 70 81 Honolulu : 16 20 Buffalo 39 51 San Jose 73 82 Fall R.-Nw. Bedfd. '-. 18 21 Dallas 46 52 San Antonio 100 83 Mobile ; 30 22 Indianapolis 47 53 Birmingham 85 84 Spokane :■ 24 23 Atlanta 42 54 Ft. Worth 91 85 El Paso ' 33 24 Columbus, Ohio 59 35 55 56 Richmond Bridgp.-Stamfd.-Nrwlk. 94 80 86 87 West Palm Beach Utica-Rome • 78 25 Des Moines 27 26 Portland 37 57 New Hvn.-Wtrbry.-Mer. 86 88 Trenton f 38 27 Albany-Schen.-Troy 63 58 Fresno 92 89 Beaumont-Pt. Arthur I 29 28 New Orleans 49 59 Syracuse 77 90 Bakersfield r 25 29 Denver 81 60 Peoria 90 91 Albuquerque '" 34 32 30 31 Dayton Hart.-N. Britain 64 61 Nashville 96 93 92 93 Tucson Lancaster : 68 62 Tulsa •lUiikliig 1 n all casea iere Is by total retail sales ;i'i nhnr tr 'Sales Management.' The following marke a have bee « ranked by previous agency polls and I are not aubject to change: Pittsburgh. Tulsa, Hartford, Des Moines, Sacramento, Stockton, and AUentOwn-EMton liethlehem. Seven een combined Into four of the Advertiser Areas. ► SPONSOR • 14 NOVEMBER l! 960l