Television digest with electronics reports (Jan-Dec 1954)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Ratio of TV Per cent Estimated No. Estimated No. Households of U.S. Markets and Market Groups of Households TV Households to Total Total TV (See text) Counties ] an. 1, 1954f Jan. 1, 1954 H ouseholds H ouseholds ‘TALLAHASSEE (D) . . . Leon, Fla.: 15,200 1,286 8.5% .0048% TAMPA (C) ST. PETERSBURG Hillsborough, Pinellas, Fla.: 157,800 44,379 28.1% .1644% TEMPLE (D) Bell, Texas: 23,300 5,670 24.3% .0210% ‘TERRE HAUTE (D’) . . Vigo, Ind.: 36,000 18,836 52.3% .0698% TEXARKANA (D) .... . Miller, Ark.; Bowie, Texas: 30,500 5,571 18.3% .0207% TOLEDO (C) . Lucas, Ohio: 127,600 114,840 90.0% .4304% TOPEKA (D’) • Shawnee, Kan.: 39,700 17,270 43.5% .0640% ‘TORRINGTON (D) . . . . • Litchfield, Conn.: 31,800 20,150 63.4% .0746% ‘TRENTON (C) • Mercer, N. J,: 68,500 61,650 90.0% .2311% TUCSON • Pima, Ariz.: 55,600 16,957 30.5% .0628% TULARE (F’) T ulare , Calif. : 46,300 14,895 32.2% .0552% TULSA (C) • Tulsa, Okla.: 88,700 63,614 71.7% .2356% ‘TUSCALOOSA (D) . . . . • Tuscaloosa, Ala.: 24,200 7,189 29.7% .0266% TYLER (D) . Smith, Texas: 22,700 4,481 19.7% .0166% UTICA-ROME (C) . . . . . Herkimer, Oneida, N. Y.: 89,100 66,318 74.4% .2456% ‘VICKSBURG (D) • Warren, Miss.: 12,500 1,886 15.1% .0070% WACO (D’) ■ McLennan, Texas: 41,400 10,534 25.4% .0390% WASHINGTON (B) District of Columbia; Montgomery, 476,700 399,328 83.8% 1.4790% Prince Georges, Md; Arlington, Fairfax, Va.; (Including Independent Cities of Alexandria and Falls Church, Va.): WATERLOO (D’) Black Hawk, Iowa: 33,300 12,616 37.9% .0467% ‘W ATERTOWN (D) Jefferson, N. Y.: 27,000 13,640 50.5% .0505% ‘WAUSAU (D) Marathon, Wis.: 22,900 1,811 7.9% .0067% WEST PALM BEACH (D) Palm Beach, Fla.: 43,100 7,808 18.1% .0289% WHEELING (C) STEUBENVILLE Brooke, Hancock, Marshall, Ohio; W. Va.; Belmont, Jefferson, Ohio: 101,800 63,848 62.7% .2366% WICHITA (C) Sedgwick, Kan.: 95,400 30,852 32.3% .1143% WICHITA FALLS (D’) . . Wichita, Texas: 32,400 12,700 39.2% .0470% WILKES-BARRE (C) HAZELTON Luzerne, Pa.: 107,700 54,567 50.7% .2021% ‘WILLIAMSPORT (D) . . . Lycoming, Pa.: 31,800 9,776 30.7% .0362% WILMINGTON (C) New Castle, Del.; Salem, N. J.: 85,100 76,590 90.0% .2849% ‘WILMINGTON (D) New Hanover, N. C .: 20,000 1,472 7.4% .0055% ‘WINONA (D) Winona, Minn.: 12,000 1,906 15.9% .0071% WINSTON-SALEM (D’). . Forsythe, N. C .: 44,000 26,427 60.1% .0979% WORCESTER (B) Worcester, Mass.: 165,900 141,405 85.2% .5237% YAKIMA (D) Yakima, Wash.: 45,400 10,579 23.3% .0392% YORK (C) York, Pa.: 64,200 57,780 90.0% .2171% YOUNGSTOWN (B) .... Mahoning, T rumbull, Ohio; Mercer, Pa.: 157,700 126,865 80.4% .4698% YUMA (F’) Yuma, Ariz.: 9,100 1,587 17.4% .0059% ZANESVILLE (D) Muskingum, Ohio: 23,500 14,073 59.9% .0521% Total All Markets Listed In This Study Per Cent of Total U.S 32,632,600 68.613% 22,708,001 84.1037% 69.6% 84.1037% tTotal Household Estimates from “Survey of Buying Power— 1954,” published by Sales Management Magazine 10