City-Data Forum 2015 City Proper population estimates are released! (best, highest, Florida, 2013)
 User Name Remember Me Password [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

05-20-2016, 10:29 PM
 Location: Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia 2,192 posts, read 1,578,818 times Reputation: 2989

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl You might want to double check your math. The first city I looked at was incorrect. Raleigh: 403,892 (2010) + 47,174 = 451,066 (2015) + 47,174 = 498,240 (presumed 2020) for a total increase of 94,348. That said, Raleigh's population is actually accelerating and I think the city will top 500,000 in 2020.
The Census is the population on April 1, 2010. The estimates are for July 1, 2015. So it's not 5 years exactly, but 5 years and 3 months. Which means that when extrapolating to the April 1, 2020 date, we tack on 4 years and 9 months, not 5 years exactly.

Hope this clears it up.

05-21-2016, 05:54 AM
 8,091 posts, read 5,444,497 times Reputation: 9051
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Red John This is a map of the geographic expanse that each city's television market covers: http://dishuser.org/TVMarkets/Maps/T...guous%20US.gif I encourage a thorough and very detailed look through that map for all those clicking the link. Look at each major city and look at the expanse they cover and to what extent that should be seen as acceptable. MSA and CSA measure a city's economic vitality and are derived off commuting patterns, as in people in a community (county really) that rely off a particular city for employment and income needs, thus they are apart of that city's commutershed (also known as a bedroom community). CSAs require 15% commuter interchange and MSAs require 25%. So these are not by any means loosely defined, they have standards that must be met for places to gain inclusion. I think that while MSAs and CSAs leave much room for improvement, the MSA and CSA are significantly superior in what they represent, the area they cover, and their economic vitality than a DMA. In my personal opinion, a DMA should never be used for anything more than what it actually is, which is the size of a television viewing market, not the size, scope, or economic interconnection of a city.
But MSE isn't based on commuting in and out of the city. It's based on transfer of people with in the poor BSA, which is that city and it's adjacent counties. That means that if 25% of residents in a Trenton suburb work in Newark, Trenton becomes part of NY's MSA.

And contrary to what you've posted, 82% of Americans report watching local TV news. Media market is not nearly as outdated as you think. https://www.americanpressinstitute.o...cans-get-news/

05-21-2016, 10:51 AM
 10,276 posts, read 8,361,998 times Reputation: 10644
TV market is about the silliest way to measure metro areas. It has nothing to do with metro areas, and the boundaries haven't changed in 50 years. TV used to be regulated like a utility, and this is just a legacy from that era, like local water authorities and the like.

People under 50 don't watch local TV news shows and that's basically what we're talking about. The vast majority of people have no "local" TV. The whole concept of "local TV" will disappear over the next few years. It's like talking about "local calls" vs. "long distance calls".

05-21-2016, 06:07 PM
 Location: Tokyo, Japan 6,811 posts, read 9,269,359 times Reputation: 8174
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gladhands But MSE isn't based on commuting in and out of the city. It's based on transfer of people with in the poor BSA, which is that city and it's adjacent counties. That means that if 25% of residents in a Trenton suburb work in Newark, Trenton becomes part of NY's MSA. And contrary to what you've posted, 82% of Americans report watching local TV news. Media market is not nearly as outdated as you think. https://www.americanpressinstitute.o...cans-get-news/
Media Markets for 7 out of 10 of the Top 10 largest DMAs peaked in 2011 and have since been rescinding downward to different extents for each city. One of the three remaining markets that did not peak in 2011 like the rest, was Dallas-Fort Worth, which actually peaked 3 years later in 2014 and then contracted afterwards as well. Only Houston and Washington D.C.'s DMA/Media Market is at peak size in present day, these are the only two places that are larger now than ever before and with Washington D.C. that too didn't come easy as it dealt with its own lapses of decline over the years. So really, only Houston, which represents only 10% of the Top 10 has continued to post gains in DMA scratch free.

What all this means is: this is a dying metric. What exactly is the purpose of a metric that is contracting and becoming less valuable by the year? The Internet has already trashed television completely, it is significantly smarter and more lucrative to run advertisements on the Internet than on television now and it can be more easily controlled by regional area and target population than advertisements on television. Most corporations and advertisement firms spend more money and time investing in online marketing now than television.

This is why Comcast reports that Internet subscribers have outpaced television cable subscribers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/bu...rnet.html?_r=0

This is why reports illustrate that entire age groups and segments of the national population have turned away from television and towards the Internet:

Internet Surpasses Television as Main News Source for Young Adults [STUDY]

DMA Ranks 2009 - 2016:

2009:
New York: 7,433,820
Los Angeles: 5,654,260
Chicago: 3,492,850
Dallas/Fort Worth: 2,489,970
San Francisco Bay Area: 2,476,450
Boston: 2,409,080
Atlanta: 2,369,780
Washington DC: 2,321,610
Houston: 2,106,210

2010:
New York: 7,493,530
Los Angeles: 5,659,170
Chicago: 3,501,010
Dallas/Fort Worth: 2,544,410
San Francisco Bay Area: 2,503,400
Boston: 2,410,180
Atlanta: 2,387,520
Washington DC: 2,335,040
Houston: 2,123,460

2011:
New York: 7,515,330
Los Angeles: 5,666,900
Chicago: 3,502,610

Dallas/Fort Worth: 2,594,630
San Francisco Bay Area: 2,523,520
Boston: 2,460,290
Atlanta: 2,407,080

Washington DC 2,389,710
Houston: 2,177,220

2012:
New York: 7,387,810
Los Angeles: 5,569,780
Chicago: 3,493,480
Dallas/Fort Worth: 2,571,310
San Francisco Bay Area: 2,506,510
Boston: 2,379,690
Washington DC 2,360,180
Atlanta: 2,292,640
Houston: 2,185,260

2013:
New York: 7,384,340
Los Angeles: 5,613,460
Chicago: 3,484,800
Dallas/Fort Worth: 2,588,020
San Francisco Bay Area: 2,502,030
Boston: 2,366,690
Washington DC: 2,359,160
Atlanta: 2,326,840
Houston: 2,215,650

2014:
New York: 7,461,030
Los Angeles: 5,665,780
Chicago: 3,534,080
Dallas/Fort Worth: 2,655,290
San Francisco Bay Area: 2,518,900
Boston: 2,433,040
Washington DC: 2,412,250
Atlanta: 2,375,050
Houston: 2,289,360

2015:
New York: 7,442,270
Los Angeles: 5,523,800
Chicago: 3,477,250
Dallas/Fort Worth: 2,603,680
San Francisco Bay Area: 2,476,860
Boston: 2,423,640
Washington DC: 2,408,990
Atlanta: 2,334,520
Houston: 2,301,230

2016:
New York: 7,368,320
Los Angeles: 5,489,810
Chicago: 3,475,220
Dallas/Fort Worth: 2,646,370
San Francisco Bay Area: 2,484,690
Washington D.C.: 2,443,640
Boston: 2,411,250
Atlanta: 2,385,730
Houston: 2,373,700

Also, I want to clarify one thing. I never said DMA is outdated, that is too light of a term for what I think of it, which to reiterate is that I think it is an increasingly irrelevant metric and a definite dying one.

To bring back the premise of this conversation, I'll re-quote the post I was responding to:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gladhands I couldn't be with this more. Truthfully media market is probably more meaningful than MSA. If you turn on your television and you can't get a cities local affiliate, you don't live in that city's metro.
I don't agree with this statement. MSA and CSA's are extremely valuable and are used to measure the size and economic activity of a population center. They comprise of counties which are absorbed into an entity when they meet the minimum 15% commuter interchange for CSA and 25% commuter interchange for MSA. They measure GDP, TPI, trade activity, financial activity, human development, and market viability for brands and services. They are extremely valuable metrics and their value has never been greater than it is now, when America's MSAs and CSAs are all either at or close to peak population and size in their histories.

The DMA? It is a contracting metric, posting annual loses. Not only is it losing television viewership and households with television sets and cable subscriptions but it is also losing market competition to the Internet which is decisively making television into a second rate source for media and entertainment. In addition to that, the DMA measures nothing of exorbitant value. It does not measure human capital, it does not measure wealth, it does not measure the number of powerbroking corporations and employers in an area, it does not measure trade activity, it does not measure immigration, it does not measure economy (GDP). So basically unlike the census authorized measures that are the MSA and CSA, the DMA in contrast doesn't really measure anything of crucial significance (at least in comparison).

Almost done, two more final points to make and I'll call it a wrap.

Second to last final point, this is the geographic expanse of DMAs/Nielsen Television Markets:

http://dishuser.org/TVMarkets/Maps/T...guous%20US.gif

If we take the bolded statement in your post that I have quoted a few lines above literally after looking at THAT map I just linked you to two lines above, then you can reach the same conclusion that I have.

On that map, there are communities in the Los Angeles Television Market that are even further north than the city of San Francisco. Other than the local television networks they see when turning on the television, these people absolutely have zero connection to the city of Los Angeles whatsoever.

How about places like Salt Lake City? You still think DMA has more relevance for guaging aspects about cities than MSA and CSAs when places like Salt Lake City have media markets encompassing their entire state (Utah), a quarter of an adjacent state (Nevada), a chunk of another adjacent state (Wyoming), and a sliver of yet another adjacent state (Idaho)?

Yeah, I just don't see it. In no way, shape, nor form does useless DMA have any relevance on census authorized MSA and CSAs.

Finally last point, I know earlier in this thread I mentioned that city propers are the most useless metrics to compare city-versus-city in an apples-to-apples manner. I take that back. DMA is the bottom of the barrel, the floor, the trough, the most useless of them all. Not suggesting you personally did this, but cant take people using DMA as a definition for the true size of a city all too seriously. Not with the exorbitant and outlandish boundaries they have, they'll make people that hate MSA and CSAs blush in comparison.

05-21-2016, 07:39 PM
 Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas 19,412 posts, read 29,071,165 times Reputation: 10691
Houston is closing the gap between itself and Atlanta. Meanwhile, DC is flying up the list. Could pass San Francisco.

05-22-2016, 12:27 AM
 Location: Shelby County, Tennessee 1,210 posts, read 1,039,697 times Reputation: 993
Dude Chicago population is so wrong, it's not 2.7 million, that's the same thing the Census estimates pulled before the 2010 Census. It's 2009 estimate was 2.8 million than the 2010 Census came out and revealed Chicago was actually at 2.6 million,(smh you people have such short memories) SORRY not buying the estimate, Chicago's real population is probably about 2.5 million

05-22-2016, 12:32 AM
 5,923 posts, read 3,741,938 times Reputation: 5483
Why would the count be better than the estimate? Census counts miss tons of people.

The count is just a administrative exercise. The estimates use actual analysis. I believe the latter at least as much if not more.

The US bases policy on the count, so it gets more attention. We could just as easily base policy on the estimates, except that people might think they were corrupted then (and they might be if policy was written based on them).

05-22-2016, 03:11 PM
 Location: Fort Worth 13,582 posts, read 20,461,553 times Reputation: 7482
Austin's gonna hit 1 million by the end of this decade.

05-22-2016, 05:06 PM
 Location: Vineland, NJ 8,541 posts, read 11,277,794 times Reputation: 5517
Quote:
 Originally Posted by JJG Austin's gonna hit 1 million by the end of this decade.
It could certainly happen. I think Philly will reach over 1.6 million by the end of the decade and 2 million by 2050 if the city continues to grow in population.

05-22-2016, 05:32 PM
 4,356 posts, read 9,580,918 times Reputation: 2793
Quote:
 Originally Posted by nightlysparrow Population always skewed against Los Angeles. New York City gets to count all the boroughs as the "city,"which actually contains numerous counties, but LA only gets to count the (relatively small) city. LA County, however, is almost 10 million in population.
Do you think LA city will ever consolidate with the country and create a Metropolitan Government like Tokyo does with Tokyo Prefecture?
 Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over \$68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned. Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.