<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Nielsen Wire &#187; DMA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/dma/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire</link>
	<description>Consumer Insights, News, Research &#38; Reports</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:36:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Haves and Have-Nots: The Demographics of Americans and Health Insurance</title>
		<link>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/the-haves-and-have-nots-the-demographics-of-americans-and-health-insurance/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/the-haves-and-have-nots-the-demographics-of-americans-and-health-insurance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nielsen Wire</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nielsen News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claritas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demographics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health insurance reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRIZM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[segmentation and targeting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=18168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Because insured and uninsured populations vary significantly, insurance companies will have to develop even more targeted initiatives and reexamine their current members’ ongoing medical and wellness needs.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><strong>Jane Crossan, Vice President, Financial Services Practice, The Nielsen Company</strong></em></p>
<p>Few issues have roused the American public in recent years as much as the debate over health insurance reform.  While the Obama administration calls for mandatory coverage for all Americans, about 8 in 10 Americans already have insurance, and have shared their mixed views about the proposed legislation. While some support the plan, a vocal number worry about the possibility of higher premium costs. Others cite concern over a government-run health care program &#8212; the so-called public option intended to ensure affordable coverage and drive costs down by injecting competition into the industry. Still more voice a general opposition to any changes that might impact their coverage.</p>
<p>Who are these insured Americans who so vocally lodged their complaints at recent town hall meetings and rallies on Capitol Hill? And what’s behind the resistance? How does their perspective differ from that of people who currently lack health insurance but may be required to obtain it?</p>
<p><strong>The Haves</strong><br />
According to new research by <a href="http://en-us.nielsen.com/tab/product_families/nielsen_claritas">Nielsen Claritas</a>, 78 percent of Americans own health insurance, and they represent a wide-ranging group of people. As defined by <a href="http://en-us.nielsen.com/tab/product_families/nielsen_claritas/prizm">Nielsen PRIZM</a>, the segmentation system that classifies Americans into 66 lifestyle types, the insureds tend to be upscale and educated suburbanites. A disproportionate number include elderly, middle-class couples in small-town and rural communities. And high rates of health insurance owners are found among well-off Boomer couples and families in exurban towns.</p>
<blockquote><p>People who buy health insurance have other preferences that reflect their lifestyles and concerns.</p>
<table class="chart" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th colspan="4">Americans With Health Insurance</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th> What&#8217;s Hot</th>
<th></th>
<th> What&#8217;s Not</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Golf</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Sport</strong></span></td>
<td>Horse racing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Gardening</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Leisure</strong></span></td>
<td>Bingo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Treadmill</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Exercise</strong></span></td>
<td>Roller skating</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Classical</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Music</strong></span></td>
<td>Rap</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Opera</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Culture</strong></span></td>
<td>Karaoke</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Collectables</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Hobbies</strong></span></td>
<td>Needlepoint</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Books on tape</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Purchase</strong></span></td>
<td>Videos by mail</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Home &amp; Garden TV</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>TV</strong></span></td>
<td>Univision</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>All news</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Radio</strong></span></td>
<td>Hispanic</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Consumer Reports</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Print</strong></span></td>
<td>Soap Opera Weekly</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Computer software</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Gadgets</strong></span></td>
<td>Portable DVD player</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Land’s End</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Retail</strong></span></td>
<td>Wal-Mart</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tracking investments</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Internet</strong></span></td>
<td>Job search</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Domestic red wine</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Drink</strong></span></td>
<td>cognac</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Common stock</td>
<td><span style="color: #33cccc;"><strong>Financial</strong></span></td>
<td>No-interest checking account</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="table_meta" colspan="4">Source: The Nielsen Company</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<div class="pull">Learn about the demographics of your area. <a style="color:#FF6600;" href="http://en-us.nielsen.com/forms/product_families/nielsen_claritas/nielsen_claritas_prizm">Click Here</a>.</div>
<p>Geographically, the concentration of health insurance owners reflects the broad demographic disparity between America’s coasts and interior. The insured tend disproportionately to have six-figure incomes, college degrees and white-collar jobs, and are receptive to health-related products and concerns. Cosmopolitan in their outlook, these Americans already follow doctors’ orders, pursuing physical activity and avoiding fat- and sugar-filled foods. They’re more likely than the general population to get exercise by biking, skiing, playing golf and using treadmills. They have high rates for buying vitamins, eating high-fiber food and getting regular checkups from an internist and dermatologist. And such self-care appears to be effective: they have low rates for buying pain relievers, over-the-counter stimulants and cough syrup. Ironically, research shows that those with health insurance may be less likely to need it than those who lack coverage.</p>
<p><strong>The Have Nots</strong><br />
The uninsured are more likely to live in small towns and rural communities where access to good health care can be a challenge. Young and underemployed, they reside in small city PRIZM clusters. These consumers tend disproportionately to have modest educations, work at blue-collar jobs, earn below $25,000 a year and live in low-rise apartments. They’re somewhat old fashioned in their leisure pursuits, enjoying roller skating, bingo, needlepoint, horse racing and gospel music. There’s an undeniable ethnic factor to the health insurance gap: nearly 25 percent of those who lack coverage are African-American or Hispanic.</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Americans-Who-Have-Health-I.png"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-18176" title="Americans-Who-Have-Health-I" src="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Americans-Who-Have-Health-I.png" alt="Americans-Who-Have-Health-I" width="575" height="453" /></a></p>
<blockquote><table class="chart" border="0">
<p>Top 20 and bottom 20 insured Designated Market Areas</p>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th colspan="2">Top Cities With Insurance</th>
<th colspan="2">Top Cities Without Insurance</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th> Rank</th>
<th> City</th>
<th> Rank</th>
<th> City</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>Juneau, AK</td>
<td>190</td>
<td>Paducah et al, KY-MO-IL</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>Honolulu, HI</td>
<td>191</td>
<td>Myrtle Beach et al, SC</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>San Francisco et al, CA</td>
<td>192</td>
<td>Lafayette, IN</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td>Washington et al, DC-MD</td>
<td>193</td>
<td>Alexandria, LA</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5</td>
<td>Fairbanks, AK</td>
<td>194</td>
<td>Gainesville, FL</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6</td>
<td>Boston et al, MA-NH</td>
<td>195</td>
<td>Jonesboro, AR</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7</td>
<td>Monterey-Salinas, CA</td>
<td>196</td>
<td>Laredo, TX</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>8</td>
<td>Anchorage, AK</td>
<td>197</td>
<td>Monroe-El Dorado, LA-AR</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9</td>
<td>Hartford &amp; New Haven, CT</td>
<td>198</td>
<td>Joplin-Pittsburg, MO-KS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10</td>
<td>Baltimore, MD</td>
<td>199</td>
<td>Tri-Cities, TN-VA</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11</td>
<td>Philadelphia, PA</td>
<td>200</td>
<td>Bluefield et al, WV</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12</td>
<td>Santa Barbara et al, CA</td>
<td>201</td>
<td>Lexington, KY</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13</td>
<td>Seattle-Tacoma, WA</td>
<td>202</td>
<td>Clarksburg-Weston, WV</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14</td>
<td>Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN</td>
<td>203</td>
<td>Albany, GA</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15</td>
<td>Chicago, IL</td>
<td>204</td>
<td>Charleston et al, WV</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>16</td>
<td>Ft. Myers-Naples, FL</td>
<td>205</td>
<td>Hattiesburg-Laurel, MS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>17</td>
<td>San Diego, CA</td>
<td>206</td>
<td>Columbus et al, MS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>18</td>
<td>New York, NY</td>
<td>207</td>
<td>Meridian, MS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>19</td>
<td>Detroit, MI</td>
<td>208</td>
<td>Harlingen et al, TX</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>20</td>
<td>Sacramento et al, CA</td>
<td>209</td>
<td>Greenwood-Greenville, MS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="table_meta" colspan="4">Source: The Nielsen Company</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>The Deeper Difference</strong><br />
Psychographic surveys provide another explanation for the impassioned opinions of the insured. Studies show that they are skeptical consumers who check the ingredients of food before they buy. They dislike most advertisements, believing them to be more manipulative than informative. And they are willing to pay more for a brand that they trust (especially American-made products), avoiding those new and improved products without a long history. They can be open-minded, declaring that they’re early adopters when it comes to technology. But overhauling health insurance isn’t the same as buying an iPod, and they require a sound, rational explanation before they will be convinced of the need.</p>
<p>What truly distinguishes the health insurance haves from the have-nots may be that they’re group-oriented. They’re more likely than the general population to belong to civic clubs, country clubs and unions. The Obama administration is wise to pay attention to labor unions that have demanded changes in the bill throughout the negotiations between the White House and Congress. Americans with health insurance recognize that they’re a majority in this country, and that there’s power in numbers.</p>
<p><strong>A Targeted New Prescription for Insurers</strong><br />
Of course, consumers aren’t the only ones who will be affected by new legislation. Health insurers recognize they may soon have to alter their benefits packages and marketing strategies to reach a potential new audience of low-income households.</p>
<p>Because the insured and uninsured populations vary significantly from state to state and market to market, insurance companies will have to develop even more targeted initiatives—especially in states that may have the ability to opt out of any government-run health insurance plan and design their own exchanges and coverage options. Health insurers will need to reexamine their current members’ ongoing medical and wellness needs and at the same time determine the basic and emerging needs of the uninsured. Marketing managers will have to analyze their service territories on a more localized basis to determine the best product strategy and outreach effort to connect with different population segments. While the goal of the reform initiative is a healthier citizenry, there’s no magic pill that will get the nation there easily.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/the-haves-and-have-nots-the-demographics-of-americans-and-health-insurance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hispanic Homes in U.S. Show Largest Growth for 2009-2010 TV Season</title>
		<link>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/hispanic-homes-in-u-s-show-largest-growth-for-2009-2010-tv-season/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/hispanic-homes-in-u-s-show-largest-growth-for-2009-2010-tv-season/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nielsen Wire</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media + Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nielsen News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[audience demographics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DTV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[television households]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[television viewing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=15153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nielsen estimates a continued increase of Hispanic TV homes (2.3%) in comparison to total U.S. TV homes (0.3%) for the 2009-2010 TV season. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nielsen estimates a continued increase of Hispanic TV homes (2.3%) in comparison to <a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/1149-million-us-television-homes-estimated-for-2009-2010-season/">total U.S. TV homes</a> (0.3%) for the 2009-2010 TV season.  Similar to Total TV homes, modest growth is estimated among African American and Asian homes as both will increase by less than 1% over last year.</p>
<p>The number of persons age 2+ in Hispanic TV homes will also grow with estimates showing a 2.4% increase to a total of 44.3 million.  The number of persons 2+ in African American TV homes will increase by 1.3% to 37.5 million, and persons 2+ in Asian TV homes will remain at 14.5 million.</p>
<table class="chart" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th colspan="4"> Total U.S. Television Households by Race and Ethnicity: 2009 and 2010</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th> TV Households</th>
<th> 2009 UE (000)</th>
<th> 2010 UE (000)</th>
<th> Relative Change<br />
2009-10</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">Total</td>
<td>114,500</td>
<td>114,900</td>
<td>0.30%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">Hispanic</td>
<td>12,660</td>
<td>12,950</td>
<td>2.30%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">Asian</td>
<td>4,740</td>
<td>4,780</td>
<td>0.80%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">Black or African-American</td>
<td>13,950</td>
<td>14,000</td>
<td>0.30%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="table_meta" colspan="4">Source: The Nielsen Company</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><!-- end chart --></p>
<p>Download the <a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2009-2010-Ethnic-DMA-Ranks.pdf">full list</a> of Ethnic DMA rankings and universe estimates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/hispanic-homes-in-u-s-show-largest-growth-for-2009-2010-tv-season/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>114.9 Million U.S. Television Homes Estimated for 2009-2010 Season</title>
		<link>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/1149-million-us-television-homes-estimated-for-2009-2010-season/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/1149-million-us-television-homes-estimated-for-2009-2010-season/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nielsen Wire</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media + Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nielsen News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[audience demographics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DTV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[television households]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[television viewing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=14916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the 2009-2010 broadcast season Nielsen estimates that the total number of television households within the U.S. (including Alaska and Hawaii) will be 114.9 million.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the 2009-2010 broadcast season Nielsen estimates that the total number of television households within the U.S. (including Alaska and Hawaii) will be 114.9 million.  This is an increase of 400,000 homes from last year and the smallest increase in the last 10 years.  Nielsen also estimates that the number of Persons age 2 and above (P2+) in U.S. television households will increase slightly to 292 million.</p>
<p><!-- start chart --></p>
<table class="chart" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th colspan="2"> Broadcast Season Universe Estimates</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th> Season</th>
<th> Homes in Millions</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2009-2010</td>
<td>114.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2008-2009</td>
<td>114.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2007-2008</td>
<td>112.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2006-2007</td>
<td>111.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2005-2006</td>
<td>110.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2004-2005</td>
<td>109.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2003-2004</td>
<td>108.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2002-2003</td>
<td>106.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2001-2002</td>
<td>105.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2000-2001</td>
<td>102.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="table_meta" colspan="2">Source: The Nielsen Company</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><!-- end chart --></p>
<h3>Local TV Market Universe Estimates</h3>
<p>The Top 10 local markets, known in the industry as Designated Market Areas or DMAs, will remain the same this season, with a few rank changes in the Top 20.  Moving up are Seattle, from 14 to 13, and Denver from 18 to 16.  Tampa, Miami and Cleveland are each down one rank.</p>
<p>There were no new markets to enter the Top 50 or the Top 100, although there were several multi-rank increases and decreases.  Notable changes in the Top 100 markets include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Four Florida markets are down (Tampa, Miami, Ft. Myers, Tallahassee), partially due to declines in domestic migration</li>
<li>New Orleans has the largest percentage increase among all markets, up 5.2% from last year, and moves up 2 ranks from 53 to 51 as former residents return to the city and Census Bureau estimates are adjusted</li>
<li>New York adds the most homes of any market (+59,710) while Waco shows the largest change in ranks, moving from 94 to 89</li>
<li>Other multi-rank increases in the Sun Belt region include Tucson (+2), Shreveport (+2), and Charleston, SC (+2)</li>
<li>The Midwest sees multi-rank decreases in Columbus, OH (-2), Grand Rapids (-2), Flint (-2) and South Bend (-2)</li>
</ul>
<p>For complete details, <a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2009-2010_local_ues_0828091.pdf"></a><a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2009-2010-dma-ranks.pdf">download</a> the full list of DMA rankings and universe estimates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/1149-million-us-television-homes-estimated-for-2009-2010-season/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland Top Newspaper Reading Cities</title>
		<link>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/rochester-buffalo-cleveland-top-newspaper-reading-cities/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/rochester-buffalo-cleveland-top-newspaper-reading-cities/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nielsen Wire</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media + Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nielsen News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online + Mobile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Buffalo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cleveland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[local markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newspaper readership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nielsen Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rochester]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarborough Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[top online newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA Today]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=9724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rochester, NY, is the top U.S. city for newspaper readership, according to a new analysis of Integrated Newspaper Audience (INA) data from Scarborough Research, a partnership between Arbitron and The Nielsen Company. A higher percentage of adults in Rochester, NY, are reading newspapers in print or online than in any other U.S. market. The INA of Rochester is 87% &#8211; meaning that 87% of adults in the Rochester DMA read a printed newspaper, a newspaper&#8217;s website, or did both during the past week. Following closely behind are Cleveland, OH and ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/newspaper.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-7609" title="newspaper" src="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/newspaper-300x198.jpg" alt="" width="151" height="99" /></a>Rochester, NY, is the top U.S. city for newspaper readership, according to a new analysis of <a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/scarboroughini.pdf">Integrated Newspaper Audience (INA) data</a> from <a href="http://www.scarborough.com" target="_blank">Scarborough Research</a>, a partnership between Arbitron and The Nielsen Company. A higher percentage of adults in Rochester, NY, are reading newspapers in print or online than in any other U.S. market. The INA of Rochester is 87% &#8211; meaning that 87% of adults in the Rochester DMA read a printed newspaper, a newspaper&#8217;s website, or did both during the past week. Following closely behind are Cleveland, OH and Buffalo, NY, each with an INA of 86%. In the 81 local markets measured by Scarborough, 75% of adults read the newspaper weekly in print or online.</p>
<p>&#8220;This data begs the question: is the constant negative news feed on the industry warranted when newspapers are actually being read by three-fourths of the adult population? When you look at audience data, it seems irrational that advertisers are leaving newspapers because the numbers speak for themselves,&#8221; said Gary Meo, senior vice president, print and digital media, Scarborough Research.</p>
<table class="chart" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th colspan="3">Top Local Markets for Integrated Newspaper Audience</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th> RANK</th>
<th> DMA® %</th>
<th> %</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">1</td>
<td>Rochester, NY</td>
<td>87%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2</td>
<td>Cleveland/Akron, OH</td>
<td>86%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">3</td>
<td>Buffalo, NY</td>
<td>86%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">4</td>
<td>Pittsburgh, PA</td>
<td>85%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">5</td>
<td>Syracuse, NY</td>
<td>85%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">6</td>
<td>Boston, MA</td>
<td>85%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">7</td>
<td>Hartford/New Haven, CT</td>
<td>85%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">8</td>
<td>Albany/Schenectady/Troy, NY</td>
<td>85%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">9</td>
<td>New York, NY</td>
<td>84%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">10</td>
<td>Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, PA</td>
<td>84%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="table_meta" colspan="3">source: Scarborough Research</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><!-- end chart --></p>
<table class="chart" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th colspan="3">Top 10 Newspaper Websites: February 2009</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th> RANK</th>
<th> News Source</th>
<th> Readership</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">1</td>
<td>NYTimes.com</td>
<td>20,126,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">2</td>
<td>USATODAY.com</td>
<td>13,430,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">3</td>
<td>washingtonpost.com</td>
<td>9,240,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">4</td>
<td>LA Times</td>
<td>8,421,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">5</td>
<td>Wall Street Journal Online</td>
<td>6,842,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">6</td>
<td>Boston.com</td>
<td>5,659,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">7</td>
<td>New York Post</td>
<td>5,121,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">8</td>
<td>Daily News Online Edition</td>
<td>4,924,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">9</td>
<td>Chicago Tribune</td>
<td>4,016,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="axis">10</td>
<td>Politico</td>
<td>3,726,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="table_meta" colspan="3">source: Nielsen Online US, Home and Work</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><!-- end chart --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/rochester-buffalo-cleveland-top-newspaper-reading-cities/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

