Looking at 210 Designated Market Areas (DMAs) across the U.S., Nielsen Claritas demographic data shows that just over 800,000 households (roughly 0.7%) earn more than $500,000. Those that make $250,000-500,000 account for an additional 1.6% for a total of 2.3% of homes that could be considered “affluent.”

Where The Wealthy Are

The top 10 most affluent markets (San Francisco, New York, W. Palm Beach, Fl., Washington D.C., Palm Springs, CA, Ft. Myers/Naples, Fl., Boston, Santa Barbara, CA, Los Angeles, and San Diego) identified in the dark green [see full graphic] account for 42.6% of all households in the U.S. earning more than $500,000. These affluent households are twice as concentrated in these markets than the USA overall. In these markets, about 1.5% have incomes $500,000+ and 2.8% have incomes $250,000-$500,000 annually.

… And Where The Uninsured Are

Not surprisingly, many of the same markets that have a large majority of high-income households also tend to be the most insured as identified by the light blue [see full graphic]. San Francisco (with 85% estimated insured) leads the way, whereas Greenville, MS (66%) registers as the least insured metropolitan area.

Markets with the most insured households tend towards the major metro areas of the coasts and the Great Lakes, whereas markets with a higher incidence of uninsured households tend toward the secondary metropolitan areas, small towns and rural markets of the South and interior heartland.

This analysis has been based on a likelihood or a rate for being insured and uninsured rather than an absolute number of households without insurance. So while San Francisco has the lowest rate of uninsured, they will certainly have more uninsured households than Greenville, MS. However, even taking market size into account, Nielsen estimates there are roughly 8.3 million uninsured households in the top 27 high income markets (where 60% of all affluent households are) versus 15.4 million uninsured households in the lesser affluent markets. The gap becomes more apparent when you look at the top 50 high-income DMAs – those top 50 markets contain 81% of households with incomes of $500,000+, but only 34% of the uninsured.

Were a “high income” surtax employed to fund universal coverage, there would likely be a “wealth transfer” from the large, metro markets of the East and West to the smaller, second-tier markets of the deep South, the Mississippi valley, and central plains. [See graphic for side by side comparison].

Learn more about Nielsen Claritas.

Additionally, 68% feel that, as a critical driver of competition between companies, advertising leads to better products and lower prices. Consumers’ views on the economic benefits of advertising are broadly consistent across the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific.

The survey also shows a clear majority of consumers across all markets understands the importance of advertising and sponsorship as a critical source of funding for exhibitions, cultural and sporting events (81%) and the media (67%).

The survey also revealed some interesting discrepancies between the attitudes of consumers across regions about advertising as a source of information.

Said Jonathan Carson, President of Online, International for The Nielsen Company: “European consumers appear to be more skeptical, with only half agreeing that advertising helps them make better choices. Consumers in the rest of the world are much more enthusiastic: four out of five Latin Americans, three quarters of consumers in Asia-Pacific and seven in 10 in North America agree.”

When asked whether advertising is entertaining, 79% in Latin America, 76% in Asia-Pacific and 59% in North America agreed. In contrast, almost half of European consumers disagreed.

WFA has partnered with The Nielsen Company in order to gauge consumer attitudes to advertising as part of a broader campaign to champion advertising at a time when policy makers worldwide are considering introducing new restrictions.

Said Stephan Loerke, WFA Managing Director: “Advertising is a powerful economic stimulus, and consumers are clearly aware of this. But, we still have more work to do so that governments, too, understand the important role it plays and take this into account when formulating policy.”

Download the complete Trust, Value and Engagement in Advertising report.

Although 40 percent said that the media did a poor job of informing them of the issues that led to the crisis, 52 percent say that the media is now helping them to better understand the issues at play while 23 percent said that they were let down by the media.  Another 25 percent were ambivalent.  A similar number (53%) thought that they were getting good information from the media about the steps governments were taking to address the economy, while 20 percent thought that more information was needed.

The views of New Zealanders largely echoed those of others in the Asia Pacific region, which were generally less critical of the media than Europeans and Americans.  In North America, 51 percent of those surveyed said that media coverage leading up to the crisis was inadequate, while 48 percent of Europeans thought the same.  The Swiss were the most fatigued by media coverage – 42 percent were tired of reading about gloom and doom – followed by the Dutch (41%) and the Irish (38%).

According to a recent 52-nation online survey conducted by The Nielsen Company, the general consensus among consumers across much of the world is that the media did a poor job informing the public about the issues leading up to the current financial crisis.

In every region, except Latin America, the percent of people who agreed or strongly agreed that media coverage was inadequate outnumbered those who disagreed — by two-to-one.

Q: The news media did not do a good job of informing me of issues that led up to the global financial crisis

EU – Europe
APIMEA – Asia Pacific, India, Middle East and Southern Africa
LA – Latin America
NA – North America

The two regions where consumers were most dissatisfied were Europe and North America. Not surprisingly, these were the areas hit hardest by the current economic crisis. GDP in Western Europe and North America were the lowest among all regions covered.

In North America, 51 percent agreed that coverage leading up to the crisis was inadequate compared to 20 percent who disagreed. In Europe, 48 percent agreed compared to 22 percent.

On the other hand, consumers in many Asia Pacific nations, where the impact of the economy hasn’t been as harsh, were generally less critical of the media.

Discrepancies between nations also reflect varying levels of consumer confidence.

Although Nielsen’s broader survey of global consumer confidence reported a near-universal decline across the world’s population, expectations plummeted significantly in Russia, Hungary and Latvia. These were among the countries where media fared worst. Moreover, among the top five countries where consumers believed there was not enough coverage of the global crisis, four also are where media fared least well overall.

Attitudes about early media coverage were most positive, however, in the Philippines, Pakistan, Indonesia, Venezuela and India, all of which scored above the global average.

Factors that drove the failure to communicate were varied.

Some critics have argued that the financial media was too close to those it covered. What is more, the speed of negative events following the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy filing caught not only journalists by surprise, but also economists and government officials.

Yet it hasn’t been all bad news for the media. Globally, many of the 25,000-plus consumers polled between March 19 and April 2 believe their performance has improved over time. In much of the Asia Pacific region, the public thought the media was doing a good job in providing information about what the issues are and what governments are doing to address them. And in North America, 50 percent said the current media “is helping me to better understand what governments are doing to solve the problems.” This is almost a complete reversal from opinions about earlier coverage.

One hundred days is scarcely enough time to draw any firm conclusions about a new president’s capabilities. Even so, Barack Obama has garnered considerable respect for his media skills. Pundits have dubbed him the “new media president;” while some of the most cynical among them believe his underlying strategy is to end run traditional Washington gatekeepers by communicating more directly with constituents sympathetic to his agenda. But his fans and critics alike may be missing the bigger picture.

It’s true Mr. Obama has readily embraced most things digital. Throughout much of his campaign, his unique online audience bested those of his opponents – Hillary Clinton during the primaries, and John McCain in the general election – sometimes two-to-one. His historic 26-word text message announcing Joe Biden as his running mate reached nearly three million U.S. mobile subscribers, and is considered the nation’s single largest mobile marketing event ever. And since taking the oath of office, he has continued to use the web to blog on vital issues and field questions from the public. 

It should come as no surprise, however, that the president is taking full advantage of new technologies. Given the current state of the media, it would be more astonishing if he didn’t.

American consumers, like their counterparts around the world, have a seemingly insatiable appetite for information, from just about everywhere. Time spent with blogs and social networks, for example, is increasing globally at more than three times the rate of overall Internet growth, particularly among audiences 50 and older. Little wonder then that Mr. Obama is active on Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and Twitter.

Much has also been made about the president’s penchant for his Blackberry. Yet with the typical U.S. mobile subscriber now sending and receiving more text-based data than voice calls, the ability to “thumb” a message is critical to reaching certain sectors of the population.

Still, it is with video, the emerging lingua franca of the 21st century, that Mr. Obama has probably been most prolific. Americans today watch more video than ever before, primarily on three screens – television, the Internet and cell phones. But despite the growth of online and mobile media, more than 99 percent of screen time is still in front of the TV set in the home. Acknowledging this fact, the president has made ample use of the medium. [see: Video Viewing Up At WhiteHouse.gov]

Tonight, he will hold his third televised press conference, raising his monthly average above any other president since John F. Kennedy. Last month he appeared on both The Tonight Show and 60 Minutes, helping to drive up their ratings to the highest levels in four and 10 years respectively.

Consequently, President Obama has underscored two important facets of an ever-changing media landscape. First, as audiences continually fragment into smaller, self-defined groups, communicating with them will mean working across multiple platforms.  Second, the process is not a zero sum game. At any given time, consumers tend to favor the best available screen, basing their decisions on factors such as convenience, availability of content and the quality of the viewing experience. Thus, new media alone will not be enough to successfully reach all constituencies.

Regardless, Barack Obama will increasingly turn to new and emerging media technologies, as will the rest of the nation. Yet he is hardly the only president to do so. Some 67 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt became the “radio president,” as people began listening to radio to help carry them through the Great Depression. For his part, JFK initiated live, televised news conferences.

Back then as now, neither was the first to use their respective medium, though each was the first to truly master it. Like President Obama today, each was also able, to some degree, to bypass mainstream filters and talk more directly to the public. Since the invention of movable type, that has historically been one of the key advantages of any new medium. What is more, it is not likely to change.

President Barack Obama’s inauguration marked the beginning of a new era, which included the launch of a dramatically overhauled White House Web site. President Obama wasted no time ensuring that the official site, WhiteHouse.gov, represented a continuation of his campaign’s masterful use of the Internet and social media.

During President Obama’s first month in office, it seemed like the overhaul had paid off with unique visitors to WhiteHouse.gov reaching an all-time high. However, as the novelty of having an Internet-savvy administration seemed to wear off, so did the visitation rate, leaving one to wonder if the revamped WhiteHouse.gov will actually become the effective tool for communicating with the public that the President hopes it to be.

On its own, the decline in Web site traffic doesn’t seem to be that surprising or interesting a finding. Site launch, followed by a surge in traffic and then a steep decline in unique visitors mirrors the trajectory of visitation to brand Web sites and online discussion after a large-scale (i.e. Super Bowl-level) campaign.

Interestingly though, Web traffic alone does not tell the whole story when it comes to WhiteHouse.gov. While some might see the drop-off in visitors as evidence of a gradually disengaging public, there’s more going on with these numbers. Despite the decrease in March, those visitors that did come were actually spending more time on the Web site than in January and February. The online town hall meeting on March 26 proved to be successful in engaging visitors on the site, as individuals submitted votes and viewed the meeting online.

So what does it mean that fewer people are spending more time at WhiteHouse.gov? From the corporate world, we know that a well-run online campaign thrives on two fronts—attracting new visitors and maintaining an active and engaged user base. Because time spent on a Web site is a key indicator of engagement, it is clear that while one front of interest has dwindled (i.e. traffic), another is beginning to blossom (i.e. engagement). Having dedicated visitors who are willing to spend time and engage with the site is certainly an encouraging sign for an administration that has expressed a desire to communicate its policies directly to the people.

Of course, WhiteHouse.gov is not the only resource for those interested in learning more about the Administration, and it wouldn’t be fair to assess engagement without also considering these other destinations. The Administration provides many avenues for communication, reaching consumers where they are already congregating. The official YouTube channel has received over 21 million views, President Obama’s Twitter account boasts over 800,000 followers and his official Facebook page has attracted over 6 million supporters to date.

But despite all of the social media activity, WhiteHouse.gov is perhaps the most compelling example of President Obama’s vision because it is a site that his administration controls as opposed to a third-party site. Frequenting the official site illustrates a level of effort and commitment that is not required when following President Obama on Twitter or becoming a supporter of his Facebook page. While it is hard to say definitively at this point, engagement on WhiteHouse.gov may prove to be the Administration’s most valuable online metric in the long-run.

As we continue to follow President Obama’s online presence, it will be interesting to see just how much of an impact the retooled White House Web site is actually having and how President Obama’s strategy adapts to the ever-changing, online landscape.

Consumer reactions to recent government moves toward U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler range from skeptical to supportive, based on Nielsen Online’s analysis of Internet consumer buzz.

The Obama Administration’s weekend request for GM CEO Rick Wagoner’s resignation is merely “symbolic” for some consumers, contributing to their belief that Wagoner is being made a “scapegoat.”

Despite the President’s assurances that the federal government has no intention of running an automotive company, consumers remain concerned about the future of American capitalism and what some perceive as a shift toward socialism. Yet, some consumers agree that the government has a right to take these actions given that automakers asked for government-backed bridge loans and taxpayer support.

These recent developments have created significant Internet buzz since March 30th, surpassing discussion levels from mid-February related to the submission of restructuring/viability plans from GM and Chrysler.

GM, Chrysler and Government Loan Situation Buzz (January 1 – March 30, 2009)

Given the skepticism toward the government’s involvement in Wagoner’s resignation, what do consumers think about the President’s announcement of a government-backed Warranty Commitment Program for domestic automakers to bolster consumer confidence? Nearly half of immediate consumer responses to the Warranty Commitment Program are negative, influenced heavily by concerns about government involvement in the automotive sector. Consumers do not trust the government’s ability to manage the program and fear this level of regulation erodes the basic principals of capitalism, a sentiment that overshadows the intended impact of the program.

Consumer Sentiment within Warranty Commitment Program Buzz

(Sample of 100 Comments from March 29-30, 2009)

Buzz has been rapidly evolving over the past few days. No doubt online consumers will continue to discuss unfolding events while the clock ticks for GM and Chrysler.

However, 20% of consumers do respond favorably to the warranty program, saying that it improves their perceptions of GM and Chrysler products or that the program accurately addresses a concern for prospective buyers. This includes prospective owners who say the program has a positive impact on their consideration to buy a GM or Chrysler product.

Topic Discussion within Warranty Commitment Program Buzz

(Sample of 100 Comments from March 29-30, 2009)

Buzz has been rapidly evolving over the past few days. No doubt online consumers will continue to discuss unfolding events while the clock ticks for GM and Chrysler.

*Scott Hamm also contributed to this analysis