The Oklahoma City media market continues to improve and combined with Tulsa there are over 1.2 million in our market.

We have surpassed New Orleans, Memphis, Greensboro, Jacksonville and Buffalo--these cities were ahead of OKC around 2000.

NBA's Salt Lake City has a very robust media market because their media market encompasses nearly the whole state of Utah.

TV Households:

http://www.sportstvjobs.com/resources/local-tv-market-sizes-dma.html

Good news but a long way to go.

The Oklahoma City media market continues to improve and combined with Tulsa there are over 1.2 million in our market.

We have surpassed New Orleans, Memphis, Greensboro, Jacksonville and Buffalo--these cities were ahead of OKC around 2000.

NBA's Salt Lake City has a very robust media market because their media market encompasses nearly the whole state of Utah.

TV Households:

http://www.sportstvjobs.com/resources/local-tv-market-sizes-dma.html

There's just one problem: we're not one single media market with Tulsa. That doesn't work Laramie to arbitrarily throw together two markets and combine the numbers to look bigger. Tulsa/OKC is an hour and a half apart. How can anyone throw Oklahoma City and Tulsa together in one big "media market?" We have zero overlapping TV stations. Two completely different markets. Playing that game to 'move up the rankings' - we would have to assume that other cities wouldn't be combining with cities over an hour away to 'move up the rankings'. How do you come up with OKC and Tulsa as being one media market?

I agree Mike. They are totally diffent markets and cannot be combined by knowledgeable folks.

There are states with smaller populations, such as Nevada and Utah who have their whole state as a single media market. It's a somewhat arbitrary distinction. From an advertising sales standpoint, if there are a significant number of people in Tulsa watching the same sporting events, you simply need to have the same business present in both cities for them to function as a single market. From the NBA's POV, if they are all watching the Thunder on television, they basically constitute a single market.

There are states with smaller populations, such as Nevada and Utah who have their whole state as a single media market. It's a somewhat arbitrary distinction. From an advertising sales standpoint, if there are a significant number of people in Tulsa watching the same sporting events, you simply need to have the same business present in both cities for them to function as a single market. From the NBA's POV, if they are all watching the Thunder on television, they basically constitute a single market.

And all of those places use repeaters and consume the same content. That's the key to a "media market" whether you're talking TV (Nielsen and their DMAs), Radio (Arbitron) or for purposes of federal regulations (TMAs). Tulsa and Oklahoma City are not clustered as a single market in any of these well-established designators of "media markets." So, actually it's not arbitrary at all. In theory, I suppose we could cobble together different media markets as defined by different groups, companies, organizations, etc. and claim that they are, but they're not accepted as any standard. What I listed above is standard. And in no standard definition of "media market" is Oklahoma City and Tulsa considered one market.

I agree Mike. They are totally diffent markets and cannot be combined by knowledgeable folks.

Grasping at straws to be bigger than we really are. Why the needed to feel bigger? It is pretty ridiculous. We will continue to grow as a good clip. Why speed it up by fudging numbers together?

Imagine the media markets when you start merging together larger cities that are only an hour apart from each other.

There's just one problem: we're not one single media market with Tulsa. That doesn't work Laramie to arbitrarily throw together two markets and combine the numbers to look bigger. Tulsa/OKC is an hour and a half apart. How can anyone throw Oklahoma City and Tulsa together in one big "media market?" We have zero overlapping TV stations. Two completely different markets. Playing that game to 'move up the rankings' - we would have to assume that other cities wouldn't be combining with cities over an hour away to 'move up the rankings'. How do you come up with OKC and Tulsa as being one media market?

When you are considering major professional sports; especially the MLB, NFL and NBA they do look at outlining markets. The NFL stresses a 100-mile radius. I'm not sure what the MLB's radius might encompass; however, in the 1997 NHL expansion derby, the Oklahoma City group (headed by Mayor Norick & Clay Bennett) couldn't sell the combined markets of Oklahoma City-Tulsa as one--you are correct in that regards.

I still believe that we underestimate what Oklahoma's potential might be with Major League Sports and I'm sure that because we don't have a lot of history in that area.

All I'm saying is this: Let's be ready and in a position when 2020 rolls around to do something should we opt to go that route.

My analogy of New Orleans and Oklahoma City was a realistictic comparison since both cities are as close as any demographically (post Katrina). Oklahoma City is experiencing more growth than New Orleans. New Orleans doesn't have two major universities playing football (OU - 85,000/OSU 50,000 game averages) within a 60-mile stretch. A lot of potential dollars in the marketing mix area just will not stretch that far.

Buffalo, NY does take in Rochester and Syracuse and they are closer to Buffalo than Tulsa is to OKC.

Raleigh, NC has Durham and Greensboro in their proximity.

The studies done on the top overextended markets (eg., Kansas City,St. Louis, Phoenix, Denver, Tampa-St. Petersburg, New Orleans, Nashville) are weighed very heavily and that's one reason why the Professional Basketball Club LLC of OKC chose to move the Supersonics to Oklahoma City over Kansas City. Kansas City offered a rent free Sprint Center had the team relocated there.