• by Mitch Oscar , Op-Ed Contributor, April 24, 2007

If memory serves me well, back in the mid-'50s two opposing media research forces were vying for hegemony over the naming and defining rights for the media term "a media market," a physical piece of property that was defined by many characteristics like number of people, homes, education, families, dwelling, income, boundaries, occupation -- that would stretch continuously in many shapes and sizes across the United States. The two top contenders were ADI (audience of dominant influence) and DMA (designated marketing area).

Somehow, my understanding is that Nielsen Media Research won the coin toss and DMA, it has been ever since that the staid, limited evolving definition of our morphing media landscape was crowned. Seemed all right. Rarely, I have heard media people challenge one another as to whether this DMA is sized right, or given unfair advantage in the weights of justice. Wasn't a big issue for me either up through the '80s when I was a national television buyer whose primary focus was the impending glacial slide of the broadcast networks' ratings, higher CPMS and the arrival of nichely defined cable networks that had my clients questioning efficiency and targeting. The arrival of the cable networks and their distribution was crammed into the pre-determined DMA definitions, and business continued as usual.

It was in the latter part of the '90s that I detected what I thought was the first crack in DMA's efficacy. Something was happening in terms of land grab. No longer did it seem reasonable to base DMA boundaries on the length and strength of radio or TV broadcast signals that traversed many hamlets and cities. I noticed that the cable operators were quietly trading systems with one another -- sometimes for cash but most often for proximity to their other assets -- building up their density in many urban locales. This activity was followed by larger mergers and acquisitions -- TCI, AT&T Broadband and Adelphia disappeared. Suddenly, more potent coaxial mandarins existed.

Then, many months ago, the telecos entered the fray with their deep pockets to support quadruple bypass play deployments of video, broadband and telephony (landline and mobile) on a market-by-market basis traversing U.S. counties one telephone pole at a time. In a few years, TV stations will transition from a single analog transmission to multiplexing upwards of four digital terrestrial channels from their locally based in DMA market.

Concurrently we were and are looking at the government's attempt at loosening media ownership restrictions. On the docket: ownership of upwards of three TV stations in a market (large market); the 8-8-8 rule of radio ownership in a zone; cross ownership of broadcast, radio and newspapers in a single market; digital terrestrial allocation and mandatory carriage by competing systems, i.e., cable, satellite, teleco; net neutrality governance; geo-targeting of all forms of interactive televisual properties across terrestrial transmission, cable, satellite, broadband and mobile. Legislation, or deregulation, if it prevails, should encourage more concentration of media ownership in the paws of the few.

And what about content? Presently, professionally produced media content is being generated through fewer and fewer sources, its creation controlled by fewer media conglomerates. Although I am sure there will be those reading this blog who will proudly hail the democratization of news and content dissemination through the Internet as well as the plethora of stuff posited by the UGCs, professionally produced content -- whether theatrically, TV or even online -- still rules the day, and most importantly, generates the bucks. Oftentimes, as we would all agree, the same few media mandarins are now controlling a greater slice of both distribution and content.

So what should it be? Should we maintain our market definition by simple physical geography for advertisers to utilize to map out their media spend and targeted points -- or should we begin to define a media market based upon distribution of media services and control of content and editorial. Then again, if in your opinion, the government and media conglomerates are not creating areas of dominant influence, DMA should suit us fine.