Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
REVIEW
THE
VOL. LXXXII. No. 9 Published Every Satirday. Edward Lyman Bill, Inc., 383 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y. Eeb. 27,1926
8in
*if $2.00
_ les 10 Cents
Per Tear
Music Stores and Their Relation to
the Urban Population
A Survey of the Number of Retail Music Stores in Thirty of the Leading Cities of the Country and Their
Relation to the Total Population—Cincinnati Has the Smallest Number of People Per Music
Retail Outlet, Followed by New York and Chicago—Northwest Leads in Sections
TATISTICS are notoriously dry reading,
yet it is only through the careful study of
statistics that direct conclusions may be
drawn regarding any particular branch of in-
dustry or business, especially when it comes to
S
the opposite view. Those who belong to the
latter class go so far at the present time as to
declare that there are not sufficient good retail
outlets for a manufacturer of a high grade
piano to build up a proper national distribution
Music Stores Per Unit of Population in Thirty Leading Cities
City
Cincinnati
New York
Chicago
St. Paul
Boston
Buffalo
Los Angeles
Cleveland
Milwaukee
Denver
Seattle
Des Moines
Pittsburgh
Portland, Ore
Dallas
Memphis
Rochester
St. Louis
Minneapolis
Newark
Baltimore
San Francisco
Detroit
Kansas City
Omaha
Indianapolis
New Orleans
Philadelphia
Washington, D. C
Columbus, 0
Population
401,247
6,103,000
2,701,705
234,891
748,060
506,775
576,673
796,841
457,147.
256,491
315,312
126,468
588,343
258,288
158,976
162,351
295,750
772,897
380,582
414,524
733,826
506,676
993,678
324,410
191,601
314,194
387,319
1,823,779
437,571
237,031
Average Population Per Store
the problems of distribution. Unfortunately the
music industries have long suffered from a lack
of proper statistics, in fact comparatively little
is known regarding the industry as a whole, and
what is known too often has as its basis statis-
tics that are incomplete or inaccurate, the use
of which leads to conclusions which are false,
or else of little value to the music man who
desires to study his selling problem funda-
mentally.
Especially is this so regarding the number of
retail music merchants there are in the trade.
As a matter of fact there are certain men in the
industry who, in considering the problem of
distribution, declare that there are too many
retail music merchants, while another group,
equally sincere in its statements, holds directly
Stores
76
888
396
34
105
70
69
95
54.
30
35
13
60
26
16
15
26
58
27
28
41
33
54
18
10
17
18
83
19
10
12,934
Per Unit
Population
5,280
6,821
6,848
6,908
7,124
7,239
8,355
8,378
8,466
8,549
8,948
9,729
9,806
9,934
9,936
10,832
11,375
13,326
14,098
14,447
18,000
18,334
18,401
19,134
19,160
19,842
21,457
21,973
23,000
23,703
with representatives equipped and following the
proper policies to handle such an instrument
so that a real quota of sales will come from the
territories which are given them. Perhaps the
figures in the attached survey of retail music
distribution of thirty of the leading cities in
the country will help, to some extent at least,
to reconcile these two conflicting schools of
thought.
In the accompanying table, thirty of the
leading cities in the country were used. The
merchants classified therein represent real re-
tail outlets, merchants of standing in their com-
munity. They are not confined to piano mer-
chants, talking machine merchants, or musical
merchandise. They represent to a great extent
the general musie store, with others of standing
who confine themselves exclusively to one of
these three leading sections of the retail music
trade.
In a study of this table it will be seen that
Cincinnati, Ohio, leads all the large cities of the
country in the number of music merchants it
has in relation to its total population, and that
Columbus, Ohio, shows the lowest number
taken in the same relation. Extremes evidently
meet in Ohio. It is surprising to find a city
like Philadelphia ranking twenty-eighth in this
table, as surprising as it is to find New York
and Chicago ranking second and third, re-
spectively. It would be thought that the three
largest cities in the country would show some
degree of equality between them in this re-
spect, and it would be interesting to endeavor
to arrive at the reasons which make Philadel-
phia the exception.
Sectional Averages
The following series of tables show the re-
spective rank of these cities in their sections
of the country:
EAST
City
New York
Boston
Buffalo
Pittsburgh
Rochester
Newark
Philadelphia
Stores
888
105
10S
60
26
28
83
Average Population per Store
MIDDLE WEST
City
Cincinnati
Chicago
Cleveland
Milwaukee
Des Moines
St. Louis
Detroit
Kansas City
Omaha
Indianapolis
Columbus
Stores
76
396
95
54
13
58
54
18
10
17
10
Average Population per Store
NORTHWEST
City
Stores
St. Paul
34
Minneapolis
27
Average Population per Store
SOUTH
City
Dallas
Memphis
Baltimore
New Orleans
Washington
Stores
16
15
41
18
19
Average Population per Store
(Continued on page 4)
Per Unit
Population
6,821
7,124
7,239
9,806
11,375
14,447
21,973
11,235
Per Unit
Population
5.280
6,848
8,378
8,466
9,729
13,326
18,401
19,134
19,160
19,842
23,703
13,842
Per Unit
Population
6,908
14,098
10,503
Per Unit
Population
9,936
10,832
18,000
21.457
23,000
16,645