Choose from California's three biggest cities
Here is an ad currently on United.com
Choose from California's three biggest cities Try San Francisco, San Diego, L.A. on for size A simple and straight forward ad- but the three largest cities in California are L.A., San Diego, San Jose (not San Francisco). A minor complaint, yes. But as a 25 year resident of San Jose I guess I am like the middle child screaming for attention. |
Well from UA's point of view, SFO is the largest, LAX is next, then SAN...with all other cities in California having far less flights. SJC barely exists with 2 mainline flights operating today...so you can understand how they would overlook SJC. :)
|
Metropolitan areas vs. cities proper.
|
Originally Posted by channa
(Post 21207650)
Metropolitan areas vs. cities proper.
|
Just further example of how mindless and meaningless UA's ad campaign is. They just state the obvious... and get it wrong.
|
Originally Posted by mre5765
(Post 21207681)
Indeed, San Francisco is a worthy addition to San Jose's metropolitan area.
|
Perhaps they were talking about size instead of population, as SF is about 25% larger than San Jose, in which case, ignoring California City (and based on it's population, the word "city" is kind of misleading,) the 4 largest cities by size would be Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, (California City), San Jose, in that order. Of course, San Francisco gets most of it's area by water, but it is included in the city.
It does say "biggest", not "most populated". When I think of biggest state, I think AK, when I think of biggest country, I think RU. Neither are the most populated, but are the "biggest" Annex the bay out to the Dumbarton bridge, and I think San Jose would then be "bigger" than San Francisco. |
I think the bigger point is how totally stupid UAs advertising has become.
People don't say "hey, lets pick a BIG city in California to visit" And the add is not going to cause folks to say "hey, good idea, I'll just book a trip to California, anyone want to flip a coin" What is UA thinking? There are no classy illustrations (as UA used to have) no theme that ties in with a brand (friendly skies), etc. Its all just amature hour. The UA brand at this point is the dorky guy who gets to avoid the horrible UA service and the bad lines with his UA explorer card when going on his once a year trip (where he can't seem to dress properly for a tropical location) with someone who looks like his mistress. :rolleyes: |
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 6_1_4 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10B350 Safari/8536.25)
Why is it his mistress? |
Originally Posted by TheStoicPaisano
(Post 21207914)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 6_1_4 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10B350 Safari/8536.25)
Why is it his mistress? Sort of like the PS ice cream ad. It does a very poor job of conveying "want to buy" elements of status. |
Originally Posted by spin88
(Post 21207892)
I think the bigger point is how totally stupid UAs advertising has become.
People don't say "hey, lets pick a BIG city in California to visit" And the add is not going to cause folks to say "hey, good idea, I'll just book a trip to California, anyone want to flip a coin" What is UA thinking? There are no classy illustrations (as UA used to have) no theme that ties in with a brand (friendly skies), etc. Its all just amature hour. The UA brand at this point is the dorky guy who gets to avoid the horrible UA service and the bad lines with his UA explorer card when going on his once a year trip (where he can't seem to dress properly for a tropical location) with someone who looks like his mistress. :rolleyes: There is no brand, and in a service industry, there is no service to uphold any brand promise. |
Originally Posted by mre5765
(Post 21207681)
Indeed, San Francisco is a worthy addition to San Jose's metropolitan area.
|
Originally Posted by fastair
(Post 21207887)
Perhaps they were talking about size instead of population, as SF is about 25% larger than San Jose, in which case, ignoring California City (and based on it's population, the word "city" is kind of misleading,) the 4 largest cities by size would be Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, (California City), San Jose, in that order. Of course, San Francisco gets most of it's area by water, but it is included in the city.
It does say "biggest", not "most populated". When I think of biggest state, I think AK, when I think of biggest country, I think RU. Neither are the most populated, but are the "biggest" Annex the bay out to the Dumbarton bridge, and I think San Jose would then be "bigger" than San Francisco. City Sq Miles Population Los Angeles 468.67 3,857,799 San Diego 325,19 1,338,348 San Jose 176.53 982,765 Sacramento 97.92 475,516 Oakland 55.79 400,740 San Francisco 46.87 825,863 |
Originally Posted by DWFI
(Post 21207837)
Officially the San Francisco-San Jose-Oakland metropolitan area ;)
Originally Posted by mitchmu
(Post 21208109)
Absolutely not!
|
Originally Posted by danville 1K
(Post 21208189)
That would depend on what you're speaking of square miles inside an incorporated city or a metro area. Here's how it stacks up major cities in California based upon 2012 census data. San Francisco and Oakland combined are not as large in area as San Jose.
City Sq Miles Population Los Angeles 468.67 3,857,799 San Diego 325,19 1,338,348 San Jose 176.53 982,765 Sacramento 97.92 475,516 Oakland 55.79 400,740 San Francisco 46.87 825,863 |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:54 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.