← All Ohio markets
Competitive Analysis — Dayton DMA · YTD

Dayton Market Competitive Analysis

12 firms make up the local and regional legal-advertising field in Dayton, OH year-to-date, running roughly 92% Broadcast / 3% vMVPD / 5% CTV. This view measures delivered viewing volume.

Market Impressions
348M
12-firm competitive set · YTD
Firms Tracked
12
Dayton · YTD
Streaming Share
27%
145M · of full-market delivery
Market Leader
Morgan & Morgan
153M · 44% share of voice
Competitive Landscape

Who's running — and where

Across Dayton, OH, 56 legal advertisers were detected delivering in market year-to-date — the vast majority national connected-TV spilling into the DMA. The local and regional competitive set of 12 firms delivered 348M impressions year-to-date, running roughly 92% Broadcast / 3% vMVPD / 5% CTV/Streaming. The bars below contrast the full detected market with that set, by share.

Full Dayton Market (56 advertisers · 539M impressions) · Share of Delivery
Broadcast 69%
4%
CTV 27%
Broadcast 372M · vMVPD 21M · CTV 145M
Dayton Competitive Set (12 firms · 348M impressions) · Share of Delivery
Broadcast 92%
3%
5%
Broadcast 321M · vMVPD 9.4M · CTV 17M
Broadcast (local stations & cable)
vMVPD (live-TV streaming bundles)
CTV / Streaming (true OTT apps)
Delivered Impressions by Channel (YTD)
#FirmShare of Voice
of competitive set
Total Impressions
delivered · YTD
Channel MixBroadcast %vMVPD %CTV %
Majors
1Morgan & Morgan Injury Law Firm44.1%153M
88%4%8%
2Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz22.3%78M
97%2%1%
3Elk & Elk9.3%32M
94%2%4%
4Law Offices of Blake R Maislin9.2%32M
97%1%2%
5Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead8.7%30M
94%3%3%
Mid-Pack
6Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal2.1%7.4M
98%1%1%
7Law Tigers1.7%6.1M
97%1%2%
8Richard West Law Office0.8%2.7M
98%1%1%
9Wright & Schulte Law Firm0.7%2.3M
78%9%13%
10Norris Injury Lawyers0.5%1.8M
98%1%1%
11Levine Benjamin Law Firm0.3%1.1M
95%2%3%
12Shelly Leeke Law Firm0.3%1.1M
68%4%28%

Share of Voice is each firm's share of the 12-firm competitive set shown here — not the full market.

Publisher Intelligence

Share of voice — who owns what

Share of voice across the competitive set — the 12 firms competing in Dayton year-to-date, by publisher.

Publisher Volume — Impressions (YTD)
Competitor Share of Voice by Publisher Each firm's share of the competitive set's impressions on that publisher.
Firms: Morgan & MorganDyer, Garofalo, Mann & SchultzElk & ElkLaw Offices of Blake R MaislinThorson, Switala, Mondock, SneadHorenstein, Nicholson & BlumenthalLaw TigersRichard West Law OfficeWright & SchulteNorrisLevine BenjaminShelly Leeke

Ranked competitor detail by publisher

Each card is one publisher. Top 5 advertisers ranked by SOV on that publisher. Click Show all to expand to every competitor in the set with measurable impressions.

WHIO
Broadcast
183M impressions · 56% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    59M
    32.2%
  2. 2
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    51M
    27.8%
  3. 3
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    30M
    16.6%
  4. 4
    Elk & Elk
    29M
    16.0%
  5. 5
    Law Tigers
    4.1M
    2.2%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    3.4M
    1.8%
  2. 7
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    2.8M
    1.5%
  3. 8
    Richard West Law Office
    2.7M
    1.5%
  4. 9
    Levine Benjamin
    539K
    0.3%
  5. 10
    Shelly Leeke
    24K
    0.0%
  6. 11
    Wright & Schulte
    7K
    0.0%
  7. 12
    Norris
    682
    0.0%
WKEF
Broadcast
46M impressions · 14% of set · 10 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    28M
    59.8%
  2. 2
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    13M
    27.9%
  3. 3
    Wright & Schulte
    1.7M
    3.7%
  4. 4
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    1.6M
    3.4%
  5. 5
    Law Tigers
    1.3M
    2.8%
Show all 10 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Shelly Leeke
    610K
    1.3%
  2. 7
    Levine Benjamin
    244K
    0.5%
  3. 8
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    239K
    0.5%
  4. 9
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    2K
    0.0%
  5. 10
    Elk & Elk
    2K
    0.0%
WDTN
Broadcast
44M impressions · 14% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    27M
    60.3%
  2. 2
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    9.2M
    20.7%
  3. 3
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    4.3M
    9.7%
  4. 4
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    1.8M
    4.0%
  5. 5
    Norris
    1.7M
    3.9%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Law Tigers
    359K
    0.8%
  2. 7
    Levine Benjamin
    203K
    0.5%
  3. 8
    Shelly Leeke
    37K
    0.1%
  4. 9
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    7K
    0.0%
  5. 10
    Elk & Elk
    6K
    0.0%
  6. 11
    Wright & Schulte
    1K
    0.0%
  7. 12
    Richard West Law Office
    591
    0.0%
WBDT
Broadcast
12M impressions · 4% of set · 7 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    8.9M
    72.4%
  2. 2
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    1.7M
    13.5%
  3. 3
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    1.1M
    9.1%
  4. 4
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    466K
    3.8%
  5. 5
    Law Tigers
    74K
    0.6%
Show all 7 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Levine Benjamin
    55K
    0.5%
  2. 7
    Norris
    7K
    0.1%
OTA
Broadcast
5.4M impressions · 2% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    3.5M
    64.9%
  2. 2
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    1.1M
    20.2%
  3. 3
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    251K
    4.7%
  4. 4
    Elk & Elk
    188K
    3.5%
  5. 5
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    137K
    2.5%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Shelly Leeke
    63K
    1.2%
  2. 7
    Law Tigers
    60K
    1.1%
  3. 8
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    43K
    0.8%
  4. 9
    Norris
    21K
    0.4%
  5. 10
    Wright & Schulte
    18K
    0.3%
  6. 11
    Richard West Law Office
    18K
    0.3%
  7. 12
    Levine Benjamin
    5K
    0.1%
Spectrum Streaming
vMVPD
4.6M impressions · 1% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    2.8M
    59.9%
  2. 2
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    549K
    11.9%
  3. 3
    Elk & Elk
    391K
    8.5%
  4. 4
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    353K
    7.6%
  5. 5
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    230K
    5.0%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Wright & Schulte
    173K
    3.8%
  2. 7
    Law Tigers
    57K
    1.2%
  3. 8
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    45K
    1.0%
  4. 9
    Shelly Leeke
    20K
    0.4%
  5. 10
    Richard West Law Office
    16K
    0.3%
  6. 11
    Norris
    9K
    0.2%
  7. 12
    Levine Benjamin
    7K
    0.2%
Other App
Streaming App
4.4M impressions · 1% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    3.6M
    82.3%
  2. 2
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    260K
    6.0%
  3. 3
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    212K
    4.9%
  4. 4
    Elk & Elk
    130K
    3.0%
  5. 5
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    53K
    1.2%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Wright & Schulte
    51K
    1.2%
  2. 7
    Richard West Law Office
    18K
    0.4%
  3. 8
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    17K
    0.4%
  4. 9
    Shelly Leeke
    14K
    0.3%
  5. 10
    Law Tigers
    8K
    0.2%
  6. 11
    Norris
    4K
    0.1%
  7. 12
    Levine Benjamin
    2K
    0.0%
YouTube App
Streaming App
3.6M impressions · 1% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    2.8M
    76.8%
  2. 2
    Elk & Elk
    603K
    16.6%
  3. 3
    Shelly Leeke
    114K
    3.1%
  4. 4
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    46K
    1.3%
  5. 5
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    26K
    0.7%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Wright & Schulte
    19K
    0.5%
  2. 7
    Levine Benjamin
    14K
    0.4%
  3. 8
    Law Tigers
    6K
    0.2%
  4. 9
    Richard West Law Office
    4K
    0.1%
  5. 10
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    3K
    0.1%
  6. 11
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    2K
    0.1%
  7. 12
    Norris
    2K
    0.0%
INSP
2.4M impressions · 1% of set · 1 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    2.4M
    100.0%
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
FNC
2.2M impressions · 1% of set · 8 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    1.9M
    83.5%
  2. 2
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    369K
    16.4%
  3. 3
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    727
    0.0%
  4. 4
    Shelly Leeke
    591
    0.0%
  5. 5
    Elk & Elk
    545
    0.0%
Show all 8 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    227
    0.0%
  2. 7
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    227
    0.0%
  3. 8
    Richard West Law Office
    227
    0.0%
YouTube TV App
vMVPD
2.2M impressions · 1% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    1.5M
    66.4%
  2. 2
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    378K
    17.1%
  3. 3
    Elk & Elk
    125K
    5.6%
  4. 4
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    120K
    5.4%
  5. 5
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    38K
    1.7%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    31K
    1.4%
  2. 7
    Shelly Leeke
    13K
    0.6%
  3. 8
    Wright & Schulte
    11K
    0.5%
  4. 9
    Richard West Law Office
    9K
    0.4%
  5. 10
    Norris
    9K
    0.4%
  6. 11
    Law Tigers
    8K
    0.3%
  7. 12
    Levine Benjamin
    2K
    0.1%
Roku
Device
1.9M impressions · 1% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    1.2M
    61.6%
  2. 2
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    235K
    12.3%
  3. 3
    Elk & Elk
    169K
    8.8%
  4. 4
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    166K
    8.7%
  5. 5
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    60K
    3.1%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Wright & Schulte
    33K
    1.7%
  2. 7
    Law Tigers
    31K
    1.6%
  3. 8
    Shelly Leeke
    20K
    1.1%
  4. 9
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    9K
    0.5%
  5. 10
    Richard West Law Office
    5K
    0.2%
  6. 11
    Levine Benjamin
    4K
    0.2%
  7. 12
    Norris
    2K
    0.1%
PlayStation 5
Device
1.5M impressions · 0% of set · 11 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    1.3M
    90.1%
  2. 2
    Shelly Leeke
    50K
    3.4%
  3. 3
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    36K
    2.5%
  4. 4
    Wright & Schulte
    19K
    1.3%
  5. 5
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    14K
    1.0%
Show all 11 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Elk & Elk
    14K
    0.9%
  2. 7
    Law Tigers
    5K
    0.3%
  3. 8
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    4K
    0.3%
  4. 9
    Levine Benjamin
    3K
    0.2%
  5. 10
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    2K
    0.1%
  6. 11
    Richard West Law Office
    631
    0.0%
XBOX
Device
1.3M impressions · 0% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    1.2M
    90.1%
  2. 2
    Shelly Leeke
    42K
    3.2%
  3. 3
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    30K
    2.4%
  4. 4
    Wright & Schulte
    16K
    1.2%
  5. 5
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    13K
    1.0%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Elk & Elk
    13K
    1.0%
  2. 7
    Law Tigers
    4K
    0.3%
  3. 8
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    4K
    0.3%
  4. 9
    Levine Benjamin
    3K
    0.3%
  5. 10
    Richard West Law Office
    855
    0.1%
  6. 11
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    720
    0.1%
  7. 12
    Norris
    135
    0.0%
Amazon Fire
Device
1.2M impressions · 0% of set · 12 of 12 active
  1. 1
    Morgan & Morgan
    976K
    78.2%
  2. 2
    Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
    97K
    7.8%
  3. 3
    Elk & Elk
    62K
    4.9%
  4. 4
    Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
    35K
    2.8%
  5. 5
    Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
    23K
    1.9%
Show all 12 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Wright & Schulte
    16K
    1.3%
  2. 7
    Shelly Leeke
    16K
    1.3%
  3. 8
    Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal
    8K
    0.7%
  4. 9
    Law Tigers
    7K
    0.6%
  5. 10
    Norris
    3K
    0.3%
  6. 11
    Levine Benjamin
    3K
    0.2%
  7. 12
    Richard West Law Office
    2K
    0.2%
Competitor Creative

The creative landscape

Active spots running in the Dayton market this period.

MMIL
Call Now
Morgan & Morgan Injury Law Firm
Personal Injury
DGMS
Thirty Years
Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz
Personal Injury
LOOB
Call Us
Law Offices of Blake R Maislin
Personal Injury
EE
Contact Us
Elk & Elk
Personal Injury
TSMS
Big Enough To Win
Thorson, Switala, Mondock, Snead
Personal Injury

Methodology and Definitions

1. Data Sourcing & Collection

Our platform uses Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) to capture real-time viewing data from the "glass" of over 23 million opted-in U.S. households, across a diverse panel of devices (Vizio, LG) and peripheral inputs. Each captured ad is fingerprinted and matched against a comprehensive ad library to verify when and where it aired.

A note on reading this data. These figures are drawn from a representative smart-TV panel, so they are best read as a strong directional indicator of in-market presence rather than an exact census of delivery. Channel mix and share-of-voice percentages are the most reliable view. Impression counts are included for scale, but can vary from market to market and may not perfectly reflect exact delivery splits.

2. Competitive Set & Scope

This report covers the legal advertisers competing for clients in the market — firms based here or in a neighboring state with a genuine local presence. Non-law advertisers, and national campaigns that only spill incidental connected-TV impressions into the market, are excluded so the field reflects real local competition.

For large national advertisers, we judge local presence by their share of local-broadcast delivery — the signal that a firm is actually buying local affiliate inventory, not just airing national connected-TV. A national advertiser such as Morgan & Morgan is included in a market only where a meaningful share of its delivery runs on local Ohio broadcast affiliates; where an advertiser delivers almost entirely through national connected-TV with negligible local broadcast, it is set aside as spillover. Share of voice and all channel splits are measured across this set.

3. Channel Categorization

Each advertiser's activity is split across three mutually exclusive channels.

Broadcast
Local station-originated linear & cable inventory
Local OTA broadcast affiliates (ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX), national broadcast networks, syndicated broadcast, and traditional linear cable + satellite (Xfinity, Spectrum, Cox, Charter, DirecTV dish, Dish Network) — viewed via antenna or linear MVPD carriage.
vMVPD
Streaming delivery of linear feeds
YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Sling, fuboTV, Philo, DirecTV Stream, Cox Streaming, XFINITY Streaming, Spectrum Streaming, Dish Streaming, Uverse Streaming. Streaming delivery, but content includes broadcast-originated station feeds — kept as a separate line for clarity.
CTV / Streaming
True streaming, app-based CTV
Ad-supported streaming apps (Peacock, Pluto, Tubi, Paramount+), peripheral devices (Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, Xbox, PlayStation), FAST channels, and digital video / app-based CTV inventory.

Publisher definitions

4. Key Attribution Information

Why vMVPD is its own line. When a viewer watches a local broadcast affiliate through a streaming bundle (YouTube TV, DirecTV Stream, Cox Streaming, Hulu Live, etc.), the delivery is internet-based but the content is broadcast-originated linear. Buyers and sellers treat vMVPD distinctly from both pure broadcast and true OTT — so we report it as a separate line rather than rolling it into either.

Satellite vs. streaming MVPDs. DirecTV satellite dish is reported as Cable. DirecTV Stream (the internet-delivered linear app) is reported as vMVPD.

OTA (Over-the-Air). Free broadcast signals received via antenna from local ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX affiliates. Reported under Broadcast.

A predominantly broadcast-led advertiser will still show single-digit-to-low-teens CTV/Streaming exposure in this view because ACR captures actual viewing across the connected-TV panel — including incidental impressions on Roku, Fire TV, Tubi, Apple TV, Pluto, Peacock, network broadcaster apps, and similar ad-supported streaming platforms. Those carry their own ad inventory distinct from the linear feed (and from vMVPDs), so they're reported under CTV / Streaming.

5. Glossary