26 firms make up the local and regional legal-advertising field in Indianapolis, IN year-to-date, running roughly 97% Broadcast / 2% vMVPD / 1% CTV. This view measures delivered viewing volume.
Across Indianapolis, IN, 1,332 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 26 firms delivered 2.5B impressions year-to-date, running roughly 97% Broadcast / 2% vMVPD / 1% CTV/Streaming. The bars below contrast the full detected market with that set, by share.
| # | Firm | Share of Voice of competitive set | Total Impressions delivered · YTD | Channel Mix | Broadcast % | vMVPD % | CTV % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Majors | |||||||
| 1 | Morgan & Morgan Injury Law Firm | 48.6% | 1.2B | 97% | 2% | 1% | |
| 2 | Hensley Legal Group | 15.4% | 379M | 97% | 1% | 2% | |
| 3 | Keller & Keller | 14.7% | 361M | 97% | 2% | 1% | |
| 4 | 1-800 Call Ken | 4.9% | 121M | 96% | 2% | 2% | |
| 5 | Vaughn Wamsley | 4.7% | 116M | 98% | 2% | 0% | |
| Mid-Pack | |||||||
| 6 | Hankey Marks & Crider | 3.5% | 86M | 98% | 2% | 0% | |
| 7 | Isaacs & Isaacs | 3.1% | 76M | 96% | 2% | 2% | |
| 8 | Stewart & Stewart Attorneys | 2.3% | 58M | 96% | 2% | 2% | |
| 9 | Blackburn Romey | 1.6% | 39M | 95% | 4% | 1% | |
| 10 | Golitko & Daly PC | 0.2% | 4.2M | 98% | 2% | 0% | |
| 11 | Tandy Law Firm | 0.2% | 4.0M | 98% | 2% | 0% | |
| 12 | DeVaughn James Injury Lawyers | 0.1% | 3.4M | 76% | 5% | 19% | |
| 13 | Woodford Sathappan McGee - WSM | 0.1% | 3.3M | 98% | 1% | 1% | |
| 14 | Russ Brown Law | 0.1% | 2.8M | 93% | 3% | 4% | |
| 15 | Gary Martin Hays & Associates | 0.1% | 2.4M | 85% | 4% | 11% | |
| Challengers | |||||||
| 16 | Scott D Lewis Attorney at Law | 0.1% | 2.1M | 99% | 1% | 0% | |
| 17 | Banks & Brower | 0.1% | 1.3M | 95% | 2% | 3% | |
| 18 | Law Offices of Joe Bornstein | 0.0% | 1.1M | 55% | 8% | 37% | |
| 19 | d'Oliveira & Associates | 0.0% | 758K | 85% | 6% | 9% | |
| 20 | Alex Mendoza | 0.0% | 689K | 98% | 1% | 1% | |
| 21 | Marcus & Mack Injury Lawyers | 0.0% | 586K | 82% | 4% | 14% | |
| 22 | Dean Waite Attorneys At Law | 0.0% | 497K | 61% | 9% | 30% | |
| 23 | Kaufman & Stigger Injury Lawyers | 0.0% | 491K | 44% | 41% | 15% | |
| 24 | Law Offices of Allen & Rector | 0.0% | 366K | 88% | 4% | 8% | |
| 25 | O'Keeffe O'Brien Lyson Attorneys | 0.0% | 302K | 78% | 7% | 15% | |
| 26 | Burg Simpson | 0.0% | 266K | 96% | 2% | 2% | |
Share of Voice is each firm's share of the 26-firm competitive set shown here — not the full market.
Share of voice across the competitive set — the 26 firms competing in Indianapolis year-to-date, by publisher.
“Other competitors” covers the 11 smaller firms in the set beyond the top 15, each under 2% of impressions on any publisher shown above.
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.
Active spots running in the Indianapolis market this period.
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.
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 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.
Each advertiser's activity is split across three mutually exclusive channels.
Publisher definitions
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.