Yearbook of radio and television (1957)

Television Sales Challenge Leaves Plenty Of Room For Wise Choice rpHERE'S no guesswork in television, only -*■ change. In this expanding economy, up-dating, trend-discerning and fact-analyzing are the handmaidens of research, and if they are to keep the pace they must be prepared to accept the new, the hitherto unknown and — yes, even the unexpected. This is the attitude and approach we at TvB have brought, and are continuing to bring, to the Bureau's projects, and much of our findings have demonstrated that yesterday's dogma is not necessarily today's fact, nor will a current truism be tomorrow's dictum. Yet, much of what is already known and documented is useful. Accumulated knowledge gives perspective to the present and affords a signpost for the future. Applied to advertisers' media selection, the practical use of this philosophy has served to take the element of chance out of TV. With what is known, the productive purpose of providing a base for decision is at hand; with the constant addition of new information, a signpost pointing the direction for more effective use of the medium is assured. Since 1949, when commercial TV really got off the ground, advertisers' investments indicate that choice of TV is a matter of "which direction" rather than 'why.' |fc o<:i>o The choice (happy title) is as far removed from chance as the first dollars invested in 1949 are from the booming bucks of 1956 . . . and the projection for '57 is ample confirmation that this is truly choice without chance. Here's how it stacks up : In network, starting with 1949 (in terms of millions of dollars) the "choosers" invested: $29; $85; $180; $256; $320; $422; $540; $640 ... and we figure on $720 million in '57. (Would you like to be an advertiser using network facilities who, when using k 79 By NORMAN E. CASH President, Television Bureau of Advertising other media found his sales plateauing, and after his first introduction to TV increased his sales by 300 per cent? We refer to the TV endorsement by Revlon). In spot, again starting from 1949 (in millions): $9; $31; $70; $94; $145; $207; $260; $325 . . . and in '57 it'll probably go to 389 million. (If you're further interested in the power of spot, we commend you to the successes of such brands as Lestoil, Viceroy, Kools, Robert Hall, Rayco and the omnipresent Tea Council). In local, here's that story, in millions: $19; $55; $81; $103; $140; $180; $224 . . . and we look to $366 million in '57. Summing up this felicitous trio, from 1949, we find these totals (in millions): $57; $170; $332; $453; $606; $809; $1,025 .... and an estimated $1,475 million for .57. 0<Z>0 You will note that local hasn't, as yet as many "choosers" as the other two (there are notable exceptions, leaders in their fields and markets such as Montgomery Ward, Sears Roebuck, Sibley's of Rochester). That's only because they haven't caught up with what the others know. But they're learning, and TvB is devoting energy and time to further this education. In fact, we're so bullish about local, we're figuring the greatest percentage increase (36 per cent) for 1957 over 1956 will be in that area. (XZ>0 To recap: almost 5,000 national and regional advertisers will have used television . . . and the more we know and learn about the medium, the less we know of any risk for the advertiser. This is about as fortuitous a setting for sales as man has ever devised.