Sponsor (Apr-June 1959)
Reading and Downloading:
Record Details:
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!
Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.
Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.
View OCR Text
We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
three years the number of individual network cosmetic advertisers rose from 24 in L956 and '57 to 27 in 1958 (including duplications for clients using both day and night slots ) . The number of spot tv sponsors in this category rose from 53 in 1956 to 73 in 1957 to 76 in 1958.
These growth figures are reflected in the current spending rate of national advertisers manufacturing cosmetic and toiletry lines in the 10 product classifications (as analyzed b\ TvB and N. C. Rorabaugh) : cosmetics, deodorants, depilatories, hair tonics and shampoos, hand and face creams and lotions, home permanents and coloring, perfumes and toilet waters, razors and blades, shaving creams and lotions and toiht soaps.
Here are the growth patterns:
Network: Of the top 20 investors in television (see adjacent chart!, nine sponsored network programing in '58 and '59; eight are spending at a higher rate ( based on first quarter projections) and only one — Chesebrough-Pond's — at a lower rate. Maybelline. which puts a major share of its budget into spot tv, this year has added network.
Three clients — Schick. Helene Curtis and Max Factor — canceled their network schedules and with the exception of Factor are putting more money into spot.
Two companies — Alberto-Culver and Harold Ritchie — spent more on network tv in the first quarter of this year than the) did during the entire year '58, and one. Carter Products, spent almost as much, $1.2 million in the first quarter of '59. contrasted with $1.5 million for all of "58.
Spot: Of the top 20 companies analyzed by sponsor in the adjacent chart, seven are consistent spot and non-network buyers — Jergens. Avon. Charles Antell. Diversified. Eversharp, Cot) and Sardeau. The big■jr-i >|ieridri in both classifications is Procter & Oamble, which last year invested SI2 million in network and $6. I million in spot.
Nine of the 20 majors buying spol last year spent less than they did in '57, but four of these companies spent only a slightl) smaller amount. None ol the advertisers dropped spot between 57 and '58, and lasl year two new spol t\ sponsors came in Diversified and Eversharp.
The biggest share of new billing
^;yi ,;ir i ,,r ,i! r'niii ,:> :;il .r^. I'^ir 'i' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiinuiiiiii 11 iiiinii i hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
""
WHAT 20 MAJOR COSMETIC AND
NET
COMPANIES
First 4 mo.
of 1959
1.
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO,
$4,040,520
2.
CARTER PRODUCTS, INC.
1,230,841
3.
ANDREW JERGENS
4.
LEVER BROTHERS, INC,
1,663,995
5.
AVON PRODUCTS, INC.
6.
CHARLES ANTELL, INC,
7.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO.
2,097,469
8.
MAYBELLINE CO.
292,794
9.
HAROLD F, RITCHIE, INC.
469,630
10.
MAX FACTOR & CO.
11.
ALBERTO-CULVER CO.
1,565,387
12.
CHESEBROUGH-PONDS INC.
474,737
13.
GILLETTE CO,
3,256,008
14.
DIVERSIFIED COSMETICS
15.
EVERSHARP, INC.
16.
REVLON, INC.
2.080.880
17.
HELENE CURTIS INDUS.
18.
COTY, INC.
19.
SCHICK, INC.
20.
SARDEAU. INC.
TvB figures based on Leading National Advertisers Broadcasl Advertiser! Repots for only and tolletrj i inn. manufactured bs theso accounts.
IlllllllllllllllUUIillilllllllllll
last year came from four classifications of toiletries: hand and face creams, with investments soaring from §739,000 to $2.8 million in '."><".: perfumes, from $] to $1.7 million: razors and blades, from $591,000 to $1.9 million and toilet soaps from $9.5 million to $10.7 million.
Food products which are needed items in contrast with cosmetics and toiletries, and which have a higher
rate of consumption and therefore greater sales turnover continue to
account for the biggest share of the
l\ dollar i last year, l'V in every SI). Hut the margin between No. 1 and No. 2 — cosmetics — is narrowing despite the non-necessit) character of almost all products within this latter broad category.
Here's the ranking of the top five spenders for net and spot t\ and the percentage of the total t\ hilling w Inch thej contribute,
Network iVuSl : No. I., food. I')', of $566.5 million: No. 2.. cosmetics. 11',: No. 3., tobacco, L0%; N'o. 4., drugs, 9% : No. 5.. automotive. 9%.
:;i
SI'ONSOH
27 jink 1959