Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1964)

piggyback was created by Ted Bates as a one-minute spot for Uncle Ben's rice and M&M candies (both products of Food Manufacturers, Inc.). This was followed in 1960 and 1962 by additional code "interpretations" that paved the way for the current amendment. Viewed in its proper perspective, the code amendment is testimony to the effectiveness of the piggyback. The obvious advantages in using back-to-back messages within the framework of a single announcement has attracted an important segment of the advertising world to the flexible piggyback format (it is estimated that 20 to 25 percent of all spot tv announcements are of the multiple product variety). These advertisers have found the piggyback to be an indispensible commercial vehicle. Aware of this, some station opera tors have decided to charge sponsors a premium for piggybacks ranging from 15 to 200 percent of the applicable rate. In some situations, stations have set premiums because of the necessity to drop an ID (where otherwise a code violation would occur) to allow for a piggyback. In other cases, flat increases are being asked. Further complications involve varying preemption possibilities, specially creat NAB CODE AUTHORITY GUIDELINE The following questions and answers, prepared by the NAB Code Authority, are offered as an aid to advertisers, their agencies and commercial producers in interpreting the code amendment. The Code Authority believes them to be a practical guideline to integration of multiple products in a single announcement: /. Q. What is the purpose of the amendment? A. The purpose and intent of the amendment is to encourage the production and presentation of integrated multiple product commercials which the viewer would regard as single announcements. 2. Q. How can integration under the new amendment best be achieved? A. Generally, commercial integration is best achieved when the announcement begins and concludes with a unifying theme which describes the related nature, purpose or use of the advertised products or services. 3. Q. Will announcements now classified as integrated by the Code Authority, but not meeting the criteria of the new amendment, retain their integrated status after Sept. 1? A. No. After Sept. 1, 1964, the effective date of the new amendment, such announcements will be regarded as piggybacks and will require appropriate revision if they are to be regarded as integrated. 4. Q. Will the Code Authority review announcements, and clarify them as in the past? A. Any of the three Code Authority offices — Washington, New York or Hollywood — will perform this service upon their receipt of the necessary material. 5. Q. Are announcements which go to black between segments considered piggybacks under the new amendment? A. Yes, no matter how they are treated thematically or how related in character, purpose or use the products or services may be. 6 Q. Do video and audio bridging devices (clockwipes, optical flips, shimmer dissolves), coupled with corporate statements such as " — and another prod 34 uct from — ", constitute integrated treatment of separate announcements? A. Not after Sept. 1. The new amendment disqualifies separate announcements, which are joined by bridging devices, from acceptance as integrated announcements. Further, such treatment lacks the unifying theme essential to integration. 7. Q. If a multiple product announcement meets all other criteria for integration but contains segments which could be lifted by the advertiser into usable shorter length annoimcements, is it acceptable as integrated? A. The answer lies in the degree to which the commercial in and of itself gives the appearance of a single announcement. The separability of any of its parts into independently usable commercial entities does not automatically disqualify it for integrated status. 8. Q. Would a scouring agent and a dishwashing product, promoted in the same announcement, be considered integrated since, clearly, they are related in character, purpose and use? A. Only if their presentation is made upon the basis of a unified theme, so interwoven in treatment that it gives the appearance of a single announcement. 9. Q. Does the new amendment rule out integration of products or services meeting all the criteria of the amendment but manfiiactured by two different sponsors? A. No. When all of the criteria of the new amendment are met. it does not rule out dual sponsorship. 10. Q. Give examples of retail or service establishments exempted from the amendment. A. This refers to announcements for local advertisers where, traditionally, different products are promoted within the same spot. Such establishments would include grocery stores, chain stores, department stores, service stations, garages and drug stores; service stations, garages and drug stores are normally accustomed to advertising several products within an annoimcement. //. Q. Are institutional commercials mentioning multiple products or multiple services included under the amendment? A. Institutional commercials are not covered by the amendment. However, if there is a unifying theme of an institutional nature relating to the corporate policy of the advertiser, and the purpose is to discuss over-all corporate policies rather than to sell specific products, institutional commercials will be regarded as single announcements. 12. Q. If a multiple product announcement begins by identifying all products to be advertised, either individually or by institutional association, indicates their relatedness of character, purpose or use and avoids obvious bridging devices which tend to "segmentize" the commercial, can it automatically be considered integrated? A. No. Though the intent may be to create an integrated commercial impression, the mechanics of production must be such that an objective evaluation would conclude that the over-all video and audio treatment will appear to the viewer as a single announcement. 13. Q Will the integration requirements remain the same for a commercial involving more than two products or services? A. Yes. As a generalization, however, very careful attention will have to be devoted to the use of techniques which will result in the commercial appearing as a single announcement. 14. Q. In order to meet the intent of the section of the new amendment covering audio-visual treatment, must the same announcer or spokesman be used throughout the entire commercial? A. Not necessarily. Although two separate announcers and/or cast members do not inevitably suggest two separate commercial impressions, it would appear that the use of such a technique would make it more difficult to achieve integration. While it is easier to achieve commercial integration with one announcer it may be possible, in the treatment of a multiple product announcement, to combine more than one announcer or spokesman provided this is done without sacrificing an impression of unity or sacrificing singleness of theme. SPONSOR