Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1964)

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.




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.

ed fixed island positions, an increase in potential product conflicts, etc. They all spell "headache" for station traffic departments. The expressed purpose of the amendment — to reduce the appearance of clutter by discouraging use of the piggyback — has. then, been buried by the premium question. Additionally, another sponsoragency sore point is the amendment provision that the integrated com mercial must be so constructed that "it cannot be divided into two or more separate commercials." This eliminates the flexibility of rotating and switching segments that is a prime advantage of the piggyback. It means substantially higher production costs for the integrated format user who has to produce more commercials to overcome this loss of flexibility. Lines are clearly drawn now that the Sept. 1 amendment-effective date has come and gone. The next few months should be decisive. If advertisers refuse to pay premiums, stations will be forced to roll back their increases, and it will be piggyback business as usual. The NAB then will have to find another way to reduce the appearance of overcommercialization. Hopefully one that is less damaging to sponsors. ♦ COMMERCIALS OF MULTIPLE PRODUCT SPONSORS AS CLASSIFIED BY THE NAB CODE OFFICE Integrated Piggyback No. of Commercials No. of Commercials Sponsor CI ossified Sponsor Classified American Home Foe ds 1 Alberto-Culver 3 American Home Pre ducts 1 Ansco 2 Brown & Williamson 1 Beecham Products 1 E. L. Bruce* 2 Bissell 2 Buxton* 1 Blazon 2 Clairo! 1 Brilio 2 Colorforms 1 E. L. Bruce* 1 De Luxe Reading 1 Buxton* 1 DuPont 6 Calgon 2 Economics Lob 1 Campbell Soup 6 Eldon Industries 1 Chemway 1 Embree 1 Colgate 1 Foremost Dairies* 1 Coty 1 Franco-American 4 Dr. Scholl's 1 General Mills* 1 Ex-Lax 2 Gillette 6 Max Factor* 4 Golden Grain Macaroni 1 Foremost Dairies* 1 Green Giant 4 General Mills* n Hudson 1 Helena Rubinstein 2 International Latex* 1 Helene Curtis 5 S. C. Johnson 2 International Latex* 4 Kellogg* 7 International Salt ] Kenner* 5 Johnson & Johnson 1 Knickerbocker 2 Kellogg* 2 Lincoln Foods 1 Kenner* 1 M & M* 2 Lehn & Fink 2 Matte! 2 Lever Bros. 2 Max Factor* 1 M&M* 6 Milton Bradley 4 Noxzema 5 Morton's 4 Pillsbury* 3 Multiple Toy 2 Procter & Gamble 1 Pillsbury* 3 Richard Hudnut 2 Remco 2 Romilor 2 Schlitz 1 A. E. Staley* 1 Shulton 1 Whitehall 2 Simmons 1 86 So. Calif. Gas 5 A. E. Staley* 2 Standard Brands 2 Tussy 1 Union Carbide 2 Wham-O 1 90** *Sponsors have produced both integrated **Names of two sponsors (involving a total technical production problems. and piggyback commercials. of seven integrated commercials) have not been released, pending action on minor October 5, 1964 35