Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1964)

Radio/fv commercials: Raymond Scott Composer of some 1400 commercials and hit records makes sharp comments on ad agencies' misuse of sound in commercials ■ There is always a great deal of talk about the content of commercials, but more often than not the discussions center only upon art and copy. "Unfortunately," says well known composer-musician Raymond Scott, "sound is often considered a white elephant. In such discussions — like the commercials, themselves — sound is tacked on at the end." After working on some 1400 commercials — give or take a hundred — Scott is convinced that agencies and sponsors are at fault in not giving sound (more specifically, music) its proper consideration. Music in a commercial, Scott claims, gets real attention from the agency or sponsor only when something doesn't quite work. Then the belief is that the sound must be at fault. And often it is — but simply because it was given little or no attention during the early stages of the commercial's creation." In an exclusive tape interview with Sponsor, Scott discussed the following problems: (1) the unconsidered attention-getting value of sound, (2) the loss of quality in sound because clients are impressed with "fancy footwork," (3) the fact that sound is not considered until after the commercial idea has been conceived and (4) the client's reluctance to accept new ideas. Not realizing the attention-getting value of sound. "This is a point that I believe is very important," says Scott. "There is one wonderful, wonderful thing, in my opinion, that sound can do. With the graphic arts you have to be looking in order to be attracted. You must pay at least some visual attention because if you're not looking you can be exposed to the most graphic stuff in the world and not even know it's there. Sound, however, can envelope you — bring you into the commercial. Sound doesn't knock on your door — it comes right in. "If the sound portion of a commercial is winning and attractive, gets your point across and makes you want to see what's happening, then the sound is very important. You could go to the sink for a drink of water or look at a newspaper for a bit, not really interested in what's going on, but if the sound is attractive enough, it can pull you back. "And let me make another point about sound and video. Could the video in a commercial be successful without sound? I think video would have a helluva time without sound." What the client doesn't know does hurt him. "An agency," says Scott, "might give you a great deal of leeway, but unfortunately, the same is not always true of the client. There have been occasions when we've worked out something terrific for a product. We're thrilled. The agency's thrilled. Everybody's extremely happy. Then the client says: T like the Star Spangled Banner better.' Most of the time the advertiser is the problem. "In my experience, there are very few clients who let you go ahead on a commercial. The client is not creative, but he goes by the classic T know what I like' principle. And I can't blame him. I'd probably say the same thing in an area about which I know nothing." According to Charles Barclay, vice president of Raymond Scott Enterprises, "M o s t advertising agency professionals recognize a good piece of music when they hear it, but, to a large extent, they have abdicated their creative responsibility to the non creative client. I'd say about 90 percent of the time the agency says to us: 'What can we do that the client will understand? He has a tin ear and he's going to play it to Aunt Tilly.' This is unfortunate. The client whose money is being spent should, I suppose, have something to say. But he's a manufacturer — that's what he knows best. Now he's being asked to judge advertising 42 SPONSOR