Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1964)

f prod Pfesii Ben sdos ■imoi I for. ffectively be sold in one commer ial, the three-and four-product varations-on-a-theme that A-C will be ising is also partly an effort to deermine where the point of diminshing sales returns lies. (A recent 60-second spot for Puss n Boots cat food piggybacks five ish, chicken, bone and other items. Tampbell Soup's message for four varieties of beans ranks prominently 'or the sheer number of items in )ne message. But here again, as vith the Puss 'n Boots assortment, :he products within each line are ;losely related and have the same purpose or use. With Alberto's five pair preparations, on the other (hand, each differs from the others '^ jand requires a different sell.) Apart from the new Alberto anouncement, the TV Code Authority of the NAB reports that, to date, three separate sells for products is as high as integrated sponsors have reached. Honors here go to Gillette, via Maxon, for several spots linking razor blades, Foamy lather and Sun Up after shave in an imaginative, yet natural, shaving sequence. But perhaps Alberto-Culver's 1 sole all-time rival in the numbers arena is Scott Paper, with a 195455 campaign aired on the much praised and awarded Omnibus show. The giant manufacturer of paper products, through J. Walter Thompson, produced a series of "pantry parade" messages that are reported to have effectively sold a family of five to six paper items. Format featured a demonstration of a primary product (a 40-second water display for Scotkins) followed by a presentation of the other family members. These, however, were two-minute commercials. A-C undertook the task of presenting an equivalent number of products in exactly half the time. Scott Paper also benefited institutionally from its integrated approach (according to research conducted at that time), which was partly calculated in the commercial. But while the five-product Alberto message allows time for only the briefest of sells per item — thereby giving the impression of general corporate image-building — Polk denies any intent to institutionalize. Reliable sources suggest, however, that Alberto is interested in determining if its "less advertised" products can be sold via a quasi-institutional approach. Are Alberto-Culver's integrated endeavors indicative of a general movement within the multi-product commercials field? Queried about the possibility of such trends, one commercial producer took a look at the basic concept of pairing products and offered the opinion that "taste" in matching items was more important than numbers or format. "Whether it's integrated or piggyback," he insists, "the most important consideration is, 'do the products go together?' If they don't mix, viewers resent and may even be offended by the message. "I've seen integrated as well as piggyback commercials that paired products that should not have been together," he said. Echoing this philosophy was a spokesman for Bristol-Myers, a staunch advocate of piggybacks and an advertiser whose $50-million video expenditure during 1963 multiple products in the sell that came to be known as "piggybacks." While no additional time was devoted to the piggyback announcement, the effect of more than one product being pitched in the form of two or more separate announcements put back-to-back and seemingly unassociated, added to the "feeling" or "appearance" of clutter. The NAB Code Revision on piggybacks has not obliterated the practice. Networks accept piggybacking within confines of the code and the network's standards. Clients, with rising costs and studies on the effectiveness of their commercials contributing to the decision (especially where they have a stable full of thirty-second announcements), continue to let piggybacks carry the weight of their selling in the spot market — in some cases with the justifying salve of a pre mium payment, in others without. Then there are those stations which are not adherents of the code. Hence, the piggyback has remained the staple multi-product selling technique. But the reduction of the appearance of clutter, according to the Code Authority, hinged on the integration of multiple products into a single announcement that smoothly avoided the feeling of two separate sells. And while it did not outlaw the piggyback — specifying that such shall be logged as two or more announcements — -it has been working diligently to educate, encourage and aid in the proliferation of the integrated philosophy. The integrated commercial, until this new use of the phrase, had been regarded as a commercial message delivered by the talent on a television program as part of the program and woven into the fabric of continuity — often with humor — as is the case on the Jack Benny program. But so conscious is the entire industry of the new use of the word, that it will likely be necessary for a new definition for the star-sell to be found in order to avoid confusion. ♦ 'Two anicndiucnts, recoinntended by the Tv Code Review Board and approved — mid-year — by tlie NAB Tv Board, are designed to increase program time by drawing the line against extraneous titles, teasers and credits. One amendment requires that "below the line" credits — those for teclmical and pliysical services, as distinct from artistic and creative services — should be counted against commercial time limitations. The second amendment states: "Program content should be confined to those elements which entertain or inform the viewer. To the extent that titles, teasers and credits do not meet these criteria they sliould he restricted or eliminated." November 23, 1964 29