Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1964)

4 IS union jurisdiction is concerned. With the possibility of U. S.produced tv programs being priced 3Ut of the world syndication market jy rising talent residuals, on top of previous cost hikes in distribution, production, promotion and other ireas, syndicators are, however, beginning to strike back. One such blow was struck earlier ;his month by Sam Cook Digges, idministrative vice president of CBS Films, who told the Hollywood Advertising Club that "another round jf cost increases" could very well Tiean "the end of distribution of jff-network properties throughout he world." I Said Digges: "It was only about idx or seven years ago that some 30 ir so new program series were propuced each season for domestic syndication. All of the major companies were in the business of proJucing product for syndication. As production costs continued to rise, ocal stations could not pay increas;;d prices for product, because they :;ould not get increased prices from ocal and regional advertisers. Tolay, there are only two or three iCries produced a year for domestic yndication, and these are usually n the documentary field." In the area of syndicating U. S.,nade taped shows in foreign mar:ets, Digges charged, both AFTRA ind AF of M "prefer to have a high, inrealistic rate written into conracts, even though shows are not sold, than to have a realistic rate, enabling the programs to be sold and talent to receive some additional compensation instead of nothing. "We are at the breaking point in terms of cost in the sale of film and tape programs overseas. If our industry is to stay in the business of selling U. S. -produced tape and film shows overseas, there certainly should be no further increases in talent payments." This was hardly the kind of statement likely to be unchallenged by talent unions — and it wasn't. John L. Dales, national executive secretary of the Screen Actors Guild — which collects about $1 million a month, on the average, in tv residuals for members — promptly charged that the SAG contract was "a fair, balanced deal . . . covering both domestic and foreign reruns." Then, mixing apples and oranges, Dales pointed out "the extraordinary profits piled up year after year by the networks" as compared to "the very modest amounts that actors get for re-use of their performances in television films." Since Dales' statement didn't cover the problem of the independent producer or distributor trying to recover his investment in syndication, or even the profit-and-loss situation of network syndication subsidiaries (none of which exist as charities), the question is largely left unanswered and unsolved. The problem of talent residuals and rising costs in syndication are not as far removed from the spot tv advertising scene as some agencymen and advertisers might think. Residual costs, to a large extent, control what is released from former network program stockpiles. If a U. S. -produced show has a specialized appeal, such as to stations in farm markets or to minority groups or to businessmen only, or is likely to be bought by some, but not all, of the stations or advertisers that might be its potential customers, it may never be released in syndication in this country. Residuals put a sales squeeze on syndicators. If a station can't afford to meet a syndicator's price for a show, and wants it for less, a syndicator may be able to make an exception — but he can't make many such deals and stay in business. Residuals and present talent scales have also had a disastrous effect on new production specifically for syndication, in the opinion of distributors. One reason why there are so few multi-market syndication buys by advertisers these days is that there is so little brand-new firstrun syndication product. Producers, for the most part, can't afford to produce anything except documentaries and public affairs shows for syndication. It's a big syndication problem — and one that may well come to a head in 1965. ♦ November 30, 1964 47