Sponsor (July-Dec 1953)

/. (,/: /n tin Study fair to ratlin and It f LIFE SI PPORTER: I ertainly, It's fa kindei to radio and |\ than tli<\ would have been i agazines had thej done it. Imagine taking radio and TV's beat shows and comparing them unli the magazines? Life ~ li • • 1 1 1 < I have taken the average "t ill ihows. II I'm an average advertiser, I don'l have lack Bennj 01 the Colgate Comedy Hour. I have iple "I spots al 6 a.m, • ■! i iinkiv ol a program that nevei draws a single Hoopei point. I'm glad ili> stud) was done. It's an intelligent contribution to media research. \ll media should spend re mone) on impro media selection. We'd .ill be bettei off. In this Btudj Lift \i the kind of figures (al i audience accumulation) thai we've nevei had before, h should gel at much credit f'>r this .i it did loi n pass "ii stud) . I'd -a* it's the best thing that's happened in media research to date. I've been Mailing foi years for those Marconi Wireless people in get taken down a peg, and this does it Foi years they'vi been rlaiming everything undei the sun namely, thai the) reach ever) home with .i radio (now with .i TV set). Life Bhows the) don't. Fair t" radio and T\ ? i <• sii ' LIFE CRITIC: Yes, this is a fine stud) .. splendid stud) .in important study: Ii i the firsl stud) "I accumulativi audiences, measured in individuals, to anything besides Life. But, before Life ■•< anyone attempts to use the stud] to com pare media, let's be sure we knovi exactl] what it has measured, and then see if inter-media comparisons make ,nn sense. Vnd, it not, let's not tr) to make senseless comparisons between .i German ishopper and a field of Chinese dandelions. There are two ver) gre.it differences in the measurements: >li The print estimates measure entire media entire publications; the air estimates measure single /'ices of their media single programs. (2) The print method i the mosl accurate the medium knows .i recognition measurement; the air method is the mosl unreliable the medium knows, the recall technique and ovei a period of timi the industr) considers a throwback to crude earl) techniques which the industr) has lone, since discarded. What the stud) measures, it does with the beal kind ol sampli known to modern researchers — and so it does it well. Hut it measures two entirely different things, and no attempt should be made to compare them. What I'ulit/ and Life did was to net two different kinds of audience measurement (one an entire medium, one a fev< individual programs). The onl\ thing the two measurements hare in (amnion is the fact that they were l>«th obtained from the tame persons. Hut u i like a surve] "I individual attitudes toward cigarette smoking to which ate added some questions on quantit) of eggs consumed in the whole family. Yes, the answers arc obtained from the same sample of persons, !>ut the] arc different kind of measuri mi Ms, and ■ ompletel) different things. V-. I'm delighted the surve] was made. 1 think the accumulative information represents a useful and important contribution to cur knowledge of media coverage. But, for gosh sakes, let's have the good sense not i" tr> to compare what can't be compared. \nd b) the wa> in passing maj I take exception to the irresponsible statements thai seem to be the order of the da) in reference to the Lt/e-Politz stud) ? Just to mention one, among man) it is mosl irresponsible and unjust to claim that the "Marconi \\ ireless" people have been claiming "everything under the sun namely, that the) reach ever) home with a radio <ct and now with a TV set. Life -how the) don't." In the lir-t place, radio and TV have never claimed an] thing or. al least, do responsible person in the field has so claimed. Oh. in a general way. of course, they claim thai "radio" reaches (.■// sets in working order just like the phone compan] would no doubt claim that the phone system reaches all phone in working order. Hut when it come to specifics the] have coverage estimates, circulation estimates, and program audience estimates — and these arc all usually '"somewhat" less than "all" the home-. Life certain!] doesn't tell us anything about station or network accumulative audiences. SO the stud] can hardly "prove" that the\ don't which, even if it did. would not he "disproving" any radio or T\ claim, since you can't very well "disprove" a claim if the claim was never made in the first place. 2. {ft tun you compart on* program with tin content i <>/ an entire mage -in. ' 111 I M PPOH I I It: 0 LIFE CRITIC: 0 in m ik< just Ilk, you < ai jiii' tit ii •■• .i tingli i m'I' ' bei "i Methodist mininteri in " the i ompai i-"ii » Ion •• :• it ' 1 1 1 1 you think -o, suppose, ii> \t timi I BS I \ on Monda) nighl w iih features in Lift Who 'I" you think then would have the est aud . ' \ n.l. radio and IN might well let th. tin biggest features in Life (although the irresponsible author of the line above says thai / would have he, n to the m ■ In othei words, it sounds fail t" radio IN to have prop* rties Bui this doi tire > idio I N Moreover, the) didn't measure the net rather the average t"i the* Hut for the pub you ,i. , . pi i;;/ 1 reading ai thai readers "t tome features don'l i I some otl '.i. tj: Isn't this comparing tin potential audience of a mag' azine with an nitniil delivered one in tin (««<• nf n radio nr 1*1 program from tin standpoint <»/ the advertiser* LIFE SUPPORTER: Nuts \ r Lift rculation is audit ed at bed delivered Your t idio and I \ work. I.I I'll C'lll'I'K : I radio and TV audience reall) "guesswork" jusl I mi an-. ii doesn't represent ' In the place, how man] of print' "audited" copies ni wrappers? How man] times has it happened in v«ur own ht hold in tin pasl few month-! In the second place, if the radio-TV audii *ork," maybe this whole argument is gless. If I' wh) need we debate about how ^,,...1 • i? \nd if the myriad of radio-TV audience surveys wing," then market researchers throughout | back t" school, and the besl informed companies in Vmi I'u Ponta, t! tin General Motors, and all the rest, who relj on tin kind of "guesswork" for mature business decisions should surrender all the business they've gained bj relying on just that kind ol work." /. (J: (on any advertiser reach tin (>H miuion readers nf Life's ri \x ssuuemf LIFE SUPPORTER: How man) people will h< radio's 14 million.'' LIFE CRITIC: Hi could reach all of "radii JDion. ild\ reach anywhere near all 60 million. .>. Qi II niildn'i ii he all. if tin commercials are integrated? I.I IK SUPPORTER: w lil > minute. Von determine those who read an ad in Life "r an] other magazini tn if the) recall it. You hive to teal the radio ..• |\ commercial the way. You can't assume your pi gt ience is vom menial audiet I.II'E ( 1(1 IK : / didn't test the magazine audienci b) "recall." Win i retail a valid measurement I' pie • t. hut nonethi • it. \ 'ii cant assume your program audience i v.uir comn audience but if you handle the commercial properly, make il so. How do you do that with -ix two-inch a«l» in win ivould he time 50 million l I right but not the two-inch f). O: I an JOSS UMIM the »fimc olmiil I it. ' lilt SI l*l*Olt'l'Elt: No, hut the) aren't nva-uring r mercial audiences. They mi iitmrial audiem and TN that's forcing the fight into one of audience of advemerit v.-rsu audience of commercial. Life didn't even preten do that. LIKE CIIITIC: end to n 13 IULY 1953 37