Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1959)

4 Comments are due Feb. 28, counter-comments 15 days later. Commission asks parties to suggest deadline by which networks should be out of the business, and it also asks parties whether networks should be forced out of radio station rep business, too — even though its network study staff didn't get into radio and made no recommendations on network radio representation. FCC's order is docket No. 12746, public notice 59-63, mimeo 68406, only 2 pages, available from Commission or us. NBC was quick to react, stating: "NBC will oppose the proposal . . . believes (it) is completely contrary to the public interest . . . has consistently opposed such action by FCC since 1948 because it believes banning network companies from this field would restrict, not enhance, competition among spot representatives." CBS issued no official statement, but CBS-TV stations pres. Merle Jones made no bones about intention to fight. He, too, insisted that FCC staff report failed to show how network operation of rep business harms public. Station Representatives Assn, had no formal comment, but members were obviously delighted. Commission action renders quite apropos the move of some CBS affiliates to find ways of carrying on if CBS Spot Sales is dissolved (Vol. 15:4). Some of those repped by the CBS div. are mulling idea of taking it over, continuing it as is. Next item on FCC's network agenda: Feb. 2, multiple ownership, Feb. 6, network-producer relationships regarding program "tie-ins" (Vol. 15:4). COMPETITORS AND CRITICS: SatEvePost, hard on heels of its own promotion ads which bemoaned catastrophic manner in which advertisers can fail on TV, is out this week (Jan. 31) with full-page editorial entitled, "Why Not Let Pay TV Have a Trial Run?" Leads off Post ; "Commercial television has been running into heavy weather of late. Nobody seems completely satisfied with it. The sponsor, etc., etc." This is typical of kind of current printed comment which is causing doubletakes throughout TV industry — especially because such denouncements are from print media that invariably turn editorially to a television personality when their newsstand sale needs a shot in the arm. We admit bias for TV, but in name of logic, must at this time call following facts to attention of our colleagues in other media who are suddenly and almost unanimously concerned about TV's health: Americans still spend more time with TV than in any other activity. And advertisers have just invested a record expenditure in TV: $1,394 billion in 1958. All other media, according to Printers' Ink Index (see p. 16) were down in ad revenue — from 2% to 18%, including 7% drop for weekly magazines — during first 11 months of 1958, compared with same 1957 period. In circulation, the 9 national weeklies are down in single copy (to many, the significant) sales, dropping from 2.5% to 33.1%. There were only 2 exceptions: a piddling increase for one, and a 54-million increase for another — latter being only title on list devoted exclusively to TV! In face of these figures, we are forced to ask: Just WHO is it that's "running into heavy weather"? During same week Post shot off its cannon in what appears to be an interestingly-spaced barrage that has now included formidable bursts from such other big guns of magazine business as Life , Reader's Digest, and Fortune, the Fund for the Republic's Pat McGrady gave a broadcasting audience (see p. 16) a preview of his findings in a 7-month study of TV's critics. Said he in part: "By and large. TV criticism is the fitful labor of tired writers of monumental goodwill, a degree of talent and a jaded perspective. As such, its effect has been profound. In instances it has been positive, but it is generally inconsistent, capricious and of questionable value. Chief cause for this unhappy state of affairs is the critics' concern with a fantastic amount of mediocre, trivial material." Their "vitriolic unpleasantness." he added, "is not characteristic of other critical relations — in art, literature, drama, or music. . . . There is no reason why the critics should have to resort to verbal bludgeoning to have their way. In fact, there is no reason why they should give the orders in programming. They have not the responsibilities, nor the creative faculties for the job,"