Variety (Dec 1939)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Wednesday* December 6, 1939 VARIETY 29 ...AMONG LISTENERS ONLY sales are 81% higher than the nearest competitor's (but only 7% higher among non-listeners) DOUBLE CHECK: Moving in from the total markets (where they found an 88% sales- increase created by radio) Crossley's inves- tigators then checked the use of the product in the radio market alone; among families known to have heard the program, and fami- lies who never heard it. They found these families by coincidental telephone calls and by personal interviews: two test groups comparable in every way except for listen- ing to this program. And for their use of the sponsor*s product! "When Crossley inventoried the pantry of each family they unmasked this striking competitive situa- tion — due to radio alone. (See chart, right) USE SPONSOR'S BRAND 181 families ub« the sponior'* product, for every 100 ubIiik the n'exl competing brand, among fcnoi«it (iitener* to this program. An 81% increase — dne al- most entirely to radio alone! For among non-listeners, for every 100 families who used the next brand, 107 used the spon- sor's product —only a 7% increase. 100 DSE CO«PETING mm 107 100 USE SPONSOR S BRAND USE COMPETING BRAND KNOWN LISTENERS NON-LISTENERS 336 USE SPONSOR S BRAND AMONG REGULAR LISTENERS ONLY sales are 236% (and 59% than the nearest competitor's higher among occasional listeners) S36 families use the sponsor** product, for every 100 using the next competing brand, vmong regular listener* to this program. A 236% difference — created by repealed radio impacts. Among occo- lional listeners, there'* a 59% differ, encc in favor of the sponsor's product. 159 100 8SE COMPETING USE SPONSORS BRAND 100 USE COMPETING REGULAR LISTENERS OCCASIONAL LISTENERS TRIPLE CHECK: During the personal inter- views, each "listening" family told Crossley whether it heard the program regularly or occa- sionally. The use of the sponsor's product was then checked in these two groups of families —exactly comparable in every way except for listening regularly or occasionally. The chart on left shows what Crossley found. c MORE BETAILSi^