Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1960)

VOL. 16: No. 4 Advertising 7 The FCC MORE ANTI-PAYOLA ACTION: FCC moved again last week. Not waiting to digest forthcoming Feb, 5 final station replies to its payola-plugola questionnaires (Vol. 16:2 p3), the Commission said it is acting right now to establish rules curbing the practices. A notice of proposed rule-making is being drafted, probably will be issued within 2 weeks. The Commission said the rule-making would be designed to make licensees “take affirmative steps to prevent the broadcast of matter as a result of payola received by their employees.” It’s unlikely that FCC will spell out specific measures it expects stations to take. Rather, the proposal will let stations offer their ideas, after which the Commission will select what it considers to be the best — and imbed them in its rules. The Commission also said last week that: (1) It wouldn’t act on any renewals from now on before checking the station’s response to its questionnaire. (2) FTC data on payola will be considered in weighing renewals. FCC has received from FTC the names of some 70 station employes whom FTC alleges have taken payola. It’s now studying discrepancies — if any — between station questionnaire responses and the FTC information. Only 300 stations haven’t filed replies yet; FCC is prodding them. FCC started its payola poll before Attorney General Rogers submitted his report to President Eisenhower (Vol. 16:2 p2), but it’s interesting to note on page 47 of his report this language: “The Commission would appear to have ample authority, under its general rule-making powers, to adopt regulations which would require licensees to take affirmative steps to prevent the broadcast of matter as the result of payola received by their employees.” In Ohio, U. of Cincinnati Law School Dean Roscoe L. Barrow, who headed FCC’s network study, asserted that innocent victims of rigged quiz shows may be able to sue under the “loss of chance” doctrine. Speaking before the Advertisers Club, he also said: “The licensed broadcaster whose facilities were, without his knowledge, misused through the payola practice, may be able to recover from the recording companies under the familiar equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment.” And he urged that “care should be taken that unwise legislation engendered by headlines & scandal does not evolve.” St. Louis Ch. 2 “influence” hearing resumes Jan. 26 in Philadelphia, before examiner Horace Stern, for the sole purpose of permitting attorney Robert Jones to change his testimony. Counsel for KTVI (Ch. 2) St. Louis, Jones had previously testified he had no contact with any commissioner in connection with the shift of Ch. 2 from Springfield, 111. to St. Louis. Since then, he has recalled that he gave some documents to Comr. T. A. M. Craven. He now wants to acknowledge that fact. FCC have found the documents in Craven’s files, and they will be identified during the hearing. It’s expected that the hearing will last one day and the record will be closed. In other “influence” cases. Judge Stern has stated his intention of starting with hearings on Miami Ch, 7 just as soon as the Mack-Whiteside trial ends. The trial begins in Washington Jan. 25. Ch. 70 translator grant in Weed Heights, Nev., to relay KXTV Sacramento, has been awarded to Anaconda Co. Admen Answer Critics: Reacting to FTC’s barrage, the ad business last week let loose its own artillery. Fairfax Cone, exec, committee chmn. of Foote, Cone & Belding (cited by FTC for stain-removal demonstration in Pepsodent commercials), demanded a separation of “the facts from the allegations” by the press Jan. 19, and asked newspapermen to stop equating advertising & admen with “such utterly diverse operations as payola.” The press. Cone told the Newspaper Advertising Executives Assn, in Chicago, has “intimated that PTC has already held a hearing” and found Pepsodent, as well as others cited, “guilty of grave crimes against the public.” The term “faking,” as applied to telefilm commercial techniques, said Cone, is “the work of headline-chasers.” Cone’s client. Lever Bros., had earlier issued a sharp statement concerning Pepsodent commercials. “The FTC did not say that Pepsodent will not remove yellow smoke stains,” the firm said, “nor did it claim that the TV demonstration in any way misrepresented what actually occurs. It charged only that the visual method used in demonstrating that Pepsodent removes smoke stains from teeth doesn’t prove it. We are confident that we will be able to prove to the Commission’s satisfaction that the demonstration used is in all respects appropriate to convey properly Pepsodent’s ability to remove yellow smoke stains.” Also in N.Y., a spokesman for an agency not presently under FTC attack, accused the Commission of “not attempting to correct abuses so much as it has been incorrectly abusing its privileges.” Walter Weir, exec, committee chmn. of Donahue & Coe, in addressing the Art Directors Club of N.Y., responded to FTC’s charge that “ads diverted trade unfairly from the manufacturer’s competitors.” Said he: “I hope the FTC will ask itself if making accusations on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers before conlulting privately with the parties concerned is not possibly the most unfair diversion of trade that could be visited on an American business.” 4-A Adapts Copy Code to TV On a related front, American Assn, of Advertising Agencies took another step in its own commercial cleanup among member agencies (Vol. 16:3 p8) by issuing a special new TV interpretation of the basic, 23-year-old 4-A copy code. TV commercials, often seen by mixed family groups, “are not always voluntary, as is the reading of print ads,” cautioned AAAA. TV advertisers & agencies were advised that they have “a severe obligation to act in good manners as guests in the viewer’s home.” Viewer irritation can be caused “by strident tones & improper voice levels & manners of certain announcers,” said the 4-A bulletin. In other instances, “commercials which may be relatively inoffensive in their first appearance may become irritating by repetition,” and “judgments should be stricter than . . . print advertising’s because of the host-guest relationship between viewer & advertiser.” The 4-A copy interpretation also cited the following areas to be carefully scrutinized by advertisers: False statements or misleading exaggerations; indirect misrepresentation of a product, or service, through distortion of details, or of true perspective, either editorially or pictorially; statements or suggestions offensive to public decency; statements which tend to undermine an industry by attributing to its products, generally, faults & weaknesses true only of a few; misleading price claims; pseudo-scientific advertising; testimonials which do not reflect the real choice of a competent witness.