American television directory (1946)

WHY ADVERTISING AGENCIES SHOULD GUIDE TELESHOWS If television networks control production, will tele¬ shows be sold on their Crosley ratings? Can networks successfully build shows for competitive clients? By JOHN HERTZ, JR _ Chairman of the Board, Buchanan & Co. Today, as this nation is slowly freed from its wartime shackles, the televi¬ sion industry faces its future with no concerted plan for commercial expan¬ sion and not even a majority agreement on the principal factors likely to con¬ tribute to this development. Wishful thinkers frequently predict that television’s expansion will not fol¬ low traditional lines, that things are going to be different. One will point to the growing importance in radio of the packaged show producer as evidence of a trend away from the advertising agency. Another will point to the war¬ time policy of several television stations that are operated by radio networks and to the statements of some of their offi¬ cials, indicating that they intend to make a strong bid for retention of pro¬ gramming control. All, at least, agree that henceforth the quality of television 'programs will determine the speed with which this great new communicationart assumes its destined place in our social and economic life. What procedure and what policies are likely to assure the steady and rapid development of television programming quality? How can the joint interests of the public and of program sponsors best be served? A vast army of highly tal¬ ented people will be needed to supply television’s demand for program mate¬ rial, to develop commercial techniques to pay off television’s higher-than-radio production costs, to handle the tre¬ mendously increased production prob¬ lem involved in presenting shows to be seen as well as heard. Where are these people now? Who will organize and guide their television thinking? Who is best equipped to do so? Thanks to the open house policy adopted at DuMont’s WABD and Gen¬ eral Electric’s WRGB, hundreds of sales-minded executives in the past three years have gained a working knowledge of television’s production problems, and have developed program ideas and visual commercials suited to their products. Only by such trial-anderror experimentation can television’s most effective use as a sales tool be realized. The importance of this co¬ operative pioneering cannot be over¬ estimated. The television networks which insist on producing all the shows they present are likely to find they have saddled themselves with a task too big for them to handle. Producing shows experimen¬ tally for a few clients, as stations are doing today, is child’s play compared with attempting programming produc¬ tion for all the many advertisers that will be involved in a 28-hour week of broadcasting — the minimum suggested by the FCC. This production achieve¬ ment by any one station is possible but extremely unlikely. The mathematics of time, the size of the organization re¬ quired, the friction inherent in serving competitive clients, all rule against it. Advertising agencies do not serve competing clients because it is human nature to favor one group over another. Can a network expect two competitive coffee accounts, for example, to be served satisfactorily by the same cre¬ ative staff? Will the network set up a different writing staff for each account? And if one staff does a better job than the other, how can the inevitable com¬ parisons be explained? Will a producing station eventually find its advertisers limited to noncompeting accounts? Responsibility for Sales A radio station is judged by its signal strength, the percentage of po¬ tential audience regularly tuned to it, and the general character of its pro¬ grams, both sponsored and unsponsored. Its primary responsibility to a sponsor is a technical one — the matter of get¬ ting the signal out to the listeners. The sales productivity of the program rests squarely on the shoulders of the ad¬ vertising agency. This means that the agency has the soundest of business reasons for wanting continually to improve its programs. It also has familiarity with a sponsor’s budget pos¬ sibilities and is in a position to act quickly. When a network key station rules that it must produce all its shows, it is no longer selling time; it is in the business of selling shows. If it cannot sell a show, it loses a sale of time. And if it sells a show, it automatically as¬ sumes an advertising agency’s respon¬ sibility for maintaining the show’s quality, of upholding its Crosley, of selling a profitable volume of the spon¬ sor’s product — or of finding a replace¬ ment in a hurry! If a network key chooses to produce all its shows, how will it price its wares? Certainly advertisers and ad¬ vertising agencies will appraise them on their Crosley ratings — on their costper-listener impression. The network cannot ask the same price for two shows if the Crosley of one is 4 and for the other is 8. There will be seven television stations in New York. If a network key sells packaged shows and sells them on a Crosley basis, several logical queries are certain to be made. If a show with a high Crosley loses its rating to a new show, is an advertiser entitled to a rebate? Or will billings be based on a Crosley for each broadcast and fluctu¬ ate accordingly? Will a network care to write a contract cancellation clause, effective if the Crosley drops below a certain figure? If a network key obtains commercial sponsorship for 20 of the 28 hours weekly it is on the air, it will be pro¬ ducing shows for 40 clients at the very least. The staff of writers required for handling both entertainment and com¬ mercials will be enormous. Add art and music directors, producers and account executives, actors and staff people necessary to serve these clients satis¬ factorily and the total will reach fan¬ tastic proportions and costs. Is this gigantic operation likely to prove a gold mine? An advertising agency is accustomed to fighting for rock bottom prices in the interests of its clients. And in buying television shows, it will have a production cost yardstick in its own operations at “open door” stations. Consequently, it will refuse to allow its clients to overpay for shows no matter by whom they are produced. Forty advertisers, at a conservative estimate, will spend $10,000 apiece each year through their agencies in search¬ ing for ways to improve their pro¬ grams. If they were forced to choose from the fare provided solely by the stations, would the station budget $400,000 purely for program improve¬ ment? Competition is the keystone of progress in television as in every other industry. It goes without saying that television cannot progress unless it is used gen( Continued on page 115) 31