Broadcasting (July - Dec 1936)

arvcL Broadcast Advertising Published by BROADCASTING PUBLICATIONS, Inc. Executive and Editorial Offices: National Press BIdg. 9 Washington, D. C. MARTIN CODEL, Publisher Telephone— Metropolitan 1022 SOL TAISHOFF, Editor F. G. TAYLOR, Advertising Manager Subscription Price: $3.00 per year-15c a copy-Copyright, 1936, by Broadcasting Publications, Inc J. FRANK BEATTY, Managing Editor • BERNARD PLATT, Circulation Manager NEW YORK OFFICE: 1270 Sixth Ave., Rockefeller Center, Telephone COIumbus 5-3815 NORMAN R. GOLDMAN, Advertising • HOWARD J. LONDON, Editorial CHICAGO OFFICE: 360 N. Michigan Ave., Telephone CENtral 8020 • BRUCE ROBERTSON On a Silver Platter NOT WITHOUT foundation have been the "show me" shrugs of time buyers who want to know what sort of and how much of an audience they can expect for their radio campaigns. They have in mind, first of all, that they can get a definite circulation figure from newspapers or magazines, or a traffic audit for outdoor display, or a certain ratio of response from direct mail. Technique of radio circulation studies has improved rapidly with development of the industry, but in every industry are advertising executives who wonder if they are buying a "pig in a poke" when they sign for a broadcast campaign. They see attractive engineering maps, trade area data, population figures and listener surveys, but still aren't satisfied. What they want, as buyers of time, is costper-set-family-reached or some similar figure by which they can take a radio budget, pick the markets they want to contact, and figure out how they can do the job. It's simple mathematics, the same that mother applies when she looks in her pocketbook before deciding what to buy for dinner. Members of the Association of National Advertisers heard two conceptions of audience measurement at their Oct. 8-10 convention [see article on page 9], They heard the signal strength-program-mail-radio homes combination advanced, with emphasis on the engineering standpoint, and they heard the merits of automatic recording devices in gauging listener habits. At present they are followers of the Crossley audience surveys. Last summer the Joint Committee of 15 of the ANA, NAB and AAAA released a census of radio homes by counties and it has other ideas in the pot. Such cooperative programs among industries invariably are slow to mature. Advertisers, however, are serious about this audience circulation business. They want nice figures handed to them on a silver platter. And after all, they're spending the money. Multi-Station Trend A COUPLE of years ago Chevrolet Motor Car Co. launched its now famous Musical Moments spot campaign and shocked broadcasters, as well as other radio advertisers, by using more than one station in a city and in no few cases all of the stations. Since then, Ford Motor Co. has followed suit, and several other spot advertisers began using more than one station per city. The idea even invaded the network field, with American Tobacco Co. using both NBC networks simultaneously for its Lucky Strike Dance Parade. Now, it appears, multi-station use is becoming a definite trend, particularly in spot. Attention is focused on this trend by Blayne R. Butcher, radio director of Lennen & Mitchell Inc., in an able article in this issue. As Mr. Butcher points out, advertisers long have bought more than one newspaper's circulation in a prescribed area. He asks, therefore: "Why not more than one radio station?" Advertisers and their agencies are showing a greater awareness of radio generally, and they are beginning to realize that multi-station use in the same market is a good buy. Stations and their representatives, as Mr. Butcher observes, are now shaping sales arguments to agencies and clients along these lines. And, he adds, "they are obviously sound." Strange Interlude WE WOULD be remiss in our editorial obligation if we did not take notice of perhaps the most brazen piece of political demagoguery we have ever seen perpetrated at a public hearing on radio. We refer to the baiting of Powel Crosley Jr., WLW head, by Telegraph Commissioner George H. Payne, publicity-seeking New York politician, during the FCC allocation hearing. We are not trying to defend Mr. Crosley, for he demonstrated he did not need it. But we do like to see fair play. First, be it known, Telegraph Commissioner Payne had the bureaus of Washington newspapers and press associations notified that he was going to put on a show with Mr. Crosley on the stand and that front page news would follow. He has done that before. The issues raised by the politico commissioner had not the remotest connection with the subject of allocations or superpower. [See report elsewhere in this issue.] It was simply an attempt to throw mud for the purpose of getting newspaper headlines. It was bureaucracy at its worst, perpetrated by a member of the FCC who has nothing to do with broadcasting. Nominally his duty is that of a member of the Telegraph Division, but apparently he prefers to meddle in broadcasting because of its greater publicity possibilities. In justice to the other members of the FCC, we trust that it will not be judged too harshly for the outlandish, utterly uncalled for performances of a member who evidently has forgotten not only his function of public office, but, judging from the sharp temper of his remarks, also the behavior of a gentleman. For the broadcasting industry, we can only bow in gratitude that this man does not serve on the Broadcast Division. Those Futile Hearings EVER since Federal radio regulation began in 1927, there has been criticism of the legal procedure peculiar to radio which permits anyone to file an application for the facilities of an existing station and hale it to hearing in Washington. It doesn't matter whether the applicant is financially responsible or legally qualified. The hearing is automatic. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted by existing station licensees in defending their assignments because of this loophole. Now, for the first time, former Senator Dill has filed with the FCC a motion that it require an applicant for the facilities of one of his client stations to post a $2,000 bond to cover costs of his station in defending itself. The FCC probably will deny the motion because of lack of authority to assess costs. This action resurrects proposals of the last few years that the FCC be given power to require the posting of bonds. We are not so certain that it is wise to give such power to administrative agencies. The courts now have it. But it certainly points to the necessity of discouraging frivolous applications. In one Commission quarter it is felt that the FCC under the law can require preliminary ex parte hearings on applications at which it would go into the financial, legal and technical responsibility of the applicants before calling a regular hearing at which the station attacked would be called upon to defend itself. If the applicant is not qualified, then the FCC could deny its application without calling in the respondent stations. Such procedure, to us, seems to have a great deal of merit. We would welcome a study of it by the FCC in the hope that the flood of irresponsible applications and the loss of station time and money can be plugged. Convention Time BEING a democratic organization, the NAB is "going to the people", so to speak, to decide when the annual conventions should be held. It wants the broadcasters themselves to decide upon the month. During the last two years the conventions have been held in July. There has been complaint from some broadcasters about the heat — not so much the heat fomented at the meetings themselves, but the weather. So the board of directors has authorized a referendum to determine the time desired by most members. Prior to 1935 the conventions were held in the fall. The complaint then was that it cut into the busiest season of the year when broadcasters wanted to be at home. That's the reason the switch was made to the summer. We'll agree that July gets pretty hot. But we believe, too, that the industry does not want to return to fall conventions because of the havoc they play with business at home. Our view is that the ideal time is the late spring or early summer. It seems to us that June is an excellent month. Broadcasters usually are planning their vacations then and can dovetail their vacations with convention time. Moreover, it is not the peak business season. We don't often get the opportunity to express an opinion on a "political" issue. To us any referendum smacks of politics. So with a wave of our collective arms, and in our best oratorical style, we advocate June as the regular convention month for the NAB. Let's look toward a landslide! Page 50 • October 15, 1936 BROADCASTING • Broadcast Advertising