Broadcasting (Jan - Jun 1944)

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.

Giveaway Pros and Cons * Mostly Pros Arguments on Behalf of Programs Are Stated by Industry Figures FIRE AND brimstone continued to erupt last week over money giveaway programs in the all-out debate over the propriety of such features and their legitimacy as audience-building devices. Spontaneous replies to the article by C. E. Hooper, published in the March 6 Broadcasting, supplementing those published in the March 13 issue, are found herewith. Whereas the first batch of replies predominantly favored the Hooper position on money programs per se, the bulk of the new comments take a somewhat contrary view. It has been Broadcasting's purpose to present both sides of the issue fully. Broadcasting initially raised the question of money give-away programs in an editorial in its Feb. 28 issue, taking the position that they tended to build audience artifically. This brought the Hooper rejoinder and the ensuing comments, pro and con. Broadcasting's interest lies in building sound radio. Small and large stations alike, independents and networks, have all participated in money program ventures. As some have pointed out, many national network programs involve money giveaways based largely on the quiz formula. There has been more than an inkling in official quarters that out-andout giveaway programs are looked upon with some skepticism as possibly bordering upon lottery. Where there is no element of skill involved, a hair-line legal question is raised, it is pointed out. Even if such programs are legal, a serious question arises as to whether it is good radio and sound building. Broadcasting poses the question and presents all sides without seeking to grind anyone's axe and without meaning to infer, in its publication of the Hooper article, that it supports his position. Broadcasting does agree with Hooper on the basic question of out-and-out money giveaways, but does not concur in his views on FM vs. AM or his means of coping with the problem unless the base for his measurement of radio listening is broadened as urged by many broadcasters and agencies. In view of paper rationing, with this issue Broadcasting hopes to conclude the pro and con debate. It will, however, report developments as they occur and project its views editorially. EDITOR Broadcasting: In your March 6 issue, you carried an article "Clean Out the Funny Money Programs," by C. E. Hooper. While Mr. Hooper's article on funny money programs has merit, I take exception with his thought on FM. "Let's correlate," says Mr. Hooper, "the economic with the engineering factors. If FM represents a technological improvement, let today's stations supply it with the same programs being transmitted AM. Let the extra service be given as a tonus coverage until such time as more listeners tune FM than AM. When that day arrives AM can be the bonus service until it is no longer demanded by listeners." Later in his article, Mr. Hooper states, "Buyers for whom advertising dollars will then have to work and to deliver will be as scornful of a 'something for nothing' audience as when competition is keen." What kind of double talk is this? By the same line of reasoning that Mr. Hooper so lightly assigns our costly FM operations to a "bonus coverage" position, so may he assign the Hooper Service as a "bonus coverage" to Crossley, until one or the other achieves universal acceptance. WBCA through extensive FM receiving set promotion and other promotional activities in its service area, has built a sizable and responsive audience that has proved attractive to one hundred and eighty-two local sponsors and eighteen national sponsors. Several of these local sponsors have been with us continuously for more than two and one-half years. I believe you will admit, that when local sponsors put 'cash on the barrelhead,' they expect and receive at least a moderate return at nominal cost. WBCA has maintained a full time, sixteen-hour schedule since July 17, 1041. as an independent FM station without any AM income to lean on. Any attempt to assign FM broadcasting in the WBCA service area as a bonus coverage would definitely be an unfair trade practice, and unfortunate, if this practice were to be adopted for the future growth of FM. FM is a definitely better broadcasting service which the general public will certainly accept when set manufacturers get the. 'green light.' Leonard L. Asch President Capitol Broadcasting Co., Schenectady, N. Y. Editor's Note — The Funny Money Man program has been conspicuously mentioned in the article by C. M. Hooper about give-away shows and in the controversy which followed it. In fairness to the producer of that program, we want him to say his piece though he is now far away from radio in Camp Gruber, Okla. Before Mr. Hooper starts to clean out funny money, let's clear up some facts. This show cannot tie up telephone lines or interfere with listener surveys because it never uses the phone. Listeners are called by name on the air and asked to send something like a bent string bean to the funny money man for 93 cents. If they do, they receive payment. Mr. Hooper, as a survey expert should have known more about the program before singling it out for attack, especially since funny money man has been carried by scores of stations all over the continent. That includes dozens of 50,000 stations from WEAF to KPO. But Mr. Hooper and those who agree with him are also against money giveaway shows in general. Before they clean out such shows, let's clear up a few more facts. Is 93 cents for a string bean any worse, in principle, than a gold-filled premium locket for a box top? If we are going to rid the air of shows that offer the listener something for almost nothing, let's go all the way. Let's kick out all quiz shows in which money prizes are important. Let's ban all amateur and opportunity shows. No one says there is anything cultural about getting 63 cents for a mothball. But is there anything really esthetic about the trials of Oona Glup, girl soda jerk? But the most objectionable part of Hooper's article is his indignation over a listener hearing the funny money man while the President was broadcasting. Without forcing all stations to carry his broadcasts, the President has the largest audiences in history — -even against Funny Money Man. Hadn't we better let all pro-, grams live or die by their popularity with the listeners and not by the edicts of experts? It won't improve post-war radio or the post-war world to limit the free choice of programs. 'Veil of Altruism' One other thing I don't like about the whole controversy. I feel Mr. Hooper is cloaking his self-interest in a veil of altruism. He could have waited a few weeks after blasting money give away shows before announcing a new Hooper service that eliminates their troublesome effects on his surveys. Don't anybody reach for a telegram blank and say I am also grabbing free space for my own interest. This controversy has sold Funny Money Man to many new stations, and I'm happy to admit it. Corp. Allen A. Funt * * * EDITOR Broadcasting : The March 6 article to which I gave the title, "Looking Post-War Radio Right in the Ear," but which you called, "Clean Out the Funny Money Programs," seems to have started something along the line of my minor, rather than my major, reference. As long as the industry has taken hold of this idea with such vigor, I think it fitting for me to reveal my reasons for being so out-spoken as to say : "This type of programming has received its death sentence and the execution is scheduled. "Time buyers will be looking for a value-conscious listening public and will be scornful of a want-something-for-nothing audience." I didn't dream up these prophesies in order to start a controversy. I didn't inject them into the picture Hooper Query FOLLOWING wire was sent March 15 to all commercial stations in cities in which Hooper conducts Continuing Measurements of Radio Listening: "Please cooperate by furnishing us with letter before March 20 answering following question: Did your station broadcast any local program offering prize awards to telephone (nonstudio) listeners during Months October 1943 through February 1944? Letter should also include dates and time periods your station broadcast any such programs. We may include information in forthcoming continuing measurement report. Question being asked of all commercial stations your city. Those not replying may also be identified in report." as an aid to solving our interviewing problem. They came to us from the same source we look to for all our program information. They came from the listeners. We have been polling listeners on this subject. We have been asking them to "rate" the stations sponsoring this type of program as first rate, second rate, third rate. Where the station was considered below first rate (which represents the opinion of the majority) we asked, "Why do you not consider this station first rate?" The answers speak for themselves. I list them in order of frequency : 1. "Prefer other kind of program" 2. "Programs poorer" 3. "They have to give prizes to get listeners" 4. '"Programs not interesting" 5. "Programs not appealing" 6. "Do not like programs" Now you see why my article concluded with : "There is one way and one time for radio's marginal operators to clean house, build a sound program structure, and prepare to be a permanent part of the post-war era. It is now !" The alternative is that more listeners, in more places, will feel this way about the programming of more stations. _ C. E. Hooper President C. E. Hooper Inc. March 10. 1944 EDITOR Broadcasting: I read with interest Hooper's article and the response to that article in the March 13 issue of Broadcasting. Being in the Army, I've been away from radio practically two years, but still, I have an opinion as far as station operation is concerned. I believe Broadcasting missed the "boat" in getting comments from the type of station operators as were represented in last week's Broadcasting. Let the small operator express his .opinion, the fellow who uses the money show, the fellow who is accused by his competitors as being unfair. I personally think the money shows are good showmanship. True, I don't think they will last, but the smart operator will have a new idea to take the place of the money stunt when it has had its fling. Have the Audience It certainly is too bad when the large operator who carries network all day and night, and has had the audience tied up, not because of his ideas, or his policies, but by hanging on the apron strings of the network, suddenly realizes that Joe Doakes* peanut whistle down the street has taken his audience right from under his nose. Sure, he'll be the first one to yell : "It ain't fair," "it isn't good, sound radio," "it won't work." Maybe it won't, but then just check the audience yourself, the money programs have the audience. If one will just stop and think about the money idea for a minute, he will immediately see where Hooper is wrong, and everyone else who thinks this idea throws coincidental surveys into a cocked hat. Before you can actually win a money prize, you must be listening to the station that is using that particular idea or programming. Before the money is given away, even if you happen to be tuned to the correct station, you must repeat a certain slogan about the advertiser's product. If that isn't done correctly, you get no cash. If a person has not heard the program, the mere saying: "I'm listening to Station XXXX" means nothing. For this reason, I am one who believes that this does not upset the apple cart in measuring the audience, but does prove Page 20 • March 20, 1944 BROADCASTING • Broadcast Advertising