Broadcasting (Jan - Mar 1950)

£ditotial Business Bolt WITHOUT ATTEMPTING the risky business of reviewing radio's new promotion film in advance of its full-length showing, we can predict from a reading of the script that Lightning That Talks ought to talk big for broadcasting. It would have been easy for the creators of the film to fall into one of two errors. The one being excessive emphasis on the furrowed brow type of somber documentary with lots of wind in it about the social significance of radio. The other being a hell-for-leather pitch about radio's advertising effectiveness. It is nice to report that, judging by the script, the film nimbly follows a line between the two extremes. Quite likely, when seen on the screen, the picture will make clear on the one hand, that broadcasting is seriously regarded by the American public and, on the other, that it serves a useful purpose in helping to distribute goods. The four sales success sequences in the film are convincing demonstrations of both points. Some people who have been inclined to undersell radio as a force in U. S. life are apt to be as astonished by Lightniyig That Talks as the public was when Ben Franklin flew his kite. For waking them up, the industry should compliment the men chiefly responsible for making the film. They were: Victor Ratner, former CBS vice president, now R. H. Macy vice president, producer of the film. Gordon Gray, vice president of WIP Philadelphia and chairman of the All-Radio Presentation Committee. Maurice Mitchell, BAB director who turns actor in Lightning That Talks and who has now put his sales wizardry into selling Lightning. Ben Gradus of International Movie Producers Service, a film expert who absorbed enough radio lore to shoot a radio picture of great conviction. We look forward to the lightning striking all over the U. S. Ledger Lesson THERE'S a business lesson to be had in Broadcasting's new, 1950 Yearbook, starting with the figures on radio's 1949 net time sales as summarized elsewhere in these pages. The pertinent time-sales figures: In AM, up $12 million to a total of $429 million; in TV, up $16 million to a total of $24.7 million; in FM, for which no previous years' figures were available, up to a total of $6 to S7.5 million. The gain in AM sales, still the nationwide backbone of broadcast advertising, sounds better dollar-wise than percentage-wise — 37f, the lowest since a bare 0.6 9f increase was eked out in 1938. But 3% in the year 1949, though no cause for complacency, does not call for shamed faces, either. No other major advertising medium was able to top it. That 3% gain should signal new and greater sales drive in 1950 — a need which is underlined by another section of the 1950 Yearbook. The chapter on "Radio's Payroll and Operating Costs" reports that on the basis of official figures for 1948 — the latest available data — radio's employment was up 17% and its payroll was up 20%, exclusive of other basic operating expenses. There is no sign that this upward trend is about to be reversed. The 3% gain was accomplished coincidentally with an overall gain of almost 10% in operating-station population, as yet another section of the Yearbook will indicate. Although the number of authorized stations is less, the number of operating outlets is greater — by about 2,916 as compared to 2,660 a year ago. New stations taking the air in 1950 will stiffen this intra-media competition by that much. Yet to be answered, of course, are the questions of when, whether, and how much television will affect the other media. There is no indication of any real effect on broadcasting media yet, despite a virtual tripling of TV revenues in 1949. Nor does it seem likely that inroads will be made this year. In the continuing buyer's market, many advertisers in 1950 will undertake to work one medium against another for their own benefit, but to this radio has a perfect answer. Radio is the medium of deepest penetration. It is the "blanket" medium; it gets the most attention, and it costs less. With facts like those, and aggressive shirt-sleeve selling, radio can't miss. T-V Formation ABOUT A YEAR ago, it was assumed in many college athletic counting rooms that television, unlike radio, would hurt the football gate. It also was assumed that the telecast of a big college football game would hurt the boxoffice of smaller colleges. The result would be chaos in all college sports, for football is the support of them all. Cries of anguish rent the air at the prospect. Many coaches and athletic directors spoke out against telecasts of football games. Now, however, a welcome breath of fresh air has blown through the nation's collegiate locker rooms — it's a breath of fresh air that was wafted in from the more academic parts of universities. For now, after all the cries, it has been susrgested that a bit of the scientific spirit be applied to the problem, that all the facts be gathered and studied. In fact, quite an ambitious study on the subject already is on. A graduate student of University of Pennsylvania, Jerry M. Jordon, has such a project in progress (see Telecasting 3). While his study will not be completed until April, his findings at the part-way mark indicate that once the novelty of television wears off, television does not hurt attendance but may even increase it. Also his study shows thus far that telecasts of U. of P. football games have not hurt attendance of smaller college games in the Philadelphia area. In addition to this study, it seems likely that the National Collegiate Athletic Assn., will undertake a study of the impact of TV on sports attendance. Financial aid in making such an investigation has been offered by NBC President Joseph H. McConnell, who spoke for the country's network telecasters. We hope that aid is accepted and proper studies are made in the accepted scientific manner. The application of brains and not brawn is what is needed to this phase of the college athletic program. The facts that will be developed will speak for themselves and indicate what should be done. Until then, college athletic advisers would do well to adopt the advice of Mr. McConnell, himself a former college football coach. Until all the facts are in, he advised, "don't blame everything on television." JEROME SILL IT WAS in July 1947 that "Doctor" Jerome Sill decided to sample some of his own medicine. For years he had been ministering to sick radio stations for CBS and Mutual. His textbook, The Radio Station, one of the first books on station management ever published, had run through two printings. It was and is standard in most American colleges and universities. But Jerry Sill wanted to proof -test his theories. He put out feelers in a score of cities, and had visited half of them when he pulled up in Milwaukee. He says he picked the Wisconsin metropolis because he liked the idea of building an independent station in what is reputed to be one of America's toughest markets. Born Feb. 7, 1905, in the Yorkville section of Manhattan, Mr. Sill went to grade school there and then to Stuyvesant High where he won a scholarship to St. Lawrence U. He was graduated from St. Lawrence in 1924 with an A. B. degree. Following graduation, he became a copywriter at the old Bates agency in New York, was personally tutored by Charles Austin Bates and soon rose to copy chief and eventually secretary-treasurer of the company. When the Bates firm became an early depression, casualty, Mr. Sill hitched his wagon to the star of Paul Kesten, vice president in charge of promotion of the young CBS. Starting in 1928 as a copywriter, he won advancement in a relatively short time and soon was placed in charge of all promotion for Columbia-owned properties. He later took over promotion of Radio Sales, as well, and at length was named director of station promotion of the network. Toward the end of this last job, a survey by an industry journal showed that every station in metropolitan New York, with one exception, had a promotion director trained in the CBS Station Promotion Department. After nearly a decade of directing CBS station promotion activities, Mr. Sill was drafted by the network for a new job. In those dayt non-basic stations weren't doing so well insofai as volume of network commercial business was concerned. So he was sent out trouble-shooting His recommendations formed the basis for £ new CBS department, headed by himself, within the station relations setup. "It was my job to help make stations bettei broadcasting operations, thus better advertising media, thus more sought-after media foi the network advertisers," he explains. The new depai'tment was so successful tha ( Continued on page iO) Page 38 • January 23, 1950 BROADCASTING • Telecastin,