Broadcasting (Oct - Dec 1950)

editorial 4 No Opposition? ORGANIZED education, under the very noses of the nation's broadcasters and telecasters, is making a determined bid for a huge chunk of the limited TV spectrum. So far, those who were responsible for the development of the broadcast arts as free enterprises, haven't even joined issue. Last week there were these developments: (1) The organized educators, in hearings before the FCC, asked for a VHF channel in each big city and educational center, with 20% of the unallocated UHF to be reserved for education. (2) A joint Emergency Committee on Educational Television, headed by the violently anti-commercial crusader. Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins of the U. of Chicago, put on a mail campaign for a $25,000 war-chest to finance the frequency grab. (3) Sen. John W. Bricker, (R-0.) introduced a resolution for an FCC study, looking toward reservation of at least one frequency in each state for educational purposes. All this has happened before in radio. It occured in 1928, when the original AM reallocation was made. It happened again a decade ago with FM. But education has always found it could achieve maximum audience and optimum results by using the allotted sustaining time of established commercial stations and networks — which have the audiences, the knowhow and the wherewithal. The past record speaks for itself. Comr. Frieda B. Hennock, is quarter-backing the educational strategy. The FCC proceedings have been virtually ex -parte, since no witnesses have been cross-examined by representatives of the nation's broadcast interests, who have invested so heavily in the visual medium. So Comr. Hennock has been making touchdowns in every quarter. To reach an equitable decision, the FCC should have all the facts. What about the past experiences of the educators in radio? What about their financial ability to engage in TV ? Has anything been said about the educational programming now being done by TV stations in collaboration with state institutions, even at this early stage of TV development? And has anyone recalled that in 1934-35, the whole educational-allocations battle was fought before the FCC, at the behest of Congress, with the NAB carrying the load, after an exhaustive survey of radio in education, and which lead to the formation of the Federal Radio Education Committee? The logistics or intelligence of commercial broadcasting, so far, appears to have fallen down badly. 100% Isn't Perfect SOME buyers of radio advertising have developed, no doubt in all sincerity, a rule-ofthumb in estimating the radio audience where TV is available. They simply deduct lOOTcof the number of TV homes from the number of radio homes in a market. With recollections of the Assn. of National Advertiser's autumn eJort to slash radio rates still fresh, the need for authentic coverage and research data becomes more acute. When agencies and advertisers deduct 100% of TV homes from the radio-home count for a market, broadcasters find themselves in danger of being mousetrapped. They are thrown in competition with media that evade admitting TV has cut down their own audience by insisting that all of TV's gains have been made at the expense of radio alone. They avoid the spectacular rise in radio set sales — exceeding even those of TV. The answer must come in the form of statistical proof that will be accepted by the advertisers. The two BMB studies have satisfied most of those who hurled the charge that broadcasters are medicine men. Now the latest BMB figures are becoming obsolescent. Larger agencies, however, apply their individual factors to bring the data up-to-date. That's why they're buying more and more national spot. Fortunately a group of broadcasters is now working on this very problem, under aegis of the new Broadcast Audience Measurement Inc. With Clyde Rembert, KRLD-AM-TV-FM Dallas, as chairman, a BAM committee is exploring the history and scope of radio coverage and research. The answer may lie in an oft agitated blanket coverage-research project, supplying all types of reports under one banner. Or it may be found in a less costly certification operation that would inspect and lend its seal of approval to private research. The statistical answers are there. It's just a case of ferretting out. Talent's HCL THE FULL effects of the labor agreements signed a fortnight ago with AFRA and Television Authority cannot be fully assessed at this time, but there isn't any doubt that the new contracts will cause radio's production costs to rise and television's to skyrocket. The new AFRA contract with the radio networks did make a concession to reality. Except for one category of announcers, the AFRA commercial scales remain the same. In consideration of the advertiser clamor against radio costs, the acceptance by the union of status quo in its commercial minimum was wise. AFRA's sustaining program scales, however, were boosted an average of 14.2% in the new contract. In times of declining profit margins in network radio, this increase may be difficult to accommodate. The new Television Authority contract is quite a different matter from the AFRA agreement. Estimates by the networks as to how much the TVA contract will raise production costs run as high as 100% — assuming that present programming continues unchanged. Present programming, of course, will not remain unchanged. To bring production costs somewhere within sight networks and sponsors will have to shorten rehearsal periods, reduce the size of casts and exert every economy possible, to the inevitable detriment of production quality. Take dancing choruses, for example. Shows with middle-sized budgets could engage choruses of several dancers at fairly low rates before the TVA contract was made. Now that chorus members in an hour's show are to get .$125 each, the number of them to be hired for any single program is obviously limited. We recognize the great pressure under which the networks carried on negotiations in the face of a rapidly approaching TVA strike, but we wonder whether they agreed to too high a price for the first talent contract in television. The scales set by the TVA agreement are the first. What will they be next year? f^' our respects to: j FRANK VIVIAN WEBB THE V. in Frank V. Webb's name should stand for versatile. However, it stands foi (say it softly, that no one may hear) Vivian. Mr. Webb, now general manager oi KFH-AM-FM Wichita, Kan., has come a long way in the growing radio industry. '■ Back in 1938 he was running KTMS Santa Barbara, the News-Press station, almost singlehanded. He conducted his own daily Man on the Street program, putting himself on the air with the aid of a battery amplifier. After holding his sidewalk interviews he would return to the studio, write scripts, compile questions and answers for the next day's show, handle difficult personnel problems, sell time to Santa Barbara business firms, write continuity for the time he had sold, put the announcements on the air, and then take his regular shift at the studio controls. The KTMS enterprise taught Mr. Webb th( (Continued on page 49) | Static and. Snow^ By AWFREY QUINCY ED PETRY asks: "How many pickets do yoi need for a fence?" If he means a fence aroum a radio station, why not ask Stan Hubbard? If we believed everything we read, we'' hurry and get rid of our television set. Ther we'd read aloud to the kiddies from the bes books and magazines, take them to the movie every night, spend each warm afternoon in th ballpark, take in all the football games, an have the family at ringside for all the prizt fights. Nurtured in such a refined atmosphen OUR children would never grow up to fet socially inferior! When Jimmy Shouse goes to work on th Voice of America, we'll bet that the sopran influence will be de-emphasized in favor o much more baritone. We think that the formation of a Broac caster's Advisory Council is a great idea, bn we're curious about something. In our goverr ment, who takes advice? Page 46 • December 4, 1950 BROADCASTING • Telecastin