Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1954)

editorials What's the Rush? IN PETITIONING for quick authorization of subscription television, Zenith Radio Corp. has asked the FCC to rush a decision on an issue which should be examined with deliberation and utmost care. Not since it issued its television allocations report, ending the long freeze and opening the way for vast tv expansion, has the FCC had before it an issue of such profound importance as subscription tv. It is an issue vital to the future of television broadcasters, advertisers, agencies and others associated in the business. It is also a matter of significant public concern. The introduction of subscription tv service would inevitably affect the status of television as an advertising medium, disturb conventional viewing habits of the television audience and influence the basic economic structure of the medium. We do not know — nor does anyone else — whether these effects would be good or bad, would constitute a net improvement or degradation of the U. S. television system, would provide the public with an increase in the number and variety of tv programs or a loss. To date the only extensive comment on the subject of subscription television has come from interests associated with the technical development of subscription tv. If others have thought about the subject, they have kept their thoughts quiet. At this stage the FCC has an absolutely one-sided case to consider. In its petition for early approval of pay-as-you-see television, Zenith said that there was now an absence of empirical knowledge of the effects that might be generated by such a system. That is undeniable as is also the fact that opinion on the subject would of necessity be speculative. But even speculation can be valuable if it comes from people of intelligence and experience in television broadcasting and advertising. It can be particularly valuable if it comes from a good crosssection of interests in the field. If the FCC is to act in the public interest in this case, it should invite comments before it acts. And the best minds in the business should accept the invitation as a command performance. Nine Out of Ten . . . NINE OUT of ten in the business of broadcasting ask: "Is the FCC more political under Eisenhower than it was under Truman?" The answer is that it probably would be if the GOP politicians had their way. But the eyes of Congress are upon it — probing, penetrating Democratic eyes. There's no question about the original intent of the party political leaders, out to make up for 20 years of patronage famine. They saw in television, patronage rewards that would make pygmies of those postmasters, public works, rivers and harbors and other erstwhile spoils that belong to the victors. But they didn't reckon with the opposition. Hardly an action of the FCC escapes the notice of Capitol Hill. If the Senators or Congressmen themselves do not get the word at first-hand, their assistants or the committee experts on communications do. The Bricker network investigation committee, whatever its ultimate fate, watches the FCC's every move. And what the legislators don't learn at the staff level they're almost certain to get from broadcaster competitors of those about to be annointed. Politics, to a greater or less extent, has been a factor with every Commission since regulation of communications began in 1927. It has been more brazen with some commissions than with others. That is a situation not peculiar to the FCC; it has permeated most of the regulatory agencies. Usually the only ones who talk about it out loud are the political adversaries of those in office for the nonce. It works the same way in reverse, Republican or Democratic. The point is that the GOP team, whatever its intent, has goofed aplenty. Stalwart Republicans, who were with Ike before Chicago, are disillusioned. Among them are many newspapers who feel the Republican FCC has out-dealed the New Deal on the newspaperownership philosophy, under the guise of "diversification" of media. Many GOP job-hunters are still looking. The stunning blow was the loss of the Nov. 2 elections and the imminent return in January of a Democrat-led Congress. Irate Page 114 • December 6, 1954 Drawn for BROADCASTING • TELECASTING by Sid Hix "This show is a natural for a lumber company . . . we'll call it Saw It Now!" Republicans are pointing the finger at the patronage battery of GOP Chairman Leonard W. Hall and Assistant to the President Sherman Adams. We wouldn't know how they've done on the whole front, but in the communications sector, they haven't won many contests. Doubtless that's the reason there's talk of a new battery when early training begins for the new Congressional season in January. Does Biggest Mean Best? " r 1 1 HE dollar volume of advertising in newspapers is greater than JL that of all . . . radio, magazines, tv put together": Statement by James Gediman, executive vice president, the American Weekly and Puck, The Comic Weekly. "What is frequently forgotten is that both tv and radio tend to be used with thoroughgoing frequency and adequacy. Newspapers and magazines are paid the doubtful compliment that a little goes a long way": ibid. "Certainly we should not embrace the newspaper as the best merely because it is the oldest. But I suggest it is equally judicious not to embrace television as the best merely because it is the newest": IBID. There is a delightful inconsistency of argument in this assemblage of observations, relatively factual though each may be. They are culled from a speech by Mr. Gediman at the American Assn. of Advertising Agencies eastern annual conference in New York a fortnight ago [B*T, Nov. 29]. Taking his reference to the magnitude of newspapers' advertising volume, is it his point that newspapers are best because they're biggest? If this is his standard, we are constrained to observe that the broadcast media have made whopping strides and are still eating up the distance despite newspapers' hundred-year jump. If so, again, what is the point about the "frequently forgotten" fact that "both tv and radio tend to be used with thoroughgoing frequency and adequacy"? Is this a slur on their effectiveness as advertising media, and on the business judgment of the advertisers? As for the basis to be used in selecting media to "embrace," as Mr. Gediman puts it, would it not be most sensible to embrace the ones with demonstrated ability to sell most for least? Like radio and tv, for instance. Mr. Gediman also noted that among $25,000-and-more advertisers last year, 57% of those who used network radio at all used it to the tune of $1 million or more for time only (56% in the case of tv). Would it be out of line to suggest that these advertisers have found the broadcast media worth the money and that their broadcast advertising, in the national spot as well as network fields, have contributed to their success and their ability to put more and more into broadcasting? Broadcasting • Telecasting