Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

BROADCASTING TELECASTING January 23, 1956 Vol. 50, No. 4 GUARANTEED CIRCULATION: WANTED, BUT NOT IN SIGHT A B«T check finds agency opinion definitely in favor of such a basis for broadcast charges, but just as definitely doubtful that present measurement methods make it feasible. THE ONLY REASON that advertising agencies are not now demanding a "guarantee" of circulation for their time purchases from American radio and tv stations and networks is that they don't know how a practical and not-too-costly method of checking such a guarantee could be worked out. That state of mind among agency executives responsible for the selection of broadcast media for their agencies' clients was clearly reflected in replies to a questionnaire on the subject sent by B*T to the "broadcast media directors" of more than 100 agencies with heavy radiotv billings. Those favoring the guarantee outnumbered those not in favor by a three-to-two ratio, and the comments of the "no" voters indicated that they might have voted the other way if they had considered the idea at all feasible. It should be admitted promptly that the 37 usable replies received are too small a number to be projected to an industry total. To say that they reflect a typical cross-section of agency opinion also would be erroneous. Those who filled out the questionnaires are not typical agency executives; they are executives with more than an average interest in media problems in general and broadcast media problems in particular; their agencies, as has been noted, have a heavier than average stake in the broadcast media and anything that will help secure the maximum results from the use of radio and television is of more than usual interest to them. Even if they hadn't been chosen for that very reason, the fact that they took the trouble to fill out a lengthy questionnaire and, almost without exception, to append extensive comments, is proof that their interest in the subject is more than average. The following statistics and comments, then, are worthy of note not because they are average, but because they're not; because they represent the considered opinions of the agency men who know radio and tv best because they buy them the most. The idea of a guaranteed circulation was brought to the fore by Peter Levathes, vice president and director of media relations of Young & Rubicam in an interview with B»T editors [B«T, Sept. 19, 1955]. Discussing radio's audience spread among the various rooms of the house and out of the house in automobiles, etc., and the importance of listener location statistics to the buyer of radio time, Mr. Levathes said: "Radio should guarantee its circulation. I believe that if radio would guarantee its circulation, it would excite great interest in the trade . . ." Asked how a "guaranteed circulation" would work, he explained: "A network, for example, would sell a sponsor a show and guarantee the rating at, say, x number of listeners. If the show doesn't hit that rating, a sliding scale of rates would be developed so that the purchaser would pay in accordance with the audience reached." Reaction to this suggestion was so immediate — and so emphatic, pro or con — that B»T decided to put Mr. Levathes' idea to a jury of his peers, the men who make the media de cisions at the other top agencies of the nation. Here are the questions they were asked and the answers they gave. 1. Do you agree with this concept (of guaranteed circulation) for radio? For television? The answers were 60% in agreement, 40% not. There were no split votes; everyone who favored the idea for radio also favored it for tv; everyone who opposed it for one of the broadcast media also opposed it for the other. Few of the "yes" voters made any comment on this question. One who did, but asked that his name not be used wrote: "I agree with the concept of delivering a guaranteed circulation, but do not feel that it is completely feasible for all types of radio and television. Where a station or network has complete control of the programming and the program has a rating history, I believe that delivery of a specific number of rating points could be possible. However, where an advertiser buys only broadcast facilities of a station or network, the responsibility for developing the audience is one which I think should rest with the advertiser." Views of the "no" voters are summed up in this comment from J. Carson Brantley, president, J. Carson Brantley Advertising Agency: "There is no known method of determining whether or not a radio or television broadcast reaches a predetermined destination, and circulation, in the terms we know it, means guaranteed delivery. Even a reasonably accurate setcount guarantee only indicates availability. The idea is not practical at this time. Electronics may some day solve the problem, but until then we gamble." 2. In what way would the guarantee be administered? A. In terms of total sets in the area reached by station or network? B. In terms of sets reached by program or spot purchased by the advertiser? (Respondents were asked to recommend methods of securing the information and how frequently it should be done, for each type of guarantee.) Answers were divided: 16% favoring A, 30% favoring B, 22% favoring both A and B, 8% opposing both and 24% not voting. Frequencies proposed for area set counts ranged from once a week to once in several years, with twiceyearly set counts getting the most votes. For sets reached by a program or spot, the frequen WHAT LEVATHES THINKS OF HIS OWN IDEA PETER G. LEVATHES. Young & Rubicam vice president and media relations director, whose stand for "guaranteed circulation" by radio stations inspired B»T's survey on the subject, also filled out one of the questionnaires. By his check marks he indicated his view that the guaranteed circulation principle should apply to television as well as radio, but should not be extended to include ad readership as well as per-copy circulation in the printed media. He did not think that rate cards should be abolished and all media bought on. a cost-per-thousand basis, in the event that there were guaranteed circulation for broadcast and printed ads. Circulation guarantees, in his opinion, should be based on families, not individuals, and should be confined to "at-home only," not including viewing, listening or reading done away from home. The circulation guarantee he advocates for radio and television should be administered in terms of sets reached by the program or spot purchased by the advertisers, Mr. Levathes said. He felt this information should be gathered via "uniform audience ratings by approved checking method for each station area. Nielsen perhaps." As to the desirable frequency of such measurement, he said: "At least s i x month averages." Does Mr. Levathes think such a method will actually be adopted? He checked "no," then penciled in this notation: "That is, I am doubtful. Stations have generally been reluctant to cooperate in circulation or audience measurements and probably will continue to be so." MR. LEVATHES Broadcasting • Telecasting January 23, 1956 • Page 31