Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

cy range was from weekly to semi-annually, with monthly checks the most popular. Comments stressed the need for obtaining industry-wide agreement on whatever measuring methods are used, both for station or network coverage data and for program ratings. Some agency executives called for coverage data comparable to ABC circulation figures for newspapers and magazines, but one declared that "no survey could be as accurate as ABC for newspapers, which would tear the idea apart." Each of the current rating services had its adherents as the method to be used in determining audiences for programs or spots, and there was one proposal that the standards proposed by the Advertising Research Foundation [B»T, Dec. 27, 1954] be followed. 3. Do you feel that such a method will actually be adopted? Why or why not? Here the noes definitely have it. Two-thirds of the respondents, regardless of whether or not they favor the idea of guaranteed circulation, feel that it is unlikely to be put into effect. The other third were equally divided among those who think such a plan will be adopted, those who are doubtful as to whether it will or not, and those who did not vote on this question. Jack J. Bard, vice president for media and media research at Weiss & Geller, spoke for those who believe some sort of circulation standard will be adopted, when he commented: "Pressure by advertisers, agencies, responsible networks and stations will eventually force such a method." A contrary view was expressed by an agency president who feels that a guaranteed circulation system is not likely to be adopted "because of lack of organization in the field and general apathy among advertising executives." "Excessive cost" was given as the main reason for the belief that guaranteeing ratings will not become established as an industry practice. Stations and networks could not stand the expense themselves and if they tried to pass it along to advertisers and agencies they would price their facilities too high to be competitive with other media, this line of reasoning ran. On the other hand, Jack Peters, vice president and media director, Kastor, Farrell, Chesley & Clifford, who hopes they will be established, noted: "If all the money spent today for all the rating services could be channeled to one acceptable service, I believe the job could be done right." Another major agency media vice president, who feels the ramifications of the guaranteed broadcast circulation problem make its solution presently impossible, said: "Unlike printed media, where circulation is based on predetermined and controllable factors, the problems of each station and each network vary with each time period of the day. Changes in programs, personalities, guest stars, competitive line-up, etc., have a decided effect in any attempt to guarantee broadcast circulation — not to mention the big hurdle of getting a nationally accepted rating service to handle ratings for all stations and networks with sufficient frequency to make the data useful for such guarantee." Arthur S. Pardoll, director of broadcast media, Foote, Cone & Belding, explained his negative vote this way: "Physical signal penetration can be guaranteed, but circulation, as it applies to a delivered audience at a given time, should not be guaranteed. Adjacencies and competition have a strong bearing on this. Why should stations be penalized for something over which they have little control?" According to Ralph S. Bing, president, Ralph Bing Advertising: "It would appear that guarantees of circulation would be another poor attempt to place advertising in the cold realm of 'figure-science,' eliminating such important factors as individual impact. Advertising is more than numbers and successful advertising involves countless other factors. Why hamstring creative thought with meaningless charts and graphs? The eventual outcome is the important answer as to advertising success and dwarfs 'cost per inquiry' to a meaningless phrase. Also — isn't it important to consider quality of audience along with quantity of audience?" Possibility that circulation guarantees may come from radio before they do from tv was pointed out by Alfred B. Udow, media director of Sterling Advertising Agency. He wrote: "As long as tv can be sold without it, why undertake this expense? Radio may be forced into it, though." 4. Publishers currently "guarantee" printed copy circulation. Should they also "guarantee" ad readership? How would you obtain a measurement of this readership?" Only one affirmative vote was cast for the idea that readership-of-advertisements should be given by publishers of newspapers and maga THESE REPLIED AGENCIES replying to B«T's questionnaire on guaranteed circulation include the following firms: Allen & Reynolds; Ralph Bing Adv.; Arthur Braitsch Co.; The J. Carson Brantley Adv. Agency; Franklin Bruck Adv. Agency; The Buchen Co.; Harold Cabot & Co.; James Thomas Chirurg Co.; Compton Adv. Inc.; John C. Dowd Inc.; Emery Adv. Corp.; Erwin, Wasey & Co.; Flack Adv. Agency; Foote, Cone & Belding; Curt Freiberger & Co.; Ad Fried Adv. Agency; L. C. Gumbinner Adv. Agency; Honig-Cooper Co.; Charles W. Hoyt Co.; Kal, Ehrlich & Merrick; H. W. Kastor & Sons; Kastor, Farrell, Chesley & Clifford; Joseph Katz Co.; The McCarty Co.; Lennen & Newell; Olmsted & Foley; Presba, Fellers & Presba; Reincke, Meyer & Finn; Ralph Sharp Adv.; John W. Shaw Adv.; Sterling Adv. Agency; Geoffrey Wade Adv.; Weiss & Geller. zines. Again, excessive cost was a major reason given by those who opposed the idea, but when dealing with printed media many of the agency respondents emphasized their belief that, as one comment put it: "Readership is a function of the quality of the copy, not the responsibility of the publisher." "This is a false analogy," another comment went. "All that a publisher can do is to govern circulation and page traffic. Radio and tv ratings are the equivalent of page traffic, not the readership of ads." Charles J. Weigert, media director, Joseph Katz Co., summed up that point of view this way: "A publisher provides a means of having your advertising message read. If the advertisement is poorly done, you can't hold the publisher responsible for low readership." 5. If there were "guaranteed" circulation for broadcast and printed ads, should rate cards be abolished and all media bought on a cost-perthousand basis? Here the answers were about two-to-one against the abolition of rate cards. Comments, all on the negative side, ranged from a cynical "This would soon eliminate many media" to several expressions of the view that "cost-perthousand isn't the only criterion for buying," as Alice Ross, radio-tv timebuyer for Franklin Bruck Advertising Agency put it. 6. Should circulation guarantees be based on individuals or families? Five times as many agency executives voted for measuring circulation by families instead of individuals. Several respondents noted that the answer would depend on the product being advertised. "For cigarettes, kids aren't important, but they're very important for cereals," one comment ran. One-third of the questionnaires came back with no answer to this question, perhaps indicating agreement with David R. Williams, media director of Harold Cabot & Co., who wrote that either standard may be used "as long as it's all the same." 1. Should such guarantees be confined to athome viewing, listening and reading, or also include away-from-home viewing, listening and reading? Half of the respondents voted for at-homeand-away, indicating a desire to obtain as complete a measurement as possible, but several qualified their answers by wondering if accurate out-of-home audience data is obtainable. One comment plumped for getting out-of-home figures "at least for radio, where they can sometimes be a large and valuable part of the whole." A quarter of the replies voted for at-home data; the other quarter did not vote on this question. A number of the returned questionnaires contained overall comments on the guaranteed circulation idea, of which the following are typical. Harold W. Rose, vice president and media director, The Buchen Co.: "We do not believe that the suggestion made by Mr. Peter Levathes appears very feasible." John W. Davis, media director, Honig-Cooper Co.: "To me this whole idea is too difficult and complicated to ever be adopted. The tendency is to reduce all buying to a simple set of numbers." A comment not to be attributed: "Guaranteed readership and/or listenership would be impossible to prove." That is also the view of Ray A. Jones, media director, Ralph Sharp Advertising, who provided the following case history of a tv audience guarantee: "The closest I have been to a guaranteed audience was an offer of tv time based on ratings, or share of audience. The show was sold on the basis of a 30% audience and priced accordingly. Of the 160,000 sets in this area the guarantee assured 30% or 48,000 sets tuned to the show. "Using the latest ratings, if the show does not show a 30% audience — say it only had a 20% (32,000) audience. Then the station would give the advertisers additional spots on or around shows with ratings that would total the 10% (16,000) shortage. "Using the above system the advertiser was guaranteed a 30% audience. If the show received a higher rating than the guaranteed amount (30%), then the cost of the show was increased accordingly. The error in even this guarantee was duplication of audience with spots which had to be added to total the guaranteed 30%. "I do not see how it is possible to guarantee an audience for any media, printed or broadcasting." Page 32 • January 23, 1956 Broadcasting • Telecasting