Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

editorials Grapes and Watermelons THE Metro Sunday Comics Network, which sells advertising in the Sunday comic sections of a number of large newspapers, has come out with a double-truck knock for television and boost for its own medium. A Metro ad in the general press screams, "Tv is such an 'iffy' thing," and implies by the use of a few misleading statistics and a lot of innuendo, that television advertisers are lucky if anybody sees and hears their commercials. The moral of Metro's slanted story, of course, is that Metro Sunday Comics are an infinitely superior advertising vehicle. Any media man worth his salt could find at least one flaw per paragraph in the Metro copy — the most obvious flaw being that Metro talks about commercial identification scores in relation to television and total circulation in relation to newspapers. The cliche about comparing apples and oranges does not apply here; the Metro comparison is more like grapes and watermelons. But the point of this editorial is not that Metro has fired a blast at television and that Metro's arguments are faulty. The point is that the Metro campaign is part of a much bigger newspaper effort to discredit television as an advertising medium. In recent months the Chicago Tribune and the Hearst interests have made serious efforts to show that advertisers do not get their money's worth on tv and that wise advertisers will stick with the old reliable, the newspaper. More of this sort of thing may be expected, for, to use another cliche, people holler when they're hurt. There is little question that television, to some extent, has already hurt newspapers and less question that it will hurt them more. The newsprint shortage has already caused some newspapers to ration advertising space. Rationing will lead to advertising rate increases. One of the newspapers' main arguments against television ■ — its relatively high price — will be weakened to the same extent that newspaper ad rates rise. In a climate of newspaper rationing and rising rates, advertisers are bound to look to other vehicles, including television. Consider also how newspaper space salesmen must react to the promise of color television which will be a medium of unparalleled utility to all kinds of advertisers who wish to display their wares in true color and texture. By comparison with the quality of reproduction already achieved by color tv, newspaper color looks like the crayon work of a nursery school. If newspapers are hollering now, they're bound to holler even louder. The anti-television campaign will gain momentum. It is to be hoped that television will not retaliate with a defense based on what the newspapers are erroneously saying. The antidote to the newspaper campaign is affirmative promotion which emphasizes television's undeniable advantages. Foaming Over THE Senate, it appears, is going to have another go at the elimination of alcoholic beverage advertising, as advocated by the Women's Christian Temperance Union and other reform groups that operate in the Capitol cloakrooms even when Congress hibernates. This time it is the Langer Bill (S 923) which would prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of advertisements of alcoholic beverages, with hearings set for Feb. 15-16. This is a slightly oblique tack, since most of the previous measures have dealt with the banning of this kind of advertising on the air. Since all broadcasting is interstate commerce, however, the revised language means the same thing. We haven't kept tab, but we would judge the score is about 40 to 0 on the legislative attempts to outlaw this kind of advertising. That is not to say, however, that committee votes in some instances haven't been dangerously close. They have been. This is to be a short session because it is an election year. The Interstate Commerce Committee, before which the hearings will be held, is just about the busiest committee in the Senate. It has heard the same story time and again. It's legal to manufacture and Page 102 • January 23, 1956 Drawn for BROADCASTING . TELECASTING by Sid Hix "It's some tv people, sir . . . they have a new give-away idea they want to discuss with you!" sell alcoholic beverages in those states which permit it. Advertising is simply part of the selling process. Just a year ago — at the first session of this Congress — the NARTB released a comprehensive survey of beer and wine advertising on the air, statistically confirming that the proportion of such advertising was negligible. Hard liquor advertising on the air is virtually non-existent, even though legal. What more can Congress be told? Why should the duly-elected representatives of the people waste their time and taxpayers' money on such folderol? Why should brewers and distillers and vintners, along with the advertising media, be forced each year to spend time and money to defend that which is their Constitutional right? We have contended repeatedly that these legislative efforts are not directed against advertising of alcoholic beverages but toward the return of prohibition. Since that isn't denied, why shouldn't Congress and its committees insist the advocates come forward with their true objective, rather than these peripheral measures? It is to be hoped that after the Senate Committee hearings are held, the Committee will have the courage to write a report telling the prohibitionists that they are wasting the time of Congress and their time too. The Public Be Damned THE National Collegiate Athletic Assn. has again thumbed its nose at the public which supports it by adopting without substantive change its restrictive policy on football broadcasts for 1956. The public revolt against its monopolistic control has become more pronounced with each passing season, but the NCAA persists in its public-be-damned attitude. At least one legislator has taken notice. Rep. Hillings (R-Calif.) has asked the House Judiciary Committee to determine whether the NCAA policy runs counter to the antitrust laws. He based his action on complaints from football fans. One has only to listen to or read the sports commentators to conclude that the revolt is nationwide. Many of the important conferences and colleges (Big Ten, Pacific Coast and Notre Dame) evidently do not see eye to eye with NCAA but are bound by its edicts. Baseball, a strictly professional pursuit as against the so-called amateur status of college football, mended its restrictive broadcast ways after Congress and the Dept. of Justice took a look a couple of years back. Certainly the colleges — many of them land-grant schools receiving federal and state subsidies — should cooperate in a legal determination of the applicability of the antitrust laws in their sports endeavors. We hope Rep. Hillings' request is favorably received by the Judiciary Committee. If something isn't done in a fact-finding way, the NCAA combination inevitably will collide with the fast backfield and the impregnable line of the antitrust team coached by Attorney General Herb Brownell. Broadcasting • Telecasting