Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

GOVERNMENT The BIG TV Shows In The BIG TV Markets BIG 10 Does It! ^Details on these shows from any WEED TELEVISION office. WJAR-TV1A DOMINANT IU WJAR-TV PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND Represented by WEED TELEVISION Page 84 • February 20., 1956 Bergerstock, president. National Civic League; Dr. R. H. Martin, president emeritus, National Reform Assn. Louise F. Jones, Hyattsville, Md.; Alvin W. Smith, chairman of temperance committee, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America; Mrs. C. V. Biddle, vice president, WCTU; Wilbur Korfhage, administrative director, United Temperance Movement of Minnesota; Dr. Max Goldman, president. North Iowa Methodical Conference Temperance Board; Ethel H. Darkes, Pennsylvania WCTU. ADVERTISING INDUSTRY POSES OPPOSITION TO DRY BILLS George Link Jr., general counsel, American Assn. of Advertising Agencies, said the 4A's wished to register strong opposition to the bill because it would discriminate against the use of advertising as a "legitimate and necessary form of selling in our economy." The bill would deny the right to advertise a lawful product, Mr. Link said. In discussing the amount and type of selfpolicing that the advertising industry does, and the low percentage of bad advertising in general, Mr. Link referred to the AAAA plan known as the monthly "Interchange of Opinion on Objectionable Advertising." Agencies report each month to AAAA any advertising they consider objectionable. Acting as an intermediary, the AAAA notifies the agency involved that a complaint has been received. Although no pressure is brought to bear, Mr. Link stated, "this simple, low-pressure registering of views has brought improvement." In 1955, he said, a total of 91 advertisements were criticized through this means. Not one was for alcoholic beverage advertising, he declared. In 1954 there were 10 criticisms of alcoholic beverage advertising, Mr. Link said, and in 1953, 14. John Dwight Sullivan, general counsel, Advertising Federation of America, objected to the bill because, he said, it was punitive. "It would deny to particular industries rights enjoyed by every other lawful business and industry in the United States, the right to advertise one's product." The bill, Mr. Sullivan averred, would conflict with the right to advertise any product which may be lawfully made and publicly sold. It would, he added, possibly violate the First Amendment prohibiting the Congress from making any law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. He called attention to the lack of liquor advertising on radio or television and pointed to this as an indication that the advertising has the force and will to police itself. The amount spent in advertising alcoholic beverages is "trivial," Mr. Sullivan said, "compared to the total of advertising lineage and expenditure in the United States." Harold Fellows, NARTB president, opposed the bill on the ground that it would deny to radio and tv the advertising of products which are legal products of general availability and use. The broadcasting industry, Mr. Fellows said, long ago voluntarily decided not to carry hard , liquor advertising. In fact, he pointed out, broadcasters have gone beyond that. Rarely if ever, he said, does a television commercial show an individual tasting beer. This change has come about in the past two years, he said. Complaints to the Television Code Review Board regarding the advertising of beer and wine on television have been "negligible", Mr. Fellows said. Mr. Fellows submitted a 1953-54 survey of beer and wine advertising on radio and tv which showed that less than 3% of tv programs were sponsored by beer and wine advertisers and that the time consumed by such programs amounted to 3.07%. Beer and wine spot announcements amounted to only 3.53% of all spot announcements carried by tv stations, he said.. In radio, Mr. Fellows pointed out, only 1.62% of all programs were sponsored by beer and wine advertisers, with only 2% of total -time devoted to such programs. Only 2.85% of all spot announcements were devoted to this type of advertising, he said, and this amounted to 0.3% of stations' total time. Clinton M. Hester, Washington counsel, U. S. Brewers Foundation, said the bill violates the free speech and free press guaranties of the 1st Amendment; the due process clause of the 5th Amendment and the 21st (Repeal) Amendment. He said the bill would impose prohibition on wet states as well as dry and would reduce beer sales 50%. "The prohibitionists want prohibition," he said, "they are not interested in moderation." He predicted the bill in time would destroy the brewing industry. Mr. Hester said the brewing industry is pouring $2 billion annually into the national economy, paying $980 million in taxes and license fees, $350 million in wages and salaries, $275 million for agricultural products, $200 million for cans and bottles and several hundred million for other supplies and services. He noted the failure of anti-alchohol advertising bills in the states of Washington and North Dakota in 1954 and 1955, respectively. Mr. Hester said the U. S. Brewers Foundation has made a special effort to urge brewers to improve their advertising; to review their commercials and maintain them in good taste, and that brewers have given serious consideration to criticism and have taken corrective steps. Today, he said, beer advertising is in good taste, no longer irritating, consumes less time and does not interfere with the program. Drinking scenes have been eliminated from beer commercials, he said. Among others who appeared or were scheduled in opposition to the bill, were: Frank Braucher, president, Magazine Advertising Bureau Inc.; Norton B. Jackson, executive director, Point-of-Purchase Advertising Institute; Arthur P. Bondurant (Glenmore Distillers Co.), Distilled Spirits Institute; Joseph M. Treacy, National Licensed Beverage Assn.; Edward W. Wootton, U. S. Wine Industry; R. E. Joyce, vice president, Distilled Spirits Institute. S. J. Musey, executive secretary, Texas State Council of Brewery Employees; Joseph E. Brady, coordinator of state councils, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Bernard E. Esters (Houlton [Me.] Pioneer-Times), chairman, Legislative Committee, National Editorial Assn.; Clarence L. Chapin, president, Repeal Associates Inc.; Arthur J. Packard, chairman. Governmental Affairs Committee, American Hotel Assn. Joseph E. Kunz, Coopers International Union; George D. Riley, legislative representative, AFL-CIO; John E. O'Neill, general counsel, Brewers' Assn. of America; Abraham Tunick, Washington counsel, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Randolph W. Childs, executive director and counsel, Pennsylvania Alcoholic Beverage Study Inc.; Paul E. Maxwell, secretary, West Virginia Glass & Pottery Workers Protective League; E. S. Miller, general president, Hotel & Restaurant Employes & Bartenders International Union (AFL-CIO); Anthony J. Ferro, executive secretary, Council of Brewery, Soft Drink & Allied Industries Workers Inc., and M. O. Ryan, manager, American Hotel Assn. Broadcasting Telecasting