Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

represents only a small step in the direction I think research should take. Q: Will your studies be of a continuous nature? A: Yes, these are, in part, continuing studies and will not necessarily prove anything substantial in a short time. At present, they afford only indications. Q: What about the rising cost of network? Will these raises in cost be passed on to the advertiser? A: I would hope that the networks would be passing on the rise in cost of talent to the advertiser because I don't think basically, in the long run, anyone can sell anything at below its cost and stay in business. It is true that in certain areas, such as the public service field, the advertiser very often isn't willing to pay the amount of money that such programming may cost. In that case, I think it is perfectly legitimate for the network to assume its part of its public service obligation. Q: In film, could you give us a percentage of what it is apt to be — film vs. live? A: May I, at this time, give you just a little of my philosophy about film because many people seem to disagree with it. We believe in film for television for the following reasons: ( 1 ) You can get talent, creative ability and production in a film that is not possible on a live show. (2) We know that through the replaying of a film you can further amortize costs resulting in lower costs per thousand for the advertiser. (3) We know that film solves what I think was the great tragedy of radio. Millions and millions of hours of good programming went on the air and were never heard again. People had to be home at a certain time to hear a Jack Benny, or an Amos and Andy, or a Burns and Allen, and if they missed, they could never hear the program again. We know that film can correct what we consider a defect in the listening pattern. We have approximately 60% of all programs on ABC on film, and I would guess that that percentage would increase in the next season. The other networks, if I am correct in my figures, have approximately 40%. The fact that we believe films mean getting better talent at a better cost does not mean that we do not believe in live shows. Next season we hope to have an hour live dramatic show, an hour live musical variety show, in addition to our present live shows, such as Lawrence Welk, The Amateur Hour and Masquerade Party. Q: Will these hour-long programs be regularly scheduled weekly shows or will they be in the pattern of spectaculars? A: These will be our regularly scheduled shows. However. ABC is entering the special program field in the fall of '56. Since Pat Weaver coined the word "spectaculars," I don't quite know what to call ours, but I'll call them, for want of a better word, "little shows." The purpose of our special programming is to try to provide a very adult type of entertainment of a different nature than can be afforded on a week-to-week basis. For example, we expect to have two shows from the Metropolitan Opera, with the Metropolitan singers, produced by Rudolf Bing. The Theatre Guild is going to produce six very adult programs of an hour's length, which will be of an off-beat character and which we believe will contribute to television's development. However, basically, we think from a public viewpoint and an advertiser viewpoint, that the week-to-week exposure in regularly scheduled programs is the best method of using the medium. That does not say that a spectacular does not have its place for promoting special products or special promotions at a particular time of the year. Spectaculars definitely have a place, and I think that Pat Weaver has contributed a great deal to the business in pioneering this type of programming. However, if the number of spectaculars at NBC and Columbia reported in the trade are correct, it would seem to me that the term "spectaculars" will end next season because there will be so many on that they will soon be called regular shows. Q: Have you sold any of your "little shows?" A: No, we are just planning them now. We will offer them for sale sometime next month [March]. Q: What are your plans for color? A: We're not in the manufacturing business, so that our basic interest is perhaps not as immediate as is that of NBC and Columbia. Our color plans are that as soon as there are sufficient sets in the country, perhaps about five million, we expect to be fully equipped on a network basis, and on our five owned stations, to match any color broadcasting in the business. It's difficult to guess when this will come because it's hard to evaluate the public's interest. As sets improve and the price goes down, sales should pick up, but our tentative prediction is that September 1957 will probably be the earliest date that color television can arouse genuine national interest. ON MIKE: President Kintner answers the questions of B*T editors Florence Small, Rufus Crater and David W. Berlyn. Q: How many sets do you think are necessary for color to be a real factor? A: Around three to four million. Q: Four million by September of 1957? A: I think it's quite optimistic . . . but I think it's a possibility. Q: Will there be a chance that you are going into the production of films? Are you producing any films in color? A: We are already in the production of television films. One basic plan we have evolved for programming the ABC Television Network is through individual arrangements with independent producers, who operate with ABC somewhat similarly to independent producers in a motion picture studio. We have an arrangement with a number of them: Lou Edelman. Jack Chertok, Don Sharpe. John Gibbs, Jerry Devine, Ozzie Nelson, etc. These producers, under our supervision, produce certain shows in which we have financial interests and exclusive rights. While these producers are Broadcasting Telecasting March 5, 1956 • Page 69