Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

FELLOWS CONCURS ON BAIT ADVERTISING NARTB's Harold Fellows agreed with FTC Comr. Lowell Mason that bait-switch advertising must be eliminated. He called attention to the incorporation in the Tv Code of a provision "adjuring against such advertising, which the association considers fraudulent." In a statement issued Thursday, Mr. Fellows said he had read Mr. Mason's speech. He added: "Insofar as that portion of his speech is concerned, it might have been made by any official of the National Assn. of Radio & Tv Broadcasters . . . The national association has stated its position with reference to bait-switch advertising and that position is the same as Comr. Mason's: We want to see it eliminated. "The commissioner errs, however, when he states that 'the Television Code Review Board works at an extremely low point of visibility.' The Code Board anticipated the commissioner's own indignation about this matter by incorporating in the Code, within the past year, specific language adjuring against such advertising, which the association considers is fraudulent. "I will not debate the commissioner's viewpoint as to the effectiveness of the Code or of the Radio Standards of Practice, except to observe that I honestly don't believe he is as well informed on this subject as he is on the major burden of his statement. The implication that the practice of bait-switch is limited to the broadcasting industry is not supportable either. Most of the broadcasters in the nation, nevertheless, will applaud his analysis of the problem. "The Federal Trade Commission's own responsibility in the matter is well defined by law, and I do not believe any progressive and thoughtful broadcaster in the nation will object to the exercise of any sanction that exists under that law." "huckstering in the home," Mr. Mason said the Better Business Bureau found that the most questionable advertising on television was caused by promotions of home appliances, used cars, radio and tv sets, music and apparel. Over radio, the most questionable commercials were about used cars, home appliances, apparel, home furnishing, jewelry, radios and music, he reported. In one of his examples, Mr. Mason cited the case of a "mystery tune" promotion for storm windows in an eastern town. A group of BBB members sent in identical letters identifying the tune as "The Star Spangled Banner" (Mr. Mason said he thought the tune was "The Old Folks at Home"). Each of the letter writers received a congratulatory letter with a $100 discount certificate, Mr. Mason said, informing them that they had guessed the right tune. In addition, the FTC member declared, the BBB found that the storm windows could be bought for "slightly below" the prices quoted on the air after the so-called discount. "The American home is being deluged from morning until night with spurious tv-radio advertising claims, gimmicks and the clamor of the shills," Mr. Mason declared. "With the tremendous force exerted by this merchandising evident, we no longer can assume that the abuses are trivial and will be corrected somehow, someway, sometime by somebody. "Viewers and listeners are undoubtedly being bilked of fabulous sums and the industry is letting itself be strangled by the sharpshooters. The situation cries for corrective measures." Mr. Mason praised the work of the Tv Code Review Board as having accomplished "some good" in cutting down "the bump and grind girls, leg art, beer guzzling and cigarette gasping, but as for doing any effective work in preventing the kind of misleading advertising that the Federal Trade Commission could stop if it had the money, I would say the Board works at an extremely low point of visibility." He chided the Board for not never having rescinded the seal for bait and switch advertising. "I doubt if the seal has accomplished anything besides giving a false sense of security to the gimmick purchaser who sees it in close proximity to some very elusive promotions," he observed. IT'S TIME TO CLEAN UP, McCONNAUGHEY WARNS WARNING that pending legislation in Congress to control commercial time on the air is a signal that broadcasters better get busy and clean up their own house was sounded Friday by FCC Chairman George C. McConnaughey. Mr. McConnaughey aired this admonition in a speech before the Ohio Assn. of Radio & Tv Broadcasters in Cleveland. His speech was entitled "Licensee Stewardship." Referring to Federal Trade Commissioner Lowell Mason's observation earlier in the week that he would recommend a $1 million appropriation for a comprehensive FTC monitoring system for all broadcasts (see preceding story), Mr. McConnaughey said: "If such a bill becomes law, it will be mandatory for the Commission to enforce it. In order to do so, the Commission will by necessity have to set up some program criteria in its rules that shall be applied to all broadcasts. This will also require monitoring. When we get to this point your child is already in juvenile court and sentence has been passed. From then on he will be under surveillance and his life will be government supervised. I do not want this to happen to the broadcast industry." Mr. McConnaughey continued: "Let me suggest that instead of so much emphasis being placed upon profits, set sales, percentage of advertising and commercial progress, that you stress your public service accomplishments that have not received adequate publicity and build a record of public service that cannot be successfully challenged. You can not only afford such a program but you cannot afford not to expedite it on a crash basis." The trend seems to be toward overcommercialization "to the prejudice of public service," Mr. McConnaughey said. He disavowed any intent on the part of the FCC to censor programs but called attention to the fact that at renewal time the Commission looks to see if the licensee has been operating in the public interest. "The argument has been advanced," Mr. McConnaughey said, "that the regulation of the amount of commercialization is not censorship" since it does not impinge on program content. "This may be a tenable argument but it has not been adopted by the Commission," he added. "The fact that such legislation is presently under consideration should be sufficient notice to broadcasters that affirmative action on their part to correct this abuse is long past due." Mr. McConnaughey declared. He cited questions and observations on this subject made by Sens. Warren G. Magnuson (D-Wash.) and A. S. Mike Monroney (DOkla.) at the Feb. 7 hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee [B«T, Feb. 13]. Mr. McConnaughey concluded with a recommendation that all broadcasters belong to their state association. "This is imperative for selfdiscipline in a voluntary association which should be closely knit and sensitive to the problems of all its members," he said. BROOKLYN D.A. KEEPING 24-HOUR WATCH ON BAIT' AS part of a new campaign against so-called "bait advertising" on radio and television, the Kings County District Attorney's office in Brooklyn has set up a battery of nine television sets and 13 radio receivers in the Rackets Bureau building to monitor the airways for evidence of "fraudulent and misleading advertising." Kings County District Attorney Edward S. Silver announced last week that this monitoring has been conducted for about two weeks on an around-the-clock basis, and at the same time, charged that radio and tv "pitchmen" have "victimized hundreds of low income group citizens" in recent months with "bait advertising." He said his office is gathering evidence of such fraudulent practices and will prosecute persons responsible. Mr. Silvers noted that he had called a meeting "about a year ago" of representatives of New York area radio and television stations to obtain their cooperation in eliminating misleading advertising on radio and tv. He said they had promised to police their own industry, but claimed that "these promises have not been carried out." A spokesman for Mr. Silver told B«T that he could not designate the stations, which in the judgment of the Kings County District Attorney's office, carried "bait" advertising. He declined to specify whether "a few" or "many" radio and tv outlets in the New York ,area broadcast "fraudulent and misleading" commercials. He also would not reveal if Mr. Silver planned formally to make a report to the FCC on the evidence that is uncovered. Mr. Silver was critical of the FCC in his formal announcement giving details of the campaign against "pitchmen." He declared: "The tv and radio stations are licensed by the government through the agency of the FCC, which has a real responsibility to the people not to permit the airways to be used to the citizens' detriment. But their machinery is slow and cumbersome. They are not alert to the situation. In my opinion, they are not doing their job." Mr. Silver revealed that in the past several months he has been receiving "an increasing number of complaints from Brooklyn residents, indicating they have been taken in by certain on-the-air advertisers." He added that "these victims are in the lower income group and can least afford to be taken in." As an example of "bait advertising," Mr. Silver cited a radio commercial for storm windows at $7.70 each, with one window free for an order of at least six. He claimed that the commercial stressed "no down payment" and the lapse of three months before the buyer would begin paying in installments of 50 cents a week. Investigations by his office, Mr. Silver continued, disclosed that the purchaser actually signed a contract with a $10 down payment on eight storm windows for a total cost of $435, which, he claimed, was "actually about nine times the price of the advertised product." Mr. Silver said that 20 members of the racket Broadcasting • Telecasting March 19, 1956 • Page 29