Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1957)

Try, Try Again RADIO networks may be beset by problems, but no one can say they're not tackling them with determination. Mutual's decision to go into what is primarily a music and news operation [B»T, April 15] is by all odds the most far-reaching departure that any network has yet ventured. By slashing its optiontime requirements to some nine hours a week, MBS will be feeding most of its programming — except its five-minute newscasts on the half-hour and a few other "swap time" periods— substantially on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The similarity to the newspaper wire service concept is striking. Whether Mutual's plan is the solution, or even a solution, remains to be seen. It starts June 2. Until it has had time to shake down, prudence forbids prejudgment of its workability. It does clearly indicate one direction in which at least one network feels profitability lies. While Mutual is changing its mode of operations, ABC Radio is taking other steps — making major corporate and management changes. ABC Radio itself becomes an autonomous subsidiary of American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, separate from the tv network, and Bob Eastman, an acknowledged top-flight salesman, moves over frOm the John Blair radio representation firm as ABC Radio president. CBS Radio meanwhile has recently taken a quite different step, raising daytime rates somewhat and cutting nighttime charges by one-third [B»T, Feb. 25]. And NBC Radio is continuing the innovations that started with its weekend Monitor service and more recently have included the "imagery transfer" concept, news on the hour, the "hot line" service, and — slated for an early start — a new 90-minute nighttime program of nightclub pickups and similar diverse fare, news, and replays of notable shows out of the past. It would be impossible to find unanimity, among all the elements of the radio business, on the wisdom of all these various moves. Station representatives have been especially caustic in their criticism of certain sales practices adopted by networks since television began to de-glamorize network radio. Be that as it may, developments of the past few weeks show anew that the radio networks mean business ■ — and are out to get more of it. With spot and local sales already out of the post-tv doldrums and perking along now at an unprecedented pace, the outlook for networks, too, ought to be brighter. Sound Investment IF HISTORY can be trusted to repeat, and in this case we fear that it can be, the nation's telecasters are in for a bit of sticky business in negotiating new tv music performance licenses with ASCAP, whose current tv contracts expire at the end of this year. They made a good start 10 days ago, however, when they set up a 15-man interim committee and authorized it to go to work at once. The 15-man group also was nominated to become the regular negotiating committee, and while write-ins may change a membership here and there, the unanimity of the stations represented at the organizational session makes it unlikely that the mail balloting will change much. As now constituted, the committee consists of representatives of all elements — small stations and large, group owners and singlestation operators, stations from diverse sections of the country, network affiliates and independents, uhfs as well as vhfs. Equally important, it includes such veterans of the last long ASCAP goround as Dwight Martin of WAFB-TV Baton Rouge and WDAMTV Hattiesburg; Roger Clipp of the Triangle stations; Nate Lord of WAVE-TV Louisville; Clair McCollough of the Steinman stations, and Irving Rosenhaus of WATV (TV) Newark. Together, these old hands and the equally responsible newcomers to the negotiating arena should be able to make a convincing case for favorable rates from ASCAP, which currently is getting an estimated 80% of its income from broadcasters and doubtlessly would like to get more. But ASCAP has demonstrated that it can be exasperatingly hard to convince, even with the soundest facts and logic. Last time, the job took more than four years. If the tv and ASCAP negotiators become hopelessly deadlocked, they always have the right to ask the courts to fix reasonable terms — hardly a cheering thought to all who remember the months Drawn for BROADCASTING • TELECASTING by Sid Hix "Yes, I believe Robin Hood is on the approved list . . . Why do you ask?" without ASCAP music in 1940. The availability of this court approach, however, also points up the necessity for thorough preparation by the committee: Whether it ever goes into court or not, it must always be ready to. That sort of preparation takes money. In the last negotiations, the committee spent well over $100,000 on legal, research and other expenses. The immediate role for telecasters generally, then, is plain — support the committee by contributing to the fund for its expenses. Indeed, the need is such that financial support has been made a prerequisite of voting in the election of the permanent committee. Stations are free, of course, to negotiate with ASCAP individually, just as they also will be free to accept or reject whatever terms the committee and the ASCAP negotiators finally settle upon. But the impracticality of every station negotiating for itself is obvious. The committee is working for all stations in doing the tiresome, tedious spadework. The stations should be happy to share the expense along with the ultimate benefit. Was That Trip Necessary? THOSE in charge of planning the management agenda of the 1958 NARTB convention will find it almost impossible to arrange a program of less interest and value than that presented in Chicago a fortnight ago. With one or two exceptions, which were made the more conspicuous by their contrast to other events, the management sessions of the 1957 convention were uninformative and dull. Delegates who journeyed to Chicago in the expectation of learning something about their business have returned to their homes, poorer in the pocket and little richer in the head. Let us emphasize that we are criticizing only those sessions which, according to official NARTB descriptions, were designed for broadcast management. Many other events and exhibits associated with the convention were of demonstrable usefulness. The equipment and services on display constituted as complete and well organized a trade show as can be found in any business. The engineering conference was of high professional standards. The presentations of the Radio Advertising Bureau and the Television Bureau of Advertising provided information and incentive to radio and television salesmen. And, of course, the centralized collection of so many broadcasters made it possible for special groups to arrange subsidiary meetings of importance to themselves. At that point, or very near it, the praise must end. The management agenda of an NARTB convention should have at least two objectives: (1) the exchange of information by which delegates may become better informed and (2) the presentation of speeches or the adoption of resolutions or courses of action which are apt to make news and hence improve the public relations of broadcasting. Neither of these objectives was achieved in Chicago. They will have to be achieved in Los Angeles next year if the annual convention of the NARTB is not to abandon its historic role as a management meeting. Page 134 • April 22, 1957 Broadcasting • Telecasting