Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1957)

ADVERTISERS AND AGENCIES NOT ALL SINS ARE RADIO-TV'S OF THE 23,351 advertisements termed misleading by the nation's Better Business Bureaus during 1956, only 635 were found to have been radio ads, while a lesser number — 594 — were seen on television. This is revealed in the annual report of the Assn. of Better Business Bureaus Inc., New York. The report notes misleading newspaper ads totaled 21,915. Of the 23,351 ads, only 655 (2.8%) were referred to "authorities" when voluntary correction was not obtainable. Says BBB: "This was only a one-tenth of one per cent increase over 1955 and considered to be a good record." Again, as in past, "bait advertising and false and fictitious use of comparative prices were the prime causes to question or act on advertising in the merchandise field." The report breaks down complaints by cities and finds that the "instances of service" were highest in Chicago with New York City rating second. Other cities claiming over 1,000 instances of service included Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto and Denver. During 1956, BBB had 1,257 public service tv spots on the air that told of its services, while 10,708 radio announcements also were made, eral Home Improvement Co., Brooklyn, N. Y., from using bait or other false advertising to sell its aluminum storm windows. Bond, operator of more than 85 stores around the country, was charged with making fictitious price claims in connection with special clothing sales. Higher prices quoted by the advertiser for marked-down items are not regular prices, says the FTC. Bond has 30 days to rep y to the complaint. A hearing before an FTC examiner has been set for July 16 in New York. The consent order to General Home Improvement Co. grew out of an FTC complaint, issued Oct. 31, 1956, charging the firm with advertising storm windows at a low price that represented not a bona fide offer but a means to get leads for higher priced items. The complaint also said that $100 gift certificates awarded in a radio "mystery melody" promotion were not worth $100. The FCC adopted Hearing Examiner Joseph Callaway's initial decision containing the consent order agreed to by General Home Improvement. The settlement does not constitute an admission of violating the law. SCHICK SUES FOR $5 MILLION SCHICK INC., Lancaster, Pa., manufacturer of electric shavers, has found there are other ways to skin a peach than by shaving it. Last week, it slapped a $5 million damage suit on Sperry-Rand Corp. and its Remington-Rand division, charging that the "other lady shaver" used in one of Remington's tv commercials — one that ripped a woman's stocking — was none other than the Lady Schick itself, or a model "exactly similar thereto." Legal action was instituted Monday when Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller, Schick's counsel, went into New York State Supreme Court armed with Exhibit "A" — a film of a Young & Rubicam-produced commercial shown on CBS-TV's What's My Line? — and asked for $5 million to offset the effect of "false, disparaging, misleading and damaging" advertising claims made by RemingtonRand. Specifically, Schick cited the What's My Line? commercial of April 14, April 28 and May 4 as having been "for the purpose of deceiving the public and (Schick's) existing and prospective customers as to the merits of the Lady Schick." Not only was "Razor B" a Lady Schick or a shaver very similar in size and construction, Schick claimed, but "both oral statements and visual presentations created the inference that the Lady Schick had rough edges like a razor." The April 14 spot, in particular, created the inference that the Lady Schick, "when used on the legs . . . would tear a lady's stocking, causing the inference thereby that it would be equally damaging to the skin of a lady's leg," the suit claimed. Counsel for the Lancaster firm declared that his clients would be "irreparably injured and damaged" unless relief was granted. The pioneer electric shaver firm (it claims also that Remington came out with its Princess after the Lady Schick had been nationally introduced) spends $5 million per year in advertising including all media. It sponsors NBC-TV's Dragnet on an alternating basis, and at one time also used the Robert Montgomery hour-long dramatic programs. Its agency, Benton & Bowles, is new on the job, having picked up the account last month from Warwick & Legler. Kenneth C. Gifford, Schick president, said that on April 15, immediately following the airing of the first objectionable commercial, his firm protested to CBS-TV, following this up with a protest to Remington itself. When no action was taken, he said, the firm "felt it had to resort to legal action." In a court order signed last Monday, Judge Irving L. Levey directed Sperry-Rand to appear in court Thursday to show cause why an order enjoining the company from continuing the "false, disparaging, misleading and damaging" advertising directed at Lady Schick should not be issued. Francis J. McNamara, vice president and general counsel for Remington-Rand, asked for a postponement until May 27, which was granted to give the defendant additional time in which to formulate its reply. However, Remington-Rand, taking into consideration Schick's allegation that Y&R was preparing additional commercials "similar to those described," agreed to hold off featuring any more of the offending ads until that date. Remington-Rand spokesmen declined official comment other than that "we are studying the matter." Young & Rubicam people working on the account would not comment. During much of last week, the creative staff involved with the campaign was reported to be "in conference." THEY SAW IT COMING PROPRIETARY ASSN. members at their White Sulphur Springs, W. Va., convention last week were warned of federal regulatory7 action against proprietary drug ad copy. Dr. Frederick J. Cullen, medical consultant to the association and its former executive vice president, said that "under no circumstances should the advertising agency and the sales manager be the dominating factors in the preparation of labeling and advertising, nor should they be responsible for setting up research programs. The latter is the job of top management." Dr. Cullen noted the new liaison agreement between the FTC and FCC, and added that FTC Chairman John W. Gwynne had recently told a House Appropriations subcommittee that many of the misleading ad claims to be picked up by FTC's new monitoring system will have to do with drugs. He quoted Comr. Gwynne as telling the House unit that the stepped-up policing of advertising for drugs and cosmetics will include the overly broad and false claims that are made on the basis of preliminary favorable scientific reports. Dr. Cullen added: "I know there are some who feel they must 'jump the gun' and make claims upon a half-completed research program. But such procedure can lead to great difficulty if subsequently the second half of the report proves to be unfavorable." Dr. Cullen said the whole proprietarydrug industry is "unfortunately sometimes condemned for the sins of a few" fringetype operators, adding: "I feel that certain claims made in advertising are based on a type of research which consists of a few welldesigned experiments — as well as a limited amount of biased review of the literature — the purpose being to find the obscure statements which may support claims . . . This type of advertiser realizes that at times government machinery is extremely slow in operation, and is content to use questionable copy until the government catches up with him. By that time, he has another 'theme' prepared and is ready to go ahead — and perhaps under another name — until caught again." INTRAMURAL MONITORING THE American Pharmaceutical Assn., professional society of pharmacists, has "roundly condemned" misleading drug ads and is appointing a "watchdog" committee from its membership to monitor advertising of drug and pharmaceutical products. Those making exaggerated and misleading claims will be reported to the Federal Trade Commission, APA said. At the association's 104th national convention in New York earlier this month the APA House of Delegates resolved "that the advertising of drug products by radio, tv, newspapers or other media which tends to mislead the public or raise false hopes with Page 32 • May 20, 1957 Broadcasting • Telecasting