Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

from GEORGE BOLAS, media director, Tatham-Laird THERE ISN'T ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY IN NETWORK TELEVISION Today, we who are actively involved in the field of television are facing a seeming paradox. More dollars than ever before will be spent in television, yet tv client commitments are increasingly difficult to secure. This is particularly true of network television. Nighttime tv is enjoying a banner year in both total dollars or number of half-hour periods sponsored. Daytime television is off to a record-breaking year. What, then, is the problem in this Garden of Eden? The problem is the steadily increasing tug of war of brandmarketing and media needs with network television requirements. Marketing and media strategies indicate one direction for the advertiser. But network policies and practices often block that direction, forcing either a compromise or an abandonment of tv — solutions unprofitable to all concerned. Let's first consider the reasons products are created and marketed: Successful products are made to fulfill the consumer need and to render service. When products meet these two requirements, consumer demand will follow. The advertiser wants a profit in fulfilling this consumer need and rendering a service to the public. We are also naive enough to believe that all media must be alert to the need for modifications in their policies and practices. Media should not be so inflexible as to force derailment of the marketing and advertising objectives involved, nor to force scores of such advertisers to use second choice media. Media should have the primary motive of helping their clients make a profit on their investment. Look at some of the factors which are making it increasingly difficult for advertisers who want network tv. COST AND RESTRICTIONS HAMPER THE CLIENT A half-hour evening tv program today costs anywhere from $4 million to $5 million for a 52-week period. Yet there are only something like 40 individual product advertising budgets with sufficient dollars to sponsor one of these vehicles. Since there are approximately 115 sponsored evening programs on the air, the remaining funds obviously are generated from advertisers who have split the use of programs between two, three or more products. It is expected, however, that many product budgets presently in network television will necessarily either have to find a more efficient and effective way of using that medium, or be diverted into other avenues. Here are a few of the limitations bringing about the tug of war: (1) Limitation of advertisers to one cross plug per program is forcing the alternative of using messages for two or more products or the use of a second commercial for the same product on the same show, though this may be contrary to the most efficient marketing and media strategy; (2) It is impractical to build a plan for frequency when such is the basic need and strategy; (3) Daytime television also has been more restricted, with more limited product exclusivity than ever before and the limit of one cross plug, despite the fact that daytime broadcasting has at least two decades of experience indicating that frequency is a prerequisite of success; (4) The extension of basic must-buy station lineups is restricting marketing freedom; (5) The high cost of regional and local cut-ins makes their regular use impractical; (6) The pressures to commit for 52 weeks preclude flexibility. We recognize that the networks have problems in modifying, or eliminating any of these network limitations. For example, station affiliates would resist some of the recommended moves. Steady progress, however, toward more efficient use of television dollars will, in the long run, hurt no one. Advertisers, agencies, networks, stations and program producers will benefit mutually from any steps that make the tv dollars work harder and more efficiently to solve our marketing and advertising objectives. Make network television more practical for single product use. Avoid forcing advertisers and agencies to stretch marketing and advertising strategies to include two or three products in order to use network tv. I suggest: ( 1 ) Increase annual discounts for the 52-week firm advertisers. This will continue to give those advertisers who are the backbone of network television some additional advantages for committing on a 52-week basis. (2) Innovate a frequency discount to encourage advertisers to use a program vehicle with adequate frequency. (3) Install a new category and proper discounts for every third week sponsorship. Every third week sponsorship would permit advertisers with budgets of below $1.5 million to have 52-week commercial exposure on a single nighttime vehicle. It would, at the same time, eliminate the need of bringing in a second or third product, even assuming that advertiser had other products available. GIVE THE ADVERTISERS SOME LATITUDE The suggested third week pattern also would enable a daytime advertiser to purchase a one-quarter hour segment in a daytime strip. He then could let his marketing and media strategy dictate whether he would use all three minutes of his commercial in one day, two minutes in one day and one minute in another day as a crossplug, or one minute plus billboards on one day plus two crossplugs on two other days on that same vehicle. We believe that unless some increased flexibility is forthcoming, network television will lose present clients and fail to convert new advertisers at a satisfactory rate. Don't get us wrong! Our agency and our clients love television. We have consistently recommended and spent a majority of our billing in tv. All 26 of the products now handled by our agency are advertised on television. There is no doubt that other agencies and advertisers also want and need television. There can also be little doubt that television wants and needs more and more customers. Neither of us can reach our highest objectives without the other. We need to nourish one another. Let's help each other find more flexible, more effective ways to use tv, so that more and more advertisers can approach it with greater confidence in their ability to make it a profitable move. George A. Bolas; b. Chicago, Nov. 22, 1913; grad. U. of Michigan in 1936. After working for Swift & Co. as salesman in 1936, he became assistant advertising and sales promotion manager, NBC Central Div., 1937-1941. He served as assistant radio chief at Blackett-Sample-Hummert from 1941 to 1947 and was with Foote, Cone & Belding as account executive on Toni 1947-48 when he joined Tatham-Laird Inc., Chicago, as media director. Directs all media activities. He's member of agency's executive committee and permanent member strategy planning staff, and stockholder (since 1949). Broadcasting October 28, 1957 • Page 129