Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

EDITORIALS The Public's Interest THE more the public attitude toward pay television is explored, the more it seems that proponents consist chiefly of those who stand to benefit financially. Within the past 10 days three totally unrelated surveys have produced evidence to support these conclusions. Pay tv came out on the short end of the stick every time — twice with the end almost too short to permit a hand-hold. Most recent as well as broadest of these was conducted for Broadcasting by The Pulse Inc. The survey was run in 10 major markets and the tabulations, completed last week, showed an even two-thirds would not "be interested" in having pay television in their homes. This even though they were told specifically that "first-run movies, major sports events, Broadway shows, operas, ballets, etc." might be among the attractions waiting for them. The two other surveys, conducted within specific areas, were even more overwhelming. In California, KSBW-TV Salinas and KSBY-TV San Luis Obispo went on the air with a special program to find out what their viewers wanted. The result: 5,002-to-4 against pay tv. In Bartlesville, Okla., where a wired subscription television test is in progress — although the people there don't regard it as pay tv in the strictest sense — Sen. William Langer (RN. D.) has been running a mail poll and has found overwhelming opposition to subscription television. The Pulse survey for Broadcasting went farther than these, and some of the additional findings merit attention here. If the pay tv forces find encouragement in the fact that one-third of the respondents would be interested in toll tv, they may think twice when they see what these people would be willing to pay. First, a majority preferred to pay by the program, presumably because they want to keep total expenditures down; of these, almost two-thirds said they would pay less than $1.25 per program. Among those preferring a fixed monthly fee, about two-thirds would pay less than $6 a month. Moreover, almost two-thirds of all respondents said they would not be willing to pay for present free tv programs, either. Since this figure parallels the number who opposed pay tv, and since more than 90% rated the present free tv program service as satisfactory to excellent, the obvious conclusion is that the people just didn't want to pay, period. Whether these conclusions apply equally to wired as well as on-the-air pay television remains to be seen. The findings do point up again that it is not the public which is agitating for toll television. The Cork Doesn't Fit WE EXPECTED to be criticized when we published an editorial in our Oct. 28 issue advocating the acceptance of liquor advertising on radio and television, and our expectations have been realized. A sampling of our mail on the subject has appeared in Open Mike. A few writers have approved our position. More have opposed it. The opposition, in the main, has come from two sources: broadcasters who fear the political repercussions of putting liquor advertising on the air and prohibitionists who oppose not only liquor advertising but also liquor. Let us dispose of the latter opposition first. By every indication, prohibitionists constitute a minority — an inconsiderable minority— of the U.S. public. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that the majority of the people wish a return to prohibition. Until a majority votes liquor out, liquor will be legal. If liquor is legal, the advertising of it must also be legal. It must therefore be fully within the broadcaster's legal right to broadcast liquor advertising. As we said in our first editorial, there are moral problems involved in liquor advertising. Moderation is to be encouraged in the drinking of liquor. So it should be sought in liquor advertising. Several broadcasters have pointed out to us — as though they were quoting sources as binding as a decision of the Supreme Court — that the radio and television codes advise against the acceptance of liquor advertising. This is true. It is also true that the liquor admonition was written into the codes as a grandstand renunciation of something which nobody was accepting anyway. To say that liquor advertising should be rejected because the codes Page 142 • November 18, 1957 Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hix "As a special guest tonight, we bring you the all-time high winner of the quiz shows!" reject it is to grant the codes a meaning they do not actually possess. Besides, the codes can be and have been changed, by amendment, by interpretation and occasionally, by violation. Political repercussions would undoubtedly follow a revision of the codes to admit liquor advertising — whether done formally or by the practical disregard of those code provisions. How serious would those political repercussions be? Some congressmen would make speeches and introduce bills to outlaw liquor advertising. The congressmen who would react adversely to the introduction of liquor advertising on the air would be of the same kind that have been introducing anti-liquor legislation of one sort or another in every session since the repeal of the 18th amendment 24 years ago. In short, they would be those from communities where dry sentiment is strong. This kind of congressman must oppose liquor advertising whether it is carried on the air or not. To both classes of our critics we wish to announce that we are neither in the pay of the devil nor naive about politics in Washington. And we still think it would be perfectly proper to put proper liquor advertising on the air. How More Can Do Less THE rival allegations of the two unions whose dispute disrupted NBC-TV programs over two weekends cannot be discussed with clarity until more facts are known. What can be said, with clarity and apprehension, is that the dispute between the National Assn. of Broadcast Employes & Technicians and the Radio & Television Directors Guild is symptomatic of jurisdictional difficulties in network television. Unless these jurisdictional rivalries are brought under control, television is apt to wind up in the strait jacket that for years has encased the movies. The movies allowed unions to establish jurisdictional lines so finely drawn that inefficiency has resulted. Perhaps the movies can afford the time and money that are wasted by the partition of jobs into idiotic fragments. Television cannot. Yet television even now is being squeezed by jurisdictional pressures that could lead to the rigidities of craft distinctions that obtain in Hollywood. The question at issue at NBC is whether directors can talk directly to technicians or must convey instructions through a technical director who, like the technicians, is a NABET member. We have never understood why a competent director needs to communicate through an intermediary, and so the question seems to us of relatively minor significance. But the fact that NABET and the directors guild regard it as important enough to create trouble is in itself an indication of the way that television unionism could go if management does not assert sensible controls. Television production costs already are high enough. They do not need to be padded by the creation of jobs by jurisdictional rivalries. Broadcasting