Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

EDITORIALS ARB's Instant Ratings LIKE the crowds who were on the beaches around Cap« Canaveral a fortnight ago, agencies and advertisers and broadcasters are keeping one eye trained on American Research Bureau and the ratings sputnik it is slated to launch momentarily. The launching preview was scheduled tentatively for last week, but a leaky valve apparently was spotted during the countdown. The unveiling was postponed. But from ARB — although it's saying naught officially — comes word indirectly that the problem is temporary, has nothing to do with the system itself, and clearly will be fixed in time for a preview this week and actual start of operations in New York the first of the year, as originally scheduled. Whether the device will succeed in getting into orbit remains, necessarily, to be seen. One would be foolhardy to judge its prospects without first seeing it. But at least this one hasn't yet exploded on the ground. Those who have been briefed on it seem, for the most part, enthusiastic about its chances. They point out that it measures tv tuning automatically (by a device installed in the set) and provides virtually instantaneous ratings (through lines linking sets with a central office). But even in their enthusiasm they are cautious, for they have seen "automatic, instantaneous" systems come along before and yet sputter out for want of clients. To the extent that ratings are necessary in the broadcast business, a practical system of supplying "instant ratings" is desirable. Our own view is that ratings, per se, are important but greatly overrated as a sales tool. We cannot deny, however, that whenever they are important, it is better to have them now than later — a principle on which Trendex, incidentally, has thrived. If ARB's new Arbitron is a success — and sources close to ARB sound very confident — rating users would be smart not to attribute to it qualities that it doesn't possess. No matter how successful, it essentially is a quicker method of getting the same sort of information that rating services supply today. It would be a pity if the main advantage of "instant ratings" proved to be that they enabled people to misuse them more quickly. Now Showing: The Barrow Report ALL but forgotten in the frenzy over pay tv, subliminal perception and the Moulder Committee investigation is the critically important FCC Network Study Staff Report, better known as the Barrow Report. The FCC this week begins consideration of this report, setting aside today (Monday) and tomorrow for chapter-by-chapter briefing, with Dean Roscoe L. Barrow, head of the study project, and members of his staff at the blackboard. The full Commission, rather than the originally designated three-man committee, will sit in as the 400,000-word document is reviewed. It is for the FCC to draft rules that will accept, reject or modify the findings of a staff that functioned for two years and spent $221,000, but still was unable to complete its task. Conclusions on television programming and talent are yet to come. The Barrow Report is aimed principally at tv networks and the large multiple owners. But it would do more than practically dismember the networks and cut down multiple ownership. It would change the whole concept of free enterprise television broadcasting. It would veer dangerously close to public utility control of a medium which, like the press, has constitutional guarantees of freedom from censorship and business control. The FCC finds itself on a spot. It alone, and not the Barrow staff, has the authority to act. But the FCC is a creature of Congress. The Barrow Report has been in the hands of members of the committees dealing with broadcasting since last October. Staff experts have been digesting the ponderous document. The study, as a matter of fact, was instigated by congressmen. The report the FCC now is considering is ex parte. The Barrow staff investigated, interviewed and searched files. Then it wrote the report. Dean Barrow, thus, has become an advocate rather than an objective, dispassionate researcher. This was evidenced in his address last month before the Chicago Broadcast Advertising Club [Government, Dec. 2]. Before the FCC attempts to reach definitive conclusions, it must as a matter of right invite comments and perhaps hear arguments Page 122 • December 16, 1957 Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hix from an Idea submitted by James McBride, art director, WKJG-TV Fort Wayne. Ind. from those whose economic lives are at stake and who have not yet had their day in court. What do the affiliates think about the recommendations? The independents, the multiple owners, the networks, advertisers and advertising agencies, the film syndicators and station representatives? All are involved. Seven men, sworn to uphold the Constitution, this week undertake perhaps their most important assignment. It calls for fortitude and wisdom. Is Conelrad Obsolete? IS Conelrad, the emergency alerting system designed to prevent enemy bombers from "homing" on broadcast channels, as obsolete as the propeller-driven plane in this atomic missile era? Paul M. Segal, well-known Washington communications attorney, general counsel of the American Radio Relay League and a naval communications officer during World War II, says it is. He points out that millions have been spent by radio stations of all classes in installing, maintaining and testing Conelrad. Mr. Segal continues: "Now everyone knows that no enemy bomber needs to use radio emanations for hostile purposes. Every school child knows that potential enemies have missiles poised to send on calculated courses at the mere push of a button. Also, current atomic explosives are designed to destroy large areas rather than areas that can be pointed out by radio-station signals. Is it not possible to induce someone in the government to give up this Conelrad and allow licensees to devote their energies to something more useful?" Private engineering opinion generally is in agreement with Mr. Segal's view. Conelrad, activated in 1952, may have been a good idea at the time. It will be recalled that it was a compromise; the military wanted all broadcast signals blacked out in the event of enemy attack, but settled for the Conelrad system which would limit operations to pre-selected stations operating only on 640 and 1240 kc. Broadcasters, working in cooperation with the FCC, voluntarily have invested some $3 million in equipment for Conelrad. Tests are run on the designated key stations twice each week, one scheduled, the other unscheduled, in each air defense division, of which there are 16. Some 50 sky wave key stations are in the "network" but all stations are required to take part. Conelrad has a total staff of 42 whose salaries are paid by the Air Force, which, of course, means the taxpayers. Manifestly, Conelrad has become a meaningless shadow-boxing exercise. In this new age, the task is to keep the public informed during an emergency. This business of the enemy getting a "fix" on a bombing target through station location belongs to another era. Perhaps what is needed is more power in emergencies for all am stations, to reach people in areas being evacuated — assuming the military would permit the information to be released. Broadcasting