Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1958)

EDITORIALS Spotted Fever TN THE current to-do about triple-spotting, broadcasters have been 1 pushed into an unbecoming position — they're damned if they do and at least darned it" they don't. Let us say right here that we have no intention of defending over-commercialism. We're against any practice that dilutes the impact of legitimate commercials or deprives a network advertiser of broadcast time that he's entitled to, as triple-spotting surely must do il the commercials are of more than fleeting duration. But it's a problem that has to be considered in perspective and this, we contend, the Assn. of National Advertisers did not do when it let loose its blast a week ago [Lead Story, May 26]. The ANA report arrogated to advertisers all the rights and assigned to broadcasters all the responsibility — an apportionment which marketing experts among the ANA membership ordinarily would refer to as uneven distribution. Advertisers and their agencies have a responsibility as well as a right. Broadcasters have a responsibility, but they also have a right — the right to expect advertisers and agencies to cooperate in correcting whatever abuses exist. Too often it doesn't work that way. Even once would be too often, but more than one broadcaster can testily to advertiser and agency pressures to get commercials scheduled within periods that were already filled. So why don't the Niations refuse? It's a simple question, but it gets immeasurably complicated when the stations are threatened with the loss of other schedules unless they also accommodate this new one, as has been known to happen. This is an area where the responsibility lies first with the advertiser and the agency. The extreme pressure of threatening to cancel running schedules is unusual and untypical, but it has happened and when it does it is no less an abuse than triple-spotting itself. Certainly, agencies and advertisers who insist on getting into sold-out periods no matter what — and who on occasion may even wave a threat or two— have no right to complain about the evil of over-commercialization. Broadcasters also are being handed another millstone which they should not have to carry alone. The American Medical Assn. wants to clean up -offensive and misleading advertising" [Advertisers & Agencies, May 26], a commendable desire except that the good doctors seem to want media to do most of the broom-swinging. They invited advertisers and agencies as well as media to their meeting, but privately they're said to discount the theory that the advertising should be cleaned up before it gets to media. Like triple-spotting and other forms of over-commercialization this is a problem for all hands to work on. Broadcasters should not be expected to do it alone. Advertisers and agencies who do not work with them are automatically working against them. Reallocation: Major Convulsion ICENSEE blood pressures boil whenever the prospect of a television reallocation is mentioned. Blood pressures have boiled innumerable times since the FCC's "final" allocation of 1952. It's happening again and is destined to happen several times between now and the adjournment of Congress in about mid-August But it is no longer mere conversation; the FCC is approaching the end of the line. 6 The locale last week was the Senate Commerce Committee scene of most previous eruptions. The FCC made another appearance Commissioners seem to agree only that deintermixture is not th^ major solution. They are likewise agreed that the existing 12 vhf channels cannot accommodate a nationwide competitive system Almost forgotten has been the Ad Hoc Committee of engineers named by the Senate Committee in 1955 to evaluate the vhf-uhf allocations. The chairman is Edward L. Bowles, consulting engineer of Boston and MIT. The committee report, which has been kept under wraps, is not unanimous. But it will be explosive From what we are able to glean, it goes far beyond technical planning and into the whole economic structure of tv on the notion that everythin« i\irVTelevls?on°CI)CASTING b5 S'd fr°"' lde" submitted '»-v Richard Carlton p« Trans that has been done is wrong. It isn't the approach that is likely to win support either from the FCC or broadcasters. Understandably, members of the FCC have turned to their learned engineering colleague, Comr. T. A. M. Craven, for guidance on the allocations enigma. Comr. Craven in his previous tenure on the FCC, both as an engineering executive and a commissioner (1928-1944), had been a key figure in evolving broadcast allocations. As a former naval communications officer he has knowledge of military-government requirements. He is the FCC's liaison with the Office of Defense Mobilization and the military. Purely as a basis for discussion, Comr. Craven has prepared a memorandum designed to stimulate FCC thinking. It recognizes that the solution must be long-range, to permit amortization of the multi-billion dollar investment of the public, government and industry in the existing television complex. His thinking is in three phases ( 1 ) to provide for three comparable services in major markets; (2) to improve competition in the first 150 markets; (3) longrange though radical changes in allocations. It is phase 3 that will stimulate discussion — and violent repercussions. It would delete channels 2-6, leave channels 7 to 13 as is, and add 18 channels beginning at 216 mc. This would provide a contiguous band of 25 6-mc. channels. The some 270 assignments now on chs. 2-6 would move into the new bands. Such a project, in Comr. Craven's view, would entail a 7-10 year transition. There would be no differentiation between uhf and vhf. (The proposed new band would begin at 174 mc and run to 324 mc. The present uhf allocations begin at 470 mc and run to 890 mc.) Existing services in the new band would move to the 470 mc space. A contiguous band would make possible the design and manufacture of an efficient "all-channel" receiver, more reasonably priced than existing models which must by-pass the jumos between channels 2 through 6 and 7 through 13 and thence into uhf through ch. 83. Comr. Craven has emphasized to the FCC that his memorandum dose not constitute a plan, but simply a starting point for discussion. But plan or memorandum, it is controversial in the extreme. What are the alternatives? Some one may come up with a better plan. Some genius may devise a scheme to split channels so that the present 12 could become 24. But will Congress wait? Can television progress in a climate of scarcity? Are the alternatives more rigid controls, or sharply reduced separations that will downgrade service? These are questions to be pondered by the FCC and by the licensees. Whatever solution is decided upon, it will be a major convulsion. If the Craven "memorandum" does no more than stimulate constructive thought, it will have made a major break-through in the television allocations impasse. Page 106 • June 2, 1958 Broadcasting