Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1961)

SPONSORS SPELL OUT DO'S, DONTS continued as good a buying job as we can," and acknowledged that P&G sometimes bargains with the networks over what it should pay for a network-controlled program. Asked why networks are willing to make concessions on the cost of a program, he speculated that "the prime consideration is their desire to sell it." Another reason, he agreed, might be the network's desire to get an advertiser to take a program which is up against especially tough opposition. Agencies Have Policy ■ In a lengthy discussion of P&G's "editorial policy" he said P&G has a contractual right to approval on matters of policy and taste and that he felt it also has a right to see that its editorial policy is observed in other respects. Copies of this policy, he said, are distributed to all P&G agencies and its contents are "reviewed" with producers on P&G programs. P&G and its agencies, he said, try to see that the policy is "enforced in detail." Asked for examples, he said a Rifleman script about a Civil War episode referred to the Confederate flag as "that red rag," and that P&G got the line changed on the ground that it would be offensive to Southerners. He said parts of another program were changed because they would have held the teaching profession up to ridicule, and that in another case "an amputee was depicted inconsiderately and this was changed at our suggestion." Examiner Cunningham wanted to know if these "suggestions" didn't amount to "firm taboos." Mr. Halverstadt said he didn't like the word "taboo," but that instead of referring to "suggestions" he might have called these matters "unacceptable." Network Initiative ■ He thought net Albert R. Stevens, American Tobacco Co., has no firm do's and don'ts but abides by NAB code. 30 (BROADCAST ADVERTISING) works "under today's conditions" can take the initiative on what goes into their schedules. These "conditions" include network control of more programs, increasing difficulty in placing independently owned programs in choice network spots and what he called the virtual elimination of an earlier commonplace: advertiser "franchises" on network time spots. But he said he assumed the networks have taken this course partly to discharge their programming responsibilities more directly and partly because network control permits them to sell programs in participations at prices within the means of many advertisers who cannot afford regular sponsorships. He thought this was "necessary and proper" in making television available to more advertisers. Mr. Halverstadt said P&G uses ratings primarily as "the best measurement we know" for gauging size of audience but that its judgments are affected by more factors than just audience size. He said there was "no foundation whatsoever" for the widespread industry impression that P&G will not buy programs having CPM's higher than $1.25 for daytime or $3 for night. "We've cancelled programs that had lower costs-per-thousand than that and kept programs that had higher," he asserted. Misleading Term ■ He thought the term "magazine concept" is misleading because "it would be absolutely impossible to duplicate in television the situation that exists in magazines." The fact that commercials might be rotated throughout a program schedule does not make that situation comparable to advertising in magazines, he said. An advertiser who, like P&G, looks primarily for a woman's audience can buy space in women's magazines and be sure of its audience, but on a rotation basis its commercials might fall within programs having little or no appeal for the sort of audience the advertiser wants to reach, he explained. Mr. Halverstadt said that after thinking about references to the size of P&G's advertising budgets he wanted to make it clear that the company does not think in terms of how much money it should put into tv. The effort rather is to decide how to advertise each of P&G's many brands most effectively, and "our total expenditure is simply the sum total of all those brands." He said that on the average the P&G advertising expenditure per brand per year is 5.6 cents per U. S. home. Public Service Pays ■ Bell & Howell's president Peterson said his company's two-and-a-half years of sponsoring prime-time public-affairs programming without interference has been "a successful and a very gratifying experi ment." B&H's share of the motion picture photographic market is "at an alltime high and we are now in the position of sales leadership," and "we have already committed virtually all of our advertising funds to prime-time publicservice programs through the entire year of 1962." He said B&H launched this "experiment"— after participating in westerns, mysteries and other "conventional" fare — because it felt its advertising must be different in order to be "heard or remembered." B&H's policy, he said, is one of "sponsorship without censorship" (for details, see excerpts from text of Peterson statement, page 22). He said subjects dealt with on Bell & Howell's Close-Up! on ABC are picked jointly by network and sponsor but that the criterion is whether the subjects "materially affect the life or welfare of a substantial segment of the American public." Under this standard, he said, "a few subjects" have been rejected. Legitimate Interest ■ Under further questioning he said he thought it "quite legitimate for an advertiser on an entertainment show, which he is paying for, to get involved in the programming." Even so, he thought many sponsors have an exaggerated view of how viewers will react. He said, for instance, that in one scene in a B&H show the lighted sign of Eastman Kodak, a competitor, kept flashing on and off but that B&H left it in the scene because "we suspect that 99% of the people know that Eastman Kodak exists and a sign flashing isn't going to affect their sales or ours." Mr. Peterson reasoned that "the more freedom producers have, the more mature television will become." Freedom from advertising influence is as desirable in tv as in newspapers, he said, "and we are confident (tv) will step up to its responsibilities." He said B&H programs have lower average ratings than the average entertainment show — though in some cases the public-service shows out-rated their competition — but that interviews by McCann-Erickson, B&H agency, found that viewers "were significantly more aware of our sponsorship than was true on other shows" and in one case 68% of the audience "made positive statements about a company that would sponsor such thought-provoking material." Commercials on these shows also seemed to register better with the audience — not to mention the impact on B&H's selling and dealer organization, he reported. He said he was confident that "never in our history have our dealers and salesmen been as favorably aware of our advertising as they are today." Armstrong System ■ Mr. Banzhaf, of Armstrong Cork, described in detail the BROADCASTING, October 2, 1961