Business Screen Magazine (1965-1966)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

AttciiiliiiK the A.N. A. luncheon event {I to r): Morton J t'tnk, Dirrrtor of Stiliw. Stirliiifi Movies I'. S. A.; Agency exec Don Crcinc. Don Crcciu A.ssociutcs: and C. Ro^cr Calianctj, Executive Vici-Pnsidcnt of Sterling Movies. U. S. A. J\eiliser Praclices and I he Business Film: 3NTINUED I RDM PAGF. 38) iivcly by an outside producer I a relatively small number were dueed by the sponsor alone, business film costs, as itemized the survey, showed that among outside-produced films the men cost was $32,(K)(). while ong I 10 internal and outside IS the median cost was $12,120 eluding internal overhead ts), and 1 I internally produced IS had a median cost of S7. ()()(), distribution costs indicated a Jian figure of $3,190 for films circulation for a year or less, 000 for films in circulation 36 months, and 59,048 for films circulation over three years, dian cost per non-TV booking the sponsor direct was 'S2..'^0, and by a commercial film distributor $3.00. "Costs Not Definitive Norms" The ANA Committee carefully pointed out in an introduction to the report that it "does not wish to suggest that the median costs or audience figures which have been de\cloped arc necessarily the definitive norms. Rather the standards against which an individual film should be measured must relate to the objectives which have been set for it." The introduction to the Report goes on to say. "In this context, the costliest production may in the long run be the most eccmomical in terms of the role in which it has fulfilled ft)r the sponsor. Conversely, a SI, 000 investment in an in low: Disriiwinfi AX. A. report (I to r): Ralpli Del Coro, Modern TalkPicture Service; Harold Klein. Execiilivc Director, l-'ilni Producers ill. of X.Y.: and Walter Lourndald. i. ;/. o/ Dipiiiiiiii I'ilins. luc. ternaily produced film could prmc to be an extravagance or a tribute to ingenuity, depending upon the degree to which the film succeeds in meeting the sponsor's objectives. By the same token, a highly selective audience of 10,000 over a three-year period may represent a genuinely rewarding performance, whereas an audience of l,l)00,()0() over a one-year period may be disappointing to the sponsor. In light of these considerations, it appears clear that the experience of others, however useful in lending perspective, should not supplant a company's specific communications requirements as the governing criteria." Onl\ 1 ()';'( Were Large ProRrams Print costs of films in the survey generally came to less than $5,000 per production, although in 26 per cent of the cases print costs exceeded $10,000. while in roughly 10 per cent the investment in prints ran higher than $25,000. An interesting section of the 62page report contains comments from sponsors who provided data for the survey. An overwhelming majority of these sponsoring companies found the film medium to be a most effective means of advertising, marketing, or disseminating the public relations image of the company. The ANA Audio-Visual Committee is composed of I .s men re Lunc'lieon guests: David Beer, of British Petroleum ( S'orth America ■ Ltd. (left): and Robert Bergmann, president of Filmcx. Inc. sponsible for audio-visual activities in their respective companies. Chairman is Robert O. Dunn, of Ford Motor Company. Sidney J. Shulins, of AN.'\. is .Administrative Secretary for the committee. The subcommittee responsible for preparation of the new report was under Chairman William J. Connelly, Union Carbide Corp.. Plastics Division. Other subcommittee members were Jack Hansen. Johnson & Johnst)n; John Flory. Eastman Kodak Company; Willis H. Pratt, Jr., American Telephone & lelegraph C\)mpany; and F'rank Rollins, E. R. Squibb & Sons division of Olin Mathieson Chemical Company. Copies of the report are available from the Association of Natit)nal Advertisers, Inc., at 155 East 44th Street, New York 1001 7. • The A. N. A. Stmly: a Model for Statistical ,\bstraelioii OiiDUciNG IHF. Magical Empathy of a successful film experience — those precious minutes when a truly useful motion picture is viewed by a concerned audience — to pages of tabular statistics somehow profanes this very powerful sight sound mediimi. But advertisers like arithmetic and this report dutifully sets out to give them more of that than anything else. But how do you get anything but statistical abstraction out of combining the All-Aiiicrica looihcdl 'lectin of 1962 with Pressure Sicani Sterilization? A.N. A. Audio-Visual Committees have given the industry some highly-useful reference reports. But not this time. Media people wouki cringe at comparative studies which grouped l.iiT with Wi 1 DING Engini I R. What do "median cost figures " mean when a milk separator film is compared to IBM's imaginati\e (Juesiion Tree? But. more significant than such absurdities as those which group functional farm films with All-Sinr '$olf lips, is the absence of hasii i:iildiincc. The prospecti\e s|ionsor has a right aiul a need tii know how today's highlyspeeiali/ed. separate channels of distribution can be successfully travelled. Ihese tabulations offer cross-currents and shoals. I his report buries the tremendous interest in theatrical showings of sponsored short subjects as "non-TV!" It sets no guidelines for public-service distribution on television. In short (and Ihese comments are ail loo brief) we Mill need u hroad. enihratini; report to really tell the nation's businessmen what's going on in the exciting world of llie sponsored film. — OHC BUSINESS SCREEN