NAB reports (Mar-Dec 1933)

a right that exists in your creation, if you can prove its originality. That gave rise to the second thing' which we must do even¬ tually and we must manufacture the evidence so that you will be iu a position to show the originality of your work and prove you are right in that production. It is always a question of date. You had the idea before somebody else, you want to prove you had the idea before somebody else and you have reduced it to some permanent form. Through a system of registration, we furnish you that proof. We don’t want to know what your work is. We will seal it. All we will prove is that on such-and-such a day John Patt tiled with us the envelope with the enclosed contents. There have been attempts to revise the present copyright laws. The movement to revise and bring up to date our copyright laws will continue in the next session of Congress and con¬ tinue in future sessions of Congress and all of the revisions that have received consideration of late have provided for what they call automatic copyright. That is simply writing into statute what the particular author of the bill conceives to be common law copyright. The Authors’ League of America — and I am not familiar in detail with their system — has a system of registration which operates along the same lines. It became necessary in that organization to give to the writer some protection in his work before he sent it around to various magazines or vari¬ ous motion picture concerns, if it happened to be a movie script, against theft of his idea, and as long as he has reg¬ istered it, of course, he has that evidence that it is his work and he is in a position to prove his originality. It is simply a question of evidence, as with all copy writers more or less, it is a question of evidence. The Copyright Act of 1909 only makes evidence, that is all. CHAIRMAN CARPENTER: Are there any other questions on this subject? We have forty-five minutes, possibly enough to complete the next subject, “Station Surveys,” discussion led by Martin Campbell, of WFAA, Dallas, Texas. * * * Mr. Campbell presented his prepared paper. (Ap¬ plause) STATION SURVEYS MARTIN CAMPBELL The first plank of the advertising platform of the Radio Committee of the 4 A’s charts our course for us. Here it is: “Develop an independent bureau, supported by stations, advertisers and agencies, to study radio coverage through signal strength measurements, and popularity and listen¬ ing habits through field surveys.” Radio advertising, because of its newness, has been and is being called upon to give a stricter accountability of its value than have some of the older media. In self defense, and because of lack of definite methods of determining cover¬ age, stations have had to resort to every possible method, tried and untried, to supply the demand for data. And the comparative novelty of radio as an advertising medium has not yet entirely worn off. Once the belief in it is commonly held, the question will not be whether it pays but will resolve itself into the question as to how effective radio will be in comparison with certain other forms of adver¬ tising. So our job is a two-fold one. First, proving that radio does pay, and second, convincing advertisers that it can do a job for them commensurate with the cost, when compared with other forms of advertising. This can be done only when we have unimpeachable proof of coverage — of listeners and of results. Radio stations began their attempts to show service area by drawing a circle, varying in diameter from 100 to several thousand miles, around the station and calling that coverage. They have wound up with that circle tied in knots — not ac¬ curate, not reliable, and not believed. By a slow process of evolution we have advanced until today we can obtain a pretty fair idea of what a station is worth. Engineers, using established principles, have been able to meas¬ ure the intensity of a station’s signals with reasonable pre¬ cision. This sets up clearly the potential coverage of a sta¬ tion. Station popularity, which, in the final analysis, is only a reflection of program popularity, is less easily determined; likewise, it is more ephemeral, because of the constant changes in program structure. But field intensity measurements and popularity and listen¬ ing habits are not the only elements to be considered in de¬ termining the relative value of a station. These are the prin¬ ciple factors, it is true, but among the others are; frequency or wave length, mechanical and technical excellence, hours of operation, program policy and listener interest. The frequency or wave length, along with the rated power, are fixed by the Radio Commission. Yet, it is a known engi¬ neering fact that some frequencies are better than others, even in the same locality. The mechanical and technical excellence of a station too often is overlooked by advertisers. Why go to the expense and trouble of producing a quality program by transcription or network, and then have it sound as if it had been transmitted through a peanut roaster? Hours of operation also should be considered when attempt¬ ing to evaluate two or more stations in a given area. The radio commission recently suspended its rule requiring a sta¬ tion to operate at least two-thirds of its allotted time. If a station cannot do so, for financial or other reasons, then it can’t. But if it can, then it is my belief that it should stay on the air continuously. Listeners are human beings and therefore creatures of habit. Also, they are lazy. They will not try to remember schedules and if they tune in to a fre¬ quency a time or two and hear nothing, then they will form the habit of tuning to a station that is on the air continuously. And that is the station that will have the listeners. As a general proposition, I believe, it is accepted that lis¬ teners will tune to the station that they can hear best — -the one that consistently reaches them with the greatest signal strength. They like the loudest station, the one that they can tune in with the least difficulty and listen to with a minimum of noise, day or night. They are, however, more interested in programs. They do not care whether a station has 500 or 500,000 watts — I doubt if one percent even knows the power of their favorite stations. Listeners attention is obtained and held primarily by in¬ teresting programs. Whether the shows are “corny” or classic, they must be presented in an attractive manner. But, to get acceptable methods of determining station value has taken time. Beginning, as I have said, with the circles, stations progressively improved. Many of the attempts, on looking back, now appear foolish — but out of it all, has come something tangible. There will be more improvements as time goes on. A lot of ingenious conclusions have been drawn. Fan mail has been the source of many of these conclusions. With due respect to my friends who use mail surveys to indicate cover¬ age, I think they are wasting a lot of time. Now, fan mail has its place in radio. A careful cheek, over a period of months, and then a percentage struck with reference to the number of radio receiving sets in an area — by counties if you please — certainly is better evidence of coverage than the pretty little circles. But as a rule, when a mail survey is made, it is taken over a period of a few days or a week. The plug for mail is made before or after a program of obvious popularity, when there is reason to believe the audience is greatest for that period, whether it be morning, afternoon or evening, or a combination of the three. All that such so-called surveys prove is that the listeners were tuned in at that particular time. They are not conclusive enough to be convincing, and any survey based on such a test is, I believe, valueless for any practical purposes. A survey of this type, made over a period of months or a year would be much more valuable. An interesting test of program popularity was the one made recently in certain New England cities by means of a telephone survey. A number of competent operators made telephone calls continuously throughout the day and evening. By com¬ paring the replies with the programs that were on the several stations at the time the calls were made, an effort was made to prove the relative popularity of the stations. Station popu¬ larity in this ease was only a direct reflection of program popularity. Such a survey, while interesting, is ephemeral because the program structure of a station is constantly chang¬ ing. New programs come on and grow in popularity. Old . Page 146 .