NAB reports (Mar-Dec 1933)

more and more and more information directed toward the evaluation not only of specific stations, but towards the com¬ plete evaluation of radio broadcasting as a medium. Now types of surveys. Surveys and research work divide themselves into two things — station potentiality and reactions of listeners to programs. You will find today, tomorrow, next year or five years from now that because of the inaccuracies of treatment of any survey method that you apply, listener habit studies, you cannot get the degree of accuracy which will permit the uniform application of this yardstick to all stations. There is a fundamental law that I am going to state in about ten words as applied to coverage as we define it. We define primary coverage of an area as that area throughout which a station can be heard consistently at least 80 or 90 per cent of the time without interference. And because there is a distinct difference between night and day time condi¬ tions, we subelassify it day and night. We define secondary coverage as a coverage which can be heard either without in¬ terference from 20 to 80 per cent of the time, or coverage which is available with some interference and yet still usable perhaps. The law is simpty this: In an area receiving primary serv¬ ice from several stations, listeners will choose between the programs of those stations purely on the basis of program appeal. There may be a lumped-up value of that, but people will switch from station A to station B and to station C and back again. I can show you plenty of evidence of that in areas where we know the primary conditions exist. In an area, however, which receives no primary service but only secondary service from several stations, broadcast listeners have a decided tendency to select that station which produces the best and most consistent signal. That is what Mr. Camp¬ bell is referring to when he says they pick the best. You talk about listener habit studies. We are talking about one thing, the reaction of the listener to the program. I would be the last to say that such studies are not valuable. I think they are extremely valuable. The more we have, the better. But they must and will ultimately find their correct place in this picture which is to enable the advertiser, the agency and the station to evaluate programs, to build pro¬ grams in the best way. But those studies cannot and never will furnish the basis for an adequate yardstick to permit, if you please, the selection of stations with the same overall or any popularity on the basis of potential coverage. Potential coverage, the people that you can reach if you put on the right kind, of a program, is something we can and are measuring accurately, and a knowledge of potential lis¬ teners or coverage as we define it, expressed in adequate terms, must ultimately form the basis for adequate listener habit studies if those studies are to be of any value at all. As I say, we had to face these issues before we surveyed our first station of trying to adopt standards which would be usable and then we had to apply our engineering knowledge of reception conditions to measure coverage in terms of those standards. Now perhaps we didn’t define coverage right. We have con¬ sidered whether we should have three grades of coverage or more, but we came down ultimately to the definition we are now using. We have some indication that they are pretty nearly correct, because we are still using exactly the same standards and the same methods as we did with our first station. Coverage once measured for a station is fixed until there is a change in frequency or a change in power or a change in location which affects it. The same studies that we made al¬ most two years ago on WMT still hold, and they will hold until there is some radical change made. That has been our objective and the results of what we have done are common property, they are available to those who want to use them. We only hope that in tackling this small part of the complex problem we have contributed something to an industry of which we are a part. (Applause) MR. CHURCH: I think that every member of the Com¬ mercial Committee are interested in really seeing something done on this problem of coverage. I would like to have Dr. Jansky tell us just what has happened recently since the last meeting of the Commercial Section as regards the efforts that have been made with the four A’s and others in attempting to arrive at a solution of the problem that might be accept¬ able both to the advertising agencies and to broadcasters. Perhaps our Managing Director will wish to comment on that after Dr. Jansky has finished. DR. JANSKY: I don’t think I can tell much more than I have except, as you know, what the actions of the board of the four A’s were and the actions of the platform that was adopted. We have been asked about the measurement of coverage on a very large scale, some 150 or 200 or 300 stations at one shot. I have said, of course, from the standpoint of economy that is the best way to measure stations and the cheapest. However, I have also expressed the opinion I don’t think that is the way the coverage of stations will be made. I don’t think all stations are prepared to have their coverage measured at one fell swoop. There may be some stations who will never want their coverage measured by engineering meth¬ ods. Station managers come to me and say, “I want you to measure our station. I am moving my transmitter and I pre¬ fer to wait until I get it moved.” It is a perfectly legitimate reason. Why have it measured now if within six months he is going to have the station moved and improve his conditions perhaps 100, 200, 300 and perhaps in some cases, such as I know, 600 per cent? So I have the feeling that this isn’t the sort of thing that will be settled over night. We will probably be arguing six months from now or a year from now. What we have tried to do as an organization trying to cooperate with the broad¬ casting industry to the fullest extent was to try to the fullest extent to see what we felt would be the ultimate answer and to shape our course towards it. We are interested in what¬ ever course works out best in that situation. CHAIRMAN CARPENTER: It is about time for us to adjourn and eat a little. Before adjournment, I would like to appoint a Resolutions Committee, and any of you who think there should be certain resolutions passed, please see that committee and have them work it out and we will vote on them here this afternoon and you can say yes or no. That Committee is — Harry Howlett Roy Harlow Martin Campbell It is twenty minutes of one ; we will meet here at two o ’clock. * * * The meeting adjourned at twelve-forty o’clock * * * TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION June 27, 1933 The meeting convened at two-fifteen o’clock, Chairman Carpenter presiding. CHAIRMAN CARPENTER: We have a number of resolu¬ tions to be presented as soon as we hear the rest of these dis¬ cussions, and the resolutions themselves may provoke sufficient discussion to keep us here for some time. We want to get along as rapidly as possible this afternoon without slighting anything unduly. The first man this afternoon is to discuss ‘‘Standardization Units of Sale and Rate Practice” — Arthur B. Church, of KMBC, Kansas City. (Applause) * * * Mr. Church presented his prepared paper. STANDARDIZING UNITS OF SALE AND RATE PRACTICES By ARTHUR B. CHURCH One of the problems in the business of broadcasting today is relatively simple to solve. Perhaps that is why it has thus far received little concerted attention. All will agree, I believe, that there is a need for standardizing units of sale and rate practices in radio. I hope this discussion will result in the adoption by the N.A.B. Commercial Committee of definite recommendations to be presented at the annual convention in October. Rate cards are already quite well standardized as to form . Page 149 .