The radio annual (1957)

Agency Tries To Meet Client's Requirements For 'Ideal Show" AMONG advertisers and agencies, television is usually referred to as "the newest sales tool" and along with their employment of this most provocative and effective medium, there are many who say that they have taken on a whole new set of problems. One wonders how new these problems really are. Our clients look to us for special knowledge of television. They, after all, have complicated problems of their own in the operation of the manufacturing and distributive processes which their products and services require. They cannot be expected to be fully informed in the fields for which we are retained to further and protect their interests. They not only look to us for this service; but they also endow us with, and we willingly accept, the responsibility for the conduct of their television affairs. At McCann-Erickson this year, we expect to bill more than one hundred million dollars in the broadcast media, the lion's share of which goes to television. Television represents a sizable percentage of our total billing. Some of our clients are spending in excess of 75% of their advertising monies on this influential instrument; and we must be thoroughly prepared to advise, to create, to judge, to estimate, to research and to receive their approbation as well as their disapproval. o<r>o These television affairs all add up to basically one thing — "the show." Now, from an advertisers' point of view, what is a good show? The ideal, of course, is the best entertainment possible, at a reasonable cost, capable of charming not only the largest possible audience, but the type of audience that might be induced to buy the advertiser's product. The advertiser today expects his agency to supply him with a show as near as possible to this ideal. And he holds the agency responsible. If the show falters, the advertiser turns to the agency and demands that the show improve. If the show fails, the advertiser wants out. It's as realistic as that. Since we have the full responsibility for our advertisers' shows, it naturally follows that we must be directly involved with what goes into those shows. Not only do we feel that being on the scene is the best way to protect our clients' investments, but more important we know that we must make gen By GEORGE HAIGHT Vice President and Manager of TV-Radio Program Services Div. McCann-Erickson, Inc. nine, constructive contributions to any and all of our programs. We have had occasion recently to contribute in a very real sense to maintaining the high standards of "Climax!", "Studio One" and "Jim Bowie," to name but three of McCann-Erickson's current television entries in which our professional people have been able to make good use of their program and production experience. (x:i>o Wherever possible, future shows for which McCann-Erickson is responsible will have a clear definition in contract of the function of the agency in terms of co-creativity. There are times when it is difficult to obtain program production co-control, especially when a popular personality is involved. But more and more as the results come in, we believe that McCann-Erickson's professional contributions will be not only accepted but welcomed. Of course, it goes without saying that our participation in the production of our clients' programs is by no means a cure-all or guarantee of success. We have had and probably will continue to have an occasional miss. The fact remains, however, that it has been our experience that where we have "co-produced" a show the results have been better than they have been where our participation was limited. (XZX) The day may soon come when pilot films, made on speculation and offered on the open market for sale, will be a thing of the past. We have had several discussions with two large film show suppliers on this subject, suggesting that perhaps under the pilot system the cart is before the horse, or the egg before the turkey. Each of these outfits agreed that there is some merit in a new system where the advertiser's marketing problem might be the starting point — ^with a show created to fit that specific need, less money might be lost. 289