Yearbook of radio and television (1947)

s TELE? By LEONARD F. CRAMER, Executive V.P., Allen B. Du Mont Lab. Inc. w HEN will television be Leonard F. Cramer come a commercial reality? When will television become self-supporting, like radio? And why is it that the industry is still crawling feebly when it should be walking upright? The answer to all three questions is the chaos and disorganized thinking within the industry itself. All are in agreement with the obvious conclusion that television, is destined to become a great industry. But there agreement ends. Unity among those responsible for the success of television is conspicuous by its absence. And industry leadership is non-existent. • Why does this condition exist? Because with the exception of a few zealous pioneers, each exploiting its own plans, no strong industry front has been developed. I am not depreciating the well-intentioned efforts of the Television Broadcasters Association nor the American Television Society, but I must point out that it takes more than the formation of a society or association to accomplish the objectives and purposes set forth in its articles of incorporation. Their weaknesses lie in the fact that their members are influenced by the policies and self-interest of the companies they represent rather than the vital interests of the industry as a whole. Certainly not because of any shortcomings in television as an advertising medium. In fact, there is hardly a person connected with the advertising business who does not recognize the tremendous potentialities of television as an advertising medium. Going further, I would say they recognize its present immediate power, even if there were to be no further improvements in the art. One of the largest durable goods manufacturers in the country, a longheaded, farseeing business executive, is authority for the statement that television is the first advertising medium in our history really designed to sell durable goods effectively. • It is an obvious fact that the success of television will mean a decline in the very industries which seem to be charged with the responsibility of making television successful. We need only to look at the commercial potential of television as it has already been proved in a small way to know that as the public buy receivers they will listen to the radio less and less. Who would listen to a boxing match on the radio if he were able to follow the blow-by-blow progress of the bout on television? This thought certainly does not tend to spark the enthusiasm of the successful radio broadcaster for television. To the motion picture industry, television is a threat of unknown proportions, and to what extent it will have an effect on box-office receipts is a matter not to be dismissed lightly. This same fear, however, existed in the early days of radio but time proved it to be without foundation. In a lesser degree perhaps, television may have an effect on the legitimate theater. Generally, the television industry is considered to be one of the future which will provide profits to currently profitable industries which through their similarity feel they have a preferential right and a duty to take over at the propitious moment if and when it arrives. Meanwhile, they wait on the side lines, contributing nothing substantial to television. Why has the propitious moment not arrived? Certainly not because of any technical imperfection in the state of the art. Generally speaking, no one, with perhaps a few well known exceptions is deliberately plotting to stop television, but the effect of doing nothing to help it adds up to about the same result. • This is television's third swing at the ball in addition to several foul tips, which only count as one strike. If we don't hit the television ball out of the park this time the boys who have been backing the show may head for the showers. For Television Complete — Please Turn To Page 985 121