Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1959)

With specs monopolizing tv this year, SPONSOR ASKS: Which has better S. I. — specials oi As the giant one-shot format takes hold in television, agency and research men discuss the sponsor identification value of regular shows vs. that of specials George Polk, I'-P-, radio/tv programing & planning, BBDO, New York This question really has no definite answer. While the sponsor identification of DuPont on the Show of The Month or Hallmark on the Hall It can be accomplished very well by either type of Fame is probably far superior to that of the sponsors participating in the hour-long weekly shows like Perry Mason, Five Fingers and Cheyenne, etc., very few specials advertisers can claim better sponsor identification than G.E. on the G.E. Theater, U. S. Steel on the U. S. Steel Hour, Armstrong on the Armstrong Circle Theater and Chevrolet with the Dinah Shore Show. Economics is somewhat involved in this question. Since any program, whether regular or special, will get better sponsor identification if it is not shared with another advertiser, then on a limited budget the answer would probably be that better identification can be achieved via specials ■ — since weekly sponsorship of any regularly scheduled program will be costly in today's market, while the budget with specials can be controlled by the number produced. Sponsor identification, however, has become a luxury very few advertisers can afford today, which brings up the point of just how valuable it is compared to the other basic criteria. Rating size, audience cume, frequency, cost efficiency, for example, are generally given far more con sideration than sponsor identification, and to illustrate the point we need look no further than the multitude of high-rated westerns on the air offering good CPM, but leaving something to be desired in the sponsor identification area. Similarly, unduplicated audience reach seems to outrank sponsor identification in most advertisers' list of tv objectives. Look how few fully sponsored weekly shows there are left compared to the alternate week buys, the latter form sacrificing sponsor identification for the greater audience size a number of different programs will deliver. And likewise, with specials, stature and distinction, or merchandisability, usually play a more significant role in the selection of this type of television buy than does sponsor identification. However, should sponsor identification be a primary consideration, then it can be accomplished very well, by either route — regular or special. Donald R. McCollum, v.p., sales and service, Schwerin Research Corp., New York This is, of course, an unanswerable question. Its main value lies in the challenge it imposes to say why it cannot be answered. There have been attempts to measure the sponsor I.D. of regulars, and one agency has even come up with an index, based on immediate recall We don't think that they are comparable of the sponsor's name. This is quite a valid, albeit relative, measure. [The Lawrence Welk Show, if my memory serves me, had a very good I.D. rating.) Even the regulars present problems, however. The phenomenon of multiple sponsorship and alternate sponsorship, is a very complicatinj factor. The good old days of radio, whei everyone knew that Jello (and latel Lucky Strike) sponsored Jack Bennf and that Fred Allen's sponsors wer^ Ipana and Sal Hepatica are, I'l afraid, vanished forever. The mediui of radio had a certain intimacy, a^ almost mesmeric connection between show and sponsor missing in tv. The packaged tv show commonll peddled along Madison Avenue, mucl as a sidewalk hawker merchandise wind-up toys, can plainly never lenc itself to the sort of sponsor identification that characterized radio at its best. The dreary half-hour filmed adventure, western or comedy series may afford the tv advertiser a "bargain" in terms of circulation. But as a vehicle for the sponsor's commercials it will probably be a doubtful investment, and it will never establish any sort of meaningful residual association with the sponsor's product. SRC tested a popular variety show a couple of seasons ago. This show has had a number of participating advertisers over the years. When we asked respondents to identify the sponsors (or products) they recalled having seen advertised on the program, correct responses ranged all the way from 62 to 1%. Similarly, one of the top-rated halfhour weekly shows on t^^ which is associated primarily with a single advertiser, had its sponsor identified by only one-third of the audience at a Schwerin test session. As researchers, we are skeptical of the whole concept of "sponsor identification," and when it comes to the question of _ comparing specials and regulars — we just don't think the two are comparable. Imagine, for example, a one-shot spectacular on Wednesday night, featuring Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Ethel Merman, Mary Martin, etc., lasting two hours, drawing an audience of 60 million viewers, and presented by a single spon 50 SPONSOR 3 OCTOBER 1959