Sponsor (Apr-June 1962)

The piggy-back commercial is one which advertises unrelated products (e.g., powdered potatoes and chocolate candy) and uses a different and distinct production technique to present each product. The Code Board has concluded that piggyback commercials constitute in effect two or more separate announcements and should therefore be treated as separate announcements under the commercial time standards of the Code. "Wouldn't it be to the interest of tv generally." asks Stockton Helffrich. manager of the New York Code office, "to encourage integrated commercials? Whom can it hurt?" Us, say the advertisers. The "integrated" format — they and many of their agencies agree — means an undue emphasis on the corporate image, and — as one advertiser insists — "the corporate image lessens the effectiveness of the individual product image. In addition to the involvement of a triple-spotting threat, over-commercialization, and production technique disagreements, the piggy-back situation is complicated by a product protection problem. Many stations, while accepting or rejecting piggyback commercials on a spot basis according to their own lights, are presented with a horse of a different color in the network area. Their dispositions vary sharply. Westinghouse Broadcasting stations, for example, while not accepting piggybacks on a local or national spot basis, do accept them on the networks, and — according to A. W. Dannenbaum, Jr., vice president in charge of sales — "give them full protection." Corinthian stations, on the other hand, do not. "In view of the fact that Corinthian stations consider piggy-back advertising a device to cut rates." a spokesman for Corinthian told SPONSOR, "the stations do not give protection." NBC's Joseph Iaricci, director of sales administration, maintains that • even though most station protests of piggy-back advertising stem from the ; product protection confusion, it is "rather a specious argument." "Take Colgate, for example," he says. "Stations would protect Col gate products am way. They would have no way of knowing which Colgate product was being run, even in a one-product commercial." Looming large, too, in the convention discussions, is the vital issue of viewer reaction. Here, few industry segments are in solid agreement, with little survey material to rely on. Some broadcasters contend that viewer interest in programs is diminished by the piggy-back practice, others report no enlarged dissatisfaction as yet. Still others maintain that the problem is basically internal, not external, a practical and/or ethical difficulty between and among stations, networks, advertisers, and agencies. Some piggy-back advocates ( among them a number of top agency men) feel that so long as the actual time limit of commercials is not affected, there is no reason for all the ado. Other industry observers contend that multiple-product commercials duoble the time sense in the viewer's mind, since the average viewer sees only an increased number of commercial announcements and thinks "piggv-back" is just a game he plays with his children. What, in the face of these complexities, are the networks thinking — and what, if anything, are they doing to police the practice? CBS has a definite restrictive policy: "In a daytime quarter hour an advertiser has three commercial minutes and may use commercial messages for four different products. "In a half-hour nighttime program an advertiser is allowed three commercial minutes, one of which may be a piggy-back commercial." NBC's regulations are less blackand-white. Although one commercial per daytime quarter-hour can earn two messages, the evening limitations are less rigorous. "We are watching the situation very carefully." Iaricci declares, "and while the piggy-back practice is definitely on the increase, we do not feel it has reached the level for serious concern. It appears right now that the normal advertiser requirements are such that there is enough balance in our programs to keep back-tobacks to a minimum." In participation-type shows, he continues, there are never more than two of the six advertisers who employ piggy-backs. "As long as the ratio stays in this area," he concludes, "there is no reason to cry 'crisis.' If suddenly we found ourselves in the position of all six doing piggy-backs, however, we would then, more than likely, place formal restrictions." At ABC, the split-commercial situation is aggravated by reports circulated earlier this year that the network's sales force was pushing 196263 packages with piggy-backs as "extra added bait." ABC categorically I Please turn to page 48) "SPECIOUS ARGUMENT" says NBC's Joseph Iaricci, of so many stations' concern over product protection of piggy-backs. NBC, however, is "watching the situation," he says INTEGRATED commercials could be answer to the current piggy-back dilemma, serving both advertisers and ethics, says Stockton Helffrich, manager of New York Code office SPONSOR 2 april 1962 31