Sponsor (July-Sept 1962)

nemingl) endless fl< >w of new products from the major .-<>a|>, drug and food manufacturers. Few broadcasters werehappx ahoul advertiser agency insistence upon tin1 15-minute rule of thumb, but most jgtw advantage in letting time run its course; in the gradual changing of jgenc) advertiser attitudes through private, relative!] quiet, meetings; in toncerted indusln act ion rather than solated incident. The Television Hureau of Advertising, in fact, had dready gone so far as to proclaim product protection "obsolete.'' Thus, when the evolutionary -rathei nan-revolutionary approach was shattered by the Westinghouse pronouncement, there was confusion not unlike .Washington's during the U-2 incident. In the hours following Bates' threatening action, it looked as though the ndustry was divided for sure. The New York Times, in a 7 June article. eported both NBC TV and Corinthian as siding with Westinghouse. CBS TV as going along with the 15uninute protection continuance. Indi EDWARD A. GREY, Bates' media chief, was initiator of action against Westinghouse, stresses advertiser's right to insulation vidua! broadcasters, on the other hand, were unsure whether to view the Westinghouse move as foolish or noble, regretting it on the one hand, admiring it on the other. They [the broadcasters] had been trapped, as one observer put it. "preposterously in the middle, [on ed I" i -h" A dow n w ithoul adequate ai ms. \\ In did Bates i.ik< the u tion ii did, and w li\ did it w ail I 7 d.n all' i the \\ estinghouse lettei to take it ' Grej saya numerous meetings w held with Westinghouse officials dui ing this I 7-daj Bilence, to trj to pel suade them to change their minds, He told sponsor, too, that, being the largest -pot agency, il was incumbent upon it to a — nine leadership in the response. First came the warning of total spot cancellation, on behalf of all its clients on the five Westinghouse stations. This was followed b) letters to the 500 other tv stations, demanding promises for a continuation of the 15-minute protection. Then, when Westinghouse refused to revoke its newly stated policy, the working press had virtually a field day: Bates cancelled all 52-week schedules outright, planned to let those due to expire within three or four weeks expire naturally — with no renewal. Bui is this really what happened.' i Please turn to page 17 EDITORIAL WHO'S RIGHT about product protection? In the accompanying article SPONSOR is presenting what we believe is the first and only objective account of the recent Bates vs. Westinghouse and agency vs. broadcaster fracas to appear in either the trade or general press. Our editors have endeavored to report impartially "who said what and what happened" in the great 15 vs. 10-minute protection hassle. As reporters they have been careful not to take sides, pro or con, on the protection matter. But as a responsible trade journal, we do have a strong editorial opinion on this controversial subject. And we want to make our position crystal clear to all our friends in advertiser, agency, and broadcaster circles: 1. We believe that the product protection question is primarily, and almost solely, an economic problem. And should be settled by the free play of economics in a free society, not by hard-nosed stubbornness, or purple emotionalism, on either side. 2. In a genuinely free economy the amount of product protection which a station or network would give its clients would be determined roughly by the laws of supply and demand. 3. Any attempt by a giant client, or by a giant agency to dictate — through a threat of power— the rules of a free marketplace is contrary to the concepts of free enterprise and a free democratic society. 4. The question of whether Colgate Shaving Cream or Ivory Soap should be given 15 or 10minute product protection is a relatively trivial one. 5. The question of whether Colgate, P&G or Ted Bates should be put in the position of acting like ruthless monopolistic juggernauts is a very serious one. 6. In future, before over-zealous media men start getting tough in behalf of their clients, we suggest they consult top level corporate managements in Cincinnati and elsewhere.