Sponsor (Jan-Mar 1964)

efit from many elements to which they object: an audio or video impression of the advertiser's product is usually coupled with the teaser, bumper, show title, promo, ID, and naturally, the billboard. By whatever name, it's a headache which has been haunting the industry with increasing intensity. Said Harry Schroeter when he retired as ANA chairman: advertisers must be "militant" in their efforts to reduce the clutter in TV. ANA took up the problem in 1962, monitored network programs, and found that promotional and other announcements took up more time than the commercials. Between the end of one show and the start of the next there could be 11 minutes of clutter. ANA termed the situation "absolutely shocking" and "detrimental not only to the advertiser but the whole industry." But the complexities of the problem has, in the past, made any solution elusive. Screen credits, as indicated in ANA's current proposal, are extremely complicated. Craft unions insist on varying degrees of credit for their members. AFTRA contracts specify a credit for each actor speaking more than five lines; SAG and WGA have similar requirements. In addition, there are FCC rules covering credits for prize and trade-out arrangements. The minimum needs don't begin to cover what most programmers think should be credited. Production groups and sub-groups feel they are legitimately entitled to screen credit and, in fact, a lot of production service is bartered for on the promise of mention. Eliminating those credits could, therefore, directly raise production costs in some cases, programmers say. The networks claim it's a major research project to prove or disprove the need for, or the effectiveness of, promos for upcoming shows and question whether advertisers would be willing to risk a possible loss of audience if these were discontinued. Participation buying based on average viewing levels (now the norm in nighttime network), coupled with the fact that the U.S. audience has ceased to grow at any geometric rate ( heightening the competition ) , have forced the networks to promote 20 their shows more vigorously. Result: proliferation of program promos adding even further to the clutter. Some also point fingers at the networks for increasing the length of station break time from 32 to 42 seconds as a political ploy to placate the affiliates. Fearful that it would encourage triple-spotting, advertisers and agencies were up in arms. Y&R waged a vigorous campaign to block the move, and, having failed, to police the commercail practices of stations. But arm-waving aside, by the start of the 1961-62 season, 10 more seconds of non-program time had been adopted. NAB's TV Code Board did some rule tightening which helped a little. Included was the reduction of permissible time for commercials on participation shows Organizations represented at the session included, througli NAB — Triangle Broadcasting; Taft Broadcasting; Group W; ABC; CBS; NBC; WTRF-TV Wheeling, W. Va.; and WBRZ-TV Baton Rouge; through 4A's —Young & Rubicam; Kenyon & Eckhardt; McCann-Erickson; Ted Bates & Co.; and Compton Advertising; through ANA— Brown & Williamson Tobacco; General Foods; Eastman Kodak; Procter & Gamble; AlbertoCulver; and National Biscuit Co. from 6 to 4 minutes per half hour, including sponsor billboards, public service announcements and promos, and reduction of between-program commercials from tliree to two. An enormous increase in the number of TV sales messages — BAR says there were over 18 million in 1963 — has many causes and is commonly called "over-commercialization." TV entered the '60's so expensive a medium that only a select handful of sponsors have continued to afford the luxury of single sponsorship. Nielsen notes that in 1963 almost two-thirds of all prime network TV was sold on a participating basis; only 13% to single sponsors. The reverse was true in 1959 when, out of 63 weekly prime time hours, liy2 were participating, llVz were sponsored by a single advertiser, and 24 were alternate sponsorships. One subsequent and controversial response has been the "piggyback," many an advertiser's answer to product proliferation and rising costs of TV time. While seme sponsors feel the practice dissipates the product message, it has been growing. Broadcasters, particularly in top markets, balk because it leaves them open to charges of triple spotting. They finally put on enough pressure to prompt NAB Code revision. The proposal, as made at last month's meeting in Florida: in an acceptable piggyback, products or services must be related in character, purpose, or use and appear as a single announcement. It also tightens time limits to three announcements in prime time, ruling out adjacent piggybacks. Several self-styled attacks on the clutter problem have been made from time to time, with little practical result. Among the more aggressive was Brown & Williamson which, early last year, informed the networks that it would use its $18 million TV budget as a club to clear the airwaves of clutter. Modeled after the ANA's recommendations, B&W sought "minimum entertainment time clauses" (29:30 minutes within each half-hour, 51 minutes in any prime-time hour). In October, Kenyon & Eckhardt announced it would confine its spot TV buying to stations adhering to the NAB Code or its equivalent. Both moves created temporary stirs, but neither B&W or K&E was able to rally confreres to action. But far and away the biggest commotion on at least one aspect of clutter came, in 1963, from the Capitol. The FCC fought tirelessly to assert its statutory authority to regulate radio and TV commercial time by adopting NAB limitations into its rules. By the end of the year, it was clear those hopes were dashed. The questions of over-commercialization, credits and the other conditions of clutter remain to be answered. Perhaps ANA's current proposal is the first step toward success without the feared incursions into the economic structure of the broadcast industry. ■ SPONSOR Suni