Sponsor (Apr-June 1964)

Peterson, Eldridge Cry Clutter at ANA Meeting Former Campbell Soup v. p. says multiple products in programs weaken penetration and impact; President's special consumer affairs assistant sounds like FCC rdevision advertising took a pail of broadsides during the two-da) annual spring meeting ol the Assn of National Advertisers in New York from Mrs. Esthei Petei ion, special assistant to Presidenl Johnson, and marketing consultant i larcnce I I Idridge, former executive vice president of Campbell Soups, two of more than a dozen speakers. Both had their supporters among the more than 500 advertisers and agenc) people at the meeting, but the majority ol those queried In Sponsor took exception to the remarks In the pair of dissidents \hv Peterson based her attack on an \ \ \ \ surve) that found national advertising "annoying or offensive to about 2l> percent of the public. "I think the average television viewer is both offended and tnsoyed b) the barrage of comnercials hurled at him during sta. ion breaks." she declared. "I inv>lf have counted as man) as 10, ranging all the waj from deodorant mnouneements to public service umounccments. I his 'clutter' — here is no other word t <>r it — lestroys the continuity of the program as well as whatever effectiveess the commercials might Otherhave." On the bright side. Mrs. Peterson ,l the nation's advertisers's or the "high degree of self-regulaon" the) have imposed on thcnierves, citing the Cigarel Advertis1 ode as ,m example. R( iction tii her remarks ranged roni a er\ o\ "socialism" to out ight support o\ her theories. "Mis 'eterson gave a socialist speech," aid one agenc) executive. It's an 'ther good example oi government peddling in the free enterprise ystem." A more typical reaction came On an advertiser who said. "Does verybod) have to think he's a rep resentative oi the I ( ( ' Maybe some of us should vvnte oi speak to hei and give her the othei side ol the picture." One agency agreed with Mis Peterson's condemnation ol "clutter." He called for the reduction ol commercials to avoid "viewei annoyance," no matter what the eco nomic consequences Marketing consultant I Idi idge bei oi commercial the financial structure ol tv. Mi I Idridge replied. I don't know the ■ ■I broadcast advert i in what the stations and networks need in the wav "I revenue concern and knowledge is based on the consumei standpoint. Pern with lewei COmilK u ials on the an. advertisers would be willing to pa) more tot them to gel increased viewer icccptiv ilv to then n. s.lLV Mi 1 Idridge also declared that "tv is bv no means the universal C E Eldridge have tv ads lost pulP Mrs. Peterson ^residential "meddler'' also attacked what he called the "sheer volume" of video advertising, labeling it a factor in the medium's "decline " "When six different products are advertised on a single program." asserted I Idridge. ". . . no single message for anv single product can be expected to have much penetia tion power, or to make much la-. mg impact." I he result, he argued, is a point ol diminishing returns "when nioic and more messages, more and more dollars of advertising, are required to generate a given weight o\ pel suasion." I Idridge also suggested that "peihaps the economies of broadcasting require that the airwaves be satui.ited with an over-suppl) of commercials. When SPONSOR asked whether he felt a reduction in the number of participants m a show or the mini 1 ilay 18, 1964 medium which somi advertisers think it is loo main people attempt to use it . . . when it is not at all suited to their pi net." \ mi. a ntimbei Ol advertisers took exception I \ pi< the response oi a majoi food advert on the subject o! '. In::. : lb said there simpl) was no prool that com mercials have lost the ness Reduce the number, and "the price pei commercial goes up, and this is not desirable " Vmong the speakers w marks pleased the W \ audk was Wilham w Prince, chairman i t \rmour, vvho . die in itiations of such government agencies as the FH m ed for the creation Marketing Freedom" to "eduv" the public and . the restrictive encroachnu the I I ( and oil is