Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1964)

I Package goods dollars zoom in tv A five-year span serves as a pretty good one in tv to measure billings trends. The root of the media dollar is the manufacturer, and so Sponsor Scope has herewith singled out the package goods field's top 15 spenders in the first half of 1964 for a comparison. The benchmark for this comparison is the first half of 1959. The rate of progress for the package goods clan in the fiveyear spread has, you might say, been impressive. With but one exception, the increased expenditures among the 15 has ranged between 50 and 480 percent. An interesting sidelight: the top 15 package goods users of tv the first half of 1959 accounted for 53 percent of total tv billings; the like contingent in the first half of 1964 represented but 32 percent of total tv billings. What the wide disparity in ratios probably reflects is the huge increase of number of advertisers using tv during the five-year period. Following are the tv expenditures (network plus spot) for the top 15 package goods advertisers in the January-June, 1964, span, their billings for the initial half of 1959 and the margin of increase in terms of percentage: ADVERTISER 1964 1959 INCREASE Procter & Gamble $75,018,700 $48,520,767 50% General Foods 38,826,600 18,614,860 110 Bristol-Myers 32,826,600 9,167,236 255 American Home Products 32,664,600 17,777,121 90 Colgate 30,473,400 20,152,527 50 tever Bros. 28,989,000 25,274,111 12 R. J. Reynolds 20,460,300 9,724,156 no General Mills 19,502,800 8,583,499 135 Alberto-Culver 18,282,200 3,146,000 480 Gillette 17,669,200 7,010,794 140 American Tobacco 17,634,400 7,963,472 120 P. Lorlllard 13,735,100 9,222,893 50 Kellogg 13,592,800 6,215,743 120 Brown & Williamson 12,821,600 8,062,141 60 Liggett & Myers 12,501,700 7,963,472 60 Data sources: TvB/LNA, TvB/Rorabaugh Months' wait for Colgate foods Air media sellers, outside of those in Madison, Wis., will have to wait at least four months before they can participate in Colgate's latest venture: convenience foods. It'll take all that time before Colgate can get a comprehensive market reading on the convenience food line it launched in Madison a few weeks ago. The products carry the Colgate Kitchens label. Five packaged foods make up the test. Bevan Ennis, a Colgate new products manager, is in charge of this new diversified foods division. Incidentally, Bob Young, who, after heading up the household products division, became vice president in charge of corporate marketing, is knee-deep in food products. Peter Pan cashing in on Skippy? Remember that test that the Radio Advertising Bureau did for Best Foods' Skippy peanut butter in the Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo area? Well, a spot radio campaign that Derby Foods is launching for its Peter Pan peanut butter on the West Coast could have been actuated by the findings of the Skippy probe, which clearly showed that radio not only made mothers with young children more aware of the brand but increased sales. The Peter Pan schedule will use minutes from November to February and eight-second spots from February through May. Farm radio's rise and shine week Next week is the week when users of farm radio renew their contracts for the winter and buy for spring. It's a sort of rite that follows on the heels of the annual convention of the National Assn. of Tv & Radio Farm Directors. This year's meeting is at the Chicago Conrad Hilton. As is the tradition of these conventions, the high point comes on the last day (Nov. 30 this time) when farm radio advertisers and agencies are invited to a luncheon and a promotional pitch. The customers later reciprocate by talking to sundry station managers present about schedules. CATV's upset radio stations Now radio stations are looking askance at the mushrooming community antenna systems. What worries the stations — especially those in smaller markets — is the practice by some of these systems to use one of their channels to feed audio news programs to subscribers. The unhappy stations consider this practice "competition." They agree with the NAB that the community systems ought to be brought within the purview of the FCC's regulating authority. This sort of talk, and in a rather emphatic way, arises in panel discussions during the current NAB regional conventions. November 23, 1964 25