Sponsor (Nov 1947-Oct 1948)

Si'fPNSOMt SPEAKS Let's Live by It Broadcasting now has a code, a Stand' ard of Practices, for the first time in many years. There was almost no resistance to it at the National Association of Broad' casters convention ; even the so-called rC' sistance movement headed by Ted Cott died aborning. Yet the code may not mean a thing. It won't mean a thing unless radio advertisers back it up. If sponsors insist on getting their pound and a quarter of flesh, the code will be honored in the breach, just as many of the FCC regulations are now bypassed by advertisers and station owners. The NAB Code is not a weakling, as many newspaper editorial writers would like the public to believe. Neither is it the hidebound document that came forth from the framing committee last fall. It's a living instrument that sentences no station to death. It is our feeling that sponsors, advertising agencies, and broadcasting itself will profit if the code is obeyed. Some sections of the code will make it difficult for give-away programs to operate as they do today. Clever advertising and program men can obey it and still deliver vehicles with the same impact. There will be some who will try to get around the code and some who will deliberately defy it. Unless they are permitted to establish a trend, unless their operations set industry patterns, they will do little harm. As a matter of fact, sponsors are in a position to bring erring stations into line, by not placing business on stations which don't live by their code. It's the law of the broadcast business; let's live by it. Radio Won't Die There's a growing tendency among agency men and broadcasters to look upon radio as a decadent advertising form. Many of them feel that it should be kept alive only long enough to supply the wherewithal to feed the expensive and fast growing baby, TV. These men feel that there are no improvements that can be rendered to make broadcast advertising pay bigger dividends, to better serve the great listening public. They look upon radio as an entertainment medium which fights futilely to retain its audience in opposition to TV. It's their feeling that radio is through, that like silent motion pictures, sightless broadcasting will be virtually nonexistent when sight-andsound transmission comes of age. There are a number of radio figures who don't feel this way. They have conducted experiments that refute much of the current radio'TV research which indicates that when television comes into the home radio listening drops to a minimum. The investigations of the die-hards indicate that this is so, but that TV becomes part of living along with radio as the television receiver becomes more and more a part of the home into which it is introduced. The segment of radio which doesn't believe that television will wipe out commercial radio broadcasting wants radio to stop thinking that everything has been done in radio. They want radio to stop admitting defeat when TV comes to town. They feel that sound broadcasting hasn't begun to explore its possibilities as an entertainment, community service, or advertising medium. They feel that there'll always be a place, a solid successful commercial place, for aural broadcasting. And they don't think that the place will be solely in areas where television service may be found impractical. And in the next few years they expect to come up with facts and figures that indicate how powerful radio advertising will continue to be. One thing is certain, radio is a long way from being buried as an advertising medium . . . even in the cities with the most extensive video services. There are more people listening today than at any previous time in history. Applause CANADIAN "SPOT REMOVER" [ In many ways Canadian broadcasting and advertising are more sensitive to change than their U. S. counterparts. Programwise the 48 states may set the pace, but businesswise they move quicker north of the border. They were first with a Broadcast Measurement Bureau form of operation (called Bureau of Broadcast Measurement). The CAB (Canadian Association of Broadcasters) operates as a tightly knit trade organization efficiently serving the needs of the indepjendent Canadian broadcaster and the Canadian advertiser. Recently the All-Canada Radio Facilities Limited decided that Paul H. Raymer had a good idea when he suggested that "selective radio" better described the operations commonly called "spot radio." All-Canada has been digesting what SPONSOR, too, has had to say on the subject, and like sponsor felt that a new name was in order. "Spot" means several different things and causes confusion nearly every time it's used. All-Canada, being typically Canadian, goes in for direct action. They wrote letters to every station and every agency in Canada asking for reactions to Raymer's "selective radio." Didn't Canada feel that it was time for a "spot remover?" The returns are now in. Canada definitely likes "selective radio." Seventy-six per cent of all who answered the .AllCanada letter voted for the term "selective." Another 14% felt there ought to be a change but were of the opinion that "selective" wasn't the word. Only 9^( wanted to retain the name of spot. Some didn't like the word "radio" and wanted the word "broadcasting" to be substituted. They felt that "selective broadcasting" would include all the facets of broadcasting — standard radio, FM radio, TV, FAX. Radio, thought this group, restricted the nonnetwork field to sound broadcasting and would require another revision later on. Canada, which has set the pace in so many industry matters, may be the first to discard "spot." All-Ginada deserves credit for crystalizing broadcast opinion in the Dominion. 110 SPONSOR