Sponsor (July-Dec 1950)

are new each month, and are much cheaper than a sample utilizing meters. The telephone method is fast and least expensive of all methods. The personal interview can be more accurate. These instances aren't supposed to exhaust the possible advantages of the various methods. It's well to remember also that what is an advantage to one advertiser may mean nothing to another. Here are some of the situations, mostly involving use of ratings, that tempt the uninitiated into mistaken attitudes or decisions. 1. The question of using ratings in deciding whether to keep or drop a show. The trend is the thing to watch, not an arbitrary rating figure. Some rating drops are due to chance and can be computed statistically. Others are due to changes in competition (special events, new shows), the weather, the season, etc. Don't be like the account executive whose screams of elation or anguish rang the Madison Avenue welkin every time a report came in. It meant only two things to him, "good" or "bad." 2. Don't take too seriously the relative ranks of programs on published lists of "top" shows. The difference in STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, CIRCULATION. ETC. Required by the Act of Congress of August 24, 1912, as amended by the Acts of March 3, 1933, and July 2, 1946 (39 U.S.C. 233) Of SPONSOR, published bi-weekly at Baltimore, Maryland, for October 1950. The names and addresses of the publisher, editor and business managers are: Publisher and Editor: Norman R. Glenn, Scarsdale, N. T. Managing Editor: Miles David. New York, N. T. Itusiness Manager: Bernard Piatt, New York, N. Y The owner is: SPONSOR PUBLICATIONS Inc., New York. N. Y. Stockholders of one percent or more of stock are: Norman R. Glenn. Scarsdale, N. Y. ; Elaine C. Glenn, Scarsdale. N. Y. ; Ben Strouse, Baltimore, Md. ; Ruth K. Strouse, Baltimore, Md; William O'Neil, Cleveland, Ohio; Henry J. Kaufman, Washington, D. C. ; Paceli Bloom, New York, N. Y. ; Pauline H. Poppele, New York, N. Y. ; Edwin D. Cooper. Torrance, Calif. ; Henry J. Cooper, Brooklyn, N. Y. ; Judge M. S. Kronheim, Washington, D. C. : Norman Reed. Washington, D. C. ; Mortimer C. Lebowitz, McLean, Va. ; John Pattison Williams. Dayton. Ohio; Jerome Saks, Washington, D. C. ; Catherine E. Koste, Hawthorne, N. v.: William B. Wolf, Washington, D. C. ; Adna H. Earns, Dayton, Ohio; Harold Singer, Washington. D. C. That the known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding one percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities are: None. That the two paragraphs above, giving the names of the owners, stockholders, and security holders, if any, contain not only the list of stockholders and security holders as they appear upon the books of the company but also, in cases where the stockhold t or security holder appears upon the books of ttie company as trustee or in any other fiducian relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting, is given; also that the said two paragraphs contain statements embracing affiant's full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees, hold stock and securities in a capacity other than that of a bona fide owner; and this affiant has no reason to believe that any other person, association, or corporation has any interest direct or indirect in tile said stock, bonds, or other securities than as so stated. Bernard Piatt. Business Manager. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th day of October 1950. SEAL: Walter C. Sundberg (My commission expires March 30. 1951) many cases is less than that due to the "probable error" in the rating process. A glance at a recent Nielsen report shows a case in which the ratings for seven shows are closely enough bunched so that the seventh was no further away from the first than could be accounted for by the probable error in the statistics. The same observation applies, of course, whether a show is in a "top" group or not. And if a program appears on one "top" list and not on another, remember also that different kinds of ratings — not comparable — may be involved. Or the same areas may not have been sampled for the rating. There are many reasons. But they all add up to: be wary of comparing program ranks produced by different rating organizations. 3. Don't be trapped into making projections or ratings based on one sample area to other areas which haven't the same characterisetics as the area sampled. Imagine projecting Winchell or Parsons ratings obtained in urban centers where they are generally popular, to rural areas where they are known to have little pulling power. In this case it's easy to see the fallacy. But other differences can make just as drastic a discrepancy in the relative appeal. 4. Be careful in averaging ratings for the purpose of comparing effectiveness of program types. The length of the program, the time broadcast, and other factors all have an important bearing. It's easy to go overboard with such comparisons. 5. Never get so wound up in ratings you forget the important factor of share of audience. It is possible, for example, for a rating to stay the same, but the share of the total audience drop as more sets tune in to other programs. Thus a show could be losing relative position without the rating showing it. 6. Watch out for purely promotional use of ratings. Some figures are easier to use in this manner than others, though most are subject to misuse in this direction. Pulse ratings are said by many research experts to give an unduly high rating to "name" programs because of the importance of the memory factor in its roster-recall system. I In this method the person interviewed depends on his memory for the programs heard by both himself and others in the family for a given span of hours.) A group of station subscribers to Pulse wanted to v»o ? 2 Q O $ < 3" O Q C Q n n> -i — fD < £ (B <b n. q. 3 Q 3 o -\ in I* c O o -* ?r n O < 0 o <X> o> 0) n -^ <t> o 3 -+* 3" c (p s ft) 3 (V 0^ n O 3 n > Z o 3' Q. O -i -1 o 3 _» ^ <T> T n X -* n> -1 CD J n U CL 5 D z 3 a> IS 23 OCTOBER 1950 67