Sponsor (Jan-June 1953)

How opposing camps view use of cost-per1,000 in buying spot radio r Anti-cost'per* f .000 1. Many of those alio decry over-use of costper-1,000 say they have nothing against it when combined with other criteria. They gripe when it's only factor taken into consideration. Reason: litis means important factors for sponsor are left out like audience composition, success stories. 2. There are many instances which can be cited text) to show how cost-per1.000 emphasis leads to mistakes in time buying. Disk jockey shows which reach teenagers exclusively have been bought on a cost-per-1, 000 basis when the product was one used only by mature adults. .'{. The best time buying. sa\ the cosl-per-l.OQQ critics, is done when buyer is free to use creative judgment. Even though clients who stress cost/kt-1.000 «n they leave room for judgment it doesn't work out that nay in practice. Few buyers will seek to buck tide of thinking in agency. in defensi* of cost-per1 .OOO J. The whole question of cost-per-\. 000 lias been inflated, say defenders of the concept. It is not really being used as many fear. Timehiners are free to consider other criteria, provided there is good reason for them to do so. Use of cost-per1.000 lias been much misunderstood. 2. ( ost-per-\.00Q is a necessary guidepost for buyers, especially relatively inexperienced ones. U hile some mistakes may be made in its application, we re saved from even worse mistakes without it. The important thing for a big client is to come up with a good batting average. 3. it ithout cost-per-1,000 there would be no waj to evaluate how one station did relative to another in an over-all sense. You don't always have success stories that mean anything to go by. What else is there when you buy announcements other than the now existing research yardsticks? ■ Accordingl) sponsor surveyed timebuyers and radio representative salesmen in order to analyze the problem and provide added insight for management in sponsor firms. If nothing else, this analysis maj serve as a communications bridge between the timebuvers who spend millions of spot radio dollars annually and the management men who appropriate those dollars. (Many buyers interviewed said that it \saonly by indirect mean that the) could get their observations across to their clients, mam of whom the) nevei had a chance to meet, i The more experienced the bu\er. the more apt he or she was to agree with the reps that the pressure to emphasize cost-per-1, 000 was (a) increasing, b deplorable. These are the word-, reasonably representative, of one buyer in describing the situation: "We can use cost-per-1,000 and should use it in its proper place. In fact I can almost judge the ratio of cost to homo reached in my head as 1 look at the figures and I tend to do so automatically. But then to go ahead and elevate tlii* one out of manv vard sticks to a preeminent position among buying criteria is wrong. It doesn't let us do the best job for the client. If this continues, we'll all be replaced with electronic brains where you punch a couple of buttons and come out with the answer on what station to use." The best illustration of how emphasis on cost-per1.000 hurts the sponsor is to be found in examples buyers and rep salesmen can cite you by the dozen. There was a campaign not long ago for a woman's product — a beauty preparation. "We submitted our availabilities." a rep salesman told SPONSOR, "and received an order. But just before the campaign was supposed to kick off. we got a frantic call from the liner. He wanted to shift the buys at the last minute. Why? Simpl) because a number of the announcements were station breaks next to fight broadcasts. I he buyer had done all his figuring on the basis of cost-per-1,000 v\ ithout giving thought to whom he was poing to reach. The boxing adjacenhad the best ratings so he was going to buy them. Fantastic? Of course. but that s what happens when vou get in this vicious circle of focusing on cost-per-1. 000. Luckily for the buyer and his client, we were able to find some higher cost-per-1,000 availabilities that made more sense in time for the start of the campaign." And here's another example: A buyer with his cost-per-1.000 blinkers on recently turned down a salesman pitching for a station in the South on the grounds of cost-per-1.000. The salesman probed for the facts, found that the buyer had chosen a station beamed at Negroes and which had a hot d.j. with strong ratings. The product was a television set selling in the S275-and-up range. The market was one in which Negro income doesn't come near the levels of a New V>rk or Chicago, or some of the major Southern markets. The salesman tried to argue. "^ ou max be getting the lowest cost-per-1.000." he said, '"but how manv of your listeners can bu\ the product?" The buyer, however, hewing fast to his instructions, refused to budge from the cost-per-1.000 approach. Not until the salesman wired the market, sot his 2S SPONSOR