Sponsor (July-Dec 1955)

of-factors stand bul is decidedl) cool toward a national coverage stud) .ii thi time. Thfl interim methods proposed l>\ NBC are detailed bj Hugh M. Beville, ii c 1 1 1 1 -1 tor ill resean Ii and planning, below. NBC's attitude, as well as thai nl \l'.t a, appears to pul the quietus mi Mill' hi^ stud) since the research firm has priced the stud) so thai the nets paj 7.")' , nl' the cost. I hi the other hand Nielsen, while it would feel the absence of network support, Iki~ the financial resources t" uo ahead u ithoul the webs ii ii n ishee. \\ .ii. rung these developments on 1 1 1 « sidelines, admen are, "t course, vitall) • inn el lii<l. \\ lulr -nine ini|ini I. ml n searchei go alon u iih B<-\ ■ ] I < mi the idea "I i on entrating on getting data in "problem areas i athei than la) oul mone) foi .i national -t 1 1 > f \ . sponsor found .i ma jorit) "I rese irch exe< ntiv es panting foi data as Boon as possible. I hi parallels the findings of .i Nielsen questionnaire sen! i" both buyers and sellers "I air time. I he qui si ion naire, which Nielsen -.inl was senl oul lo .i • arefull) sele* led sampli islced it interest in .i national radio t\ stud) was "intense,1 "moderati ni "nil.1 I he resean Ii fii m told sponsi hi retui n from 81 > representing i • i • • lion <i( the field showed Mir , expressing intenst in h n -i in .i i\ Btud) .mil 85' . expi intense" interest in .i radio stud) . I he resean Ii firm had pre\ iousl) reported thai 72 ol the replies from radio stations and 86' • ■! the replies frmn t\ stations indicated intense in i Please turn to \'<> e 143 •iRCII MOM^ BE SPEN1 ' WIIKKK INEKDEI) MOST IMIL \\ WKTII.MU)^ COMES iLONG problem? Doe thai mean \ » »n don'l feel coverage data stacks up ,i particularl) important? ^4» Lei ""' give you a little background on that You must realize thai radio and t\ coverage problems arc different. There was a good reason l<>r the interest in radio station coverage in the past The power of radio stations differs tremendously. \ ou have 50,000-watt clear channels and you have 250-watl outlets. Chen \ mi have differences in ground conduct i\ il\ . \nd then the important dilference between day and night signal strength of radio stations. These differences are much more pronounced for radio than tv and. of course, it's very important to know the detail of these differences. Radio engineering data cant give it to you. Now. with tv it is quite different. The FCC sel up regulations for power, antenna height and so forth and these tend to equalize the geographical reach of \hl station-. Engineering contours are easy to estimate and are relatively accurate for measuring tv coverage. The trouble is that there is too much outmoded. conventional thinking on the subject ol coverage. People think about t\ in the same terms as radio and the) are not the saint1. NCS -1 would never have been done were it in >t for radio. <? Then, you don't think tv station coverage data is necessar\ J%_m \gain. I want to stress thai it's a matter of what kind of information and of what cost. Let me put it this way. Do you think an) advertiser want to know what New i oik City stations get into Manhattan.-' Or Queens? Or Brooklyn? Or. take an\ big market. Is there any doubt about which stations cover Los Vngeles. or Chicago? Now. you can sa\ that doesn't show which station is listened to most. But what are rating services for? I maintain we do ii"t need coverage data for area where we have rating reports. We made a study to find out what pen t-nt of tv homeare covered by rating services or some kind of coverage 14 NOVEMBER 1955 service, and when I -,i\ coverage Bervice nOM I mem things like the \I!B Abileneto-Zanesville Btudy. Well, we found out, lor example, that 88^ ol the t\ home in New York State ami ' •."■', ol the t\ homes in California are covered b\ some kind ol local rating oi coverage study. i mi know there's a lol "I concentration <>l t\ homes in certain states and in urban areas. For example, 71' » of all households are located in Standard Metropolitan \ defined h\ the Cen-u Bureau. It' in these SMA's where \mi find the rating services naturally. Now. in man) ai there are onl\ one or two stations. In I tali then are onl\ two stations, both in Salt Lake City. There is not much «f a problem in deciding what t\ station to bu) t ver I tab. I he -aine -ituatimi prevails in most "I the western half of the country. Actually, there's an awful lol of information around, more than the agencies realize. I know we \e been putting out a lot of it. <P • Well, what information is it necessar) to gel riuht ./J.. There are -till plent) "I area where there i I need f«>r up-to-date l\ data. I'm talking about the area w several stations operating in different markets overlap and the area representing the outer rea< h of a station signal. \l-o. areas where there i no rating information. \I!P. \bilene-to-/ane-\ ille stud) provided helpful data and they're going to do another one in January including even more area-. \\ h\ throw awa\ a lot of mone) on a national surve) that provides a one-time -nap-hut ol coverage? Let's use the mone) now where it'll do the most good until we gel a stud) thai will be provided on a i ontinuous ! and that ha the support of the entire industry. ^F» You're talking now about the NARTB's plan for a regular t\ sel < ounl and station cin illation n at? ^_\m i -. Out of thai we hope to uet more information i Please turn in p<i^< L2 I 31