Sponsor (Jan-June 1956)

NET SHOW CONTROL (Continued from page 33) works entirely from program development and production would deprive the public of certain programing contributions that only the networks can make. 2. The real problem: Admen believe that the solution to tv's basic problems lies elsewhere than in the realm of programing. The fact that networks can exercise tight control over programing stems from conditions inherent in a seller's market, they say. And they trace these conditions, of course, to the failure of the FCC's allocation plan to provide for enough tv stations. Solve that problem, admen say, and you will eventually restore the balance between buyer and seller of network tv time. "It's natural that the networks control programing and insist on ratingbuilding shows whether from their own or from other sources," the advertising director of a hard goods firm said. "But having recently bought a show, I can say that we had ample choice between network suggestions for shows and shows we or our agency would come up with. Of course, that choice would be increased if there were four networks. With more competition for the advertiser's dollar, the networks would have to be more flexible." 3. Divorcement limitations: Divorcement of networks from production (so termed because of the original application of the phrase to separation of Hollywood motion picture producers from theater ownership) is not comparable to the feature film studio situation nor would it really change much, most admen told sponsor. So long as networks are the carriers of programing and sellers of time, they'll retain the choice over programing to appear in their time slots, admen pointed out. And during any period when it is difficult to buy network time because of the rush of advertisers into the medium, networks will retain their power to pick and choose from among programing sources. "There's little difference for us whether a network produces the show in a particular time slot or locks an outside package into it," said a top radio-tv executive at one of the major soap companies. "Of course, it's obvious why networks would tend to tie programs to time periods, beyond the attempt to create the strongest audience attractions. We're less likely to shift to another network for the sake of improving our time period once we've invested money in building a show we don't own and can't move." While programing in blocks sometimes tends to work to the disadvantage of individual advertisers, agencymen and advertisers on the whole agree that the value of one particular program in terms of ratings and audience composition cannot be isolated from its adjacencies. 4. Changed atmosphere: While most agencymen and advertisers doubt that divorcement is in the cards, some of them point out that the talk of government action has already affected network policies. It's a subtle change in attitude toward outside-network packages advertisers may be interested in putting on the air and a greater willingness to evaluate these programs on a competitive basis with networkproduced packages. "First of all, the networks we approached about a particular time period from which we'd yanked our old show, gave us suggestions of several shows to pick from," a major advertiser said. "Secondly, they encouraged us and our agency to shop around for shows of our own. While the networks continue to be concerned with peak ratings, they seemed to bend over backwards to listen to our ideas. In the last analysis, we ended up buying an outside package that the network had scouted out." It's becoming apparent from the programing lineups shaping up for next fall (see SPONSOR 14 May. pages 2729), that the networks are buying more packages produced by independent sources than in the previous year. "Part of the reason the networks have been slower in fixing fall lineups may be their hesitation to nudge established clients," said the radio-tv v.p. of an agency for several heavy network advertisers. "There's the implicit threat of having a client go to Washington right now that makes networks handle advertisers with kid gloves. But this situation isn't necessarily desirable for the advertising industry and tv as a whole." 5. investment prohibitive: There's a constant need for new programing in tv. But because of the high cost of tv show production, even the largest agencies said they would hesitate to go into program production on a large enough scale to fill the gap divorcement would cause. "There's a major difference between supervising outside packages or even producing one specific show for a particular client and really maintaining a regular flow of new programing," said the radio-tv v.p. of one of the top five agencies. Also, there are certain intrinsic limitations imposed on agencies by the economics of the advertising business which would prevent them from originating such network contributions as the spectaculars, for example, admen said repeatedly. If the networks were divorced from their producing function, and the field left wide open to agencies and packagers only, the giant agencies and packagers particularly would be favored, admen commented. Only the biggest independent packagers could attempt to put together the really highcost shows. "The result might be a consolidation among big outside producers that would squeeze smaller operations out," one agency radio-tv v.p. said. "As it is now, only the biggest agencies can afford the overhead of show production. The big outside packager would be the only one to profit from divorcement." 6. A major criticism: One point raised by many admen regards the effect the networks have had upon talent costs. They see this as the greatest network programing evil. There's a feeling that the competition between the networks bid up talent costs unnecessarily. "Most agencymen will pride themselves on being in a better position to negotiate talent costs than anyone else," the radio-tv v.p. of an agency billing over $100 million, told sponsor. "The talent agents seem to up the ante as soon as they hear a network's in the bidding." But a number of admen feel that the blame for high talent costs should be spread pretty evenly among clients, agencies and networks. Some of the best-known and highest-priced talent contracts during the past season were negotiated by agencies directly for their clients, rather than by the networks. 116 SPONSOR