Sponsor (Jan-Apr 1957)

EITATIONS? The pros and cons ■ is ant and tin i alums n, is the theme ecenl /.'// S tint* \eu ) ork. Defend iwaj s as pari all proi II. McLendon whose station, kl II . had just awarded 10 the I gest giveaway in histoi . Opposed •. // OR, Seu ) ork. Thei) debate is summarized in tlie excerpts l« says Robert Leder, General Manager <>l WOR, N<w York, giveaways jih a fly-by-night audience, make a mocker) of ratings. Thej are a poor substitute for good programing It runs true to form that every gimmick or contest ever purveyed on the air v\a to help an ailing property, a poor program, a sick station. \>> well-run. well-managed station in this country has had to give a\\a\ money to attract listeners. I would condone am g I station using any promotional device, including giveaways, to attract listeners if they felt their basic product was a sound one. However, money of itself is no replacement for entertainment nor for service. For years we as broadcasters have decried the enslavement of the advertiser and his agencv to ratings and what the\ do or do not represent. We sa\ that there is no corollary between ratings and the ability of a station to sell merchandise. We argue that the cost per thousand should not be the sole criterion of media buying. What do we do about it? We default! We synthesize ratings h\ giving away money, by running contests in a mad endeavor to achieve higher ratin-which are as fleeting as the fickle audience who the next day tunes to the station that raises the ante. When and if the advertiser is mesmerized into buying the synthetic ratings, what is he getting for his money — the confidence of the listener? Quite the contrary. I believe he is buying inflated figures which will have no relationship to advertising impact. I have been told by all of the rating services that they themselves have tried every recourse to eliminate any but legitimate program promotions in rat in weeks because the Bervices themselves know that it i inevitable that their usefulness will be at an end unless they reflect honest, accurate listening habits. Several ve.n ago .1 gr< .it bi oad> caster found the answei to one of the problems. ( huck Balthrope, "f KIM in San \niiMii". offered $5 to anyone u bo upon responding to the phone answered that lie h .1 listening t" KM I.. Of course the 1 "ineiilent.il sui vey being made .it the time was instead made a shambles of. Foi five dollars San Antonio was Kill.'-. Mr. Balthrope was |>i"\ in. a point for all \ ears to come thai ratings based on gimmicks were invalid as a barometi 1 "t listener preference. In a report released to me by Mr. Sydney Roslow of Pulse, I take the following excerpts: In many markets throughout the I nited States radio stations have attempted to buy audiences through one mean or another. I sually -ui li a station broadi asts the promise to pay a sum of money if the respondent v\ill report listenership to this station when asked ovei the phone "i at the door "W hat station are you listening to?" In one city such a campaign v\a carried on l>v one of the stations. During the same week 3,000 persona] interviews were made in the ■ it \ . The coincidental question was asked at the door — however, the interviewer asked to examine the set to verify that the answer was a true one. Out of the 3,000 1 all-. 106 reports of listening to the "reward-! listening" Btatioi the-. 106 !■ ports ondenl 1.1 -ome othei station or not |i«t. • it alL li i e\ idenl that the level to this station was inflated |.v tile report was not possible. \nd let dial all : ■ answei yes In a surv< I lally li- tening to the station. I .ittelltivene- I" the i diluted, this pari ol the shov the > lui clues. The 1 hie mti^t interest t.. at by the outside stimulus evei v tin1 _ other than the 1 lu< comparison. I I a fill between two thai hide the 1 une of the first Pharaoh of I gypt The newspapers bav< ,\'\\ ■ that the mdv newspaper that I rim a contest in N< the all papers in Ni-» 1 "rk in tin \ e.ll I (• || Time and the reason i simply that the produi 1 i olie . . . \ iie hunt in a metropoli tan area merely tend t the outside audience in the -mall t and hamlet m ho < annol ;• — ibly rici] travel and time. Hut win should umrv about them? I in the 1 7-. ounti " ^ SPONSOR 5 JANUARY 1957 29