Sponsor (Jan-Apr 1958)

Agency ad libs continued HUNDREDS OF ADVERTISERS CAN'T BE WRONG! They've placed thousands of dollars on WORL in BOSTON because they get the results they want! dP *K *>» *i& ,«» ■**> <*»> «r !**"> >«-v ,^ LOOKING FOR LOW COST PER THOUSAND? LOOK TO WORL BOSTON The "950 CLUB" Music and News Station 950 on EVERY dial 500 watts Independent Represented nationally by Headley Reed Co. direct!) Erom the citj in which he lives. In some cases, he can get other channels coming in from the outside, additionally. But in many places in the country, the television owner can get only one channel, or two, or three. The television owner who can get only a limited number of channels is denied a wide variety of program choice. This is a failure of television. 5 I inflexibility in market segment selection. Generally speaking, except in a broad way, television is no match for print advertising in the degree to which the buyer can select his market. In magazines he can sell just to mechanics, if he wishes. He doesn't have, in television, the flexibility in market selection that he can get in print. Perhaps he reaches so many more people that he still comes out ahead, but that would have to be proven. Today's gamble 6) General inflexibility on network problems. The networks have certain inflexibilities in their current pattern: Regarding duration of contract: The advertiser usually has to sign for a minimum of 13 weeks, often for as much as 52 weeks. This binds him beyond the point which is practically workable. In the summer season, when his audience declines, he still must advertise in many cases. The dollar inducements are often not enough to make up for the lost audience. The minimum amount of commercial time needed per advertiser is a problem. It makes it difficult for the smaller, one product advertiser to use network television. Geographically he is bound to buy certain cities. If his distribution doesn't fit, he is often put at a disadvantage competitively, because he must put ad dollars where they do him little good. 1) Unpredictability. Today it seems the only thing you can feel safe with, program-wise, is a western. Anything else is just plain "show business." Who would have guessed that Frank Sinatra would do as poorly as he has? Who would have guessed that Danny Thomas would be so successful in his new time, after having failed so miserably before? Who is to know these days? There is a gamble. If one buys an ad in Good Housekeeping, say, or Coronet, he is guaranteed a certain circulation. If he buys a television program, the range of audience attainable is enormous. 8) Uneven coverage. Television is notoriously uneven in its coverage. A program might do a good job in some markets, a fair job in others, and a poor job in still others. The advertiser simply doesn't know what kind of coverage he's going to get. If he buys a magazine, he knows about how the circulation varies from area to area. There are ups and downs, but they are usually not very severe. With television, a program can do 10 or 20 times as well in one market as it does in another. 9) Creeping costs. Television has failed to keep its costs down. True, its cost-per-1,000 has remained reasonably comparable, year to year. But it keeps costing more and more, and still more to get on the air as television grows. This is a difficult and serious problem. If it is not licked, television will become the medium of giants only. It will be the means b) which the giants will become greater, and they will eat up the smaller fellows. This is actually, in a way, an economic menace.^ 29 \i \i;c ii 1958