Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1949)

US too, and quite pointedly, on subject of TV a few weeks ago (Vol. 5;19). And here's thinking of executive v.p. Jess Willard, slated to head up NAB’s TV dept.: "Television will eventually be the No. 1 mass communications mediixm, but radio will still maintain a significant place. TV will cut mostly into printed media, not radio. MB's obligation is to make the transition from an all-radio industry evolutionary and not revolutionary. Broadcasters are providing the risk capital and know-how; we've got to make sure they own it when it comes into its own." That's the basic NAB idea: TV is the "rightful heritage" of the broadcast ers, who have 55 of the 66 operating stations (as of June 1). Thus Willard sees his mission when he takes over the TV chore: "TV must not be owned by banks, insurance companies, motion picture interests, manufacturing firms, etc." As for loss of memberships, he attributes this mainly to "current economic stringency" — the desire to save on dues. (Detroit's WWJ, for example, paid more than $400 per month.) Meanwhile, while the big networks say nothing (though make no bones privately about their disaffection toward MB and its apparent dominance now by independents), you get this slant on the thinking of one important non-broadcaster, DuMont Network, which has no AM connections whatsoever: Its latest color page ad, illustrated with hot water bottle and tin of aspirin, is captioned "DuMont Has No Ailing Mother-in-Law. " Copy reads: "The DuMont Network is unattached. It got where it is with no help from radio, and is under no compulsion to support radio in its declining years. DuMont is selling television — the medium of today and tomorrow. . .task of upholding the fading glories of dead yesterday is left to those stuck with it." ' This needling isn't calculated to help bring TV stations and applicants, still supported by AM, into the TBA fold. Gavintlet will really be down when Allen DuMont, detailed to task by TBA, repeats history of radio — collects fund from TV set manufacturers to build up TV's own association, engages paid president (maybe FCC Chairman Coy; Vol. 5:19) to act as spokesman for telecasters and manufacturers. IS TV CROWDING OTHER MEDIA? There's a current flurry of surveys on "Where's the TV advertising money coming from?" Matter of fact, we'll report shortly on one of our own among combined TV-AM station managers, who are replying with customary candor and common sense. Latest such survey, in May 20 Printers' Ink, was done by G. Taylor Urquhart of W. Earl Bothwell Inc., ad agency. He worked in the same direction as BMI's Sidney Wagner (Vol. 5:21), came up with statistics on 158 TV advertisers who spent $6,500,000 over unspecified period. You might compare findings where both cover identical questions; they aren't far apart. Urquhart 's main points: 1. Special money, above regular budgets, was appropriated for TV by 60.7% of respondents; 25.4% cut regular budgets to add TV; 10.1% did both; 3.8% "no answer." Most cutting was done by smaller advertisers. 2. Of those who reduced other media, 68% cut radio, 52% cut nev;spaper, 18% cut outdoor, 13% cut magazine — many cut several media, including others such as direct mail, car cards, etc. None said they reduced sales appropriations ; thus, talk of TV muscling in on salesmen may still be mere talk. Other media got something back, since 63.8% of TV advertisers said they promoted shows by buying newspaper space . 23.7% used direct mail, 19.8% used point of sale, 9.2% used radio. 3. Is TV profitable? "Yes," said 29.8%. "No," 8.2%. "Too early to tell," 61.4%. Notable is way percentage of "yes" answers increased with money spent: going from 20% for under-$5,000 group to 80% for over-$250, 000 class. 4. Why is TV profitable? 70.7% credited TV's "inherent qualities as an advertising mediiam." 14.2% mentioned TV's novelty. Urquhart 's conclusion: "While TV will create new advertising money, its growth... is bovind to be felt by the other media. The competition for the advertiser's dollar is going to be keener than ever." Note : For a deluxe, limited edition sort of opinion roundup from 21 top industry people, write BBD&O, 383 Madison Ave., New York City, for its "Television's Future . " Numerous specific quotes, in answer to 6 questions relating to TV's impact on radio, make good reading. Principal statistic: 89% of interviewees don't think radio will really die off, but majority see TV more important than radio by 1954.