Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1953)

The tremendous efforts and unflagging faith of these few large companies have produced a new industry. Already that industry supports hundreds of competing manufacturers— large and small— and a multitude of related enterprises as well as a growing number of television stations in VHF and UHF. And this new industry is only on the threshold of its destiny. The Economics of Television But no industry is an end in itself. It is an instrumentality for public service. Television’s job is to bring the best programs to the most people throughout the country and ultimately throughout the world. This is a large order, I grant, but not too large for the men who have already demonstrated their mettle. The development and natural distribution of network program services involve enormous costs for facilities, talent, production personnel, and other factors. These are big financial risks which any network must assume if it is to serve its affiliated stations, its advertisers and its audiences well. The costs, moreover, have been rising. Talent fees increase as networks bid against each other for valued performers. Labor cost, such a large part of production expense, has also been increasing. Network time costs go up as circulation expands in existing markets and as new stations open up additional markets. The expanding national television system gives sponsors a medium of power and appeal they cannot forego. They realize that the most effective sales force the world has ever known is at their disposal. Nevertheless, advertisers are — understandably — already manifesting concern about the costs of this new medium. These costs must and will be stabilized eventually, but in this period of rapid development they present real problems for all of us. These are the economic problems natural in a new medium of communications whose character, dimensions and rate of growth are literally without precedent. However, television has become so indispensable to the public and so valuable to the business community that it will of necessity find sensible solutions. I feel certain that stations, networks, advertisers, talent and labor unions will realize the benefits of cooperation in solving the problems that confront them. Make It Available to More Advertisers There is room in the advertising economy for a much larger use of such an effective sales force as television. In order to broaden its use, one of our immediate objectives should be to develop techniques for making it economically available to more advertisers. To this end, networks are exploring various types of participation sponsorships — which are familiar patterns in station operation— so that they can enable a national advertiser to scale his purchase to his needs and budget. The new patterns are just beginning to emerge; the cooperation of all affiliated stations is required for their development and growth. By diversifying its product line, network television can attract hundreds of new customers. They will try it, learn what it does for them, and come back for more. Existing sponsors, too, will learn to use the medium more flexibly and efficiently. With this flexibility, they can control their costs and make every dollar bring more results. Advertisers have a responsibility, to themselves and the public, for using the medium with maximum efficiency. We have all seen commercial messages which take full advantage of television’s unique selling ability; and we have also seen commercials which fritter away the sponsor’s opportunities. Research studies confirm our impressions. If stations, networks and advertisers can be as bold and inventive in the use of television as the scientists have been in creating it, we will see this new medium grow in scope, in influence and in prosperity. Within the next few years we may see annual advertising expenditures in television go far beyond the billion dollar mark. We will see more than 1000 stations in operation. They can develop local programs not only reflecting but adding to the interest of their own communities. Television’s special advantages as a local salesman and a community shopping service can be realized. We will also see networks reaching into all parts of the country, supported by many more large and small national advertisers. Together they will provide a national program service that will make the present schedules seem primitive. The potentialities of television as yet have barely been sketched. They stir the imagination. For all of us connected with the new medium it holds out the vision of a great adventure. Television and the Movies If I allow myself to speak in these large terms, it is not because I have been affected by the heady atmosphere of Hollywood, the home of the motion picture industry. But meeting, as we are, in the capital of a sister medium, it is fitting that we pay tribute to the pioneers of the screen whose accomplishments are part of our national heritage. They created a new art of showmanship, developed magnificent talents, and built a fabulous industry. They brought to the screen not only glamorous figures from life, but also glamorous words from the dictionary. “Colossal” is one of these — a Hollywood understatement, as someone has said. Many of their achievements have been truly “colossal” — and so were some of their failures. But success or failure, in black-and-white or color, in 2-D or 3-D, they paint their pictures in broad strokes, with a big brush on a wide canvas. Television, also, is a picture in motion. It has grown to its present size and scope in far less time than its predecessor required to reach a corresponding status. For this, in part at least, television must acknowledge its debt to the movies. With all its impressive power, television is still a youngster. It has made some mistakes — none of them fatal — and has repeated some of the mistakes of its elders. But now it is big enough to accept responsibility for its own shortcomings. So I say to my many friends in the motion picture world: “Television can learn much from you, but there is also a good deal it must learn to forget.” Differences Are Very Real The essential differences between television and the movies may be temporarily blurred by the similarities between them — but those differences are very real. For example, television has no box office and no theatre to which people go and pay for the privilege of seeing the show. Its audience is as wide as America. It is composed of millions of small groups: the family circle in the intimacy of its home. There, they select what they want from the variety of offerings always available. They exercise the right to look at and listen to whatever they permit to enter their home over channels that are free and belong to all the people. Audiences in the home and audiences in the theatre are quite different human entities. They will not long be satisfied with the same fare. They will expect, and rightly so, something in the theatre unlike what they can tap at home — and vice versa. This is all to the good. For it means that there is need for both types of offering. To satisfy this dual need calls for imagination, artistic enterprise and open-minded experimentation in the motion picture theatre and the television home alike. I for one am not envious of the resources of Hollywood’s motion picture studios or the box office. I am convinced that television broadcasting, like radio broadcasting, can solve its economic problems without a cash box in the home. Pay-as-You-See Television * [Since I arrived in California I have seen many references to the question of “pay-as-you-see” television. Perhaps you will be interested in the policy of RCA with re ♦ Bracketed paragraphs that follow are extemporaneous Interpolations. 3