We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
Representatives differ in plans for more effective rate cards. Many are changing to emphasize round-the-clock purchases.
1 Ik problem ol how to write a rate card — always one of the radio industry's biggest headaches — is currently causing more than the usual number ot iiurowed Ijrows in the offices of man\ representative firms.
\VhiIc there seems to be general agreement on the need lor sti iictural changes in rate cards, there is a wide range of opinion on what these changes should be. Two ba^ic philosophies form the core of nuuh representative thinking on the subject: On the one hand, there is the theory that rate cards should be simplified for the benefit of the timebu\er and in the interest of bookkeeping economy; on the other hand, there is the belief that the rate card should be a tool for selling instead of a tool for buying and that simplicity is not necessarily a virtue in selling.
Those who favor simpliciiv argue that bulky and complicated cards make it difficult for a prospective client to determine just how much a campaign will cost. As a result, radio is hurting itself by making the medium cumbersome to buy. Additionally, these spokesmen say, a great de?il of money and time is wasted on both the station and agency leveU in unraveling the skein of billing specifics woven by the complicated rale structure.
Those who do not emphasize simplicity point out that a rate card's effectiveness is measured by Avhether it distinguishes its stations from
22
U. S. RADIO • September 1958