Variety (Jan 1947)

im Weclnesday, January 8, 1947 America Likes Its Commercials life inj_ F«^B,«I Reflections on a Medium Catering to the Masses and an Answer to lhp^^ (^ ; ■ , ^ . , V;:Voi^Naitipn^ have never seen anyone get up to turn o« a comin<arci?l announcement. This is not because many cominerciBls don t deserve turning-off but because people are educated to accept them. People know they'll end fa a minute and people are lazv I have, however, seen many a person turn off the By CARROIX CARROtli Hollywood. The steady flow of criticism levelled at commercial radio Is not insidious because it's consistently carping but because it's almost exolusi-irely in media that feel radio's advertising eompetition and of!er no opportunity for rebuttal. Radios 80-called "public service" or non-commercial moments are sometimes praised, though generally ignored by ihe, public, ■while its most .popular stuff is systematically panned. The fact that the sock advertising programs are barbecued almost exclusively puts the sincerity of the criticism in jeopardy and opens to the suspicion of venality the entire editorial policy of the publication t}iat carries it. The sincerity of each individual critic of radio, his right to criticize and the validity of his writing is not questioned. The trouble, iti most cases, is that the critic, clothed in a knight-in-armor complex, approaches his task as a defender of the people. He defends them by whacking away at radio commercials and the way they're handled, yet there is no definite indication that most radio commercials are truly resented by any great number of people, The few cranks ■write letters and can, always get them PUbUsWed. But a hundred or a thousand or eveft ten thousand letters can't represent 20 million listeners. The average radio critic says radio ik in a rut. He wants things changed, Yet there is every proof that change for the sake of change is the last thing the radio audience will accept. And so it goes. The truth is this. Almost anyone who cares to knock radio can find editorial sanctuary soiAewhere. Congressmen •who need a little publicity pick on Hollywood or radio or both, Reformers who would like to be quoted take a poke at radio. Radio has been accused of causing eyerythiijg from juvenile delinquency to bad crops. Anybody who can ■write convincingly can take a jab at radio and get it published in some magazine or newspaper. Why? The magazines don't sock the press and the press rarely criticizes the magazines. But they'll all pile on to this Johnny-come-lately of advertising that has made itself felt. Even this would be okay if there were any forum in which to answer detractors who publish letters and write articles beginning— "Whenever I hear a cominereial announcement i turn off the radio?" There is no available space in which to reply to those who curiously qualify their right to criticize ■ fcy saying "Of course I never listen to radio but. . . ." Then follows a blast against material the writer presumably absorbed by osmosis. Where can FCC's frequent complaints that commercial radio is not in the public interest be answered? A mediutt'of radio's size and di^iij deserves a defense area in whieK to point out to a lot 6f people that gll this criticism consistently ignores the primary purpose of commercial radio. That purpose is to interest a huge audience. Each program seeks the largest it can get. None hopes to please only a certain few. There are some who could prove that this is the essence of democracy. But its critics contend that commercial radio is something between intellectualsuicide and moral share-cropping. The Federal Gommunications Commission, for instance, is constantly objeettag to the quality of cOrmnereial radio. But no government commission exists to police other forms of ■ Intelligence. No government agency objects because all books published are not of the highest type and the ones that sell fastest are generally the hottest or the funniest. Nor docs the government tell newspapers to play down sensational stories and stuff that gets circulation. eritertainment portion of a radio show because he knew ,t would not end in a minute and he couldn't stand it ^When enough people do this the commercial announcements are. automatically turned oif at the source. Jingles; The Voice of a People I But Wliat About tbe Masses? Only the inteUectual element of the lunatic fringe wants to censor books, all of which are commercial projects — even the Bible— ^but everyone feels free to demand that "something be done about radio." Everyone ignores the fact that he has the power to make the most devastating attack in the world on commercial radio . . . the power to turn it off. The fact is always ignored that commercial radio's catering to the masses has resulted in the most constant flow of high grade entertainmentln the world, which boils down to the greatest good to the greatest number. That commercial radio makes pfeople happy by giving them a lot of entertainment, and makes advertisers happy by giving them a lot of business, would seem to be sufficient grounds on which to rest any defense of it. But no! Commercial radio is forced to make an eifort to confound its critics by trying hopelessly to prove that it's something it never set out to be. Ait. In countries where radio attracts no very great or; faithful audiences, because no prograin is forced to compete with another in catering to the national tastes, radio is dull as entertainment and ineffective culturally for the simple reason that it does not reach the people. Symphonic music played all day offers little to listeners who don't like, nor understand, this music — and what's more don't want to. Lectures, even the besti are wonderful only to those who listen to them. And such listening can't be forced^^ Ignoring this completely, Critics of commercial radio lash out iat the shows and stars this nation loves and deplore the fact that radio doesn't do more to educate and uplift. They prefer to scream at what the people quite obviously prefer. Thus the critics of commercial radio are critics not of art, nor of intrinsic goodness, but of the national taste. As such they are naturally entitled to criticize until their lifetime pens expire. But why blame radio? Why blame advertisers? Advertisers have actually improved the national taste in many, many ways both in print and on the air. There is no purpose in trying to defend commercial radio as Art. But it can be defended as the greatest and most loved form of entertainment in the world; great because it's highly conipetitive and loved because it is carefully planned to give people exactly ■what they long for . . . quick, easy, free, entertainment. , It's axiomatic that commercial radio in order to merit the word commercial nlust present what vast throngs of people like to hear most. Because when people don't listen in large numbers to a commercial program, it cannot sell enough product to jpay for itself. It immediately ceases to be commercial and very soon ceases to be. The public, therefore, is th^ oritic,-3udge and jury on every sponsored radio show. A very large segment of the public— one or two million people at the very least — must like a commercial program or it cannot afford to remain on any network. Rarely, if ever, does the public dislike a radio show because it carries advertising, in spite of the fact that many Of radio's critics live by fostering this belief. Actually I For this reason, and for no other, commercial radio in the United States is most truly the voice of the whole population The people ask for what they want by rejecting what they do not want. Radio entfertainment speaks the thoughts of the nation in so far as it reflects its taste. The voice Of a people can't be the cultured tones of its intellectuals anymore than it can be the babbling of its illiterates. It does not pay commercial radio to cater to either of these peripheral groups. The mighty middle class is the big buying public and the man who guesses best what that class wants to hear is radio's Number One Genius for the semester. In those parts of the world where radio is not in the hands of the much malignad advertisers, anxious to please large groups, there is very little incentive to give people really high-calibre entertainment of a diversifled nature. Nobody cares who listens when nobody benefits by increasing an audience. Perhisips it is culturally deploraWe that more pfeople in the United States Want to listen to Abbott" and Costello than to Toscanini and 100 men, although analagous tastes are undoubtedly international. Nevertheless, much maligned radio offers both Mr. .Toscanini and the Messrs. Abbott and Costello. While the critics snarl at the time Abbott and Costello waste, and much of the public snarls at the time Toscanini wastes. The truth is that radio's critics have adopted a set of false values and refuse to associate cause and effect. They stand aghast at the size M the atidiehee that listens every Tuesday at 10 p.m. E.S.T. and wring their hands because so many people can't be mentally improved 'at that time instead of just amused by Bob Hope. But put in the mental improvement show, take out Hoipe, and try arid find that huge audience. Among the things the war proved was the social and educational value of commercial radio with its gigantic audiences, absolute]^ absorbent to the ideas of their Weekly-heaird frieiids. Bing Crosby in a few casually read words could ■instill more patriotism and fire in more people for getting on with the war than' all the best poetry of Stephen Vincent Behet, Archibald MacLeish and Norman Corwin set to kettledrums and broadcast nightly over four joined networks. During the war commercial radio with its selling knaw-how, packed the big propaganda punch. Cultural and intellectual radio sounded more inspiring sometimes to the cuHured and intellectual few who listened. .But the technique oiE the commercial announcement waS the hard slogging dpughfoot the propagandists turned to When there was a tough job that had to be done. And it proved these hard slogging commercials were listened to on large audience commercial shows. I , Fibber's Cwltiire Vs. Allegories | Jack Benny, Fred Allen and Fibber McGee, through their immense audience, are potentially greater sources of culture to the masses than all the allegories, wonderful as they may be, that Arch Oboler ever wrote. The fact that these commanders of public opinion don't exercise their power doesn't lessen it. Though they hold their power casually, sometimes even unconsciously, any three top network comics working solidly together couM swing the country any way they wished. People even elect hillbilly singers to high political office. When Jack Benny has Joseph Szigeti as a guest he's doing more for music in a half-hour than many a whole season of relatively unheard symphonic broadcasts, because men are judged by the company they keep. And if Szigeti pleases Jack Benny and Jack Benny pleases Joe Public, Joe Public Is going to like and listen to Szigeti. It's another proof that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. No rush of critical torment is brought On because there are only a few concert halls in New York City and over . three-score theatres. (All commercial projects.) No one . wails because most of the best remembered stage successes are musical comedies and operettas. Yet, because radio con-, sciously caters to this same general taste, radio is excoriated. Nobody b'alks at buying a magazine for from 10 to 50 cents, knowing it's perhaps 50% or more paid advertising. Yet critics insist these same people have cause to scream when a $15,000 radio program, which they get for nothing, is interrupted for 2% minutes of advertising during 291/4 minutes. Make it three minutes out of 30, and it's only 10% advertising for radio as against 50%, and Over, for periOdicalSi And it's for free VS. for cash. There is no way to deny that radio advertising, far from impeccablg, sometimes tramples taste. But there is also no denying that publication cOpiy is frequently just as ^'peccable." Each msiditim does its best to police its advertisers, but Natures spelled backwards is no different in print than on the air. Radio critics say commercials come into your home, your living and dining rooms.. So do magazines. Radio is turned on with the knowledge that advertising makes it possible. And a 10-cent magazine buyer is aware that so much desirable reading could, not be delivelfed as cheaply without advertising. True, children can hear radio and perhaps not read publication advertisiiig. But most children who listen consciously to the radio can read. And only the fewest of radio's most violent critics complain for the sake of children. Furthermore most of the people -vuhp worry about children's tender ears either ignore or don't know how hardy young minds can be. For every critic of commercial radio there must be a minimum of 5,000,000 radio fans. If they do not all actually benefit cultural^ when they turn On their radios they benefit to the degree they expected to beiieflt. If they don't, they turn it off . The FCC not long ago gave out a snort against "Soap Operas" emphasizing all their weak points and adding the charge that they contribute to imbalance on a station's program. Imbalance, a beautiful word, is apparently exactly what radio listeners want most. At the time.s when station and network programs are in most marked imbalance they By tESTER GOTTLIEB I can remember when I first broke into the radio phase of show business, how I used to dread explaining to relatives and friends how and' why I earned my modest keep. "What do you do for a living?" they would ask. "Radio,'' I replied. "Fix 'em or sell 'em?" ' v This would inevitably pose a.dilemma for me, If 1 told them 1 was specifically a radio press agent, I was doomed for the rest of the evening, conducting a -vague tour through Broadway and Hollywood. It would leave me uncomfortable and perspiring and my interrogators not only confysed, but suspicious. I had never rated very high scholastically with them and their opinions about my educational limitations were then confirmed. Sometimes I resOrted to what I thought was the easy way out by replying that I not only fixed 'em, but sold *em. But this was worse. 1 have trouble dialing a push button niodel and as for selling 'em, I always thought the Atwater Kent was a pretty snappy job. How I used to envy the more solid and substantial citizens, who, when asked the nature of their livelihoods, could quickly reply doctor, lawyer or candlestick maker, and satisfy the most curious. But now all of this has changed. As if by a miracle, all the people who used to give me third degree examinations, don't ask anymore. They teU me! Overnight these erstwhile show business innocerits act like they, swallo'wed whole copies of Variety. Arid how they love to trap a victim e-ven if he's only, like myself, an unimportant cog; Paradojtically enough, I |ind 'the new atmosphere even moire uhtenablei I long now for the good old days. Of course, you guessed what brought about this unwelcome metamorphosis. It's difficult to go to a movie or a play. Or pick up a book or a magazine article wihout finding the characters or the locale of Broadway or Hollywood. Today,: an octupus isn't a specie of TOarine life, but a description ^loined for the largest flesh-peddling institution in the world. "A Stein isn't a beer mug, but this organization's proxy. A huckster isn't a push-cart merchant, but a youknowwhat. Honest Abe isn't the Great Emancipator, of our Lincoln legend, but an undersized talent genius named Lastfo|el. 1 Tbe Cbief : Vehicle for Ulcers The Chief isn't an Indian tribesman, but a vehicle for ulcers.^ ; People don't hum plaintive love songs, rhynaing June with Moon, instead they chirp "There's No BuSiiess liike Show Business." Kids don't play ■witli hoops anymore. They ask about ■ Hoopers; Flack isn't anti-aircraft barrage, but a PTess agent, Pygmalion-style. George Jessel, Sophie Tucker, Gertie Lawrence, Eddie Cantor, Bob Hope, C. B. Cochran and Fred Stone are just a few show business celebs who have told all in autobiographies that give Womrath attendants more trouble than John Sumner. Now, with S. Hurok's behind-the-scenes saga of the twinkletoes industry, and the forthcoming musical called "Look Ma, I'm Pancing!" even the terp crown will be getting more lighting than a police lineup. And certainly the tunesmiths are leading fish bowl existences, thanks largely to Messrs. Warner. Gary Grant is Cole Porter; Robert Alda, George Gershwin; John Giorfield fiddles whUe Joan Crawford burns; and Paul Henried and Bette Davis say 'cello aigain in "Deception." And soon to climax the whole show business expose is the ■ . screen biog of Sime Silverman. They will probably use as a sub-title "The Abel Green Pastures." As a matter of fact, it's rare when a movie actor doesn't pick up a copy of Variety. I say enough is enough. Let some other industry take the rap for change. How about a campaign to expose the dress business? Let the Saturd^iy Evening Post do a three-part installment on the garment industry; let Simon and Schuster publish the Memoirs of Sam Splotz, Boy Converter; and next; time Bette Davis picks up a trade paper ia a film, let it be Women's Wear. enjoy the largest audiences. There is Tuesday with the imbalance of four big consecutive comedy shows: Amos 'n' Andy, Fibber McGee and Molly, Bob Hope and Red Skelton. A similar imbalance is found in the Sunday comedy series. Jack Benny, Phil Harris, Charlie McCarthy and Fred Allen have a tremendous audience. • It is impossible to put anything important in competition With one of these top programs because then the criticism comes from quarters crying to know, for example, why an outstanding show like Frank Sinatra is put in direct competition with Ed Gardner oi Duffy's Tavern. People Who want to hear one probably want to hear both. Whenever a network or station has tried to combat or break-up the imbalance of big shows or soap-operas following one upon the other the effort has been unsuccessful; The FCC claims Soap Operas please advertisers because they're cheap.: If they were only cheap, ad'irertiseirs wotild not care for them. The fact that they're alsio eif eotive pro'ves people listen to them. The fact that they've defied competition proves people prc/er to listen to them. , To argue against imbalance on the air, and urge that educational material be sandwiched in with other stuff, has as much logic as to demand that newspaper editorials be slapped between "comic" strips. Or "comics" put on the editorial page. There is every good reason of logic and balance in favor of such a mpve. But the people have proved their preference for imbalance. It's more convenient for them. If you want to make them go out of their way, you can make them turn to the editorial page to read a comic. But you'll never make them read an editorial that way. Public Sets the Pattern i Another claim of the FCC is that radio favors the sponsor before it favors the public. To fix this, FCC suggests more non-sponsored programs and fewer shows built to a standard pattern. This frames a nice question: Shall the public have what sponsors have discovered the public likes or what the FCC thinks it should have? An examination of available surveys indicates that th«type of shows FCC suggests meet with considerable apathy. ■The standard patterns FCC wants to eliminate are only offered by sponsors, not dictated by them. The patterns u.sed are used because they are the ones the public chooses to listen to. And experiment on the part of sponsors has proved it's useless to try to change these patterns to any great extent.