Variety (January 1953)

nr-.lnffldaT, January 7, 1953 Forly-sevenlh P'Sjf.JKTY Anniversary ttvmo-Tiiiiivtsiox 101 MY RADIO - OUR TELEVISION’ By ROBERT E. KINTNER (President, ABC Network) The year just ended has been marked by two fundamental and re- lated developments in the field of broadcasting. I The actual fact of TV expansion in virgin markets. During 1953, homes with Television will outnumber those no so equipped. 2. The psychological reaction to this fact which -| induced leading advertisers to cancel major net- work radio schedules as 1952 drew to a close. • At ABC, we have given long and deep thought K: as to whether TV’s expansion justifies radio can- J||^, cellations. The answer, of course, lies in a cor- rect analysis of TV’s'impact on radio. I believe 1L ^ jf that TV’s essential impact on radio has been wrongly researched and improperly evaluated, As a result, in my judgment, advertisers may have made media decisions adverse not only to radio but to their own best interests. It seems to me that those segments of the radio industry which have promoted radio as a medium to cover the shrinking Bob Kintner non-TV America have contributed to the current bearish tone of the radio market. I also believe that a better under- standing of the relations of the two media will lead to a resurgence of radio billings. And I think that we will move toward that better un- derstanding. Recently. ABC completed original research which isolates two basic kinds of radio listening. One is group listening where two or more people listen to the same set together. The other is personal listening where an individual lis- tens alone. The facts on these two different kinds of radio listening indicate that group listening (usually done in the living room) is the predomi- nant kind of radio’ listening in radio-only homes. This is the old-fash- ioned kind of listening represented by the family which gathers around the living- room radio to listen to “The Lone Ranger,” Jack Benny. “Ozzie & Harriet” and such programs. It is most significant that this older kind of radio listening repre- sents only a small fraction of total evening radio listening in televi- sion-equipped homes. That Personal Equation I believe the standard audience measurement services have accurate- ly measured the drop in group listening without, at the same time, showing the relative gain in personal listening. This is akin to show- ing a sharp decline in the soap market without reporting an astronomi- cal increase in detergent sales. Our research shows that television’s main impact on radio listening is not the quantitative decline, as standard rating services indicate, but rather a qualitative shift from old-fashioned group listening to the personal listening which rapidly emerges in the television home. The old rating methods appear to be geared to group listening and inadequate to measure the new personal listening. For example, an original experiment which ABC conducted shows that the telephone coincidental rating method misses up to 49% of all radio listening in the TV home. This study was conducted for us by the American Re- search bureau. Unfortunately, some advertisers have dropped radio because of the rapidly declining radio audience shown by such ratings. Certainly, any research technique with a maximum error of 49% does not constitute a sound guide for basic media decisions. The regular rating services appear to be able to reflect listening in the living room, the very place from which TV virtually expels it. The same services, in my judgment, are not reflecting the increasing radio tuning to the so-called secondary sets in the kitchen and other rooms in the house. The essential difference between radio and TV is qualitative and can be summed up in a simple phrase . . . “My Radio—Our Television.” Television has emerged as the group medium of lavish productions and expensive showmanship. Radio now takes its place as the per- sonal, individual, intimate medium of news and entertainment for which each listener provides his own setting. A new listener is emerging. With new programs and redoubled ef- forts, the radio future looks bright to the network which will work to reach the new, personal listener. ABC operates in both radio and television. We own five television stations in the most important markets of the country; and operate a television network with over 70 affiliates.’ We also own five radio stations in the same markets; and operate a radio network of 350 af- filiates. I hold no case to minimize television. We are in television in a big way; and we hope that our stake becomes bigger and bigger. Television is the greatest mass medium ever developed. But I believe just as strongly that local and network radio can be healthy and pros- perous. Only one thing is needed—that the buyers substitute for their presumptions research based on facts. x ™w:: £ A * Mlii j STAN ’ BURNS "THE VOICE THAT SELLS” —Nationally on Radio, TV, Industrial Films, Transcriptions —In New York, WINS MUrray Hill 8-CC00 TV Announcing Much Tougher Than Radio != By NELSON CASE =■ Sure, TV announcing is .hard work—much tougher than good old radio. But, it’s more enjoyable, too, in a nerve-wracking sort of HARRY SOSNIK CONDUCTOR—COMPOSER Guest Star Program* Maybe one thing that makes it enjoyable is that it isn’t actually “announcing.” That word has bothered me for years; it’s per- fectly suitable to a stentorian, im- personal voice rumbling through Grand Central station with news about the 905 Local to Poughkeep- sie. It isn’t my idea, however, of the way to tell Mr. and Mrs. Smith something while they’re in the living room. “Announcing” is really a highly- specialized branch of the acting profession, with an important dif- ference. An actor’s air is to “con- nect” with the other players, and thus set up a current which will attract the audience’s interest. The announcer who isn’t content to read "announcements” has to try to set up his current of interest directly with the audience. An audience of one or two or three people. That’s why TV is more enjoy- able, more challenging, more stim- ulating. I have a chance to look you right in the eye and tell you I’m selling a good product—to tell you why it’s good without shouting at you, for after all, I’m a guest in your home. You have a chance to size me up and decide whether or not I believe what I say. Of course, that’s also why TV is nerve-wracking. Radio has that same challenge of trying to “con- nect” with the individual listener (and it’s harder to do with voice alone), but there’s the script, bless it! In TV, I much prefer to mem- orize what I have to say instead of reading from cards or a prompting device, for the sake of a better per- formance. That means many hours of homework and studio rehearsal and, when show time comes, the intense concentration needed to get through a monolog that seems longer than all of Hamlet’s solilo- quies combined without losing my place. And—much more important —without losing you! Opening-night jitters are a tradi- tion of show business. Well, every TV show is an opening, night. I guess I’ve done about 150 in the last year—alas, poor stomach, I knew it well! Taking it all in balance, I’m glad TV came along. It forces my nat- urally-lazy mental processes to keep working. A lot of folks around the country seem to feel as though we’re good friends, even though I do commercials. I can find no ob- jection, whatever, to the money. And, perhaps best of all, when I stroll in to do the Lowell Thomas radio show, it’s so relaxing! Baruch's New Post Ralph M. Baruch, account exec at WABD, N. Y„ has resigned to jofin Consolidated TV Sales as ,a sales rep. He’ll work out of the N. Y. of- fice under Halsey Barrett. ‘Follow the Leader’ TV’s Major Affliction By GEORGE F. FOLEY (Indie Package Producer) The worst aspect of television programming today is that there Is entirely too much of “follow the leader,” too much of “me too.” As soon as a new show idea becomes .successful, every agency and client starts looking for a duplicate. To my way of thinking this is a grave error, because the sponsor who is willing to buy a new pro- gram idea and the agency which is willing to recommend it get the payoff in audience acceptance and good ratings if the show clicks. For example, after Milton Berle came on, there came a deluge of carbon-copy vaudeville-type shows on TV. Few of these still remain, and, because sponsors wanted “another Milton Berle,” millions and millions of dollars were thrown away, and many • sponsors soured on the medium for all time. When “I Love Lucy” became the sensation, the only thing the tele- vision directors and advertising executives wanted to audition was “an- other ‘Lucy’.” There are a lot of them making the rounds even now and some of them may get on. But they cannot measure up to the success of Desilu. They will not approach the ratings and the result is that more millions of dollars will be wasted in unimaginative pro- gramming based upon the principle “follow the leader.” The same holds true for “What’s My Line?” and, if I may be im- modest for my production, “Tales of Tomorrow.” With every half-hour of nighttime television becoming extremely competitve, the purchaser of television programs—particularly the ad- vertiser just getting into TV—must become more and more selective, as well as more imaginative, in his buying than in the past. Agencies which stand to lose substantial billings, and which may lose television accounts if shows go bad, must take stronger stands in their recom- mendations. Buying “what the sponsor wants” has already proved disastrous to many agencies who have not only lost the show, but the sponsors as well. The number of television accounts that have changed hands in the past few years has been amazing. With audiences demanding only, topnotch shows and becoming more selective in their listening habits —even turning off the set entirely if something acceptable isn’t on— the pressure 5 is becoming heavier on the agencies, in particular, to come up with something good at realistic costs. It is becoming evident that sponsors—particularly those with modest budgets—are not satisfied with agency recommendations to “buy a piece” of a big show. At least one agency has been in trouble trying to justify its 15% to a major client on the program recommendation of a piece of a major program on which all it did was supply the com- mercials. On the other hand, the agency which works closely with the packager and network to build a new and interesting property, not only has little trouble justifying its 15% on package costs—which it needs to break even—but will find its position with the client more solid than ever. You can’t entirely take the gamble out of television. There will always be competition for an audience. However, just a few examples of sponsors who have gambled and won—in a great big way—with new concepts in programmihg are Stopette, with “What’s My Line?”, Jules Kreisler, Inc., and C. H. Masland & Sons with “Talcs of Tomor- row,” and Philip Morris, with “I Love Lucy.” The simple fact is that you don’t solve the problem by putting on another “What’s My Line?” or trying to find another “Tales of Tomorrow.” Television can move goods more rapidly than can any other medium yet devised. It pays off, not only in sales as a direct advertising medium but also as a sales tool to help whip up enthusiasm and enlarge distribution, A show that is “talked about” is a show that creates demand and makes the sales force go out and work. And the new, original program ideas are the ones “talked about.” As an ex-agency man, myself, I well know that. You can’t buy audiences just by the sheer weight of dollars. The dozens of big budget shows that have fallen by the wayside are proof of this. It is in ideas and originality that program success lies. The agency has to be willing to expend the time and the client has to be willing to listen to agency recommendations on ideas that are original and sound. If the agency does not have a satisfactory staff to build its own packages, it has to rely on outside individuals and networks to supply the properties to them. We know of one agency that presented 60 packages to a client and “let the client make up his mind” on what he wanted. The chances are that this account will soon be changing hands. If the agency believes in one property, it should give it its recommendation—and stand by it. The gamble is no worse to the agency than letting the client dictate the buy without having the facts to make a proper judgment. In short, “follow the leader” is no sound basis for good program- ming for either the agency, the sponsor, or the network. It is, at best, short-term security. WILLARD WATERMAN A, “THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE” for Kraft Foods—NBC—Wednesdays, 8:30 P.M.