Variety (January 1959)

January 7, 1959 89 Fifty-third t^j*£T&TY Anniversary RABIO-TELE VISION THE ‘BLOOD-BATH’ Please, Not While Tm Eating! ■ ^ By MANNIE MANHEIM i.i-a Hollywood. This I believe: That there are too many words written and spoken against the television medium. ■ This I further believe: That ail of us who are even remotely asso‘ ciated with the medium should start this very day to embrace the as¬ sets,' the plusses, the pleasures and especially the educational ad. vantages that are offered to us free in this new art form. As -for me, television has brought to my estate more knowledge than I ever had hoped to attain. Those of you who know me well, will recall that I spend most of my waking hours hungering for al¬ most any form of education — and when that form includes the study of the human anatomy, well, then, I am a happy and satisfied old . .male . . . baceuse anatomy is my baby. And almost everyone who owns a television receiving set knows that there is no other medium that discusses our bodies, inside and out, as much — and at such a convenient time — the dinner hour. Many is the time I have stormed out of John Guedel’s conference room to hurry to our pad so as not to miss the dinner hour anatomi¬ cal messages. When my wife and I first started to consume our vic¬ tuals during the open-body talks, I must say that my wife became somewhat queasy. For example, one evening when a gentleman wear¬ ying a dramatized doctor’s white jacket removed a -dramatized corn from a dramatized patient’s foot while we were on our soup — well, this sent the little woman scurrying, complaining as she scurried that this wasn’t her idea of spending a pleasant dinner period. I thoroughly enjoyed the com removal and found the operation not only pleasant to behold but also quite entertaining — as the com was removed without the benefit of a chiropodist’s scalpel — instead, all that was employed was a magic liquid. After a few com removals, my wife has become immunized and doesn’t seem to complain but she did let out a scream when a dramatized physician delivered a short talk on the care of our liver bile. And he demonstrated the flow of liver bile with a graphic animated graph, that pleased me no end. I recall that particular evening we were having one of our bet¬ ter budgeted dinners— and 1 certainly found my food much more di¬ gestible as, while I dined, I knew just where everything was going. And the next time I’m in Schwab’s I shall hurry to their chopped liv¬ er pill department and get me a box of them. | . No Guts _ _ _ J Just why, I shall never know, but my wife turns her head toward the sea, during the liver bile bit and she runs to the kitchen when, in another message, the speaker illustrates his talk by comparing two beakers of stomach acid. I enjoy the stomach acid test even more than the bad breath test — not because one possesses more merit than the other-^but, well, I just never saw two beakers of stomach acid be¬ fore. Especially during dinner. I have tried to explain to my wife that these talks are educational. I asked her where she had ever seen two open stomachs before. This is not to be confused with the beakers of acid — this is another deal. Two stomachs are exhibited to compare the action of certain rival pills — the idea being to show which one reaches the stomach first. I believe the stomach on the left side of your screen is the quicker of the two. I recommend this bit of film to any thick-skinned man or woman who doesn’t become queasy when he sees a cut-out stomach. I loved it as I hadn’t seen the interior of a stomach since I attended an autopsy in Syracuse, N.Y., many years ago. Actually, I enjoyed the tv open job much more. | This Calls for AFTRA | ' I also find a certain amount of pleasure in the message that reveals a burning digestive tract which advertises another pain repellent. This dramatization opens with an AFTRA person holding 'his or her stom¬ ach registering excruciating pain. A voice off suggests the remedy which is then taken by the pained one and almost instantly the blaze in the AFTRA person’s stomach is extinguished right before our very .eyes. This was sheer magic to me — but not to my wife. I said to her jokingly, of course, “This is a gasser,” but she didn’t understand the joke. Anyway, she didn’t laugh. .There are a few more that I love — the unfortunate girl who has spoiled her dress because she failed to fortify herself under her arms. Then there’s the one but I better not tell you about that, you may be reading this while eating your dinner. JOYCE GORDON Speaking on Television fot* Standard Brands and Others Personal Management; CARL EASTMAN 80 Park Avenue, New York. MU 2-4986 or JU 2-8800 IVIUIIL LI till I f LESS HEAT’ By HENRY RAHMEL ( General Manager Broadcast Division, A. C. Nielsen Co.) Grousing about ratings always seems good for a headline. It would make good copy to state that I hate ratings! Certainly it is true that I don’t condone some of the ways ratings are interpreted and used. There are sound reasons behind this statement. Ratings are but a part of the complex of broadcast ; ing, they are a constructive force only when properly applied. Yet they are in the spotlight daily. Why? Perhaps because they seem absolute like a final score such as Yale 13, Princeton 7, “The Texan” 29, “Restless Gun” 28. They have authority, immediacy, the guise of simplicity. They make news because they have be¬ come part of the competitive urge of a competitive industry. “Rated New York’s Number 1 Independent . . “Six of the Top Ten Shows Are On . . “Already The Number 1 Network On Three Nights Of The Week . . .” or "Gunsmoke Slaughters Opposition,” “Maverick Axes Sullivan In The Nielsen . . .” In ad and story the industry is carried away by numer¬ ical mayhem. Everyone claims to have emerged the winner from the statistical blood-bath of research. Is all this good for television? I doubt it. TV’s reputation can suffer national damage if this sort of thing dominates the scenes. I have a hunch that time will show that the medium has been short¬ sighted in constantly sniping at it¬ self, while detractors aid and abet from the sidelines. Today television Is being at¬ tacked on several fronts. Print claims people are bored by secondrate programming. Government wants to know whether television is properly serving the public in¬ terest. It seems to be Increasing¬ ly fashionable to contend that tele¬ vision isn’t as good as it should be (or used to be). Of course, over-emphasis of rat¬ ings has given us many uncomfort¬ able moments. We’ve been roasted by the uninformed because Niel¬ sen ratings “are not a good indica¬ tion of the quality of a show.” We are constantly told that a lot of good programs never make “Top Ten.” It is pointed out that timeof-telecast, competing programs, line-ups, etc. all profoundly affeet a show’s rating. We know these things and have been reiterating them for years! Television has had many great moments. The size of the audience is hot what makes these Yndments great; rather it is what makes such moments possible. | Audience But One Factor \ Gross audience-size is, of course. Important, but only In its proper context. A large audience is but one step towards the goal of .prod¬ uct sales. The cost of reaching-the audience is similarly important. Likewise, whether the. advertiser’s sales messages are reaching homes that represent the greatest poten¬ tial, for his product. And so on through the gamut of variables. Let me but high-spot an ex¬ ample. A company advertising baby food should attempt to reach homes that include one or more young children. Gross-audience figures do not reveal whether the “right homes’’ are in the audience. Similarly, such effort should be appraised hot solely in relation to all tv shows but with emphasis on competitive baby-food advertising. Thus audience research that ex¬ tends beyond, simple ratings pro¬ vides answers tdmany marketing problems. Such information has contributed to the growth and effectiveness of broadcast adver¬ tising. Iriformbd advertisers know that even relatively low-rated shows reach millions of people and can move' merchandise. This simply underscores the importance of (Continued on page 172) WHAT IS A GOOD IDEA . By BOB WEITMAN rxr Ti Tt r’DP'TT T\ ■ I don’t know anyone, layman or pro, who doesn’t know what’s wrong with television or who doesn’t have a great idea for a show. The amaz¬ ing thing is that they seem to overlook the elementary fact that tele¬ vision broadcasting is now at the ripe old age of 12 and that most of the ideas that they present have been in the files for a long time. There really is no limit to ideas but sometimes there is a shortage of money for poor ideas. And whether you like it or not, money, as that coffee advertiser says, is the secret ingredient. Not that money will take care of everything but it certainly is a good starting point. With spectaculars running into six figures and with even unspectaculars hitting higher figures every year, the sponsor has a right to at least believe he is theoretically right before he buys time and talent. There’s no way of breaking in a tv show. You can’t take it to New Haven and then decide it isn’t ready for exposure. Oh yes, you can make a pilot but over a period of a year pilots cost a bundle. The sponsors by now have seen so many pilots that they are no longer esetatie but actually a little cynical. , J _ _ It’s the Personality _ j It is my belief that personalities are the answer to many of our problems. But how do you get enough personalities unless you have a chance to experiment? This brings me to an important point which I will briefly outline for the benefit of anyone who really cares. What we need is a recruiting system similar to what the legit thea¬ tre and the movies used to passionately believe in. This was also done successfully in the early days of radio. We had scouts and we explored all the places where potential personalities might be found. Then we j moved them into small situations so that they might learn the trade j of entertaining. | How simple it would be today to scout the colleges where there Is obviously a great deal of talent in all areas of show business: actors, comedians, musicians, singers and writers. For a comparatively mod¬ est budget, I feel that over a period of a year, a number of these young persons could be signed to reasonable long term television contracts very much like the ones movie companies negotiated for many years. So you might ask what to do with these young people after you sign them. That’s not hard to answer. I would urge shows that featured them and which were designed especially for young audiences. If these shows captured nothing else but the teenagers, it would be a wonder¬ ful marketing possibility for any advertiser handling commodities for this bracket. j _ TV Needs Scouts _ \ It is also my belief that a most fertile field to explore is the little theatre of which there are several hundred good ones around the country. If it were jny money I would engage a scouting team to cover these theatres. How much would all of this cost? A half million a year would be nice to have but in my opinion it could be done for less than one hun¬ dred thousand. Now for another thought. The off-Broadway theatre is getting more and more important. Why shouldn’t television own one of these thea¬ tres to carry on this type of program? I predict within a reasonable time such a project could be self sustaining. Think of all the young persons in New York alone who would love to be a part of this scheme. And what a ..testing ground for young writers and directors! A real Iaboratoiy for the unknowns who now can hardly get into an agent’s office. The door should be open for these youngsters and this is one way of opening it. In the final analysis, we are all in the talent business but we really aren’t working at it. Today most talent is found by routine methods which no longer are good enough. I opened this piece with the title “What is a good idea?” Let’s as¬ sume that nobody knows all the answers to this question. But one thing is sure. Every one in our business has a very good idea just what conI stitutes talent Wouldn’t we love to find another Gleason, Skelton or Phil Silvers. I can’t believe that such a tremendous industry is going to remain passive about its biggest problem. The secret ingredient is not always money. There’s an old Ingredient known as ingenuity. I’m for that. KENNETH BANGHART WRCA N.B.C. ' TTRCA-TV