Anything's Better Than Nothing

Most of the 400-odd TV men who gathered in Chicago last week for the Second National Television Conference were in a cheerfully self-satisfied mood. They crowded the Red Lacquer Room of the Palmer House and reported black ink on their books for the first time.

In one year, the number of television sponsors had soared from 680 to 2,316, boasted Du Mont's TV network General Manager Chris Whitting. Said he: "Our network tripled its billing in 1949, grossing in excess of $3,000,000." Beefy Harry Bannister, general manager of Detroit's WWJ-TV, saw nothing ahead but a golden future: "I don't think it matters what kind of program the sponsor has. They all sell the product."

Variety of Riches. "People like what television is giving them," crowed NBC Executive Vice President Charles Denny. "And no wonder! ... It provides eyewitness entertainment and information which kings could not command ... a variety of riches from which to choose." Denny conceded that in addition to "the finest in drama, ballet and music," TV was also exposing its audience to "Gorgeous George and the Masked Marvel." But, anyhow, he said, "The people will judge . . ."

Curiously, the advertisers, who generally get blamed for low entertainment standards, seemed more worried than the TV executives about program quality. Said Kraft Foods' Advertising Manager John McLaughlin: "I have heard [TV] defined as movies twelve years old for an audience twelve years old . . . That is not a funny gag and we know it is not a fair definition of television. It is our job to see that it never becomes an accurate one."

Hesitant Cassandras. Budd Gore of Chicago's Marshall Field & Co. warned: "Shows don't have to sink to the level of crime, cliff-hanging and blood & thunder to get a high rating . . . Let me remind you that parents still exist and we must think of the long-range disadvantage of alienating [them]." He was seconded by Miles Laboratories' (Alka-Seltzer) Lester Waddington, who reported that "Parents are beginning to complain that unless there is better programing soon, the babysitter problem will be with them again."

But the doubts of these hesitant Cassandras were drowned out in the floodtide of optimism. Delegates were so confident of TV's great future that few of them troubled to attend such seminars as the panel "New Slants on Creating, Writing and Directing." Explained one program director: "If we were to talk about what's wrong with the programs, we'd be here two weeks instead of three days." Monte Fassnacht of Chicago's WENR-TV concurred: "It's almost impossible to get good programs," he said. "I think a lot of the ones we have ought to be canceled, but what are you going to put in their place? Anything is better than nothing."

By contrast to TV's boom, radio was tightening its belt. The number of sponsored evening shows was off 37%, compared to four years ago, and many a current big-time program was threatened, by the economy ax.

Bob Hope's $22,500 weekly stint, rumor says, will be dropped this spring by Lever Bros. Rexall Drugs is replacing the $14,500 Phil Harris and Alice Faye show with Richard Diamond, a Dick Powell $4,500 thriller. Amos 'n' Andy reportedly may have to slice their $20,000 price tag if they remain on the air. Burns & Allen, a $12,000 package last year, is now said to be selling for $8,500. Gloomed one radioman: "The handwriting on the wall is getting bigger and redder than ever, and these are the days when people in the radio business are reading it like bad news bulletins."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.