RADIO ADVERTISING

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21416, 7 March 1935, Page 9

RADIO ADVERTISING

TO THE EDITOR OF TIJE Pltr.SS. Sir, —It has struck me as being rather strange that the cry "government interference in private enterprise" has not been raised strongly in connexion with this controversial subject. There is no doubt in my mind that the political stifling of the privately-owned radio stations has largely been responsible for the low standard of programmes that is complained of so much by correspondents and by "Ariel." Had the B stations been allowed to develop, in the competition that would necessarily have arisen to get and keep listeners, attractive items, and more attractive still, would have had to be found, and the studios would have become the happy hunting grounds of Talented performers (and not only in the realm of music, but also in that of elocution), who would have been enticed to the microphone by good cheques. What plays and talks there would have been given, too! But to obtain good broadcasters by means of good remuneration, revenue would, of course, have had to be obtained first—and there's the rub. Advertising, publicity, or a grant from listeners' license fees would have provided it, or combinations of the three. Had the Government not monopolised broadcasting, but left it to private enterprise, I doubt whether there would be any more complaints than there arc now about the talkies. The best scheme would have been to have allowed listeners to nominate which station they would like their license fee to go to. A£l fee would probably have sufficed, and would have obviated any necessity for advertising to obtain revenue. In the desire to get as many pounds as possible, the stations would have set to to organise really attractive programmes, and especially if nominations were made and fees paid every six months. The fittest to survive would soon be sorted out, and would thrive, while the others would die out. The dissatisfied listeners would be able to get revenge by changing their nominations every six months, and w °uld have the satisfaction of knowing that complaints would really be given serious consideration.

But we have to face the unfortunate fact that enterprise in broadcasting in this country is to be discouiaged more and more, and that listeners who want novelty, better entertainment, and change, will have to look to entertaining manufacturers and sellers of sets that will tune in to overseas stations, with more and more clarity. Since the New Zealand national stations are not supposed to broadcast advertisements, and presumably will never be allowed to, it is difficult to see why listeners should object to B stations doing so. _ No listener would be a loser, for his license fees would go to the national stations, and if he should not want to listen to sponsored programmes he would not have to. On the other hand, he could if he- wished to, which is what he cannot do now. So in reality he would be a gainer. The request made a while ago on behalf of one station for 30 words of advertising every half-hour was most reasonable, and should never have been refused.—Yours, etc., STATIC. March 5, 1935.