1. As you know, "The Japan Hour" is sponsored by Japanese manufacturers in order to acquaint Americans with some of the many products now being made in Japan, and with Japanese customs and culture. Are you, yourself, interested in such information? ( ) Yes. ( ) No. () Noncommitals.

(Skip to question 3.)

2. If "Yes" or "No": Why do you say that?

3. Do you happen to remember what (last night's) "Japan Hour" program was about? () Yes. ( ) No. (Skip to question 8.) 4. What was the program about?

5. What was advertised on that program?

6. Would you say you found that particular program:

8. Within the past 6 months or so, have you bought any product or item that was made in Japan? () Yes. ( ) No. (Skip to question 12.)

9. If "Yes": Please check below the products purchased.

10. What brands were they? Please check below.

11. How do you think the items bought compare with same item of American manufacture? (Check below for each item purchased.)

12. In general, do you expect to pay more, less or about the same for merchandise imported from Japan, as compared with American-made items of the same quality? ( ) More. () Less. () Same (skip to question 14).

13. If "more" or "less": Why is that?

14. Do you remember any advertising about Japanese products or brands anywhere except on television? () Yes. ( ) No. (skip to question 17). 15. If "Yes": Where was that advertising?

17. Would you buy articles to give as gifts that are identified as made in Japan? ( ) Yes. ( ) No.

89567-49-pt. 7-14

3. LETTER DATED JUNE 18, 1958, FROM STUART T. MARTIN, PRESIDENT OF WCAX-TV OF BURLINGTON, VT., URGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERN

MENT

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

WCAX-TV,

Burlington, Vt., June 18, 1958.

Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I am delighted to hear that you are making an inquiry into the rating services for television and radio. There are persistent reports in the trade that none of these services are as completely objective as their importance to the industry would dictate.

A major problem seems to be that their acceptance is determined more by the quality of their sales staff than by any objective determination of their scope or accuracy. As of this moment the American Research Bureau has the greatest credence among most advertising agencies, with A. C. Nielsen being a close runner-up. However both of these services rely exclusively on diaries which are submitted by viewers who are solicited for the service. These viewers are paid nothing, and except for random telephone conversations, have little or no contact with the people for whom they are to do the reporting. As a result the raw data on which conclusions are based, is absolutely incapable of being checked. At the same time the third service, Pulse, which relies entirely on interviews, as to past viewing, has little or no acceptance for television. This seems remarkable because this method is the only one which offers at least an opportunity to check on the raw data by cross-examination of the interviewee. Why the service whose basic method appears to be inherently superior (in the light of our insistence on cross-examination for ascertaining the truth in our legal system) should be the one with the least acceptance is a matter which has often puzzled me.

My own training has been in the field of physical research. I received the degree of doctor of science in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1938 and practiced as a research physicist up until 1954 when I constructed this station. To a man with this background the outstanding defect of the present rating system is that there is no standard. That is to say, there is no way of knowing the relationship between the results produced by ARB, Pulse, Nielsen, and anyone else who might be in the field. From the standpoint of having any objective measure of audience you can see that this is a nearly fatal defect. Presumably all are measuring or attempting to measure the same thing. If we knew what the errors were in the various systems then there would no longer be room for argument among them. However the services vehemently resist any such suggestion. The reason is that they are primarily selling sales tools rather than bonafide measurement services. Furthermore, there is little opportunity for anyone else to enter the field without an extensive sales campaign, because no one in the industry has the means to ascertain whether the new methodology would be appropriate.

It has occurred to me that an industry involving some $2 or $3 billion of expenditures annually deserves a better basic measurement tool than these services provide. The National Association of Broadcasters has attempted to investigate this matter and did make some advances which unfortunately seem to have fallen by the wayside. I would like to suggest as a fruitful line of inquiry for your committee, investigation of why standards for rating services could not be established by a nationally recognized Government body. The one which first comes to mind is the National Bureau of Standards. The Bureau of Standards is for exactly that purpose. They have succeeded beyond all expectations in many important fields. Thus, we only buy one or two kinds of nuts and bolts. We know that the nuts we buy from one supplier will fit the bolts supplied by another. It is hard for me to see why this body, with its impressive record and august position, should not be able to establish a method

ology which would give recognized results if followed. Under these circumstances, any responsible firm or body could undertake their own research with the assurance that they would have meaningful results.

If there is anything I can do to assist you in your inquiry please feel free to call upon me.

Sincerely,

STUART T. MARTIN, President.

4. LETTER DATED JULY 13, 1958, FROM MRS. DOROTHY C. BURGESS, COMMENTING ON THE PRESENT STATE OF TELEVISION PROGRAMING AND PROPOSING IMPROVEMENTS

Senator MIKE MONRONEY,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

SEASIDE, OREG., July 13, 1958.

DEAR SENATOR MONRONEY: Because television has become such a popular hobby, an answer to home entertainment, an alleviator of boredom, etc., I believe and I'm sure thousands will agree with me that the television industry should reevaluate the type of programs which are being contracted for in planning their coming year's programs.

The television industry is sadly losing its appeal because of the trashy crimesex-murder-type programs, and even I am gradually reverting to radio and its pleasing musical programs. I believe the television industry is missing a wide-open field of entertainment and education by the lack of wholesome programing. What better service to humanity than to give the public a stimulating story of real life, a story that has a moral issue, or a comical incident applicable to the average citizen, a story worthy of intelligent discussion and a feeling that the audience was glad it had seen the movie or some particular program and would remember it. The Christophers program is a wonderful example, and truthfully, I would never miss that Sunday morning message. Also, there are many educational programs like "Meet the Press," "Edward R. Murrow Interviews," "Wide, Wide World,” “Omnibus," and others which are superb, however there are far too few of these.

We are living today in a world held together by a very thin thread which if broken means complete destruction, or we can live in a world with a great future in science, human relations, and world betterment. The television industry reaches far more individuals than any other medium nowadays.

Is it any wonder juvenile crime as well as adult crime has reached such depths of degradation with parents showing no objections to the glorification and acceptability of all the crime and murder stories on TV. Indeed, the children clamor to watch all the murder mysteries since they are excitable stories, but consider how their little minds dwell on the criminal as each child lies in his bed prior to dropping off to a questionably restful sleep.

Campaigns have been started to clean up the comic-book industry, and now I believe it is high time to tidy up the television programs. I realize polls have been taken to get a cross section of opinions of the American public, however, I also realize some Americans are too lazy to think in terms of future generations.

I have tolerated television (and I know I can turn it off) for many years now, and not until recently have I really had any substantial complaint; however, when "Studio One," "Science Fiction Theater," "Climax," "Wide Wide World," and a few of the other outstanding programs are being canceled for substitutes like the various westerns, quiz shows, etc., which have no point at all, then I turn my television set off. Distinguished show people like Sid Caesar, Victor Borge, Jerry Lewis, and other talented artists are certainly a credit to any network.

It seems to me a balanced type of programing could be worked out like this: Thirty percent interdenominational religious and moral issues; 30 percent education; 30 percent entertainment; 5 percent westerns; 5 percent crimemurder (for those who can't stand to elevate themselves).

The schools are supposed to educate our children. Now, I believe it is high time to educate our adults-by television. Your writers would have a wealth of material both moral and educational from the Bible itself. The ever-popular science fiction or fact would always be well received. There is just a neverending field for your writers if they could be told what services they could render to mankind and the great satisfaction they would realize in knowing

that their material was contributing to the mental, physical, and spiritual well-being of humanity.

In spite of all that is said about toll TV (and possibly that is the reason for all the rotten programs to "educate" the public that if programs get so bad, then they'll "pay" to see the "good" programs) it is wrong to expect payment for that which was originally intended to be free. I would far rather pay a little higher rate for my cable fee and have the freedom of choice I have now, than to have to pay a certain sum for the "good" programs. It could be a vicious circle, for as time goes by, those rates could be raised also and it is not fair to the less fortunate families whose television set is the only luxury they have and at least that luxury keeps their families at home and together.

Think, please, Senator Monroney, on this and give consideration to these thoughts since I am only one of millions of mothers who feel particularly the same as I, and someone such as you in the position you hold as a Senator in our Government is surely openminded on the subject which I have discussed. The enclosed editorial is self-explanatory and was clipped from the Oregonian of July 13, 1958.

Yours very truly,

Mrs. DOROTHY C. BURGESS.

Enclosure 1: Copies sent to chairman of the board of directors, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., New York City; chairman of the board of directors, National Broadcasting Co., New York City; chairman of the board of directors, American Broadcasting Co., New York City; Mr. C. Howard Lane, chairman of television board, National Association of Broadcasters, KOIN-TV, Portland, Oreg.; Mr. Martin Manulis, producer, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., New York City.

P.S.-I have included your name, Senator Monroney, on the list to whom I wrote letters since I read "Rating the Raters" in the July 7, 1958, issue of Newsweek, so possibly you can refer this letter to the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, for which I thank you.

5. LETTER DATED JULY 20, 1958, FROM WILTON C. HAFF DESCRIBING A NEW ELECTROMECHANICAL DEVICE FOR PRODUCING MEASUREMENT DATA WITHOUT PROBABILITY EXTENSIONS

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

PLEASANTVILLE, N.Y., July 20, 1958.

DEAR MR. MAGNUSON: Last week, Wednesday, July 16, I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Nick Zapple in reference to the recently concluded hearings on television and radio research reports of various U.S. research corporations. Mr. Zapple was of the opinion that I should make myself available for testimony because with the assistance of an electronics engineer I have come up with an electromechanical business machine device which accurately will produce factual tabulated data without probability extensions or estimates on television and radio sets condition of use.

Work on designing this equipment began in 1952 after several years of speculative planning. It was not until June of 1957 that we felt we could conscientiously report the existence of the device.

Prototypes can be created which will produce data answering all the questions and criticisms which have been currently and in the past attached to the