a May 1977 . $2.00 MEDIA I WHERE MARKETING AND MEDIA MEET WITH & WETHOUT TV : r How Reynolds foods and tobacco compa'e media page 59 s rf. ". " . ; In fact. In use. In reality. So if it's a diet in Good Housekeeping, it's not just a recipe. And it's not just cooked. It's analyzed, revised, nutritionally balanced and chemically right. Did you know that? Women do. Survey after survey shows an ad in the editorial environment of Good Housekeeping stimulates more consumer confidence than it does in any other women's magazine. ferent from a diet article in any other magazine? 14--,"-7 "i . _. ..-_ "1"1771\ b` nRTJJ - ' . p .,f 11 ' y ' ' :. f H. .i.=c 3 Y ° :, _ ° y° .w. ¡iA- ' . t:11:' : { .i Y ) - ti ''' . _ ., 6 .+ oI o y 9 _ ,i . 6-. +j ° ®o ' t. , ° ( L , o . V ,¡ *0-+ . 1 ° á2..^ g. '.-á'.5s -k:4 ° +Y ° t + . ° . ^ T - c ` r o " L s' .. yo' 21bik-em . ,p. 4., a$;*"a ,rus . , i'J )° Ofttl kno, _ fe. r;{ . 7 m -o - ' . nt vn,' Í: h 6'' Y w o: !, ,t . int. And %A -o ---en know it. All women's magazines print interesting diets and terrific pictures. So, how can you, as a busy business executive, tell the editorial impact of one from the other? With Good Housekeeping, it's easy. The difference is enormous. Because behind everything printed in a Good Housekccping service editorial is the work of the Good Housekeeping Institute. A phenomenon in publishing. A huge complex of laboratories from chemistry labs to engineering labs to active kitchens (regular kitchens and diet kitchens!) in which our editors work to verify their editorial. Why is a diet article in Good Housekeeping Jiff differeñéls we aré f M'^ J- -` c `lThe a - only magazine that:crep4s oils`> ', 1,1 own diets and [ J nutritional bal;'r .."1- chemica l '1"`"-- ° ° octivity in our ownAab/ "/, - . R is we With our own on -staff bioc'heft- st:. The difference Our own on -staff =ozhe" measure the otein is- . wIh our And our own on-stáff -:` - ' content láo -51 Idahl Protein Extractor. registered dietitia .:1+ ; i IP I ":.1.""..? 0,447»- *9 .sso, 7;1111 n , s o The difference is wéhew lhev ° how to make the some dish 1.."2",411» _ - a slim ing diet, a'low-sod};^ `y diet, a w -cholesterol dic ,s'- " is allergy t, et cetera. - qr. a, difference ou .r;,.,, .=1 diet d'shes must then gc a otlg our regular f ''.x .; : 'itchens and pass ! r - o - ., { 11.0-rte taste and flavo ' ` standards as oul °.. .. 0 I ous non -diet dishe Ir. " C..-a ;0 r, _ .1hé difference is we - ' ` analyze the vitamin content with our 1 Ultra -Violet Spectrometer. ..) ma - e practice what we pr Why is a diet article in Good Housekeeping different from a diet article in any other magazine? PUBLISHER'S COLUMN We like to be different The other day Lionel Kaufman, our assistant publisher who worries, with the in- tensity of a bloodhound, over every advertiser and agency request tó get on our controlled list, reported that we had broken another record. Lars Fladmark had just phoned to say that over 51% of our qualified recipients had responded to our very first request to requalify themselves - to tell us they're still in their jobs and still want MEDIA DECISIONS. He predicted that by the time the second mailout was back MEDIA DECISIONS would show well over 80%. Since Lars runs Harcourt Brace Jovanovich operations in Duluth, and numbers us among his 100 or so circulation fulfillment clients, that gave rise to a few questions. "How good is that?" we asked. "Not bad, not bad." he said. "Very few books can come anywhere near that in personal request, at least not from two efforts." Therein hangs a story. In 1975 Lars had suggested that we cut down our cus- tomary five requalifications to four since we were drawing so well. Despite the reduction we broke our previous high with about 80%. In 1976 two efforts hit 80%, so we stopped there. In 1977 it looks pretty. certain that we'll top 80% with no more than two again. Of course we're happy to save all that postage. What makes us even happier is another evidence that our unique approach in turning out a different kind of adver- tising business hook isn't going unnoticed by our readers. One of the chief differences is our extreme specialization. Even before we turned out our first issue we decided not to he all things to all people. That might be good enough for the news -oriented weeklies. But we had a different job to do. We wanted to be the in-depth monthly edited not 99%, but 100%, for the adver- tiser who was advertising in more than one market. We wanted to give him a perspective on each and every major advertising medium and show him how mar- keting and media can he teamed to make his media dollars work hest. There was another big difference. We decided to limit our BPA agency and ad- vertiser controlled copies to those people who could show a personal involvement in planning, approving, or implementing the media buy. These innovations in editorial and advertising practice made us run on what is undoubtedly the narrowest track in the history of the ad trade press. We don't mind. It gives us a precise fix on our editorial approach and makes it easy to iden- tify our circulation target. Maybe we don't do too well on some of the all-purpose surveys of advertiser/agency reading preferences that ad hooks are fond of making. But our universe isn't theirs - and we intend to keep going on separating the wheat from the chaff. We earn a lot of brownie points with agency people who study audit statements. We take a great deal of pride in the fact that over 95% of our 25.9UO BPA qualified copies go to advertisers and agencies - and that means our kind of advertiser and agency. We're leading the ad press fight for detailed job -classification breakouts. The December 1976 Publisher's Statement, for example. shows 130 separate ad- vertiser and agency breakouts. BPA allows us to continue sending copies to non-requalifying recipients for as long as three years. That may he fine for some fields, but in the volatile ad world it's too long. Our audit statement shows no three year readers and only 16.4% two year recipients. And our circulation is concentrated in the big advertising centers like New York. Detroit. Chicago, Los Angeles. Dallas. Atlanta where marketing and advertising decisions are made. Yes. we're different. And we like it. More to the point, our readers like it. 1.14144. Norman K. (ilenn hUhlÍher 1 -P.1.2 sior , me Contents MAY 1977, VOL. 12, NO. 5 --c92 - :lbw, Jean Caste is president of Cosmair, Inc. (L'Oreal Preference haircolor and Lancome facial make-up). He explains in this FOR issue how those products were moved from beauty salons _-- - into over-the-counter successes. THE 59 Two guys from Reynolds Two brand management directors, one front RJR Foods and one front Reynolds R Tobacco, compare their media alternatives. 62 Will stereo change AM radio? Stereophonic broadcast of AM radio goes into test this month. If approved, how Barron's investment - will it affect the radio marketplace? active subscribers average 21 64 ERP's are what count transactions during the year. According to Al Achenbaum, only "effective exposure'' represents the true And with an average portfolio value of a schedule. of nearly $114 million, that's a 66 L'Oreal's mission in the U.S. lot of market movement. When L'Oreal decided to invade the U.S. market. they sent Jean Caste over from Good reason to move your Paris. Here's the strategy he evolved. advertising to Barron's. 68 So they all speak Spanish How to reach the Spanish markets within the U.S. We'd like to tell you more. 72 The blue collars For all the facts and figures, What's special about the so-called "blue collar" market and the media that spe- any Barron's advertis- contact cialize in blue-collar v orker interests. ing sales office. Or Bernie 76 Special report on business advertising part 3 Flanagan, Barron's, 22 Cort- - Ilas the business press turned the corner? It's booming right now, but will it con- NY landt Street, Newyork, tinue to catch up with other media? 10007, (212) 285-5374. 96 The new TGI And put a millionaire to Target Group Index now estimates total audience of 145.4 million adult readers work for you. of 119 consumer magazines. 135 International Marketing & Media England: moving towards a media mix (page 136). Things are looking up down - under in Australia (page 140). `'Spain is Barcelona and Madrid" (page 144). Worldwide media budget: $49 billion (page 148). 153 Brand report 19: Household paper products Spending in this $72,235.000 category soared last year. as spot tv and newspa- pers benefitted the most. Departments As I See It 8 Media Month by Lionel Kaufman 80 Marketing by Joe Ostrow 12 Mediology by Ed Papaiian 82 Newspapers by Madeline Nagel 18 Media Update 82 Radio by George Rosenkranc 24 Letters 86 Television by Roger Bumstead 30 Inside Media 90 Out -of -home by Bob Flood Today is history. 44 Media Futures 92 Media Research by Gabe Samuels Tomorrow is 48 Media Cost Index 94 Business Magazines by Bill Iladley 50 Washington Gap 94 Consumer Magaiines by Sheldon Taule 167 Newsmakers 182 Guest Editorial by Jean Caste BARRON'S 170 Homework 174 Media Quotes Source Erdos & Morgan Subscnber Study.