Radio: The Bruise Inside

The millions of U.S. parents who don’t own TV sets were whipsawed last week by full-page ads in 1,100 newspapers and sudsy commercials pouring from 250 radio stations. The American Television Dealers and Manufacturers Association was spending $2,000,000 to feature the sad plight of a winsome, pigtailed little girl blubbering on the shoulder of her pouting, sad-eyed brother. Warned the A.T.D.M.: “There are some things a son or daughter won’t tell you … Do you expect him to blurt out the truth—that he’s really ashamed to be with the gang—because he doesn’t see the television shows they see?.. . How can a little girl describe the bruise deep inside? . . . Can you deny television to your family any longer?”

To this heartbreak harangue, Columnist Angelo Patri, child guidance expert, added his voice of authority: “Youngsters today need television for their morale as much as they need fresh air and sunshine for their health . . .”

Protests crackled from coast to coast. A Washington Post reader denounced the “vicious” attempt to “blackmail parents into buying a product.” The Washington Star editorially conceded that the ad “was in bad taste” and regretted its publication. Cried the Los Angeles Mirror’s Columnist Hal Humphrey: “How neurotic can you get?”

In Nashville, a convention of 90 Methodist church leaders took time out to denounce the campaign as “a new low” in advertising. Asked one embattled parent in the Nashville Banner: “Should I . . . go into debt … in order that my children can see highlights of football, an ancient fourth-rate movie followed by a full program of wrestling?”

Angelo Patri’s syndicated column was promptly dropped by the Providence, R.I. Journal-Bulletin, even though Patri himself had withdrawn his endorsement and returned the check he had received for it.

By the time the first returns were in and counted, several papers had announced that they would run no more ads in the campaign. Editor Frank A. Clarvoe of Scripps-Howard’s San Francisco News said shortly: “It was a damned stupid campaign and whoever thought it up ought to have his head examined.”

In Manhattan, ad agency Ruthrauff & Ryan, which is handling the campaign, was only mildly repentant, admitted that the “negative approach” may have been a mistake. Announcing the withdrawal of the second ad in the series (a freckle-faced, tearful boy described as “the loneliest kid on the block”), Ruthrauff & Ryan decided to accentuate the “positive, happy approach.” The first “happy” ad: a picture of two smallfry embracing their father over the caption: “You’d give them the world if you could—this Christmas you can.”