The move from products sponsoring shows to commercials

[etv78]

Several years ago, the person credited with the move from products sponsoring whole shows (e.g. "Texxaco Star Theatre") died, I'm blanking on his name. Incidentally, what started this trend?

[RealityChuck]

There were two main reasons for the change:

1. The official public answer: the sponsors censored the show's content so that they would not allow certain references. The case cited was a show about the German concentration camps sponsored by a natural gas company that ordered no references be made to gassing the prisoners.

2. The more likely answer: it made more money for the networks. If you had a sponsor, you were paid a set amount. If you switched to the "magazine format" (as it was called), you could charge more for an ad if the show was a hit. The down side was that ratings became much more important; a sponsor might be happy with middling ratings -- they got their name out there to plenty of people. But a network wanted high ratings so they could charge more for ads.

I also think one issue was that the networks didn't have money for programming. Having a sponsor paid for the show allowed them to do better, and in the early days, independent TV producers did not have top-quality talent. In the mid-50s, though, the movie studios started producing TV series (I think Warner Brothers were the first), so the networks didn't need the sponsors to pay for production.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

There were two main reasons for the change:

1. The official public answer: the sponsors censored the show's content so that they would not allow certain references...

The words "luck" and "lucky" were never mentioned in dialouge on I Love Lucy because the show's sponser, Philip Morris, didn't want anything that could make people thing of Lucky Strikes.