No Advertising on US Radio

In the early days of radio in the US, there was a widespread belief that advertising on radio programs would be inappropriate. (You may wonder how people imagined radio could be profitable without advertising. The answer is that it was thought that free programming for listeners would bring good publicity to the owner, whether a newspaper, department store, or whatever. Stations in those days were identified by the names of their owners, a practice that led to certain initials which remained long after the ownership had changed--for example, WLS meant "world's largest store", i.e., Sears, Roebuck.) One of the people who adhered most strongly to this belief was Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover:

"Those who thought of putting advertising on the air in the early days did not have an easy time of it. As the promise of the medium began to be realized in the mid-1920's, editors like Bruce Bliven of the *Century* magazine editorialized against radio advertising, saying that it would be 'wholly undesirable' and 'should be prohibited by legislation if necessary.' When Secretary of Commerce Hoover gathered interested parties together in 1922 for the first Washngton Radio Conference, it was generally agreed 'that it was against public interest to broadcast pure advertising matter.'...

"Hoover...probably had a greater influence on how advertising developed in America than any other federal official. Since Hoover spoke out firmly against the idea of advertising on radio when the concept was first advanced to him , it would take several more years before spot announcements or sponsored programs were heard regularly over the radio..." http://books.google.com/books?id=T4ZeKHRTtawC&pg=PA148

Even if Bliven's suggestion of legislation to prohibit advertising were taken, my guess is that it would be repealed when broadcasters (especially once the Great Depression hit) complained to Congress that they simply could not stay in business without advertising. But perhaps the repeal would contain some exceptions--for example, for news broadcasting. ("This isn't mere entertainment and shouldn't be interrupted by ads, and shouldn't have its contents distorted to please advertisers.") This in turn might later have been applied to television.

Any thoughts?
 
I like the idea of a variety of different kinds of owners.

For example, maybe unions could own some radio stations? And the format would be a mix of music, radio dramas, comedies, as well as news from a union perspective.

And for a real flight of fancy, have most unions learn the lesson from defense attorneys that if there's unflattering information about my client, I want to be the one who tells the jury first. And in this case, it's the jury of public opinion.
 
Nothing is impossible but I think that this comes close at least in the US!
I could see some states possibly setting up their equivalent of the BBC but I can't see the US as a whole accepting a radio licence or a tax to pay for radio.
However if you could spin paying for radio being like buying a paper that might work. Alternatively programmes are not split by commercials these can only occur between programmes?
 
Lindseyman said:
if you could spin paying for radio being like buying a paper
The only reason a newspaper is profitable is because of the advertising in it...:rolleyes:
Lindseyman said:
programmes are not split by commercials these can only occur between programmes?
That's still advertising.

What you might end up with instead is something very like early TV, with programs entirely paid for by sponsors, which has enormous bad effects.:eek::eek: It's what led to the quiz show scandal. It's liable to be worse, this way.:eek:

Beyond that, how are radio stations going to pay for their programming? Recall, it was a financially-strapped station that first allowed spot ads, since they couldn't get anybody to buy a full 30min.
 
Top