http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/abi05f00/pdf

OOpy
11atten, Barton, Durstine fr " Osborn INTRA-OFFICE
M F, M O R A N D U M
-o_ . }I.__T;~eviesas cce . T . Sitmings .. Dute_ . . . . Novgm_ber 1 .6, ..195Q_- __ .
G . Vanderwalker
Nope Martinez Subject----
AecounL_Lucky ..StAk9
Ths attached is a breakdown of Television costs for 195) in New York,
Los Arlgoles, St . Louis, Milwaukee and Boston .
Our reasons for selecting those markets ar•e as followst
New York - In view of the number of 77 sets and the size of the
market, the Agency foels that the number of 16 announcements per
weok should bo maintained .
Los An eles & St ~Lou1~s - should be kept because of the lack of
Lucky S rit ke TV network aupport . Both of these markets receiving
only one of the network TV programs .
Milwaukee - there is no TV network support at all in this market
an we feel that at least the current schedule should be maintained
in 1951 .
Boston s_ton - The number of TV sets in Boston is great enough to justify
strong use of TV in this market . Two of the TV network programs
ere heard in the Aoston area .
The current schedules of three announcements per week in Milwaukoe and
Boston and four in St . Louis should definitely be kept and, as a matter
of fact, should be increased, if the budget will permit, to at least
six per week . Currently, however, the availability situation is such
that although funds are available in the 1950 budget we have not been
able to secure more, suitable spots .
These costs are based on our current schedules using current and
retes which we know will affect us in 1951, The final figure
of t394,934 .$0 doos not allow any contingency for possible rate increases
that have not yet been announced .
You will recall that in an attempt to pro ject the Lucky Strike national
TV costs for 1951 we estimated 36% as the anticipated national rate
increase based on an analysis of 1949 and 1950 rates . In the cace of
these specific markets, however, the analysis of their rate structure
from January through November, 1950, indicates that we should estimate
GOF as a maximum contingency for rate increases .
WRITR ANn DATi VOUR INSTRUCTIONe . . . ANI11'RY.VCNT TIISUNUnRSTANDIG46
n.mNO .6