Coin Machine Review (& Pacific ...)
Issue: 1936 June - Page 16
JI
II
E
c.
JL
..
..
10) ~
Ir~~ @
Advertising Claims Must Be
Substantiated
LEA SE put down the date-July L 1936. That
P day
is not going down in history along with such
events as the Signing of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence or the Fall of the Bastile or even what
Mrs. O'Leary's cow did to Chicago. But it is impor-
tant to every operator who reads THE REVIEW and
there are several.
Effective with the July 1936 issue, THE REVIEW
will refuse to accept advertising which contains any
claims for earning power which cannot be sup-
ported by actual proof.
In case any of you remember the early days of
THE REVIEW'S existence when it set out to serve
the coin machine industry to the best of its ability,
you may recall from page one of the first issue in
July, 1933, these words: "With this issue a new trade
publication devoted exclusively to the welfare of the
coin machine industry enters the field . .. "
Next month THE REVIEW enters its fourth year
of endeavoring to carry out the above · objective. In
announcing its policy of improved standards for coin
machine advertising, THE REVIEV\T entertains no
lofty aims nor unattainable ideals which might be
attributed to an adolescent suffering his first pangs
of maturity. But it does believe firmly that the main-
tenance of confidence in its advertising columns is
the greatest asset THE REVIEW can offer to the na-
tion's operators and jobbers and manufacturers.
THE REVIEW will lose some business from those
advertisers who believe this new pioneering policy ·
for the coin machine industry is too severe for a
business that has in some instances permitted its ad-
vertising to drift into the category of "ballyhoo."
Other objectors will contend that THE REVIEW is
attempting to set up its own bureau o'f censorship in
v iolation of the constitutional guarantee of freedom
of the press.
They will be the losers.
The gainers will be those advertisers-and they
are now in the vast majority- who present their
products on their merits.
After all, what happens when a manufacturer
introduces a new machine with the grandiose claim
that it will earn so many hundred dollars per week?
In the first place, the operator who reads that ad is
chiefly interested in judging for himself what the
machine will earn. He determines this usually by
buying a sample-and in b uYing samples he is
guided not by high-powereq phraseology but by a
clear-cut description of the machine, its mechanism,
playing features, quality of parts and cabinet, and
price. Almost every operator can be persuaded at
one time or another, by means of clever advertis-
ing, to buy a "flop" for which extravagant earning
power is claimed. But mark you these words, he
doesn't get caught twice.
All right, if the operators discount or disregard
entirely the exhorbitant "earnings" credited to some
products, what harm can it do except to take up
valuable space for which the advertiser alone is
paying? It hurts the operator and in the long run it
hurts the advertiser because inevitably as soon as
his literature gets into the hands of legislators, the
license fees are boosted accordingly. This point
is brought out forcefully in a letter to THE REVIEW
from one of the industry's largest manufacturers,
who says in part:
"Legislators are casting their eyes around trying to tax
everything possible and when they see an advertisement of
a coin-operated machine which states that the intake is
$200.00 or more per week, they feel thoroughly justified in
taxing all classes of vending machines without discrimina-
tion. This is where publishers can do a real service for
the industry and, of course, it is not an easy matter, unless
all publishers will unite with you on the proposition ... "
THE REVIEW has no legislators among its sub-
scribers- with the exception of a few operators who
are city councilmen-but it is possible for copies of
the trade publications and the mailing pieces of
manufacturers to get into the hands of officials who
determine such matters as license fees. The oper-
ators of mach ines which make $200.00 a week do
not object to paying a fair tax on that sum, but the
operators . of equipment which earns far less than
that do object to paying taxes on that basis.
There are no "ifs" and "ands" about THE RE-
VIEW'S future policy in this matter. Advertising
which sta tes that a certain machine will earn or has
earned a specific amount of money within a certain
period of time must be accompanied by the adver-
tiser's affidavit supporting such claim, or the adver-
tising will be rejected.
THE REVIEW may be wrong in taking the lead
in this movement for the betterment of the industry
as a whole. If you think so, write us and point out
wherein we err. If ypu are in accord with this pol-
icy, tell your fellow operator or jobber or manufac-
turer that he can have confidence in what he reads
in THE REVIEW.
(.
PACIFIC COIN MACHINE REVIEW, 1113 Venice Boulevard, Los Angeles, Califo rn ia. Pho n e Fitzroy 8269. Paul W.
Blackford, Editor and Publishe r; E. G. Thomas, Advertising Man ager ; Lenore Cady, Ci r culat i on Mana ge r. Chicago office :
35 East Wacker Drive, CEntra l 1112. C. J. Ande r son , Manager ; E. W. Ziemann, Assistant M a nager. SUBSCRIPTION
RATES: $1.00 per y,e ar, $2.00 for 3 y ears, 25c per copy. Forms close on the 5th of each month . Issue is mailed on th e
10th. Adve'rtising rates upon application .
18
•
COIN
MACHINE
REVI E W
JUNE .
1936
II
E
c.
JL
..
..
10) ~
Ir~~ @
Advertising Claims Must Be
Substantiated
LEA SE put down the date-July L 1936. That
P day
is not going down in history along with such
events as the Signing of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence or the Fall of the Bastile or even what
Mrs. O'Leary's cow did to Chicago. But it is impor-
tant to every operator who reads THE REVIEW and
there are several.
Effective with the July 1936 issue, THE REVIEW
will refuse to accept advertising which contains any
claims for earning power which cannot be sup-
ported by actual proof.
In case any of you remember the early days of
THE REVIEW'S existence when it set out to serve
the coin machine industry to the best of its ability,
you may recall from page one of the first issue in
July, 1933, these words: "With this issue a new trade
publication devoted exclusively to the welfare of the
coin machine industry enters the field . .. "
Next month THE REVIEW enters its fourth year
of endeavoring to carry out the above · objective. In
announcing its policy of improved standards for coin
machine advertising, THE REVIEV\T entertains no
lofty aims nor unattainable ideals which might be
attributed to an adolescent suffering his first pangs
of maturity. But it does believe firmly that the main-
tenance of confidence in its advertising columns is
the greatest asset THE REVIEW can offer to the na-
tion's operators and jobbers and manufacturers.
THE REVIEW will lose some business from those
advertisers who believe this new pioneering policy ·
for the coin machine industry is too severe for a
business that has in some instances permitted its ad-
vertising to drift into the category of "ballyhoo."
Other objectors will contend that THE REVIEW is
attempting to set up its own bureau o'f censorship in
v iolation of the constitutional guarantee of freedom
of the press.
They will be the losers.
The gainers will be those advertisers-and they
are now in the vast majority- who present their
products on their merits.
After all, what happens when a manufacturer
introduces a new machine with the grandiose claim
that it will earn so many hundred dollars per week?
In the first place, the operator who reads that ad is
chiefly interested in judging for himself what the
machine will earn. He determines this usually by
buying a sample-and in b uYing samples he is
guided not by high-powereq phraseology but by a
clear-cut description of the machine, its mechanism,
playing features, quality of parts and cabinet, and
price. Almost every operator can be persuaded at
one time or another, by means of clever advertis-
ing, to buy a "flop" for which extravagant earning
power is claimed. But mark you these words, he
doesn't get caught twice.
All right, if the operators discount or disregard
entirely the exhorbitant "earnings" credited to some
products, what harm can it do except to take up
valuable space for which the advertiser alone is
paying? It hurts the operator and in the long run it
hurts the advertiser because inevitably as soon as
his literature gets into the hands of legislators, the
license fees are boosted accordingly. This point
is brought out forcefully in a letter to THE REVIEW
from one of the industry's largest manufacturers,
who says in part:
"Legislators are casting their eyes around trying to tax
everything possible and when they see an advertisement of
a coin-operated machine which states that the intake is
$200.00 or more per week, they feel thoroughly justified in
taxing all classes of vending machines without discrimina-
tion. This is where publishers can do a real service for
the industry and, of course, it is not an easy matter, unless
all publishers will unite with you on the proposition ... "
THE REVIEW has no legislators among its sub-
scribers- with the exception of a few operators who
are city councilmen-but it is possible for copies of
the trade publications and the mailing pieces of
manufacturers to get into the hands of officials who
determine such matters as license fees. The oper-
ators of mach ines which make $200.00 a week do
not object to paying a fair tax on that sum, but the
operators . of equipment which earns far less than
that do object to paying taxes on that basis.
There are no "ifs" and "ands" about THE RE-
VIEW'S future policy in this matter. Advertising
which sta tes that a certain machine will earn or has
earned a specific amount of money within a certain
period of time must be accompanied by the adver-
tiser's affidavit supporting such claim, or the adver-
tising will be rejected.
THE REVIEW may be wrong in taking the lead
in this movement for the betterment of the industry
as a whole. If you think so, write us and point out
wherein we err. If ypu are in accord with this pol-
icy, tell your fellow operator or jobber or manufac-
turer that he can have confidence in what he reads
in THE REVIEW.
(.
PACIFIC COIN MACHINE REVIEW, 1113 Venice Boulevard, Los Angeles, Califo rn ia. Pho n e Fitzroy 8269. Paul W.
Blackford, Editor and Publishe r; E. G. Thomas, Advertising Man ager ; Lenore Cady, Ci r culat i on Mana ge r. Chicago office :
35 East Wacker Drive, CEntra l 1112. C. J. Ande r son , Manager ; E. W. Ziemann, Assistant M a nager. SUBSCRIPTION
RATES: $1.00 per y,e ar, $2.00 for 3 y ears, 25c per copy. Forms close on the 5th of each month . Issue is mailed on th e
10th. Adve'rtising rates upon application .
18
•
COIN
MACHINE
REVI E W
JUNE .
1936
Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).