Document NvM6Np8vrL1jVrd8xnpgRKvQ

FORM 1 National Lead Company Advertising Department New York t- - . I /olyi r..,r y* 9 ..2 SUBJECT DATE L.I.A. White-Lead Advertising Campaign June 22, 1958 TO FROM Ur. F. W. Rockwell, President William Knust IN REPLY TO You asked me to give you a memorandum on the co-operative advertising campaign for white-lead which it is proposed the Lead Industries Association sponsor. The plan is to spend $250,000 each year for three con secutive years in national magazines with the object of increasing the gross tonnage of white-lead used as a paint pigment. The cost of the campaign is to be apportioned among miners, smelters and corroders as indicated on the at tached sheet. In 1937, National Lead Company's domestic shipments of white-lead were 54,119 tons (42,793 lead-in-oilj 11,326 dry lead) exclusive of sales to other corroders including DuPont. On this basis, our contribution toward the cam paign, at the $1 per ton assessment rate, would be $54,000 roughly. The proposal offers us an opportunity to be relieved of a substantial part of the burden of publicizing white-lead which we have carried practically alone and I am in favor of taking advantage of it provided advertisements can be designed which will not: (1) hold the threat of driving more tonnage away from lead-in-oil than would be gained in mixed paintj (2) antagonize grinders to the extent of forcing reprisals. After all, our lead-in-oil business is several times our dry white-lead business. Further more, as a company we have other interests besides whitelead to protect. On account of these two necessary restrictions, I am not very confident that it is going to be possible to produce an industry campaign which will accomplish a great deal in the direction of expanding dry white-lead sales. It Is hard to ride two horses. Nevertheless, I am for the Mr. F. W. Rockwell -2- 6/22/38 proposal. In my opinion, the expenditure can be justi fied on the ground alone that white-lead needs ad ditional national advertising to maintain the position of lead-in-oil against competition. I think I would cast my vote for the proposed campaign even if it were found necessary to take the $54,000 re quired for our share from the Dutch Boy budget. On the other hand, I cannot recommend any such action. In my estimation, our present effort in magazines is already trimmed pretty fine. As you know, it permits of no farm-paper and only a very limited amount of business-paper advertising. Then, as will be recog nized, the industry's advertising can never be a direct substitute for Dutch Boy advertising. One simply pro motes a paint ingredient. The other also sells a brand. We still have the prestige of the Dutch Boy, and all that it means to the Company, to consider. 0000-NLI-000020775