September 27, 1973
TO: E. D. VERGARA, Administrative Assistant
FROM: WILLIAM T. ALLEE, Administrative Assistan C
RE: Tribune Ad
Let us begin with the positive aspect.
Our legal requirements were met beginning August 13. The ad ran for seven consecutive
days (August 13-19), then on the last two Wednesdays of the month (August 22 &29). For
some odd reason it appeared on the first Monday in September (September 3) and each sub-
sequent Monday of the month (September 10, 17 & 24). No harm done. It is scheduled
to continue running on Mondays in October (October 1, 8, 15, 22 & 29).
The initial "goof-up" occurred the first week our notice was scheduled to appear. It ran
July 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, --, 23, 24, 25. Obviously these dates did us no good.
Therefore, I would recommend that we don't pay for them. But, someone downtown is
going to scream because it appeared in both the Tribune and the Times that week and
really mounted up. The Tribune Co. stands to lose $818.48.
It would seem to me that a compromise is in order. Here are my thoughts (listed in order
of "Proofs" received):
1. I think we should pay for July 17. This was the very first day LMB arranged for
the ad to appear. As you will recall, it appeared as a display ad. We cancelled
the display ad ($1.56 cut charge) in order to initiate the legal. Cost for running
the ad July 17, morning and evening -- $78.75. My recommendation: Since
this was actually our mix-up, we should pay $78.75 + $1.56 = $80.31.
2. The next "Proof" we received covered July 18, 19, 20, 21, --, 23, 24, & 25,
morning and evening -- and charged us for 13 insertions, but, an attached
Credit Memo stated that we killed it after 7 insertions. Total cost -- $818.48.
As I see it, this amount will be the crux of our settlement with the Tribune Co.
These dates did not comply with their instructions per LMB and did not satisfy
our legal requirements. Perhaps LMB could discuss it with them.
My recommendation: Don't pay this amount.
3. We received two "Proofs" concerning August. One was a continuation of their
July botch. It covered August 1, 8, 15, 22 & 29. The other covered August
10, 11, --, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 19. Botch #2 -- no August 12.
Finally sufficient (August 13 19). This is where I would suggest that we
compromise by paying for those days in August that the ad appeared.
To: E. D. Vergara
Re: Tribune Ad
September 27, 1973
A. We would be paying for August 1, 8, 10 & 11 simply
as a compromise.
B. It should be noted that we needed August 22 & 29 in order
to cover those weeks.
C. Also, August 15 is charged on both "Proofs". We wouldn't
pay twice for the same day.
4. Hopefully the invoices that we receive for September and October will
correspond correctly to those days on which the ad should have appeared.
Mr. Urbanski asked if I would send him something in writing that would clarify our
position so that he could handle his end. So, if you would reflect on my thoughts...
Summary of recommendations:
1) Pay for July 17 (our mix-up), $80.31.
2) Don't pay for July 18-25 (their compromise), $818.48.
3) Pay for all August dates (our compromise), $594.20.
4) Hope that September and October pose no problem.
5) After your comments I should write to Mr. Urbanski stating our position.