The Exhibitor (Jun-Oct 1939)

BM-18 BETTER MANAGEMENT that doors which open automatically at a patron's approach, and close automatically when he has passed through, will fascinate entertainment-seekers any time. Actuated by a tiny beam of light, their "showmanship" has made the news-columns wherever they've been installed — and they've proved them¬ selves real box-office pullers . . . for the theatre with the Magic Doors is the most modern in town! Practical, too. They save money. By con¬ serving costly conditioned-air . . . because they stay open only as long as necessary. A complete Magic Door installation for your theatre is available at a price within your budget. Why not have the facts? Send for the 24-page Stanley Magic Door book today. The Stanley Works, New Britain, Conn. STANLEY * MAGIC \ DOORS / % ° *0 hano * “CAVEAT EMPTOR” (Let the Buyer Beware) FOR YEARS The Exhibitor has hammered away at what it considers two of the cardinal principles of theatre operation: First, the best you can buy is the cheap¬ est you can afford, and, second, put it in the contract. The first has, of course, been applied largely to the physical equipment of the¬ atres and the properties themselves, and the second to the pictures for which exhibi¬ tion contracts have been signed. Yet the same philosophy of business is no less applicable to both principles. Effectively to practice these principles, The Exhibitor has repeatedly urged exhibitors and theatre operators to give their business only to reputable companies — concerns not only whose commercial dealings are above reproach but also whose material is of the highest quality and protected by diligently observed written service agreements. TO YOUR EDITORS’ ATTENTION have recently two flagrant examples of reprehensible conduct on the part, first, of a manufacturer of air-conditioning equip¬ ment and, second, of a manufacturer of toilet fixtures. These cases further illustrate not only the fallacy of always buying against a price — the lowest one, of course — and that of neglecting to provide adequately in the installation contract that satis¬ factory operation be maintained. IN THE CASE OF the air-conditioning installation, dealings were had with what was thought to be a reputable contractor, but in the completion of the installa¬ tion, corners were cut so that the work could be completed with the realization of the expected profit to the contractor. While the installation passed the fire and other inspection officers, the system under actual operating circumstances gave a something less than satisfactory performance. As the season approached this year when the plant would be turned on, the annual servicing, which was to have been included in the contract, was requested and the contractor assumed the position that his contract had been fulfilled and failed to do anything about it. When the exhibitor then called upon the manufacturer for service (he did not expect it gratis, either!), the manufacturer took the attitude of "We did not have anything to do with the job: we just furnished the machinery some one else contracted to install. So what?” That any ethical or moral defense of such attitudes can be either excused or con¬ doned is futile to ponder even for a moment. While a strict legal interpretation of contractual agreements might support the contractor and the manufacturer, common, hard-boiled business-sense should indicate that it is to the future best interest of both parties to assist the exhibitor in maintaining his plant in top-notch condition. IN THE SECOND CASE that has come to our attention, plumbing fixtures were the items causing the headache. In the installation in question, whether through faulty design or inept technique in setting the equipment in place — or from both reasons — it has happened that 2 5 percent of the units have given continual trouble, the exhibitor reporting no less than 20 overflows in the course of a single year. Other than creating an intolerable condition in the toilet room itself, the over¬ flowed water has been of sufficient volume to spread into the ladies’ lounge, soaking the carpet. This has, of course, necessitated taking the carpet up, drying it, sending it to the cleaners, then relaying it — and all at no little extra added expense. Again a manufacturer, who made the equipment, and a plumber, who installed it, disclaim responsibility on the probable grounds that both have fulfilled whatever contractual agreement had been made. Such conditions as confront this exhibitor cannot continue and must not continue. It would seem that the only logical thing to do would be for the plumber to see what he could do to rectify what errors might have been made at the time of installation, and for the manufacturer to study his equipment and to rectify what errors there might be in design. In both these cases we see evidence of an ever-growing tendency to resurrect the age old dictum. "Caveat emptor” (Let the buyer beware), which heretofore seemed to be consigned to the limbo of the archaic and the impractical. ACCORDINGLY, the Editors want to point out at this time, in just as vehement terms as they can muster, the necessity for every exhibitor to take a strict personal interest in every contract he signs, to make sure that he knows every provision — and that those provisions include the matter of post-installation service — and to watch closely the progress of the work, providing it with competent inspection that shall insure faultless functioning of the apparatus during subsequent operation. WE LIKEWISE CALL upon manufacturers to meet their contractors’ clients more than half way, for (and it seems almost too basically important not to be ac¬ cepted by all) a thoroughly satisfied customer is their best advertisement. May 17, 19)9