Moving Picture World (Jan-Mar 1915)

January 23, 1915 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD "The Price Made the Game." Business Depends Upon Shorter Features, with Better Stories and a Ten-cent Admission. By A. VV. Ballenger, York, Neb. MUCH time and space is being expended right now on arguments concernmg the raising of admission prices. To date ahnost exclusively the arguments have been in favor of increased admissions. If, by the "increase," they mean from five cents to a ten-cent basis — it is well. If they mean a greater increase — it is well to hesitate, to deliberate, to think long on how it will affect the business as a whole. There are many phases to the question. The most important of these I would mention here, "What does the public think of it?" Will they stand for the raise? Will they continue to patronize? Another question, "Has not the picture business been made possible by keeping the admission price at ten cents?" No matter what arguments have been advanced, or will be advanced, the fact remains, unquestionable, that the price has made the game. The "legitimate" owes its decline largely to increased prices. It drove the people away. Naturally they turned to the first low-priced entertainment which presented itself. Now, will "increased prices" drive them away from the moving pictures? There can be but one answer: "Yes." It is hard for some to admit, but it is and will be the case. In order to keep from forcing the exhibitor to raise his prices, the producer must develop a little "team-work" with the exhibitor. Here is the stand taken by nine-tenths of the exhibitors the writer has talked with: Features not over four reels in length. Many of them only three reels. That may seem like a big slump to many producers, but if they put in a little more quality, less padding, more closely connected stories, it would not be a step backward, but a JUMP ahead, miles ahead of most features now on the market. There are a few of really good ones in these longer lengths, more that are good in the shorter lengths. And, those "longer ones" would be much better in the shorter lengths. One company is now producing their three-part pictures, ones that have made good on Broadway, and releasing them in regular service at no increase in price. Since they can do that, others can shorten up, rent cheaper, still make i good profit, keep their film employed more of the time, and reap a greater income. The supply end must dwindle. It is overstocked now. There are too many companies trying to make "features." The^aJb features in name only. The ones who first grasp this idea of shorter features, rented to be shown for a dime, will be the ultimate producers. As soon as that starts, numerous "to let" signs will begin to show up on studios of companies who have been trying to make a few "big features." The really ideal photoplay is one of three-reel lengths. In that much film a story can be very complete. There will be more life, more vim, more pull and grip to it. Then, let me suggest, for the house which is using a program of four reels, that the manufacturer make a onereel comedy to be rented with the three-reel feature. That will give a good "fill-in" to make a program of regular length, and diversify it. By all means do not e.xtend the feature over more than four reels. Many, yes, most people, tire of a program over four reels in length. It tires the optic nerves. You may wonder how then they could watch a legitimate show of two or three hours. Here is the difference. "The ear plays its part as well as the eye in attending a legitimate production. There is a diversion for each of the separate nerves." This cannot be in photoplays. The audience must center their attention, through their eyes, on the screen. The eve must remain there. If it doesn't, the play will lose its meaning to them. No matter how good the projection, longer than an hour is torture to the average optic nerve. But, coming back to the "Higher Price." The picture game received its welcome from the masses, and without the masses, where would ninety-nine out of a hundred houses be today? The average man can afford to go two, three or four times a week and take his family. If the price were higher, he would not go more than once a week, if that often. Not because he does not want to go. but because he could not afford to go. It likens itself to the rich men of the world trying to live without the fanner to produce the grains upon which they live. The masses are predominant — will ever be predominant. They must be catered to by any institution which depends upon large attendance for its support, and, which wishes to retain its universal grip upon any line of endeavor or business. How long has the few of the "classes" attended shows made up of photoplays? Isn't it a fact that they have looked down upon them? It has been the hardest fight the exhibitor has had, the fight he has made in educating the "classes" to enjoy photoplays. Now that he has done it, he is mighty proud of their patronage. Still, how long could the exhibitor exist with their patronage alone? This is my word to producers, "Give us shorter features, with better connected stories, paying attention to settings and photography, and rent them to us so that we can run them for 10 cents." Then, if they are the thing for the business, they will attract larger audiences, we will make more money so that we can pay more money for them. Exhibitors do not hesitate to spend money where it will make money, but they cannot spend their money for something which does not reap its own profit. Price Raising in New England. Bj' Earle B. Tinker. THE article by Robert Grau in a recent issue of the "World" gives a very thorough and comprehensive view of the great question before the exhiliitors today. Is it not true that many of the men now advocating higher admission prices are men whose entire experience has been gained in the rental or producing ends of the business? And being such, are they competent to say just what an exhibitor should do? As an exhibitor, the writer presented what at the time were the best productions available. Most all at an admission of twenty-five cents. In this one instance, the venture was profitable, where, in a much larger town, less than twelve miles distant, the public refused to pay over ten cents. The answer is simple. I concentrated all my efforts in advertising a certain big attraction one night each week, and always the same night each week. That the same night every week was when we raised our prices was made just as prominent in our advertising as was the name of the attraction. In few words, it was continuity of advertising that caused the public to part with the extra fifteen cents. At first people kicked. Some stayed away altogether, and some prophesied that I would lie ridden out of town on a rail. Yet, inside of a month, these same people were crowding round the ticket office anxious to part with their quarter. It hardly seems consistent that people in a Ijack-woods town would clamor for admission to "Homer's Odyssey," does it? Y'et such was the case. The town in question had always been looked upon as "being different from other towns, and new ideas wouldn't work there," as indeed, many exhibitors claim of their own towns. For some time past the writer has been traveling representative for different distributing companies, and now with one of the largest feature producers and distributors, think that I can give an impartial view of present conditions. The theaters are all complaining of poor business. Yet how many theaters conduct an advertising campaign worthy of the name? Many pay a sufficient amount, but does it get them anything? They claim not. My contention is that for worthy subjects prices can be raised. Possildy at a loss for a time, but eventually at greater profit, and systematic, continuous advertising will do it. That is the root of it all. Another big set-back is timidity on the part of the exexhibitors. They have never tried to raise their prices and don't dare to. There is one notable exception. In one of our prominent eastern cities where five-cent admissions were the rule, one exhibitor contracted for an exclusive program of good attractions and put his price uo to ten cents. Such advertising as he did was continuous and very good. He used the daily papers freely and had a reporter write up each subject. He neither asked nor received the co-operation of his brother exhibitors. For a time this exhibitor smilingly lost money, for "why should we pay ten cents when we can see as many reels elsewhere for five cents?" But in a short time the tide turned. The people began to realize that there was a difference in the quality of the reels even if there were no more. .A.lso. one of the fivecent houses closed up about the time the tide turned. This house, the five-cent one, has been renovated and is now