The Moving picture world (November 1926-December 1926)

400 MOVING PICTURE WORLD December 11, 1926 p ARAMOUNT and the * Publix Theatres Corporation are making a fight which deserves the attention and sympathetic support of every motion picture theatre owner, in their determined effort to secure an adjustment of the exorbitant advertising rates now charged by most newspapers for advertising film attractions, as compared with the rates charged by the same papers for ordinary commercial products. this by the way Paramount's N. Y. Newspaper Rate War Deserves Support of All Theatre Owners Penalizing of Motion Picture Tfieatres By Enforcing High "Amusement Rate" Bad Business for All Concerned, View of "Fourth Estate" Publisher Newspapers Bring All Possible Pressure To Make Paramount Recede from Stand D IGHT now centered in New Death of Jules E. Mastbaum in Philadelphia Removes Outstanding Figure from Industry fight is York, where Paramount, through Hanflf-Metzger, Inc. its advertising agency, is striving to convince the New York newspaper publishers that their policy of penalizing the motion picture theatre by imposing a rate for its advertising, that is in some cases 125% higher, than that paid by the papers' other regular advertisers, is not only wrong and unjust, but that it is not based upon sound business reasoning. • \/fOTION picture theatres have long been penalized by a so-called "amusement rate," which had its origin in the custom of stage productions to depend more upon their free publicity to bring the public to their box office rather than upon the small paid space, which they used, and the film exhibitor was further handicapped by being compelled to confine his advertising to the newspaper's high priced and limited theatrical directory, when his natural tendency and inclination was to use big space in other parts of the paper. • 'T^HE newspapers defended the higher "amusement rate" as against their "rim-of-paper" rate, which was given to their regular advertisers, on the ground of the amount of free publicity required by the theatre and by the fact that the legitimate theatre, itself, did no advertising, but only the "show" which happened to be occupying it. • T F the theatre was "dark," naturally, it produced no revenue for the newspaper, this fact furnishing the theory justifying the higher rate. • EITHER of these two arguments can properly be advanced against the motion picture theatre, which is invariably an established institution in its community and an all year round advertiser, not only ready and willing to purchase big space for its current or coming attractions, but also to do so as institutional advertising to build up good will among its public, provided, of course, that its copy is accepted at the same rates accorded other regular advertisers. • Ip LSEWHERE in this issue of Moving Picture World is reprinted part of an editorial by H. M. Newman, publisher of The Fourth Estate, a leading newspaper tradtpaper. which appeared in the Dec. 4 issue of that publication, and which we urge our readers to examine with care, inasmuch as it presents an unbiased and expert opinion of the question. • \/f R. NEWMAN, strongly condemns the penalization of the motion picture advertiser by the newspapers, regards the policy of their publishers as shortsighted and bad business, and declares that giving "publicity" as a reason for the higher rate is no longer a sound one, since most newspapers printed news about motion pictures for the benefit of their readers, long before they carried any film advertising. TP HE New York publishers are "standing pat" "plunder-press," as some one once called it, is tr T T E also points out that columns and columns of publicity are given automobile and radio manufacturers and the like, whose advertisments are carried at the regular "rxiti-ofpaper" rate. • O newspaper publisher has yet come forward with a single valid excuse which would justify this penalization of the motion picture theatres, except the purely selfish and certainly weak explanation that "custom has justified the rule," or that because the higher rate is the "established rate" it cannot be changed, which seems to be the best reasons to date that the New York newspaper publishers are able to muster. and the traimng all its guns, critical and otherwise, on Paramount and tlie Publix Theatres, in an effort to make it back-track before other companies and theatre owners awaken to the fact that Paramount is also fighting their fight in addition to its own and decide to align themselves with it. TP HE advertising manager of one daily is said to have openly threatened an advertising agency with the withdrawal of its recognition by the New York Publishers .\ssociation, which would mean practically putting the agency out of business, if it continued its solicitation of the "rnn-of-papcr" rate for its cHent. YXTHICH certainly would seem to indicate that the press is hard put to it for a good reason for their insistence on the higher rate for motion picture theatres and on the other hand, is a threat, which if carried out or often repeated would surely seem to be a subject for in(|uiry by the Federal Trade Commission. • 'T'llE motion picture theatres need the newspapers — but the newsjjapers also need the motion picture theatres — and they must be honest with each other. 'TPHIS is a case where right and justice and common honesty are clearly involved, a cause which inevitably must win once it comes to attention of fairminded men, and the facts certainly seem to show that all these are on the side of Paramount and the motion picture ihcatres of the country and not, in this instance at least, in the business offices of the newspapers. • 'T*HE sudden death of Jules E. Mastbaum in Philadelphia on Tuesday, removes an outstanding figure from the industry and closes a career, which was as colorful, as it was useful and constructive. TUT IS untimely death comes as a shock to all and as a poignant grief to many, and his loss creates a vacancy in the ranks of this industry's broad-visioned, forward-looking men, which will not soon be filled.