Showmen's Trade Review (Apr-Jun 1939)

Page 12 SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW April 8, 1939 IN THE EDITOR'S MAIL BAG Ed Note: — The voice of the exhibitor is too often unheard and unheeded. STR is constantly in receipt of letters from exhibitors throughout the country offering suggestions on various problems and presenting their own individual problems and views. Your comments on these problems as presented here and other situations peculiar to your own operation will be welcome and will be published with or without your name as you may request. Editor, Showmen's Trade Review : Here is the kind of letter you will NOT print in your magazine. I'll bet you don't even read it to the finish. But I just wanted to give you an opinion on the editorial you wrote in a recent issue of STR concerning "The Florida Suit." It seems to me that you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for the attitude you took in defending a practice which is in itself shameful and deserving only of the strongest criticism possible. Evidently you do not believe in the principle of free enterprise and personal initiative. While I hold no brief for Herman Weingarten (in fact, I never heard of him before) I sincerely believe that the type of criticism which you directed at him was childish and unreasonable. So you blandly admit that Mr. Weingarten could not get pictures to run in his theatres and you say "Such a surprise!" Well, it is a surprise. To think that any group of exhibitors should be permitted to conspire with the distributors of motion picture films for the purpose of stifling honest and legitimate competition is beyond the limits of fair dealing. And to think that you should condone and even encourage such unfair practices is bej'ond belief. Maybe Mr. Weingarten shouldn't have built into a town that already had enough seating capacity, but that is his privilege in a free country. He has just as much right to build a theatre as he has to start a grocery store or a radio station or a factory or any other type of legitimate enterprise. And once he has built it, he has as much right to obtain pictures as any of the other exhibitors. If, as you state, he ran into a "tough" product situation, meaning a conspiracy to eliminate competition, then it's about high time that someone brought the matter out into the light of day. I see you don't approve of Weingarten taking his plea to court. Why not? If I were in his place I would do the same thing and I would be completely in the right. Courts were made for just such a purpose and I feel sure that Mr. Weingarten will win his case very easily. Maybe you do not realize that the monopoly which he is suing is an illegal one and that the defendants may have one hot time keeping out of jail as a result of their practices. Instead of letting yourself be carried away in your unreasoning effort to defend the distributors and the exhibitor combines, it might be a good idea to first consider the matter from the point of business ethics and legal rights. Then you won't have to apologize to yourself for condoning a disreputable action. (signed) A. B. Nehman, Cleveland, Ohio. — And Here's the Answer Dear Mr. Nehman: I have your letter of recent date which I found very interesting. As for not reading it through, you would lose that bet right off the reel because I've read it through twice. I am sure that if you were acquainted with the background of the subject under discussion you would not take the attitude as conveyed in your letter, No doubt, as an exhibitor yourself, you can only view the situation from what you have read about it in the various trade papers. I thoroughly agree with you that this is a free country and that a man should be allowed to build a theatre anywhere he pleases and that he should be given an opportunity of sharing in the product used in that territory. However, let us assume that you have two theatres in a community just about large enough to support these two theatres and that your policy is such that you require all available product to keep your theatre operating and to show a fair return on your investment. Just what would be your attitude if somebody came into that territory knowing full well what the situation was and without regard for the many years of hard work and the amount of money you have put into your business, proceeds to build one or two theatres and then demands that you split the product with him? When you have sufficiently analyzed such a situation I would ask you to review my editorial as well as your letter to me and see whether your attitude remains the same. I am not as near concerned over the individuals involved in the Miami situation as I am over the principle behind the whole controversy. But I would point out that one of the two circuits operating in the Miami area has been built up by two of the squarest independents in this business who have had to battle for every bit of product to keep their theatres operating. Furthermore, they have to struggle through nine months of pretty tough business conditions in order to benefit from the three months when the tourist trade gives them an opportunity of doing a decent business. The only mystery about the whole situation down there right now, in my opinion, is whether or not the gentleman who built the two theatres did not do so for the purpose of forcing the existing operators in that territory to make some sort of a deal with him to take the theatres of? his hands. I ani not saying that this thought was back of his mind when he invaded that territory. But we are working on certain information which indicates that he was well aware of the situation long before he invested any money in that territory. Be assured of my appreciation, Mr. Nehman, for your interesting letter and my only regret is that more theatremen do not express themselves on all topics so that trade papers could better serve the whole industry. Most assuredly I respect your opinions to which you are definitely entitled just as I hope you will agree I am entitled to mine. Thanking you again and witli all good wishes, I am (signed) "Chick" Leivis Reserved for "Sweethearts" This eye-catching display zvas used in the lobby of the Fantasy Theatre, Rockville Centre, N. Y., by Manager Mannie Friedman for the showing of MGM's "Sweethearts." Editor, Showmen's Trade Review: Questionnaires are O. K. as far as trade papers go and are helpful to us exhibitors in buying new product; that is, if we get them before the salesmen get us. But they are also a big help to the distributors in gouging us for more rentals as it shows them which product we prefer and they do not hesitate to increase prices each year. I also dislike radio appearances of the stars we make a living for. Please get word to Metro to cut out their "prestige" pictures such as "Marie Antoinette", "The Citadel", "The Great Waltz" and Garbo. Iowa exhibitor. Editor, Showmen's Trade Review Your editorial in a recent issue, dealing with "Hitting Below the Belt" and one bell ratings by Fidler, prompts me to write you, because I have wondered these many years why producers and exhibitors have stood so long for these "symbol" ratings, which would never stand up in a court. I can understand that criticism, whether just or unjust, can be considered "free press" or "Freedom of Speech", but grading by symbols is a horse of another color. Whether it's bells, stars, percentages, or what have you, none of these symbols can be considered criticism. They definitely place a definite commercial value on the product much after the fashion of a sale. What happens in a sale? A manufacturer spends say $50,000 to make and market a product. He assumes that he will make a certain profit but finds that his calculations are wrong and must make sacrifices to meet his bank loans. Then comes the sales and the mark down with the usual advertising "Made to market at $1 — now being sold at S9c". A picture producer turns out his product with a definite quota placed on it. Added to his miscalculations he has the hazard of some one person labeling his product as worth only one or two stars, one or two bells or a low percentage rating, truly a below-the-belt slam from a single opinion that may be right or wrong but yet may sway millions to stay away from that product. The giving of the stars and bells even when it is four and five, the highest rating, is not good for the public for it has been noted that inferior product has been given high rating, thereby misleading the public. I believe a court would sustain the criticism or written or spoken word by any publication or radio commentator, irrespective of how wrong or cruel it might be, but I would like to hear some publisher or radio commentator get up in court and try to define stars or bell ratings as legitimate criticism. Webster gives a fine analysis of symbol and if you will look it up there is nothing there connecting the word "criticism" with any definition of the word "symbol." Let the publications and radio commentators start star and bell rating such articles as cigarettes, soap, perfume or in fact any nationally advertised brands and see the results. What would the results be, "Chick"? You don't know? Ask any advertising manager. I'll give him one half of one per cent of a guess and 20 to 1 he gives you the right answer. (signed) Terry Turner.