Showmen's Trade Review (Oct-Dec 1949)

12 SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW, October 1. 1949 Theatre Management Guide to Modem Methods in the Administrative and Executive Phases of Theatre Operation Facts on Industry Lawsuits — Part 2 If you happen to have set aside last week's issue of STR you'd better dig it up and have it at hand before reading what follows. We are taking up where we left off last week in chronicling the results of a lengthy interview with one of the industry's outstanding legal advisors concerning the "whys" and "whats" of industry — and particularly inter-theatre — law suits. Last week's article is important because of frequent reference in succseding paragraphs to the seven points of reasoning set forth therein as being basically essential to impartial consideration in any dispute calculated to disturb long established exhibitor-distributor practices in clearance and run — the underlying cause of the greatest portion of our currently staggering legal outlay. In last week's article the function of the down-town theatre was clearly outlined. That was the first of two essential questions that have direct bearing on any and all problems concerning clearance and run. Now we get around to some interesting calculations regarding the second question : "Can that function be performed as well or better by any other theatres, alone or in combination?" Remember, what follows is the reasoning of a veteran motion-picture lawyer — with some 30 years of court battles behind him — and carry the combined weight of knowledge and experience. As mentioned in the preceding article, it is to be hoped that the unprejudiced sincerity of his reasoidng will serve to stimulate a return to the use of "wits" as an effective and inexpensive substitute for the barrage of "writs" that have, in recent years, been bombarding the industry to an all time high in public disfavor. Sure to Show Effect on Certain Competitive Theatres Clearly, to say that the function of the large down-town theatre can be performed as well should not require a change of established practice in the absence of any law forcing such a change, but the attempt is here made to reason the matter out as if a showing that it can be performed as zvell allows a change in method to be forced on both distributor and exhibitor. (It is conceded that the distributor can adopt any method he chooses — so long as he can sell exhibitors.) If it can be shown that the function can be better performed, the pressure of economic law is certain to bring about a change or the maintenance of the system by artificial or unfair controls _ will be effectively prevented by law. In considering the question it is important that we recognize that any change in established practice is sure to show immediate effect on certain competitive theatres. For example : Many exhibitors in smaller towns and cities select for their better theatres and better playing time, feature attractions which are exploited on first-run by a down-town theatre in some nearby town or city. Whether or not this is mere laziness is debatable but it is an established practice and certainly saves a great deal of time and effort in booking. It is also a known fact that proper exploitation and publicity in the nearby metropolitan center adds considerable value to the picture — and serves to increase gross — in the market area. This is true to such a marked de gree that many small-town exhibitors resist playing any feature attraction until it has been played first run in some locality rated as the principal center of the area. It is also well known that many exhibitors who are in direct competition with exploitation houses restrict their buying, as far as possible, to pictures which are played in what is commonly known as the "show case" house. This is done either by including in contracts a clause excluding pictures shown first in lesser calibre houses or including only those which are shown in the "show case." At least four alternate methods of distribution and exhibitor exploitation suggest themselves : 1. First run and exploitation in a single neighborhood theatre. 2. First run and exploitation in several neighborhood theatres, strategically located, on day and date playing arrangements. 3. Day-and-date playing arrangements in a down-town theatre and one or more neighborhood theatres. 4. Move-overs from a down-town theatre to one or more neighborhood theatres. In reasoning out the potential of these alternatives it is assumed that the seven basic principals •of function, (as outlined in this department of last week's STR ) whether they be cause or effect, are, ^^Th is series copyrighted and must not be reproduced in part or whole without written permission from Showmen's Trade Review, Inc. in the main, adequately defined and valid and that these alternatives should meet at least most of these seven elements of function. (The eighth element, that of marketability in the area, since it is a distributor's argument, is omitted.) Let's consider each alternative separately : first Alternative hirst run and exploitation in a single neighborhood house seems to fail to provide (1) location to transportation, (3) audience representing a cross section and (5) audience as an instrument of advertising in surrounding area. It might satisfy (4) exploitation which would, of course be limited by exclusion of widespread word-of-mouth and eventually (6) the institutional habit, since it is possible, with time required not considered, to create institutional status, and (7) prestige, since prestige is likewise acquirable. In other respects it is more than probable that acceptance of this alternative would produce other complications which might be very disastrous to a great number of independent competitive theatres such as exist in practically all of the larger population centers. Normally neighborhood theatres are smaller than the downtown houses. To meet distributor demands for adequate rentals it would be forced to either raise admission, extend the length of run, or both. That the neighborhood owner, if he has any choice, would risk using the house for exploitation only on the very top bracket films, seems obvious. Increasing price and extending running-time demands that the house depart from its original objective; to offer citizens of a neighborhood convenient access to entertainment at less than downtown prices and to offer selective entertainment in considerable variety. There can be no guarantee of the entertainment value of a picture until it has been exhibited. The first-run exploitation campaign tests this and in so doing provides a guide to enable the neighborhood house to fulfill the selective premise of its original policy. Extension of run eliminates frequent program change and thereby interrupts, if it does not destroy, the habit of ''repeating," or attending two or more times a week which is common in DRIVE-IN BIRTHDAY. With the concessions staff gathered around, Manager Jack Flax cuts the cake in honor of the first anniversary of the Woodbridge Drive-In, a Walter Reade theatre, at Woodbridge, N. J. Shortly after this picture was taken patrons poured into the concession building to receive a slice of the cake.