Boxoffice (Oct-Dec 1961)

THE NATIONAL FILM WEEKLY Published in Nine Sectional Editions BEN SHLYEN Editor-in-Chief and Publisher DONALD M. MERSEREAU, Associate Publisher & General Manager NATHAN COHEN .. Executive Editor JESSE SHLYEN. .. .Managing Editor HUGH FRAZE Field Editor AL STEEN Eastern Editor IVAN SPEAR Western Editor I. L. THATCHER. .Equipment Editor MORRIS SCHLOZMAN Business Mgr. Puolication Offices: 825 Van Brunt Blvd. Kansas City 24, Mo. Nathan Cohen, E.\ecutive Editor; Jesse Shlyen, Managing Editor: Morris Schlozman, Business Manager; Hugh Fraze, Field Editor; I. L. Thatcher, Editor Tlie Modern Theatre Section. Teleplione CHestnut 1-7777. Editorial Offices: 1270 Si.\th Ave., Bockefelier Center, New York 20, N. Y. Donald M. Mersereau, Associate Publisher & General Manager; A1 Steen, Eastern Editor. Telephone COlumbus 5-6370. Central Offices; Elditorial — 920 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago 11, 111., Frances B. (5ow, Telephone Superior 7-3972. Advertising— 5809 North Lincoln, Louis Didier and Jack Broderick, Telephone LOngbeach 1-5284. Western Offices: Editorial and Film Advertising— 6404 Hollywood BLvd., Hollywood 28, Calif. Ivan Spear, manager, Telejrlione Hollywood 5-1186. Equipment and Non-Film Advertising — 672 S. Lafayette Park, Los Angeles, Calif. Bob \Vettstein, manager. Telephone Dunkirk 8-2286. London Office: Anthony Gruner, 1 Woodberry Way, Firvchley, No. 12. Telephone Hillside 6733. The MODERN THEATRE Section is included in the first issue of each month. Atlanta: Martha Chandler, 191 Walton NW Albany: J. S. Conners, 140 State St. Baltimore: George Browning, 119 E. 25th St. Boston: Guy Livingston, 80 Boylston, Boston, Mass. Charlotte: Blanche Carr, 301 S. Church Cincinnati: Frances Hanford, UNiverslty 17180. Cleveland: W. Ward Marsh. Plain Dealer. Columbus: Fred Oestreicher, 52% W. North Broadway. Dallas: Mable Guinan, 5927 Winton. Denver: Bruce Marshall, 2881 S. Cherry Way. Des Moines: Pat Cooney, 2727 49th St. Detroit: H. F. Reves, 906 Fox Theatre Bldg., woodward 2-1144. Hartford: Allen M. Widem, CH 9-8211. Indianapolis: Norma Gerafhty, 436 N. Illinois St. Jacksonville: Robert Cornwall, 1199 Edgewood Ave. Memphis: Null Adams, 707 Spring St. Miami: Martha Lummus, 622 N.E. 98 St. Milwaukee: Wm. Nichol, 2251 S. Layton. Minneapolis: Don Lyons, 72 Glenwood. New Orleans: Mrs. Jack Auslet, 2268% St. Claude Ave. Oklahoma City: Sam Brunk, 3416 N. Virginia. Omaha: Irving Baker, 911 N. 51st St. Philadelphia: A1 Zurawski, The Bulletin. Pittsburgh: R. F. Klingensmith, 516 Jeanette, Wilkinsburg, CHurchill 1-2809. Portland, Ore.: Arnold Marks, Journal. I’rovidence: Wm. Trambukis, Loew's State. St. Louis: Joe & Joan Pollack, 7335 Shaftsbury, University City, PA 5-7181. Salt Lake City: H. Pearson, Deseret News. San Francisco: Dolores Barusch, 25 Taylor St.. ORdway 3-4813; Advertising: Jerry Nowell, 417 Market St., Yukon 29537. In Canada Montreal: Room 314, 625 Belmont St., Jules Larochelle. St. John: 43 Waterloo, Sam Babb. Toronto: 2675 Bayview Ave., Willowdale, Ont. W. Gladish. Vancouver: 411 Lyric Theatre Bldg. 751 Granville St., Jack Droy. Winnipeg: 300 New Hargraves Bldg., Kenneth Beach. Member Audit Bureau of Circulations Second Class postage paid at Kansas City, Mo. Sectional Edition, $3.00 per year. National Edition, $7.50. NOVEMBER 6, 1961 Vol. 80 No. 3 TREND OF TICKET-PRICING PRICING of theatre tickets has presented considerable of a problem, but it seems to be working itself out. As reported in the Boxoffice survey on admissions scales in 24 of the larger U. S. cities in last week’s issue, flexible policies are being practiced and, thereby, better coping with conditions than would be the case on firm-set bases. The pricing, thus, is on a sliding scale, geared to the merits of a picture, which is tantamount to seeking “all that the traffic will bear,” and, in most cases, getting it. The higher prices had their beginning with the hard-ticket roadshow attractions, which sort of conditioned the public, in its shopping for stronger attractions, to paying more for the better pictures. Not only was this applied to adult admissions, but children’s ticket prices also were raised — in most cases on a permanent basis. Starting with downtown first-runs, this policy gradually moved into suburban spots, then into neighborhood and drive-in houses. Admission scales of $1.00 and more for adults have become rather commonplace. But it is noteworthy that some houses with large seating capacities — in the range of 3,000 and up — are holding to 90-cent tops for evenings and 75 cents for matinees. Neighborhood houses in the larger cities, also, are holding to 90-cent tops, as are many drive-ins, but the 80-cent adult price tag in both types of houses appears to be more prevalent. The reason for the largercapacity houses pricing at lower scales than the smaller ones is, of course, due to the greater need for volume attendance. The rising-price trend has been in progress for some little time, but it has taken effect on a gradual basis. The school of thought that one reason for the attendance drop was that theatres were “pricing themselves out of the market,” seems to have given way to the feeling that the public will pay more for the higherquality attractions. Also, the previous avoidance of deviation from a set price scale, which was declared to lead to confusion and deterrence of patronage, seems to have been discarded. Still, there are those who feel that a greater volume of attendance would result from a stabilization of ticket prices at evenly applied, lower levels. Laying tbe higher-price levels to increased operating costs does not always hold water with the public, particularly when the jump for runof-mill product is double the old scale. Yet, where improvement in the physical attributes of the theatre accompany the price raises, there is a more or less ready acceptance of the higher ticket costs, which, to an extent, are averaged out by less-frequent attendance of the average patron. That’s one reason why the roadshow attractions are able to get top prices of from $2.50 to $3.50 in some situations. The success of these higher-price policies should not, however, be permitted to outweigh the industry’s need to seek volume attendance, if only to continue the moviegoing habit on a mass scale. That applies to children’s admissions, as well as to adults. Consideration thereof is being shown by some exhibitors in establisbing special evening and matinee shows at special low prices. Some set aside a regular day each week for this purpose; others indulge in it less frequently. There is another way of catering to that part of the public that cannot afford regular theatre attendance at the higher scales, namely, to pattern after the custom that has been widely applied in foreign countries — and which also is regular policy at legitimate theatres in this country. In short, this is to scale ticket prices according to seating location, rather than on age groups and the time of day. We observed this on a trip to Europe some years ago. Recently, Mrs. Velma West Sykes, a Boxoffice staff member, returned from a European trip with considerable data on this facet of theatre operations in Western Europe. She observed that loge seats were rated as the best and, generally, were priced at exactly double the orchestra seats, which, along with side seats are the cheapest. Of course, this cannot be followed in tbe average theatre, most of which do not have balconies, let alone loges. But, even in a 250-seat newsreel theatre in London, the price scale is varied (as in legitimate theatres in the U. S. ) for the rows in which the seats are located. The least-expensive seats are down front. Doubtless, a policy of this kind has its limitations and drawbacks and it may, largely, be impracticable. But, where feasible, it might serve to attract much of the so-called “lost audience,” and be the margin by which whole families would decide on attendance. Of course, over here, many theatres are meeting this need by use of “student tickets,” which, usually, are priced at about 25 per cent less than full admissions; people in the “Golden Age” range are offered discount tickets that are at half rate. These practices have helped. But what about the potential patrons who fall into the “in-between” category, to whom these price-inducements are not available? Shouldn’t something be done to bring them back — and keep them coming — to the theatre?