Business screen magazine (1946)

We Gotta Stop Pitching to Second Base Charles "Cap" Palmer presents some new ideas for widening the market for industrial films. Tn an up elevator a VP says, "Mac, what can we do to get the field men •o go along with the Model F pro11?" Will the AVP answer him with, Let's tr>' a film"? A Personnel Manager beeps his sec■etar>-, "I'd like to look at this movie Vfr. Hennessy brought in; is the Direcor's Room clear?" Secretary, "It's jooked until 4, and anyway the procctor is still over with Sales." AV Manager to PR Director, "This am Wilding idea really might get the >ervice offices out of their bind; do 'ou want to look into it?" PR Director; With the Directors bringing their unch in paper bags you talk about a !oddam movie! TTiis is no time for uxuries." This real-life montage makes five )oints. (1) We business film producers re in business on a rain check. (2) The ig brass problem-solvers and decisionlakcrs who originate most projects ave no consciousness of films as a lusiness tool. fWhy should they; they les er see any). (3) Even the biggest ompanies' projector inventor\' is usu11> measured in computer digits — 0 ir 1. (4) As merchandisers, we proucers have been pitching to second lasc instead of the plate. (5) The date n that rain check is coming closer nd closer to expiration. It's weird! In this Age of Communiation, we have the most effective meium the world has ever known for ersuading. instructing, motivating, nd inspiring. But we and our clients ind especially our non-clients) are sing about a flea-bite of its potential, nd our sins are catching up with us. The hard fact is that business films ave not been delivering a cost-effecve value; so those old fat public reitions pictures are fading out, along ith the big-budget corporate image pics and public-service operas we lade for prestige audiences but which irculated largely to schools, retiree lubs, prisons and churches. And this icludes the conventional half-hour mployee-training pictures (I'll take my wn lumps for AT&Ts An Answer for inda etc.) which were often very good, but the employees would sec them only once, and get the entertainment but not the instruction. The business world has moved into a pragmatic, result-oriented age, and if we want to keep on supporting Eastman we've got to wipe the stars out of our eyes, get up off our apathies, and lock on to the future. So what is the future for the factual film producer? Because there is one, and it can be a beaut. In my belief, our future lies in (I) multi-format release — (2) for multiple delivery channels — (3) plus objective-oriented content thinking which trends away from our traditional "audience" environments toward small groups and individuals "... but we're exciting, and a result is that a movie is a special budget item, cutable, rather than hidden from the hatchet in a routine supply account." ... (4) to be brought into being via a new way of marketing, literally a marketing system. Let me take a crack at this in three phases — the present problems, the changing markets, and the new merchandising. The Special Problems Our business is inherently wild-swing — we're up we're down, we're down we're up, and if we try to hold staff on payroll during the downs we're dead. We operate like house-builders, in that our products are one-of-a-kind and when we get our final payment on a contract we're usually through with that client for quite some time. Since most of us can service only five to ten clients in a year, and steady production flow is a result of coincidence. And since client loyalties aren't what they used to be, our few eggs are concentrated in open-weave baskets. Problem B, our product is regarded as exotic rather than utilitarian. The client would never dream of staging a Premiere for a new catalogue, but we're exciting, and a result is that a movie is a special budget item, cutable, rather than hidden from the hatchet in a routine supply account. And forgive me, too many of us producers are hooked on the glamour of it all and think of "films" as art forms rather than working tools; self-indulgently shaping pictures for the festivals, to be judged by jaded film buffs instead of their proper target audiences. Problem C: Since our clients' pictures are seldom seen by other business men, we get little or no over-thetransom business, and each job must be newly "generated" ... we don't accumulate a momentum. Physically, our product in use has always been unbelievably cluttery and cumbersome. How many books would be sold if books could be read only on a microfilm reader, requiring a skilled operator and a darkened room? True, at last there's an answer for this, named Eastman Supermatic, Fairchild, MPO, Technicolor, et al., but how many of us have implanted this answer in the offices of our clients and prospects? Not to embarrass you, how much mileage are you getting out of these magical new usage -expanders? Competition has always been a problem, intensified now by the heavy promotion behind video cassettes and cartridges. (I'm a little less worried since Parthenon got its first royalty check on five of our titles converted to cartridges— $1.19). Actually the hurt is in the excuse it gives to communications executives for delaying decisions. And finally, a problem peculiar to the older and well-established producers— as we grow older, so do the client's people with whom we have always dealt, and as they move up or retire their young replacements tend to ignore film as a medium, or seek out younger producers who know how to jump-edit and shoot out of focus. So now, at the traditional Act II Cap Palmer is Executive Producer of Parthenon Pictures, Los Angeles. September-October, 1973— BUSINESS SCREEN 1 29