Canadian Film Weekly (Dec 27, 1961)

Christmas Number Page 8 CANADIAN FILM WEEKLY LAZARUS: HERE’S been such a hubbub | of late over the quality of film advertising that there remains little left to attack or defend. It’s unfortunate that these public tantrums have been had at a time when pictures aren’t grossing too well; there’s a faint aroma of alibi surrounding the complaints. There’s also a liberal amount of ignorance. However, now that The Exhibitor is making motion pictures, why shouldn’t The Producer design the ads — and ain’t that going to be a crock of bouillabaisse? To my mind, The Protesting Producer is rarely entitled to voice anything but a personal and thoroughly unqualified opinion on advertising. Believe it or not, the proper preparation of a campaign — copy, layouts, radio and TV spots, trailers, posters, exploitation — requires the concentrated efforts of a group of highly skilled craftsmen operating within the areas of substantial knowledge, experience and _ technique. You don’t just write an ad in order to sell a picture. And yet, how many of The Protesting Producers ever look beyond the newspaper ads in weighing, evaluating and criticizing a campaign? How many of them have ever tried to gauge the percentage of the audience which is really activated by the ads as compared with the totality of the campaign? (“I know you gotta get back to the hotel, Manny, but you really should listen to the radio spots. We're trying something new. And we're spending a bloody fortune on the air.’’) No. The Protesting Producers take off in different directions... REMEMBER The Producer who spent endless hours rejecting, revising and reviewing 24sheet sketches on his pictures. He cared not a whit about the ads, the spots, the exploitation. Even when he was told that, on a successful picture, we might sell as many as a hundred 24-sheets in the entire country, he wasn’t fazed. He was queer for 24-sheets. Wonder what he’s doing now.. .? There was also The Producer (I think his name was Legion) who would be shown an ad campaign on his picture, would riffle through the ad roughs as if they were stock certificates, and then announce that the campaign stunk. When pressed, perhaps unreasonably, for a reason, he’d say something like ‘‘For Pete’s sake, don’t you guys give any thought to these ads? My contract provides that my name must be at least 25 per cent of the title and it certainly doesn’t look like it in these ads. I won’t approve them. Miss, will you get my agent on the phone?” (‘‘Jeez, Manny, these are just roughs. The artist indicates the billing with those little like squiggles, When we set type, it'll be 25 per cent, 1 swear. Why don’t you read some of the copy, too, Manny?’’) Another day, another producer. This is the one who figures that whatever is being done on the reigning box-office hit of the moment must be right. He’d like his ads to show a chariot race doing everything we can; we Sen. hinged the ads.”) Part 0 this inability to pump breath into a corpse is due, I think, to the fact that the advertising is just a fraction of the image created by any motion picture in the public mind. The true image 1s created by title, trailer, publicity, radio and TV — and the Ads. Changing one segment belatedly ERNEST EMERLING ad director of Loew’s Theatres Opines As To What's Right ... And What’s Wrong With Our Advertising and PAUL N. LAZARUS, Jr. vice-president of Columbia Pictures Gives His Views in The Abominable Showman Lou GREENSPAN, editor of THE JOURNAL of the Screen Producers Guild, devoted the entire June issue to motion picture advertising. These are but two of the opinions by industry authorities and leaders which appeared in it. like ‘Ben-Hur’. What difference if his picture happens to be the drama of a ladies’ prison? Or the producer of a musical who wants it sold as a stark, human document. Or the producer of the stark, human document who says “It got loads of laughs at the preview. Make sure the ads sell the humor.” PERHAPS my favorite is a pro ducer named X. Post Facteau (of the Hollywood Old Wave). He’s the one whose picture opens to dismal figures in Eau Claire, Minnesota, a booking and a level of business which it richly deserves. M. Facteau immediately begins burning up the long distance wires with pleas, nay, with demands, for a new campaign. No, he doesn’t have any suggestion for a change. in angle. There must be something you guys in the East can come up with. Lord knows this last lousy campaign of yours isn’t working. And he had known it wouldn’t work. Told his wife so just last week. Anyway, let’s get all new ads before we open next week in Pocatello, Idaho. After all, what’s the distribution fee for? I have never been a devotee of the “‘Change-the-campaign-because-business-is-lousy”’ school. There hasn’t been a single picture in my experience where a change in ads reversed a downward business trend. It serves only as a salve to consciences, a balm to egos — (‘‘Honest, Manny, we’re doesn’t really change the image. But it’s not all the fault of The Producer. There’s The Field. With certain notable and_ shockingly rare exceptions, The Exhibitor sits glumly on his assets and waits hopefully for the distributor to set up, execute and pay for the local campaign. Sure, there’s a house budget — a minimal amount which wouldn’t serve to open the most avidly-awaited attraction in history. Sure, he’ll contribute to the cooperative campaign — in the general proportion of one rabbit to one horse. Sure, he’ll help — he'll hold your jacket while you work out the local campaign. just recently, I checked the re sults of a national contest which had been set up by the Columbia Exploitation Department on behalf of one of our pictures. Columbia had promoted the prizes, oiled the machinery, arranged for the judging of the contest, prepared sample entry blanks, printed up lobby posters, had done everything, in short, except wipe the Exhibitor’s nose. In the first 4000 engagements of this ‘A’ picture, only three exhibitors bothered to set up the lobby poster in an effort to intrigue audiences with the prize of a free trip to Paris for two! No, there’s more to the problem than just coming up with a handsome set of ads. Basically, the problem is one of merchand ising a concept to the publi (Continued on Page 20) ple, : _epaersthienas oo = EMERLING: HERE are lots of things | right about motion picture advertising and many things wrong with it. While I am quick to express an opinion on the things I do not like, I am equally alert to defend our ads when they are attacked by outsiders. So, I shall attempt, in this instance, to essay a dual role — that of prosecutor and defense attorney. Since viewing with alarm is usually more interesting than pointing with pride, let’s begin with the negative approach, First and foremost, the worst thing about motion picture advertising is the forced inclusion of burdensome credits. These have grown with the rapidity of crabgrass. Despite the fact that, with few exceptions, they sell no tickets, I can see them serving a purpose beneficial to the individuals involved in magazine advertising and in east and west coast premiere campaigns. In all engagements, only the names of the producer and director should be included. Of course, if the story is by Bernard Shaw, Tennessee Williams, or other ticketselling names, a showman would be silly if he didn’t include them. What happens to the credits when a film goes to Paris, for example? They disappear! Or when the TV station advertises its Movie-of-the-Week, or Late, Late Show? It is said that everyone in the motion picture industry has two jobs: his own and that of advertising expert. Producers should stick to producing and permit the advertising specialists to create the ads. If the ads prove ineffective too frequently, they should get a new crew! The same folks who would hesitate to tell a doctor how to diagnose an illness have no hesitancy about dictating how an ad should be handled. Movie ad campaigns often prove the old saying about too many cooks. SEX, blatantly and repeatedly used in our advertising, is no guarantee of ticket sales. Instead, overindulgence in this approach has brought the threat of censorship of films in many of the fifty states, and has caused many newspaper publishers to wield their blue pencils. A curvy halftone of a sex-kitten may catch the male eye but, for some biological reason, doesn’t turn him instantly into a sex maniac who will rush right out to the movies. Perhaps he’s been sated by overexposure to the acres of female epidermis in our ads! Sex is like a seasoning: Used in __ intelligent pinches it can heighten anticipation and add to the flavor of an entertainment. And there have been some mighty successful camPaigns to back up this latter premise. Copywise, some movie ads hand (Continued on Page 20)