The Educational screen (c1922-c1956])

WILLIAM S. HOCKMAN, Editor. 1616 Marlowe Avenue, Lakewood 7, Ohio Business Ethics and tlie Church by WILLIAM L ROGERS* CX URiNG a four weeks' trip to the west coast I esLJ visited with the operators of several fihn libraries in each of fifteen major cities. To my astonishment, a number of these operators complained about the business ethics of some of the churches which rented their films. Their complaints ran along the following lines : (a) A minister will rent a film for his church and, before returning it, make it available for use in another church without an additional rental fee. (b) Certain churches will keep a film for a whole week, (c) A church will receive a film on an offering of service charge basis from its denominational headquarters and then let ministers and churches of another denomination use the film without paying full rental price. As one who has himself been a pastor of a church and has for many years had contact with ministers of many denominations, I am confident that these complaints, even if based upon actual fact, do not represent intentional dishonesty but rather a lack of understanding of rental regulations and their purpose. Accordingly, in order to make for a better understanding of these matters, I will outline the basis on which film rentals are fi.xed and the principles involved in setting up the terms. Preliminary Consideraflons There are two preliminary considerations which must be understood. First, the production of religious films costs a tretnendous amount of money. The average cost of the quality religious film offered today may run anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 per minute of screen time. The film / Am With You, produced in Africa under the auspices of the Church of Sweden, cost nearly a quarter of a million dollars, or more than $3,000 per minute of screen time. Second, regardless of whether a film is produced ♦Executive Secretary, Religious Film Association, Inc., 45 Astor Place, N. Y. 3. (a) by a commercial organization, (b) by a church board for promotional purposes, or even (c) by a corporation to advertise its product — the audiences which view the film must eventually pay the cost of its production. In (a) the cost must be recovered through sales or rental fees; in (b) through increased offerings received as a result of the use of the film ; and, in (c) the corporation expects to recover its cost through increased sales. Ultimately the audience pays for the film or production will cease. In the past few years certain denominational agencies have followed the practice of producing films to promote special denominational programs. In many cases they have planned the film so that it will have value for other denominations as well. By doing so, they feel able to produce a more expensive and presumably better film than their own budget would warrant. They anticipate that sales and rentals to other denominations will more than make up for the extra cost. These agencies then arrange for the showing of such films to their own congregations free or on a service charge basis. Good Intentions It is easy to understand how a minister, upon receiving such a film from his own denomination and appreciating its quality but not the financial implications, might feel perfectly free to make a generous offer of this film to a neighboring church. He fails to realize that his own board is counting on rentals from these "hurches to help pay that part of the cost of production which was not covered by the denominational l)udget. While the use of the film in his own church may result in increased oflFerings for the program the film promotes, his board certainly will not benefit by increased oflPerings in the churches of other denominations. The independent producers of religious films are in an even more difficult position than the denominational agencies and boards whose productions are backed by promotional budgets. Their figuring runs something like the following: There are, perhaps, 20,000 churches which show films more or less regfilarly. If my film is good, it ought to get 10,000 showings. My' film cost $30,000 to produce. I must, therefore, get a net income of at least $3.00 from each of 10,000 showings. But, because of the cost of making prints and the cost of distribution, jny net income will be only 357c to 507c of the rental December, 1949 453