Exhibitors Herald (Jan-Mar 1920)

EXHIBITORS HERALD All the Cards To the self-styled Executive Committee of the so-called Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America Let us have facts. It is about time that certain facts be brought to the attention of the Exhibitors of the United States, so that they may determine how best to conserve their present and future interests in securing a just revenue from the use of their screens for industrial and advertising purposes. That Exhibitors are entitled to this revenue is now universally recognized. It is clearly apparent now, for reasons that have since developed, and which will be alluded to hereafter, that the delegation from the New York State Exhibitors League to the St. Louis Exhibitors Convention, attended for one of two reasons: Either to gain control of the Motion Picture Exhibitors League of America, so that it could be run by a handful of men — or, to do everything possible to break up the League. Both purposes were intended to serve the purely personal ends of the delegation. The ensuing controversy has been well aired in the trade papers, and needs no further comment here. Early in the fall the writer, feeling that it was for the best interests of the Exhibitors of the United States, held several conferences with Messrs. Cohen, Reilly and Berman, in the hope that all differences could be settled and that one united exhibitors' organization could be perfected. He realized that in the many changes now taking place in this big industry that such an organization was absolutely necessary if exhibitors' interests were to be safeguarded. For a time it seemed as though harmony would prevail. The reason it did not being the insistance of Messrs. Cohen, Reilly and Berman that the chairman of our Tax Committee, against whom these gentlemen apparently had a personal grievance, resign. This request was positively refused. A compromise was made to allow Mr. Berman or another man designated by said gentlemen to act as Secretary of the Tax Committee and such an agreement was very nearly entered into. In support of this settlement several conferences were held by them in connection with our taxation committee prior to going to Washington. During these conferences the question of the use of the screen for national advertising came up. This was important because we had already attempted in behalf of the Motion Picture Exhibitors of America to organize a "Motion Picture Lovers" contest, whereby our treasury would be greatly assisted, and we had also discussed other forms of national advertising that might tend to serve the interests of all exhibitors and bring a very necessary revenue into th treasury of our national organization. Can these gentlemen deny that they were ver much interested in national advertising as affectir motion picture exhibitors of the United States, or th they were even more interested as to just where th< would personally participate in the revenue fro same? Can they deny that a suggestion was made to pe feet an arrangement whereby a favored few could at to their personal gain by getting certain exclusive co tracts for national advertising? Can they deny that the writer stated that endeavoring to perform the duties of his office as pre dent of the Motion Picture Exhibitors of America, could not use such office for personal gain, and tl whatever could be arranged must be for the absoli benefit of the Motion Picture Exhibitors individua and for the treasury of the national organization? Can they deny that from that time on there seerr to be a very lukewarm attitude on their part in ll matter of one big harmonious exhibitors' moveme , or that one or two further attempts at conference ) perfect such harmony was side-stepped? Can they deny that they are not in the natio 1 motion picture advertising development for perso 1 gain and that the best interests, so called, of e motion picture exhibitors of America is secondary J them in this unseemly squabble? Can they deny that the opening up of screen* >f America whereby the picture theatre owners will ■ ceive a fair revenue for the use of their screens fin the Universal Film Manufacturing Company and 1:1 as they make similar agreements from other compai 9 that are in a position to offer such services, which 11 also finance the national organization, is a big pgressive step forward? Can they deny that the theatre owner is not be :r off in having competition for his screen adverti:ig than he is to have the same controlled by a handfi of men, who may or may not work to his (the the re owner's) best interest, or who may or may not vrk entirely for their own personal gain? The cards are face up. We are clean on this pr osition. We are not looking for personal gain butve do want the screens of America to receive the"emuneration to which they are justly entitled. What has this handful of men done to attemj to tie up such screen advertising? This is the ag of competition. Most of us face it every day in our icture business. 24