Exhibitors Herald (Mar-Apr 1924)

22 EXHIBITORS HERALD April 5, 1924 Opinions published on this and following pages form the last installment in the HERALD'S nation-wide survey among theatre owners on the important subject of roadshowing. Additional returns received will be printed in "Letters from Readers." By VERNON LOCEY (Temple theatre, Howell, Mich. Population, 3,000. Patronage, all classes.) 1. Yes and no. Yes. The public is taught to pay bigger prices so we do not experience a kick when a picture is shown that justifies a raise. But when it reaches the small town a year or two later the rental is such that we have to raise t?ie admission and the public kicks, claiming it's an old production. 4. Yes. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. Playing one about every three months. 8. Don't believe the public cares for such attractions. We all know what made the movie popular and everyone was making more money back in the days of the 5 and 10 cents. (General Comment) — Whv feed up the public on three-hour shows that give them a feeling that they don't care to see a picture again for another month. Short programs that when they walk out they want to go to another theatre before the evening is over, or ready to come again the next evening. About fifteen years ago my father ran the only movie in a town of 900 people. I sold tickets for him and have known of having an audience of as high as 765 paid admissions on a single Saturday evening. He ran three nights a week and showed to from 1,500 to 1,800 people for the week. That was at 5 and 10 cents. Last spring the total for his weekly attendance was from 350 to 500 at 15 and 25 cents. I'm in a town of 3,000 and cannot draw a daily attendance of more than 5 per cent of the population, at 15 and 30 cents. Five years ago I was drawing 10 per cent at 10 and 15 cents. (The smaller amount is the price charged for children and the larger the adult price.) I was buying a program for $7.50 to $9 and now I'm paying on an average of $30 a day for film. I, for one, intend to go back to more program stuff which contains more entertainment in proportion to the amount of rental than the specials. I play a first run every two weeks simultaneous with Detroit. On some I make a little and on others I lose all I had previously made. Did a nice business on "Little Old New York" which I played while in its second week on a four-week run at the Broadway-Strand, Detroit. That is a production with a wide class appeal. With "Name the Man," which I also played while it was at the Broadway-Strand, I lost considerable, for it is not a small town picture. William Johnson says: "God Forbid! if 'Name the Man' and 'The Marriage Circle' can be classed as pictures that go over their heads." As to "The Marriage Circle," I do not know but I can say that "Name the Man" will prove a failure in the small towns. There are situations in the picture that are im probable and who cares for "The Isle of Man"? A few of the townsfolk appreciate these early showings, as I can prove by editorials in the local papers, but their numbers are not sufficient to compensate me. Pinckney, Mich., is a little hamlet of about 400 people ten miles south of Howell. We carry a quarter page weekly in the Dispatch and this is what the editor had to say regarding "Name the Man": "NAME THE MAN" Another First Showing Proves a Big Hit The ever increasing number of film patrons in Pinckney braved stormy weather and nearly blocked roads to enjoy Sir Hall Caine's famous novel, "The Master of Man," filmed under the title "Name the Man." Intensely dramatic, emotional in a high degree, giving an insight into the actual life on The Isle of Man not possible by a mere perusal of the book itself, as a work of true art as portrayed on the screen the picture proved fully up to the announcing notice. This picture was screened simultaneously with its first appearance in Michigan at one of Detroit's first film houses. It is not customary to give first appearances of film attractions in small towns, and it is questionable whether or not it pays out financially on account of the high prices demanded by producers for first showings. The management of the Temple, however, undoubtedly takes the broad view that a customer satisfied is going to prove a valuable asset in the long run, so he spares no reasonable expense in giving them the best regardless of first cost. That this policy is proving out to be a sound one is certain, judging by the increased attendance at this playhouse and by the many complimentary remarks praising the Temple management. Mr. Locey certainly knows how to select the very best. By A. P. SITTON & SON (Muse-U theatre, Tularosa, N. M.) Absolutely no! Robert Frazer, one of the screen's popular leading men who appears in "Women Who Give," a Reginald Barker attraction for Metro. Louis B. Mayer presents it. 2. First, because the pictures are nearly always old. Second, if they are new, they charge such percentage that you lose out in the long run anyway, because there is only a certain amount of money in small towns for amusement and when this is paid to a roadshow at 70 per cent for instance, then when you have the next picture you lose what profit you made on the percentage picture, 3. We do not, for above reasons. 4. Neither, because what will go over big in large cities will probably not take in small towns one little bit. 5. This might work in large towns but will not do in small ones. 6. It will undoubtedly, unless some way can be arranged so the small town man can get a really big picture once in a while if not regularly. 7. Exhibitor to play them on a 50-50 basis. This would give the little man a living chance and would be that much "cream" for the exchange, because otherwise they will simply lie an the shelf because the little fellow can't pay the price. Furthermore, we believe a little figuring will show that the exchange would make as much on 50-50 basis with little man as in selling or leasing to the roadshow, because he has to figure traveling expenses in price he pays for picture. 8. Same as above, all the way through. By C. H. POWERS (Strand theatre, Dunsmuir, Cal.) 1. No. 2. It is not fair to the exhibitors as we show their poor ones and when they make a good one they want it all. 4. I do not know as it is either, especially in the smaller towns. 5. Yes, in large cities, but no in the smaller towns. 6. I hope not, but producers are getting a bigger hold on the theatres each year, so guess they will tell us what we can do very soon. 7. Pay them all you think you can afford, then split 50-50 above a certain amount fair to both. 8. It is a very bad thing for the smaller town, as they demand that you raise your prices on most all their roadshows to twice your regular prices. This hurts the exhibitor before and after the big show is over. Also about 50 per cent of the exchanges will base your other film rentals on the gross you derive from the roadshow. By F. R. BEITMAN (Tacoma theatre, Indianapolis, Ind. Population, 350,000. Patronage, suburban). /. Absolutely no. 2. The small exhibitor operating his the