Exhibitors Herald (Mar-Apr 1924)

April 5, 1924 EXHIBITORS HERALD 23 at re at a smalt admission price and changing his program often must of necessity play a certain number of mediocre pictures. This type of picture naturally makes up the bulk of the distributor's business. Why then should the small exhibitor have his town or neighborhood "milked" by roadshowing a picture? Again, from the viewpoint of the public after supporting mediocre or poor pictures at a theatre without a reduction in admission prices why take advantage and raise admissions on a big picture? Why not have a large number of admissions rather than a large admission? 4. Detrimental. 3. Depends entirely upon local conditions. 6. No, it is impracticable. 7. Make the attractions less costly. Neither the public nor the exhibitors invited costly attraotiotis. It was a bcautifttl dream of the producer and directors. Summing it up: The picture which cannot be played at regular admission prices should not be played at all. By DAVID E. RUSSELL (Columbia theatre, St. Louis, Mo. Population, 800,000. Patronage, good). 1. Yes. 3. Keeps up the interest and makes new patrons. 4. Beneficial. 5. Yes. 6. No, on account of the high prices. 8. As above. By WILFRED G. RUPAY (Griffin theatre, Woodstock, Ont. Population, 10,000. Patronage, general). 1. Some pictures, yes. 2. Some pictures are held for roadshowing by exchanges and cannot be secured because of a holdup. Others could not be played by theatres of this size unless they were roaded. 3. In some cases only. 4. In towns close to big cities, beneficial. 5. Not ready for this yet. Some date in future this will be. At present, the industry is not anywhere near this point. 6. No. 8. There are a good many pictures that exhibitors in smaller towns are anxious to play and cannot afford the price. If their patronage demands these pictures, they can only afford to accept them as a roadshow. If roadshowing became prevalent it would mean the swamping of the market with cheap pictures. The Survey In conducting its exhaustive survey on the subject, "Do you favor or oppose roadshowing?" the HERALD presented the following questions to exhibitors as suggestive of the many phases of this important subject: 1. Do you favor roadshowing of pictures? 2. If not, what is your objection? 3. If you do favor it, state your reasons. 4. Is the playing of big attractions in legitimate theatres prior to general release detrimental or beneficial to your business? 5. Do you believe that theatres should be classified, some playing big attractions on the two-a-day policy, others playing Westerns, others comedydramas, etc.? 6. Do you believe that there is a possibility of the roadshowing of pictures entirely replacing the present plan of exhibition? 7. If you are opposed to the roadshowing of pictures, what plan of exhibition would you suggest for the costly attractions? 8. In general, what are your opinions on roadshowing of pictures? By A. C. BLANCHARD (Blanchard theatre, Southbridge, Mass. Patronage, local.) 1. No. 2. Bad for small towns. They get the money, we get the knocks. 4. Bad because small town gets picture too long after city showing. 5. Not for small towns. 6. No. 7. High prices in small towns leaves bad taste. 8. Not good thing for small towns. By THOMAS H. BURKE (Liberty theatre, Cumberland, Md. Population, 35,000. Patronage, better class). 1. No. 2. Encourages producers to play all better pictures road show, and forces picture theatres to play inferior pictures. 3. Answer No. 1. 4. Detrimental. 5 No. 6. No. You zifill deprive the people of entertainment for which the motion picture theatre was intended. 7. Give the big pictures to exhibitors at advanced prices. 8. You kill the object of motion pictures by roadshowing and eventually will bankrupt producers. By LOUIS R. GREENFIELD (Four theatres in San Francisco, one in Honolulu, one in Santa Cruz, Cal). 1. No. 2. Pictures in picture theatres giving exhibitors every opportunity for every picture. 4. Detrimental on both ends. 5. Localities take care of this. G. Never. 7. Long runs at regular admissions. 8. Too few people care to pay large admissions on pictures. Most long runs at advanced prices are forced. When pictures eventually run at popular prices, some of business is naturally killed. By B. P. McCORMICK (Liberty theatre, Florence, Col. Population, 2,400. Patronage, general). 6. Positively no! ! (General comment) The roadshowing of really big pictures like "The Covered Wagon," pictures that are positively head and shoulders above the usual "specials," would, in my opinion, be of mutual advantage if shown only in key centers in order to exploit it in the territory, and it should be released to the regular trade as soon as possible thereafter, not later than four weeks. For at that time the subject is fresh in the minds of the pubhe. They are more anxious to see it then and would be more likely to pay extra money to see it. The policy in the past has been to roadshow a picture with a big orchestra, playing every place worthwhile, advertise that it would be months before the picture would get to regular movie houses, and then when it was open months later they insist on the same scale of prices — $1 to $1.50 with no orchestra and demand the big end of the receipts. If they quote flat rental, it's so high it forces percentage booking or else leave it alone. I usually leave them alone and book something that will have a margin of profit. THE FORWARD strides of the Film Booking Offices organization has its source in Harry M. Berman, general manager of exchanges, and his able assistants. Left to right: E. J. Sm'th, Eastern district sales manager; A. A. Schmidt, West Coast sales supervisor; D. G. C. Adams, Central West district sales manager; C. E. Penrod, MidWest district sales manager; M. J. Weisfeldt. Northwest district sales manager, and Harry M. Berman.