Exhibitors Herald (Jun-Sep 1924)

Published every Wednesday by Exhibitors Herald Co. Editorial and Executive Offices: 407 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, U. S. A. (Tel. Harrison 9248-9249) New York Office Los Angeles Office 1476 Broadway (Tel. Bryant 6111-1368) 5528 Santa Monica Blvd. (Hollywood 8520) James Bbecroft, Manager Harry Hammond Beall, Manager All Editorial and Business Correspondence Should Be Addressed to Chicago Office Edwin S. Clifford, Managing Editor George Clifford, Business Manager Wiluam R. Weaver, Exhibitor Editor Jay M. Shreck, News Editor J. Ray Murray, New Pictures Editor John S. Spargo, New York Editor Other Publications: “The Box Office Record,” published semi-annually, and “Better Theatres,” published monthly as a supplement to Exhibitors Herald Subscription Price: United States and Its Possessions, $3.00 a year; Canada, $4.50 a year; other parts of world, $6.00 a year. Single copy, 25 cents. Member, Audit Bureau of Circulations. Copyright, 1924, by Exhibitors Herald Co. Vol, XIX August 9, 1924 No. 7 We Don’t Want — ‘‘Just Publicity” Business “propaganda” is often all that it should not be. This applies to general lines of business as well as to the motion picture industry. In this trade there is a practice of sending out information “just for publicity.” This does not consist of making statements the objective of which is simply to obtain publicity. In this show business it certainly is excusable, if not justifiable, to seek in every legitimate way to get the attention of the trade and the public. We do not contend against this. What we do object to, however, is the fraudulent practice of making an announcement or a statement which, knowingly, is not based on fact and never will be materialized. This practice is a plain case of misrepresentation, done deliberately and with malice aforethought. Aside from our interest in good and proper practice in this industry, we have a very strong conviction on this matter because as one of the trade mediums of the industry there are efforts being made constantly to make us a party to these misrepresentations. That is, statements and announcements are given to us for publication by persons who know there is no truth in them and that their purpose, plainly and deliberately, is to deceive our readers. In certain quarters this may be looked upon as smart practice. It is often figured that an advantage can be gained by supplying some false information to exhibitors, telling them about some policy that is to be adopted. some production that is to be made or outlining some future activity of a star. The exhibitor reads this information and naturally assumes that it means what it says. I.ater he frequently discovers that it was “just publicity” and he finds himself in the uncomfortable position of being a victim in the hands of someone wdio has set out deliberately to deceive him for selfish reasons. This publication berewith makes a threat — we intend to have our say when the next case of this type of misrepresentation comes up. When we accejit in good faith and commit to publication in good faith a statement or a piece of information we expect the matter supplied to us to he based on fact and truth, and every purveyor of information in the trade knows this. We owe it to our readers to oppose vigorously this kind of misrepresentation and we intend to make every necessary effort to stop the practice, at least as far as w'e are concerned. ^Matters do not always work out as hoped for and, naturally, plans and campaigns do not always turn out according to the original prospectus. This is in the natural order and cannot be helped. But, aside from this, there are the cases of deliberate deceit against which we are now up in arms. If anyone has statements to make or plans to announce “just for publicity” — don’t give them to the Herald, w'e don’t want them and if we accept such in good faith and later find that we, together with our readers, have been victimized, we will then make it our business to brand the individual concerned and the practice witli the terms that properly fit them. * '* * Factory Methods Among Authors Mr. Samuel (ioldwyn charges authors with “factory methods.” In doing this Mr. Goldwvn gives the discussion a novel twist and one which, doubtlessly, will rankle with many of the persons writing for the screen. Since published works and recognized authors have been getting tbeir stories on the screen violent charges frequently have been launched at the cut-anddried, “factory ’’ methods of jiroducers. Many writers have gone to the public, crying pitiously about the violence done to their creations by the “business men” who are in charge of production. As a matter of fact, in many instances, authors have had a great service done to their reputations — and their bank accounts — by means of the alterations that have been made in tlieir stories in the translation from inanuscriyit to the screen. This sometimes has come about because of a lack of real merit in the stories, desjiite their popularity which may have been due to some otlier work of the author. More often, we believe, the producer has had to lend a strong hand in getting stories on the screen in suitable siiajie because the matter has not lent itself effectively to screen adaptation, something which, when it exists, very few authors realize sufficiently well. At any rate, producers certainly have no corner on “factory methods” in creative work. Everywhere may be seen plays and stories which are ground out according to formula. by lyLartin J. Quigley ^ ^