Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1924-Mar 1925)

28 EXHIBITORS HERALD March 14, 1925 very pleasing as it gives the local population something to talk about, A. V. Abel, Strand theatre, New Pliiladelpliia, O. : The charges are higher. Why the C. O. V. at all with the present film board? They will close you if you don't pay them. Why all the extra cost to the exhibitors? The merchant gets his goods and no trouble, he's a customer not a thief. 1 do not think the exhibitors are as bad as a whole lot of exchange managers and I think a good weeding out would make conditions in this industry much better. This dope may not mean anything to you, but I still think if the exhibitors are handled like the merchant with his goods, the industry will be a pleasant one for all. Max M. Cleveland, Community theatre, Platte, S. D. : / think a person could just as well send check to company and save 35 cents collection fee, which two or three times a week and 52 weeks in a year amounts to quite a few dollars. One thing a theatre manager knows he has to pay for these films when they are shipped to him. Of course someone might not look at this like I do. I would say when the compa^iy you buy films from send you a statement of your film for your next show, give the exhibitor so many days to have check back to office or else the show wouldn’t be shipped. But they would have to pay for the rental anyway, C. V. Anderson, Oak theatre, Oakdale, Neb.: It is an unnecessary expense involved, and if you have anything in dispute they are sure to tack it on and you have to pay for something you don't owe at times to get your picture, so as to be able to show after having it advertised. Up until a year ago, I refused to accept them at C. O. D., but it seems that so many agencies have poor bookkeeping that it was the only thing to do, and as yet I hai’e not got square with some of the exchanges on the deposits that they held. 1 do not see why it could not be run the same as other business, and have a settlement every month. Surely all the exhibitors are not crooks so that they are unsafe for a few dollars, when they have a big investment in their theatres. All other business is conducted on that plan. I see no difference why a picture sold to a theatre is not the same as if a barrel of apples or anything else was sold to that same man by the home merchant. He is usually a white man and is entitled to just the same methods in business of anyone else. But you are aware of who owns the picture industry today. I still have two outstanding deposits with the exchanges, and they say nothing about returning them, although I have asked for them until I am tired of it. Now if that was reversed and I had this money of two exchanges would they send me any pictures without the money? I say no! They want your money and they want your business besides, and then expect you to come up smiling when their salesman comes along and asks you to plank down %50 for a $10 picture, calling it a super-special, etc., and then pay them a percentage over so much if yon pay out and make a success of it. Boys, I say the system is rotten and if it isn’t what is it? F. E. Chase, Memorial Hall, Pine Plains, N. Y. : Everyone has a chance to pay ahead and there are too many in the business who would take advantage of same, if not handled in this way. In other words the honest fellow is obliged to suffer in this as in all other things such a nuisance, etc., of the person who will not play square. C. A. Anglemire," **Y” theatre, Nazareth, Pa.: The distributor in most cases expects you to pay for film before you receive it. I don’t believe in that kind of business. I pay when I get the film or in other words my film is sent C. O. D. Suppose one pays for his film in advance and he doesn’t receive it for some reason or other. Just try and get your money back if you can. C. O. D. shipments avoid trouble in one’s account as you only pay for what you play or use. As long as the distributor does not trust the exhibitor C. O. D. shipments must stay. The great trouble today between the distributor and exhibitor is the fact that neither trusts the other. The golden rule should be observed better and then things would go better. Take the uniform contract. If the exhibitor destroys any film he is held responsible, but how about this side? Suppose the exhibitor gets a chopped up print with the action all cut to pieces and the titles too short to read. Does the uniform contract say anything about the exhibitor collecting damages from the distributor? No, it does not! This is just evidence to show that the golden rule is not thought of at all. The above is not idealistic, it is just plain common sense. Charles Born, Elks theatre, Prescott, Ariz.: There is no occasion for C. O. D.’s. Theatres or their managements should be rated the same as other commercial concerns. A C. O. D. to a perfectly responsible firm is like a **red rag to a bull.” ^ What the writer can’t understand is why there isn’t more agitation for two thousand foot reels and containers; eliminating the wear and tear on beginning and ends of present single reels; the preclusion of getting the first reel of a Mack Sennett comedy and second reel of a Harold Lloyd feature for a two reel comedy; and the titles of reel two cemented back on reel four of a feature, etc. The thousand and one reasons for cleaner film ends, longer titles, less wear and tear, more compact containers with less spools, less express, easier handling in theatre and exchange vaults, the elimination of having to change them from the smaller to the larger spools, etc. All an intelligent management requires is the film footage on a given subject and not the number of reels of a picture. If any objection to this has been dwelt upon the writer failed to read it. Two stills that in themselves depict characterization of the story of "White Mice" the W ilson-Wetheratd Productions release. Wilfred G. Rupay, Griffin theatre, Woodstock, Ont., Canada: Most exhibitors receive dozens of circulars a year about the good feeling between the exchanges and the theatres. A delay in check means C. O. D. from a firm who is receiving hundreds of dollars in business and yet there is no trust. A C. O. D. looks thin, in other words, you pay me first and take a chance. The sooner we eliminate pictures called specials because such and such a director and star made them the better we will be off. _ The box office value of a picture is the most vital point to an exhibitor. Paying for names and titles is a thing of the past. What we need is pictures that produce results without having to hoo-doo the public to get them in. If the picture is worth while, the public know their moods and fancies and will come. E. Pellettieri, Princess theatre, Oconto, Wis. : C. O. D. shipments are the greatest nuisance and injustice we have to deal with. It costs us many dollars every year for C. O. D., which are entirely uncalled for. In each instance my film has been paid at least a week in advance, and shipped C. O. D., simply because someone at the film company made a mistake. Just a few weeks ago I paid 30 cents express charges and 40 cents C. 0. D. charges on one set of 11x14 photos which had been paid for two months in advance. This same film corporation shipped my service C. 0. D. , three weeks in succession although it had been paid in advance. When I wrote to the corporation in question they returned my letter written across ”check not received,” but I found the cancelled check was back at my bank. After all a film corporation is supposed to consist of human beings who can exercise some judgment, and U wouldn’t take them long to find out if an exhibitor was deliberately dishonest. I wouldn’t even say anything against a just C. O. D., but all these needless C. O. D.’s when film has already been paid for is what gets my goat. Squires & Lutch, Alamo theatre, Pembine, Wis.: In small towns, C. O. D.’s give the general public too much inside information on your business. We will not accept C. O. D. shipment. Also additional cost. Standardized rentals may be all right where the highest rate is set and distributing companies are allowed to reduce the rates where towns of same populations have different conditions, and cannot meet the standard price. Peter Peterson, Opera House, New Lisbon, Wis.: Advantage : Nothing invested until film is ready to use. Disadvantage exhibitor : ’’broadcasts price” he pays for each program, and price is not always a criterion to judge a picture by. In small cities, towns and villages, having two or more picture theatres no exhibitor should be allowed to have any connection with the postal service, or in other words, no postal employe should be permitted to be in any way connected with the moving picture business as an exhibitor as it gives an unfair advantage over their competitor. Steve Farrar, Orpheum theatre, Harrisburg, 111. : A man who has a credit rating and has proved his fairness in dealing man to man, should never be sent a C. O. D. under any circumstances. On the other hand a man who has no credit rating and has proved that he cannot he trusted to settle a disputed account man to ynan on a fair basis, should be shipped C. O. D. every time his money is not in the office. Personally we have no troubles with C. O. D. shipments, have not had one in over three years, and quite often we are a week behind paying for some film, but the exchanges we deal with know that their money is sure if we owe it. C. O. D. shipments are expensive and any honest exhibitor will resent receiving one, just because his check was not in the day film was shipped. C. 0. D. shipments are also a sure means of ’’balling up” the books at the exchange and at the exhibitor’s end of the transaction. A. R. Workman, Coliseum theatre, Marseilles, Del. : I think if a man cannot give a good bank reference, his shipments should come C. O. D. Frank R. Meinecke, Public School principal, Cashton, Wis. : It looks as if the exhibitor cannot be trusted. All of us wish to take care of our obligations and the average showman will. I think a time limit of payment should be given the exhibitor, if he does not keep his credit up within a reasonable time, then, of course, the C. 0. D. is justifiable, but as it is now the C. O. D. leaves a bad taste to those who wish to do what is right. Your survey ought to bring out something of vital interest not only to exhibitor but producer as well. C. E. Price, Grand theatre, Newark, O. : I believe that C. O. D. shipments should depend on the exhibitor’s standing with the company he is dealing with. A bad account should be C. O. D.’d for protection, as in other lines of business. A C. O. D. is an admission that you are doing business with a person of doubtful financial standing. J. S. Wright, Auditorium theatre, Seaford, Del. : For myself I will not accept them. First, it requires one always in his office; second, if a house or management is not responsible cut them out. W. A. Hillhouse, Lyric theatre, Glasco, Kan.: Don’t like it because of too much red tape, and the extra expense, and a reflection on the house. Paul K. Gardner, Opera House, Wyoming, la.: They cost us a lot of money. I don't blame exchanges for making sure of their money. Earl V. Seitz, Star theatre, Sandusky, O. : Should be avoided wherever possible. Advance payment takmg care of this. R. A. Paine, Pioneer theatre, Rainelle, W. Va. : They have their advantages and disadvantages. Our experience shows that exchanges are more careful with them and the small town exhibitor has less ’’dark” nights through failure of films to arrive on time. Also he does not have the bother of much correspondence with the exchanges. His money is not paid out until he actually has the film ”in hand.” Eugene Saunders, Saunders theatre. Harvard, 111.: C. O. D. shipments when they are strictly made to all eliminates the film exchange as one of the small town exhibitor’s opposition. What I mean is this: Where there are two picture shows fighting for their life as there is not enough business for two, one pays for his film, the other has it sent C. O. D., and when the exchange releases it he gets his film for nothing. Film should be sent C. O. D., but not released or there is no use sending it C. O. D. L. P. Charles, Grand theatre, Chetek, Wis.: I have less trouble and fewer mistakes in accounts with film exchanges by paying C. 0. D. Star theatre, Lamison, Ala.: An absolute nuisance where the account is reliable. E. H. Simth, High Splint theatre. High Splint, Ky. : Mistakes are too hard to get corrected especially with substituted pictures with extra C. O. D. for extra advertismg which accompanies them. Exhibitor is caught and has to lift them however large it may be and then you may not get your money back within a reasonable length of time. This would be a very satisfactory way of handling films if the producers wouldn’t impose on us. They kyiow they have it on us all right, and sometimes they sure don’t hesitate to stick us. A. Pratt, Dreamland theatre, Fennville, Mich.: It is both an expense to exhibitors and exchanges^ and every penny counts up. W. A. Peterson, Scenic theatre, Mt. Vernon, S. D. : Exhibitors should not be placed in same class as horse thieves, as is now being done. I believe 99 per cent of all exhibitors are honest and should be given ratings. I dislike to have everyone from the section foreman to the village postmaster know what I am paying for my film service. Paying for your service in advance does not solve the problem, as I have tried it. ^ Exchanges are too much in the habit of attaching a C. O. D. to the can, regardless of the fact that service has been paid for in full in advance. This has happened to me many times. N. Johnson, Scenic theatre. Miller, S. D. : No honest exhibitor can put up his money and compete with the fly by nights. When the exchange established the t. O. D. plan it was a life saver to me and hundreds of other exhibitors. I buy everything C. O. D. and get what I pay for and not until I get it. By so doing, I keep everything straight. If you take away the C. 0. D. or cash in advance, then you license every exhibitor to become a crook if he is so inclined. W. J. Wunderlich, Auditorium theatre, Nc* hawka, Neb.: Sell at bottom dollars and cash. ^Concluded on page 53)