Exhibitors Herald (1925)

August 1, 1925 EXHIBITORS HERALD 65 Showmen Back Herald Box Office Test of Short Features We’re going to find out the truth about short feature advertising. We’re going to see if pictures less than five reels long draw money into the box office. We’re going to give them a break in the ad space and see what they can do. This is the spirit of the response to the “ Herald’s” announcement last week of a nation-wide cooperative test of the short feature. Exhibitors are interested — interested enough to sign and return a veritable flood of Cooperation Pledges — interested enough to settle the matter once and for all. Comments accompanying some of the first signed pledges are printed this week and if you exhibit short features you can’t afford to miss reading them. They are not all “yesses.” Read what they say — then turn to page 67 and sign the Cooperation Pledge. It may make you new money — it may save you money — it’s money in your pocket either way. Three Years Experience Proof Enough for Him I agree with you that short subjects should be advertised for all they are worth and have been doing so for three years. In fact, many a time I have advertised a comedy on the bill stronger than I did the feature, once advertising a 500-foot film over everything else and finding it justified in the business done at the box office. I buy my short subjects with as much care as the features. I have been running a “Short Subject (no feature at all) Night ” for almost three years at the regular admission charged for other nights, except specials, and have shown a larger profit and larger average attendance than any other night except Saturday. (Do not run Sundays.) This has been proof enough for me. I do not know it all, but I firmly believe that any exhibitor who doesn’t select his short subjects with as much care as he does his feature, and doesn’t advertise them, is sleeping on his rights. If you think they have no drawing or pleasing power, why do you use them? If they have either, then why not let the people know what they are? C. M. HARTMAN, Liberty Theatre, Carnegie, Okla. Says Producers Should Cooperate in Campaign We enclose herewith Cooperation Pledge properly signed. We have always considered the short subject a very necessary part of our program and have always tried to show only the best. In many instances the producer and distributor are to blame for the fact that the short subject is not properly exploited. Many of these subjects come to us without any advance information whatsoever. For instance: We have an Educational contract. They book us with “Wide Open,” for example. Unless we take particular care to write them especially in regard to this subject, we will never know until we see it on the screen who the players are, whether it is a Christie, Mermaid, Juvenile or whatnot. Pray tell us how we can do anything to exploit a picture coming to us in this way. If the exhibitors are going to sign this Cooperation Pledge and get behind and boost for these short subjects, what are the producers and distributors going to do to assist? They will reap the benefit as well as we. May this not be the beginning of a campaign which will eventually bring about the issuing of a press sheet on comedies also, no matter how small they may be? PAUL C. MORGAN, Star Theatre, Hay Springs, Neb. '‘Does Not Pay, 99 Say Goodwin & Hilton Our past experience has been that it does not pay to advertise to a great extent on shorts. A few exceptions, such as Our Gang, The Gumps and the two-reel Keatons from First National have proven profitable to advertise. Patrons enjoy certain comedians like Ham