The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (Nov-Dec 1922)

6 THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. December 2, 1922. WHY ABANDON THE TRADE SHOW? Big Theatre Presentation Another form of “ Blind Booking.” MONG the “ By the Way" week's Finm Rexter was a comment upon the altitude of French showmen towards the in creasing tendency, existing there as here, towards the abandonment of the private trade show. With characteristic Gallic determination and aggressiveness they are making it clear to the renting side that they strongly disapprove of the new method of screening the picture straight to the publis, and desire the old system to continue. paragraphs ino last Trade Shows: Bulwark of the Industry. There will be many showimen in this country who are in hearty sympathy with their French colleagues, even though not at present ready to adopt the pledge which Parisian exhibitors have taken neither to book nor handle in any shape or form pictures exploited in’ this manner, The trade show has proved itself in the past a most excellent way of getting exhibitors together to form an opinion regarding a picture, and it is only unsuceessful from a renters’ point of view when the picture presented is not goal enough to commend itself to prospective clients. The worst that is urged against it is that it is often. not sufficiently exclusive—that is, that very often many who witness the sereening are not in the position to book the picture or influence anyone who is in that position. But this cure is in the renters’ hands, and by a judicious distribution of tickets this could be remedied. Tt is not in the interest of the exhibitors that. such sgreening should be thrown open to all and sundry. An Analogy from the Grocer. With that one exception there is really nothing to urge against the trade show, which is, after all, the only way in which an exhibitor can sample the goods on the market. No self-respecting shopkeeper would think of buying goods before he had seen and scrutinised a fair sample. The grocer, for instance, buys certain goods without sample, but these are only the proprietary goods of which he has had long experience and concerning which he knows that his next consignment will be equal in every way—in quality, packing, and appearance, conforming exictly to a certain standard. His Nestle’s Milk or Sunlight Soap is practically the same vesterday, to-day, and for a long time to come. But shen he buys cheese or tea or currants, coneerning which there is no set standard of flavour or quality, he insists upon his sample. The Exhibitor’s Test. In the same wav the exhibitor has to judge whether or not this or that particular picture is suited to the entertainment palate of his patrons. A mere account of a great success in another town is no criterion for his own distriet:and patronage. To return to our old ‘friend, the grocer, he would not think of buying Trish butter Google heeause it suited the taste of people in Newcastle if his store was away down in the South of England where, vay, Danish or Dutch butter suited the taste, His suceess lies in correstly estimating the preferences of his own customers, and that estimate is only possible by the sampling method. This method, then, is the tried and proved way of getting the right goods for vour connection in the film business as in any other. Question of Pre-Releases. That this svstem oof pre-releases is net always stecessful, and is werer universally successful, his been demonstrated by films released recently, From Inany quarters bulletins came chronicling the record response to the boosting whieh the pictures had received; vet these same films shown clsewhere failed fo attract sufficiently to make them paying propositions, and in one or two cases had to be buttressed by other pictures which had been trade shown in the ordinary way in order to maintain a good attendance. ‘‘ One-Eyed ’’ Booking. There is, moreover, another objection whieh may be urged. The system of blind booking has in the past been so actively attacked that in quarters which defended it with some energy, it is being felt that the system is now entirely out of favour, and will never again attain anything like the sanction it has received. Yet the pre-release system revives this system in another form, though to a less objectionable degree. If the old system known as blind booking was correctly described it would not be a misnomer to call the newer system one-eyed booking,’’ or, at least, “* veiled booking.’ As competition becomes keener the greater is the need for the exhibitor to see every picture previous to booking. or to take the opinion of a fair-minded and wnbiased eritic, supplementing it, if need be, and if pcssible. by the opinion of another exhibitor placed similarly to himself as regards the class of patron for whom he is catering. He may oscasionally make a mistake, even as our old friend, the shopkeeper, may find that his own palate dovs not give him the exact reaction of flavour which spells complete satisfaction to the customer. He will, however, be nearer success, and the personal speculation as to a picture’s eventual reception will be made more neenrate in its methads of forecast by its more frequent exercise, Tt should not be forgotten by renters that the prerelease may defeat the end at whieh it is aimed. Should the response at the pre-release be a poor one, it may seriously prejudice future bookings, for news flies fast among exhibitors. Should it do well it might be concluded by the showman that its price has been considerably lessened by the previous showing. The possibilities of this should be carefully weighed by all those renters who contemplate adopting the newer method,