Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1957)

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE Hit bull's Problems Sim tin r in Ours m closer. (Whether this also applies to the drive-ins is not | yet adequately documented, but an educated guess sug \ gests that location is definitely a customer attraction.) t Some surveys, notably one by Alfred Politz in 1955, have shown college people as high on the list of moviegoers. 1 There is no great body of statistics in this field, and cer ; tainly insufficient either to prove or disprove the point. AJilJM.IUI.M.IIHca.llJJMIHJIJJ The New England lower middle class group said, in the . relatively few instances where they gave reasons for not I going to the movies, that they had baby sitter trouble, they I could watch television, or the prices at the theatre were too high — in that order. A National Theatres survey listed I the prime difficulties as night work, school homework, no I money, "married", children, a few mentions of television 1 and only 15 out of 936 questionnaires which spoke of "bad i movies". In a Los Angeles poll by the same circuit prior to the national survey mentioned above, 38% of the paKtrons whose interest in movies had declined blamed it on I television. It is generally felt that the competitive impact of TV has softened with the passage of time. It is of some interest in this connection to consider the first report released a year and a half ago about Baseball Commissioner Ford C. Frick's survey of the audience for the national pastime. The reasons given for non-attendiance at major league baseball games were these: difficulty . in parking cars and reaching the ball park ; ability to watch the games on television; high cost of tickets; games last S too long. Food for thought there, surely. Here then is a sketchy portrait of that king of the movies, the great American customer. The customer is more likely than not to be a male in his twenties or thirties, lower middle class in income, living not too far from a the1 atre he attends, and attending at a rate from once a week ! to once a month. One glaring omission in this sketchy picture immediate! ly suggests itself. Few if any of the various published in. vestigations to date have explored the size or composition of the moviegoing unit. Are more people than formerly going to the movies alone? Are more children going with their parents, and less by themselves? Are more fathers than mothers, or more fathers than formerly, taking the kids to the theatre? Certainly nothing in this article is to be regarded as cinematic gospel. This is merely a report on what has thus far been stated, concluded or implied about our audience. One of the most insistent conclusions of our inquiry must be that the body of data is worth enlarging. It is safe to say that many theatre customer surveys have been made and kept quiet, even though the facts elicited in these surveys might be of general industry interest. It is also safe to say that many theatres which might benefit from taking a close analytical look at their own customers still have not gotten around to this basic marketing function. The establishment and exchange of data about motion picture customers has never been a major enthusiasm of the industry as a whole, even though a start has been made with testing of ads and picture popularity or awareness. But many, many facets of the audience deserve special attention. Even systematic recording of the proportion of age groups a manager notes in the lobby during the run of a picture can be helpful "research", if enough records are kept and enough managers are willing to make their findings known. What is the story, for example, on teen-agers and the movies? How have the reduced rate ticket cards worked, is there any relationship — any consistent relationship — between juvenile delinquency problems in the theatre and the economic level of the neighborhood or city? What about the oldsters? What has been the effect of the various plans to boost their attendance? How often do they go, and what seems to influence their moviegoing most? How big is this market group? Plenty of questions remain to be explored. The important thing at the moment is that, even when we broadjump to generalized conclusions, we take as close a look as possible at the man who pays the bill — the customer. SHOWMEN. . . What Are YOU Doing? Send us your advertising, publicity and exploitation campaigns — with photos — for inclusion in our EXPLOITATION & MERCHANDISING DEPARTMENT