Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1960)

VOICE DF EXHIBITION Late Releases Hurt Small Theatres — Myers (Continued from Page 9) doubtedly some of the big pictures, now on exhibition in a limited number of big city first-run theatres, are doing well. But the information coming to my office from the subsequent-run and small-town exhibitors is to the effect that business still is very bad. Thinking solely in terms of dollars and cents, the film companies hold the small exhibitors in low esteem. Yet they are numerically greater than any other class in the industry; and when the human factor is regarded, they are the most important. And with some encouragement they could provide vastly more revenue than they are now providing. What can be done to protect the owners and operators of the thousands of small theatres who have been reduced to a hand-to-mouth existence? Virtually all small-town and subsequent-run exhibitors ascribe their difficulties to their inability to obtain an adequate supply of suitable films. By "suitable" they do not refer merely to subject matter. The adjective covers freshness as well. Time was when the distribution of films was governed by reasonable clearances and prompt availabilities. Under that system the subsequent-run and small-town theatres received the pictures while recollection of the pre-selling campaigns and firstrun exploitations still lingered in their customers' minds. LATE PICTURES Now they are compelled to operate with pictures that come to them so late that, in order to realize on their full potential, they would have to duplicate in their respective communities the kind of exploitation that was given the pictures prior to and coincident with their first runs. Even if it were possible for such exhibitors to revive the advertising on an adequate scale, it would be manifestly unjust to expect them to do so. The so-called pre-selling campaigns are paid for by the film companies and should insure to the benefit of all their Customers. Also, it is well-known that the big-city first-runs receive advertising allowances from the film companies which are denied the subsequent-run and small-town houses. However, it is idle to moan over the MYERS injustice of compelling the smaller exhibitors to breathe new life in pictures that are dead so far as the public is concerned. Anyone with knowledge of the current state of the business will realize that those exhibitors cannot do the job singlehanded. It is doubtful if even the film companies could afford to grant adequate allowances in the thousands of situations needing help. There just isn't enough money to give every picture a big boost in every community. A moderate exception would be in large communities where, under the Marcus Plan, a considerable number of exhibitors join with the film companies' regional representatives for the co-operative exploitation of a picture or pictures. It seems to me that the most direct and effective help the film companies can render to the worthy cause of saving theatres is to sell to them seasonably and to restore reasonableness to clearances and availabilities. I realize that this clashes with the current popular theory among top executives that it is only by granting exclusive runs to a limited number of big-city theatres, for the exhibition of blockbusters on a long-term, high-admission policy, that they can recoup their heavy costs and make a profit. But I insist that the smaller exhibitors have sound arguments and a lot of equity on their side. So far as I am aware, no serious effort has been made to compare the increased revenues, thought to be derivable from current marketing methods with the losses attributable to the inability of thousands of the smaller theatres to play pictures while their prospective customers are still interested in them. The alleged gains from roadshows and special handling cannot be proven until the losses resulting from such methods have been ascertained and taken into account. Another measure of self-help is for exhibitors to cooperate locally in advertising and otherwise exploiting pictures. If I were not certain that Ben Marcus has addressed you, or will do so, on this subject, I would take time to enthuse over it. But that is his territory by right of discovery and conquest and I will not invade it. You are aware of my deep conviction that many of the ills now afflicting the exhibitors could be cured or, at the very least, eased by the proper observance or enforcement of the decrees in the Paramount Case. CITES WHITE PAPER This view was shared by the board of directors of National Allied which, by unanimous action, has repeatedly approved the White Paper Campaign to induce Congress to nudge the Department of Justice into recognizing its duty to enforce those decrees according to their wording and intendment. Under the most favorable circumstances the quest for Congressional action is a long and tortuous trail. Allied always has preferred to settle intraindustry issues by negotiation and agreement whenever possible. In that spirit Allied has taken an active part in all the great industry conferences beginning with the 5-5-5 Conference in 1930. Consequently, when the American Congress of Exhibitors came along Allied's board voted unanimously to join it, although it was recognized by some, at least, that this would probably slow-up and possibly defeat the White Paper Campaign. Some even thought that might have been in the minds of those who first conceived and promoted ACE. Certainly, it has had the effect to hold up Congressional action. It is well-nigh impossible to convince busy Senators or Representatives that they should inquire into the complaints set forth in the White Paper when others are assuring them that the same issues are the subjects of negotiation Poqp 18 Film BULLETIN July II, I960